Small Medium Large Total Storage 240,802 60,040 13,723 314,565 Existing Production 127,799 26,589 322 164,709 Total 168,600 86,629 14,045 469,274 Storage 2,408 600 137 3,146 New Production 1,278 266 3 1, 547 Total 3,686 866 140 4,693 Total 372,286 87,495 14,185 473,966 * The numbers in this exhibit may not add precisely due to rounding.

3.4.1 Adjusting Universe Estimates 23 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analysis of the Number of Facilities Regulated by EPA's SPCC Program, 1996.

61 Several of the revisions being made to the SPCC program will affect the number of facilities currently regulated under the program. For the purposes of this EA, EPA has quantified the effects of the four major revisions that will affect the number of SPCC regulated facilities. These revisions are:

 Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 6). EPA is no longer regulating wastewater treatment facilities or parts thereof (except at oil production, oil recovery, and oil recycling facilities) used exclusively for wastewater treatment and not used to meet any other requirement of part 112.

° Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 2)( i) and 112.1( d)( 4). EPA is no longer regulating under the SPCC program a completely buried tank that is subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281.

° Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 2)( ii). EPA is no longer regulating a facility having a single container with a storage capacity greater than 660 gallons, but aggregate aboveground storage capacity of 1, 320 gallons or less of oil.

° Final 40 CFR 112.1( f). EPA is granting its Regional Administrators the authority to require any facility subject to the jurisdiction of EPA under section 311( j) of the CWA, but otherwise exempt from the requirement to prepare an SPCC Plan under part 112, to prepare and implement a total or partial SPCC Plan where necessary to carry out the purposes of the CWA.

The effects that the above changes will have on the number of SPCC regulated entities is discussed in greater detail below.

Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 6).

EPA estimates that there are approximately 469,274 existing SPCC facilities. Of these, 154,709 facilities (33 percent) involve operations and oil storage activities exclusively limited to oil production. Such facilities are specifically excluded from the exemption under section 112.1( d)( 6).

According to the 1995 SPCC Survey 23 , approximately 10 percent of all existing SPCC oil storage facilities are associated with the petroleum industry (e. g., gasoline stations, bulk stations, bulk terminals, pipelines, and heating oil distributors). If EPA assumes that these storage facilities are unlikely to have wastewater treatment systems covered by the exemption, then 10 percent of the 314,565 storage facilities, or 31, 457 24 EPA assumes that 10 percent of storage facilities from each size category will be associated with the petroleum industry. Insufficient data are available to determine whether there are differences among the categories.

25 All of the farms were subtracted from the small facility category, consistent with results of the 1995 SPCC Survey (Environmental Protection Agency, Analysis of the Number of Facilities Regulated by EPA's SPCC Program, 1996), which determined that all SPCC related farm storage of oil occurs at small facilities.

62 facilities, would not be affected by section 112.1( d)( 6) due to their focus on petroleum products. 24 Storage facilities also include 174,972 farms, or 56 percent of all storage facilities. For this analysis, EPA assumes that farms are unlikely to have wastewater treatment systems covered by section 112.1( d)( 6).

Subtracting oil production, petroleum industry, and farm facilities from the universe of SPCC facilities leaves 108,136 facilities potentially affected by section 112.5( d)( 6). These remaining facilities are associated with the following industries identified in Exhibit 1:

° Coal mining, non metallic mineral mining and quarrying; ° Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution; ° Heavy construction; ° Other manufacturing; ° Transportation (excluding pipelines), warehousing, and marinas; ° Elementary and secondary schools, colleges; and ° Hospitals/ nursing and residential care facilities.

These facilities are arrayed across the size categories as follows: 41,749 small, 54,036 medium, and 12,351 large. 25 For the purposes of evaluating the potential impact of section 112.1( d)( 6), EPA assumes that 10 percent (or 4, 175) of small facilities, 50 percent (or 27,018) of medium facilities, and 75 percent (or 6, 175) of large facilities have wastewater treatment systems that are covered by the exemption. This assumption reflects a situation where the chances of having on site wastewater treatment increases with the size of a facility.

One outcome of the wastewater treatment exemption is that a facility's SPCCrelated storage capacity could decrease. As a result, some facilities may no longer need an SPCC plan, while some medium and large facilities might shift to the next lower size category. Although EPA believes that larger facilities are more likely to have applicable wastewater treatment systems, such facilities are expected to have more oil storage and, therefore, are less likely to fall below SPCC capacity thresholds. If EPA assumes that 50 percent of the small facilities, 5 percent of the medium facilities, and 1 percent of the large facilities with applicable wastewater treatment systems leave the SPCC universe, then approximately 3, 500 existing facilities would no longer be 63 required to maintain SPCC plans – although EPA assumes they would incur some costs in reviewing the final rule and calculating their wastewater treatment capacity to determine their new status. If EPA assumes that 20 percent of medium and large facilities with applicable wastewater treatment systems shift to the next lower size category, 6,639 facilities would experience a change in their costs of maintaining SPCC plans. EPA assumes that section 112.1( d)( 6) will result in all facilities with applicable wastewater treatment systems and still in the SPCC universe – 33,868 facilities – will need to amend their plans.

Exhibit 3 13 shows the resulting distribution of existing and new SPCC facilities among the size, production, and storage categories after adjusting for the possible impact of section 112.1( d)( 6). EPA assumes that additional three revisions to the number of SPCC regulated facilities will be incremental to the figures in Exhibit 3 13.

EXHIBIT 3 13 Number of Existing and New Facilities after Applying Section 112.1( d)( 6) (First Year)

Small Medium Large Total Storage 244,118 54,520 12,426 311,064 Existing Production 127,799 26,589 322 154,709 Total 371,916 81,109 12,748 465,774 Storage 2,441 545 124 3,111 New Production 1,278 266 3 1, 547 Total 3,719 811 127 4,658 Total 375,635 81,920 12,876 470,431 In addition to reducing burden and costs to SPCC facilities, EPA expects the wastewater treatment exemption will also affect the number of facilities that require an FRP. The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20 21) requires that owners or operators of facilities that could cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines prepare plans for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil, to a substantial threat of such a discharge, and, as appropriate, to discharges smaller than worst case discharges. All facilities subject to this requirement must submit their plans to EPA. In turn, EPA reviews and approve plans submitted by facilities identified as "significant and substantial harm" to the environment from oil discharges. Other facilities are not required to prepare FRPs but are required to document their determination that they do not meet the "substantial harm" criteria. 64 Prior to the final rulemaking, EPA estimated that large facilities would require between 99 and 132 hours and that medium facilities would require between 26 and 46 hours to comply with the annual, subsequent year reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the FRP rule. EPA also estimated that, prior to the final rulemaking, newly regulated large and medium facilities would require between 253 and 293 hours and 109 and 142 hours, respectively, to prepare a plan in the first year. Absent the wastewater treatment exemption, EPA estimates that the total number FRP facilities affected in the first year would have been 6,000 existing and 70 new facilities.

Exhibit 3 14 illustrates the expected change in the number of FRP facilities that could be affected by the final SPCC rule. Based on information received from Regional personnel, EPA estimates that approximately 2. 5 percent of existing FRP facilities may include wastewater treatment (144 facilities). Of these facilities, EPA assumes 60 percent of the medium facilities (11 facilities) and 20 percent of the large facilities (24 large facilities) would no longer be required to comply with FRP requirements. EPA also assumes that 30 percent of large facilities (38 facilities) with wastewater treatment would now be considered medium sized facilities, due to a recalculation of capacity to exclude applicable wastewater treatment.

Through the final rulemaking the estimated number of facilities required to maintain FRP plans is reduced to 5,965. With the final SPCC rule, EPA assumes that approximately six fewer new facilities would be added each year due to the overall reduction in the SPCC regulated universe. The number of new facilities affected by the wastewater exemption at section 112.1( d)( 6) is negligible – EPA assumes that approximately 1 facility every four years would no longer be covered by FRP regulations because of the exemption. The reduction in the number of facilities required to prepare, submit, and/ or maintain an FRP would result in an average annual information collection burden reduction of 8,513 hours a year, yielding a total of 25,538 hours. 65 EXHIBIT 3 14 Baseline and Adjusted Number of Existing and New FRP Facilities (First Year)

Small Medium Large Total Existing 0 1, 020 4,980 6,000 Baseline New 0 125870 Total 0 1, 032 5,038 6,070 Existing 0 1, 046 4,919 5,965 Adjusted New 0 115364 Total 0 1, 057 4,972 6,029 Existing 0 26 (61) (35)

Difference New 0 (1) (5) (6)

Total 0 25 (66) (41)

Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 2)( i) and 112.1( d)( 4)

To estimate the burden reduction associated with eliminating completely buried tanks subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281, from the SPCC program, EPA conducted the analysis in two separate steps. First, EPA determined the total number of facilities in the Survey that were regulated solely because of their completely buried tanks and extrapolated this number to the universe of regulated facilities to determine the national estimate of facilities that would drop out of the program due to a completely buried tank exemption. Second, EPA estimated the number of facilities that would experience a significant decrease in burden because they would no longer have to include their completely buried tanks in their SPCC Plan. To estimate this number, EPA relied on a model facility approach.

The model facility approach characterizes the universe in terms of small, medium, and large facilities, which is dependent on a facility's number of tanks and estimated storage capacity. Some facilities, as a result of a completely buried tank exemption, would have their facility classification change from a medium to a small facility due to a change in their regulated storage capacity. EPA estimated the number of facilities that would change classification by screening Survey data and extrapolating the findings to derive a national estimate. While these facilities would still be regulated under the SPCC program, their annual paperwork burden would be significantly reduced to warrant a re classification because of a change in their regulated storage 26 EPA conducted this analysis using a 1, 320 gallon or less aboveground storage capacity threshold to avoid a possible double counting of the number of facilities that may be affected under both revisions.

27 Some facilities could have aboveground storage capacity between these thresholds but still be regulated under this rule if the facility had greater than 42, 000 gallons of completely buried storage capacity. To estimate the burden reduction effects of this option, EPA did not include facilities with greater than 42, 000 gallons completely buried storage capacity in their burden reduction estimate.

66 capacity. In reality, all facilities with regulated completely buried tanks would experience a decrease in burden and capital costs so it is likely that EPA's estimate understates the true effect.

Based on an analysis of Survey results, EPA estimates that about 51,000 facilities will be affected by this revision. 26 Out of this total, about 14,000 facilities – the majority of which are likely to be gasoline service stations – will no longer be regulated under part 112. The other facilities will likely experience a reduction in burden, even though they will remain regulated, as their SPCC Plans will no longer need to discuss a completely buried tank regulated under 40 CFR part 280. This revision will decrease aggregate capital costs for regulated facilities because of the reduced number of such facilities. The effects are discussed in greater detail in Section 3. 5. 1 of this analysis.

Final 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 2)( ii)

EPA is revising the rule to no longer regulate a facility having a single container with a storage capacity greater than 660 gallons, but aggregate aboveground storage capacity of 1, 320 gallons or less of oil. To estimate the number of facilities that would benefit from this regulatory threshold change, EPA analyzed Survey results for the number of facilities with a total aboveground oil storage capacity between 660 and 1,320 gallons in a single tank. 27 Analysis of the Survey data showed that about 10.5 percent of small facilities would no longer be regulated if this option was enacted. As a result, EPA expects that about 39,231 small facilities will no longer be regulated (38,839 existing facilities and 392 new facilities). Of this total, approximately 70 percent, or about 27,500 facilities are small farms. Other industries that are likely to experience a significant decrease in the number of regulated facilities include primary and secondary schools and colleges as well as gasoline service stations. The remaining number of facilities are evenly distributed among the manufacturing and transportation sectors of the economy. This revision will decrease aggregate capital costs for regulated facilities because of the reduced number of such facilities. The effects are discussed in greater detail in Section 3. 5.1 of this analysis.

Final 40 CFR 112.1( f) 28 1993 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation.

67 EPA is granting its Regional Administrators the authority, on a case by case basis, to require any facility subject to CWA section 311( j) to prepare and implement a total or partial SPCC Plan where necessary to carry out the purposes of the CWA. This provision will apply to any facility that would otherwise be exempted from compliance with the regulation (such as a facility with a completely buried tank subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281 that will be exempted under 40 CFR 112.1( d)( 4)).

An otherwise exempted facility that is required to prepare a total or partial Plan will incur costs to prepare that Plan and fulfill all other SPCC requirements, including all rule revisions. The main compliance activities are:

 Prepare the SPCC Plan (40 CFR 112.7);

 Submit information in the event of certain discharges of oil (40 CFR 112.4);

 Revise the SPCC Plan following modification of the facility (40 CFR 112.5( a)); and  Maintain the SPCC Plan and keep records (40 CFR 112.3 and 112.7).

The RAs are expected to exercise their authority only in unusual circumstances on a facility by facility basis. The number of affected facilities has been estimated by Regional personnel at 10 facilities or fewer per Region. This estimate is used for purposes of this analysis. The average calculated cost per affected facility to comply with all the SPCC paperwork related requirements is the same as the average unit cost for a new facility. EPA assumes that out of the approximately 100 facilities each year that will be affected by this provision, 60 percent will be small facilities, 30 percent will be medium facilities, and 10 percent will be large facilities. 28 This revision will increase aggregate capital costs for regulated facilities because of the increased number of such facilities. The effects are discussed in greater detail in Section 3. 5. 1 of this analysis.

Exhibit 3 15 summarizes the effects that the above three revisions will have on the number of SPCC regulated facilities. The exhibit shows that approximately 51,398 facilities, representing nearly 11 percent of the entire SPCC regulated universe, will no longer be subject to the requirements of the SPCC rule. Of this total, approximately 36, 000 are small facilities and approximately 14,500 are medium facilities. The facilities most likely to be affected by these changes are farms due to the change in the minimum aboveground storage capacity threshold and gasoline service stations due to the exemptions of completely buried tanks that are subject to all of the technical requirements of EPA's UST program. 68 29 From the 1997 Screening Analysis of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Program Impacts on Small Entities. The dollar values in the report were updated to 2001 dollars in Exhibit 3 15.

69 EXHIBIT 3 15 Adjusted Number of Existing and New Facilities (First Year)

Small Medium Large Total Storage 224,231 41,191 11,587 277,012 Existing Production 117,388 20,088 300 137,773 Total 341,619 61,279 11,887 414,785 Storage 2,282 432 126 2,837 New Production 1,194 211 3 1, 411 Total 3,476 643 129 4,248 Total 345,095 61,922 12,016 419,033 3. 5 TOTAL COSTS This section presents the estimated total costs to small, medium, and large facilities of complying with the revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation. The revisions to the final rule will affect both the capital costs to facilities and their paperwork burden. Both effects are detailed below.

3.5.1 CAPITAL COSTS Four of the revisions to the final rule are expected to result in decreased aggregate capital costs to facilities. Specifically, provisions 112.1( d)( 2)( i), 112.1( d)( 2)( ii), 112.1( d)( 6), and 112.1( f) will alter the universe of regulated facilities, thereby changing the total capital costs to regulated facilities. Three of the provisions – 112.1( d)( 2)( i), 112.1( d)( 2)( ii), and 112.1( d)( 6) – will decrease the number of regulated facilities, and thus reduce the aggregate capital costs posed to the regulated community. Only provision 112.1( f) will act to increase aggregate capital costs. Exhibit 3 16 shows the estimated unit capital costs (the non paperwork related annual compliance costs) to both existing and new storage and production facilities in each size category. 29 Existing facilities that will now become exempt from the SPCC rule will save about $191 to $1,743 per year on recurring equipment maintenance, drainage system upkeep, and training costs. New facilities that will not be subject to the revised rule also will save initial costs of about $3,136 to $165,464 to purchase and install 30 ibid.

70 equipment. 30 The four provisions' cumulative effects on the universe of facilities following the first year after the final rule revisions is presented in Exhibit 3 17.

EXHIBIT 3 16 Estimated Capital Related Annual Compliance Cost per Model Facility Type of Facility Small Medium Large Existing Storage $191 $616 $1,743 Production $191 $555 $1,505 New Storage $3,136 $40,190 $165,464 Production $3,136 $37,185 $153,447 EXHIBIT 3 17* Change in the Size of the Regulated Community Due to Final Rule Revisions (First year)

Type of Facility Small Medium Large Total Existing Storage (16,570) (18,849) (2,136) (37,553)

Production (10,411) (6,501) (22) (16,936)

New Storage (126) (168) (12) (309)

Production (83) (55) 0 (136)

Total (27,191) (25,573) (2,170) (54,933)

*The numbers in this exhibit are approximations due to rounding.

To determine the total change in capital costs, the change in the regulated community was multiplied by the estimated capital related compliance costs. The results are presented in Exhibit 3 18. In total, the final rule revisions are expected to provide the regulated community with a first year capital cost savings of approximately $29.47 million. 71 EXHIBIT 3 18* Change in Aggregate Capital Costs Due to Final Rule Revisions (Million $)

Type of Facility Small Medium Large Total Existing Storage ($ 3.89) ($ 8.37) ($ 1.45) ($ 13.71)

Production ($ 1.84) ($ 3.34) ($ 0.03) ($ 5.21)

New Storage ($ 0.37) ($ 6.26) ($ 1.78) ($ 8.41)

Production ($ 0.24) ($ 1.90) $0.00 ($ 2.14)

Total Capital Costs Change ($ 6.34) ($ 19.86) ($ 3.26) ($ 29.47)

*The numbers in this exhibit may not add precisely due to rounding.

3. 5. 2 PAPERWORK BURDEN The revisions to the final rule are expected to reduce the total paperwork cost burden posed to SPCC and FRP facilities in each size category. These reductions are presented in Exhibit 3 19. Total costs increase by about $24.40 million for existing facilities during the first year following the regulation's implementation, but decreases by approximately $57.71 million in the second year and $42.50 million per year in subsequent years. For new facilities, total costs decrease by over $2. 46 million during the first year, $2. 50 million in the second year, and over $2. 53 million per year in subsequent years.

Regulated facilities will experience an increase in total paperwork costs in the first year of the regulation's implementation of about $21.93 million. This increase is primarily associated with the one time burden to read and understand the revisions being made to the SPCC rule, along with a slight increase in burden associated with two other one time activities: 1) supplementing existing SPCC Plans with a crossreference matrix, and 2) adding a facility diagram to the Plan. In addition, certain facilities will recalculate their storage capacity to exclude applicable wastewater treatment systems and, therefore, must amend and certify their plans if the storage capacity threshold is still met. In certain cases, however, the treatment system provision in section 112.1( b)( 6) will result in a facility no longer being subject to the any Part 112 requirements. EPA also expects a reduction in the number of facilities required to prepare and maintain a facility response plan. During the second year, total paperwork cost burden will decrease by about $60.21 million and beginning in the third year following the rulemaking, the total paperwork cost burden to all regulated facilities will decrease by about $45.03 million. 72 3. 5. 3 AGGREGATE SAVINGS The reduction in size of the regulated community due to final rule revisions will lead to a capital cost savings of approximately $29.47 million per year. During the first year, regulated facilities will experience an increase in total paperwork cost burden of $21.93 million due primarily to the need to read the rule. However, during the second year, total paperwork cost burden will decrease by about $60.21 million and beginning in the third year following the rulemaking, the total paperwork cost burden to all regulated facilities will decrease by about $45.03 million. The result is an aggregate cost savings of about $7.56 million during the first year, $89.69 million during the second year, and $74.51 million during subsequent years. 73 EXHIBIT 3 19 *

ESTIMATED TOTAL FIRST YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR COSTS OF THE FINAL REVISIONS (Million $)

Provision or Activity First Year Second Year Each Subsequent Year **

Existing Facilities Five Year Review  §112.5( b) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 21.19) ($ 6.84) ($ 1.58) ($ 29.61) ($ 21.19) ($ 6.84) ($ 1.58) ($ 29.61) ($ 9.41) ($ 3.93) ($ 0.78) ($ 14.12)

Oil Discharge  §112.4( c) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total

0.01)

0.01)

0.01)

Plan Modification  §112.5( a) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 2.34) $2.24 $0.69 $0.59 ($ 4.01) ($ 2.19) ($ 0.25) ($ 6.45) ($ 4.04) ($ 2.21) ($ 0.25) ($ 6.51)

Recordkeeping Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 10.95) ($ 8.15) ($ 2.56) ($ 21.66) ($ 11.06) ($ 8.23) ($ 2.58) ($ 21.87) ($ 11.16) ($ 8.31) ($ 2.61) ($ 22.08)

Cross Reference  §112.3( a) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total $5.57 $1.00 $0.19 $6.76

Facility Diagram  §112.7( a)( 3) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total $11.27 $2.41 $0.06 $13.74

Provision or Activity First Year Second Year Each Subsequent Year **

74 Brittle Fracture Records  §112.7( i) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total

0.22 $0.19 $0.40

0.22 $0.19 $0.41

0.22 $0.19 $0.41 Read and Understand Rule Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total $44.79 $7.99 $1.55 $54.34

FRP Wastewater Treatment Exemption Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total

0.02 ($ 0.18) ($ 0.15)

0.02 ($ 0.19) ($ 0.17)

0.02 ($ 0.21) ($ 0.19)

Total Costs To Existing Facilities $24.40 ($ 57.71) ($ 42.50)

New Facilities New Plan  §112.3( a) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 1.07) ($ 0.92) ($ 0.14) ($ 2.14) ($ 1.09) ($ 0.93) ($ 0.16) ($ 2.17) ($ 1.09) ($ 0.79) ($ 0.12) ($ 2.00)

Oil Discharge  §112.4( c) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total

Plan Modification  §112.5( a) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 0.03) ($ 0.02)

0.05) ($ 0.03) ($ 0.02)

0.05) ($ 0.03) ($ 0.02)

0.05)

Recordkeeping Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total ($ 0.11) ($ 0.09) ($ 0.02) ($ 0.22) ($ 0.11) ($ 0.09) ($ 0.02) ($ 0.22) ($ 0.11) ($ 0.09) ($ 0.02) ($ 0.22) Provision or Activity First Year Second Year Each Subsequent Year **

75 FRP Wastewater Treatment Exemption Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Total

0.00) ($ 0.04) ($ 0.05)

0.00) ($ 0.05) ($ 0.06)

0.00) ($ 0.05) ($ 0.06)

Total Costs To New Facilities ($ 2. 46) ($ 2. 50) ($ 2. 53)

All Facilities Total Costs To All Facilities $21.93 ($ 60.21) (45.03)

* The numbers in this exhibit may not add precisely due to rounding.

** The figures presented here are minimum estimates. Costs and cost savings are expected to grow over time as the number of regulated facilities grows.

Note: Facility size categories are defined as follows: a small facility is assumed to have aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons total but less than or equal to 42,000 gallons; a medium facility is assumed to have total storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons but less than or equal to one million gallons; a large facility is assumed to have total storage capacity greater than one million gallons. 76 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4. 1 INTRODUCTION Discharges of both petroleum and non petroleum oils into the nation's marine and freshwater environments have the potential to cause damages to public health and welfare, and to the environment. Discharges from SPCC facilities can occur whenever oil is handled or stored during production, transfer, use, or disposal. Causes of discharges include human error (e. g., improper reaction conditions and overfilling tanks during transfer operations), equipment failure (e. g., deteriorated seals and ruptured pipes or tanks), and improper storage or abandonment.

4. 2 EFFECTS OF OIL DISCHARGES INTO MARINE OR FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS Studies have documented nature's ability to recover over time from the damage caused by a large oil discharge. Nevertheless, the impact of such large discharges into either the marine or freshwater environment can be devastating in the short term, and some of the effects may last for years or even decades. Both the extent of biological damage caused by a discharge and the speed of recovery depend on many factors, including the following: geographic location, quantity of oil spilled, characteristics of the area affected, oceanographic conditions, weather conditions, the season, the type of oil, and the nature of the response.

Physical, chemical, and biological transformations of discharged oil begin immediately upon introduction to marine or freshwater environments. The rate and degree of transformation depend on several factors related to advective and spreading processes. Advection is caused by the influence of overlying winds and underlying currents on the oil, while spreading results from the interplay among the forces of gravity, inertia, friction, viscosity, and surface tension. These two processes cause a rapid increase in the exposure area of the oil to subsequent "weathering." Oil spreads on the surface of water, forming a "slick" that tends to move or drift with waves, currents, and wind. The rate of spreading depends on the type of oil, its volume, wind and sea conditions, and the amount of weathering that occurs. A thicker region of an oil slick will drift more rapidly than a thinner one, so that thicker regions tend to accumulate at the leading edge of a drifting slick.

The toxicity of the discharge depends on oil type. Freshly discharged crude is more acutely toxic than weathered oil because of the presence of the more toxic volatile constituents, which quickly evaporate or dissolve. Similarly, lighter refined 31 U. S. Department of Energy, Report to Congress on Candidate Sites for Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to One Billion Barrels, Office of Strategic Petroleum Reserve, March 1991, Document Number DOE/ FE 0221P.

77 products (e. g., diesel fuel and gasoline) are more acutely toxic than crude but dissipate more rapidly.

The specific properties of the discharged oil (e. g., density and viscosity) determine the susceptibility of a spill to weathering. Weathering processes include evaporation, dissolution, vertical dispersion, emulsification, and sedimentation. Emulsification in particular can expand the initial discharge volume considerably as oil and water mix to form a mousse. For persistent oils, emulsification can increase initial spill volume by a factor of 2 to 3, depending on the type of oil. The longer the discharged oil remains in rough seas, the greater the likelihood of a mousse occurring. A mousse may also occur in quiescent waters.

The viscosity of oil also changes as the oil is exposed to these weathering processes. High viscosity oils are more difficult to recover mechanically (e. g., pump) and disperse than low viscosity oils. Weathering processes tend to increase the viscosity and may make mechanical recovery and removal of spilled oil from water more difficult. Over time, the discharge spreads into a thin layer and continues to break down, fragmenting into smaller patches. These patches may cover even larger surface areas than the initial discharge due to drifting.

Depending on the location of the discharge, as well as weather and oceanographic conditions, some of the oil may affect shoreline areas. Unlike ocean spills that are dispersed by wind and wave action, oil discharged near the shoreline typically concentrates and mixes with near shore waters or collects along shorelines. As a result, wetlands, seagrass beds, beaches, rocky habitats, coral reefs, intertidal areas, and terrestrial ecosystems may be damaged.

Oil deposited in near shore sediments persists longer than in ocean sediments. Oil is particularly persistent in low energy, wetland habitats. 31 High energy, rocky shores tend to self clean within a matter of months, whereas soft sediment lagoons, marshes, and mangrove swamps act as long term petroleum sinks. Pools of oil may collect between rocks and remain essentially unchanged for a long time.

On cobble and sandy beaches, oil can sink deeply into the sediments and remain longer than on bare rocks. Sediment grain size and compaction determine the rate of penetration. In muddy sediments, only the upper few centimeters are 32 National Research Council, Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1985.

33 U. S. Department of Energy, Report to Congress on Candidate Sites for Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to One Billion Barrels, Office of Strategic Petroleum Reserve, March 1991, Document Number DOE/ FE 0221P.

34 National Research Council, Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, And Effects, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1985.

78 penetrated. However, because little physical weathering occurs in these environments, stranded oil can persist for decades. 32 Heavy oiling of the shore zone causes immediate, widespread death of plants and animals due to smothering and toxic effects. The long term effects are more variable and subtle, and depend on the type of petroleum discharged, climate, weather, resilience of the affected ecosystem, and numerous other factors.

Attempts to clean beaches of oil may actually cause further ecological damage. The extent of possible additional damage depends on the cleanup technology used (e. g., hot and cold water washing, backhoeing and tilling, and manual oil removal). Hot water washing may destroy any surviving marine organisms in areas where the technique is applied. Additionally, the high pressure used in both hot and cold water washing can destabilize gravel and sand beaches. Shifting sediments then suffocate marine organisms that inhabit these areas, impeding recolonization. Furthermore, manual removal may damage some ecosystems more than if natural degradation of the oil were allowed to occur. Excessive removal of oiled sediments can also result in the disturbance of physical and ecological equilibrium.

To varying degrees, coastal marine environments throughout the United States serve as breeding and nursing areas for resident and migratory species of fish and aquatic birds. Fish can be affected through ingestion of oil or oiled prey and uptake of dissolved petroleum compounds through the gills, or by changes in the ecosystem. Damage to fish eggs and larvae also may occur. The sensitivity of fish to oil spills varies by species and age class. In general, fish are very sensitive to short term acute exposures, but are able to metabolize sub lethal intakes. Fish in older age classes are able to avoid heavy contamination and have a mucous coating that helps them resist contact with toxic oil constituents. The youngest age classes are most vulnerable to oil spills. Oil may smother eggs, interfere with hatching success, or cause developmental abnormalities. 33 Many physiological, histological, and behavioral abnormalities caused by exposure to crude oil have been documented. 34 Aquatic birds, especially diving birds, are highly vulnerable to oil spilled in coastal areas. Feathers that are coated with oil become water logged and lose their 35 U. S. Department of Energy, Report to Congress on Candidate Sites for Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to One Billion Barrels, Office of Strategic Petroleum Reserve, March 1991, Document Number DOE/ FE 0221P.

36 National Research Council, Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, And Effects, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1985.

79 insulating properties. As a result, birds may drown or die of hypothermia. Oil also may be ingested by birds as they preen. Birds suffer stress related effects as they attempt to detoxify the ingested oil. 35 Ingested oil can temporarily depress egg laying and reduce the hatching success of those eggs that are laid. 36 Disturbance of valuable habitats or resources also could indirectly affect birds through increased competition. Many waterfowl and shorebirds flock on salt marshes and mud flats (which tend to recover more slowly) and would be vulnerable if their feeding habitats were contaminated by oil spills.

Oil discharges may also disrupt the structure and function of marine ecosystems. Differential rates of mortality resulting from oil spills shift food web relationships. The results for individual organisms are changes in resource availability, competition, and predation. On the population level, species that are dependent on affected prey or habitats will decline while opportunistic species may increase. Rare species, small local populations, or species that are seasonally concentrated in the impacted habitat are the most likely to decline as a result of an oil discharge.

In addition to adverse effects on fish, aquatic birds, and marine ecosystems, human health may be at risk as a consequence of oil pollution of water. The main concern regarding the risk to humans is the known carcinogenicity of several of the oil components and exposure to toxic elements in oil through direct exposure or through oil tainted food. Human health risks also include hazards encountered by workers during cleanup operations.

4. 3 INCREMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON MARINE AND FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS This economic analysis assumes that the revision to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation will have a minimal effect on the above risks. Rather, the final changes to the rule will lessen the burden to the regulated community while maintaining a commensurate level of protection to human health and the environment. The revisions will affect regulated facilities in two manners. First, several of the final changes will reduce the number of facilities regulated by the SPCC program. The other revisions to the rule are designed to lessen the regulatory burden of paperwork related activities required of regulated facilities. Each of these effects and how the final changes to the rule would affect human health or welfare or the environment is discussed below. 80 4. 3. 1 REDUCING THE NUMBER OF REGULATED FACILITIES EPA is reducing the number of facilities subject to the SPCC program by altering the criteria for SPCC program applicability and dropping from the program completely buried containers currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. Under the final rule, any facility having an aboveground storage capacity of 1, 320 gallons or less of oil will no longer be regulated, nor will a completely buried container subject to all the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program approved under part 281. Under the final rule, Regional Administrators may require any facility subject to the jurisdiction of EPA under section 311( j) of the CWA but otherwise exempt from the requirement to prepare a Plan under part 112 to prepare and implement a total or partial SPCC Plan where necessary to carry out the purposes of the CWA. EPA expects this provision to slightly increase the number of regulated facilities. In aggregate, however, the size of the regulated community will be reduced, with those facilities posing the least amount of environmental risk – the smallest facilities and facilities currently regulated under other programs – being excluded from the SPCC program.

4. 3. 2 REDUCING PAPERWORK RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED FACILITIES In addition to the Agency's revisions to reduce the number of facilities subject to the program, the Agency has also changed the existing rule language in several areas with the primary goal of reducing the paperwork burden to facilities that still must comply with the SPCC regulation. The Agency believes that the effect of these changes, in terms of increasing discharge risk, is negligible because prevention planning and recordkeeping activities would still be conducted in full in accordance with other standards (i. e., industry, State, or other Federal standards) or because the changes do not alter the basic objectives or intent of the regulation but only affect minor recordkeeping provisions.

Three of the proposed rule changes are designed to increase the level of flexibility in formatting plans and in the manner in which records are created and maintained without compromising protection to public health or welfare, or the environment. First, by allowing facilities to deviate from the Plan format specified in the rule – as long as an equivalent plan is prepared, meets all the applicable requirements listed in the rule, is appropriately cross referenced, and is acceptable to the Regional Administrator – the Agency is giving facility owners or operators flexibility to use alternate formats. Similarly, EPA is allowing a facility owner or operator to deviate from most of the rules' substantive requirements if he explains his reasons for nonconformance and provides equivalent environmental protection. An owner or operator may deviate from the requirement to install secondary containment structures 81 or equipment if not practicable, provides a contingency plan following 40 CFR part 109, conducts periodic integrity testing of containers, and periodic integrity and leak testing of valves and piping. Again, the Agency is allowing flexibility in conforming with the rule's requirements while ensuring that equivalent environmental protection is maintained. Finally, records of inspections and tests maintained in accordance with usual and customary business practices, such as API 653 and 2610, will no longer have to be replicated for purposes of the SPCC Plan.

The Agency is also allowing a facility owner or operator to submit less information in the event of a reportable discharge under §112.4( a). In these rare instances, the discharge would already have occurred and the effect of the Agency's rule change would simply alter the amount of information that a facility owner or operator is compelled to submit. The Agency, however, would still reserve the right to request additional information from the owner or operator if the Regional Administrator deems it necessary. Additionally, EPA is extending the period of time that a facility has to conduct a self review and evaluation of its Plan from three to five years. The Agency does not believe that this rule change would significantly increase the risk of discharges as a facility would still be required to amend its SPCC Plan under §112.5( a) whenever there is a change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the facility's potential for the discharge of oil as described in §112.1( b).

Two revisions to the SPCC rule will decrease both the number of regulated facilities as well as the overall burden for other facilities that will continue to be regulated under the SPCC program. EPA is no longer regulating under the SPCC program a completely buried container that is subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. The Agency is also no longer regulating any bulk storage container with a storage capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil. Facilities are expected to benefit from these revisions because facility owners or operators will no longer have to include a discussion of the aforementioned containers in their SPCC Plans. These revisions may also enable some facilities to no longer be regulated under the SPCC program; however, EPA notes that these facilities will either be regulated under other Agency programs or do not pose significant threat to the environment due to the nature of the facility.

The Agency has also finalized a few revisions that may increase the burden to a regulated facility, but will likely decrease the risk that regulated facilities pose to the environment. EPA is requiring a facility owner or operator to include with his Plan a facility diagram, which must mark the location and contents of each container. This change will assist response personnel in to plan for emergencies. Additionally, fieldconstructed aboveground containers must be evaluated for risk of discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe when such a container undergoes a repair, 82 alteration, or a change in service that might affect the risk of a brittle fracture or other catastrophe. This change will reduce the risk of container failure from brittle fracture and other catastrophes. The increased level of burden posed by these revisions is expected to be minor in comparison to the burden savings offered by other finalized revisions. The revision that changes from eight to four the minimum hours that a facility must be attended to be required to maintain a complete copy of an SPCC Plan on the premises is expected to result in a negligible burden increase because the Plan previously must have been kept and maintained at the nearest field office if not at the facility.

Finally, EPA is requiring all SPCC regulated facilities to amend their SPCC Plans to conform with the new sequence and requirements of the final rule, if necessary, within six months of the effective date of the final rule and implement the Plan within 12 months. Because the format and sequence of the rule has changed substantially and because many facilities will find that their existing SPCC Plan no longer follows the new sequence of the rule, the Agency has provided a crossreference template for facilities. The template is intended to make it easier for facilities to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 112.3( a), which will in turn pose a minor burden increase to regulated facilities but will not compromise protection to public health or welfare, or the environment. 83 CHAPTER 5 SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether the changes being made to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements will likely have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is finalizing many of the changes proposed in 1991, 1993, and 1997. The proposals and the changes being finalized that affect small entities regulated by the rule are summarized below, along with the effect these changes are expected to have on small entities.

5. 1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires federal agencies to determine whether their regulatory actions will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If an agency does not or cannot certify that a proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis and examine alternatives to the proposed regulation that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which amended the RFA to strengthen its analytical and procedural requirements and to expedite Congressional review of rules. SBREFA amended the RFA to reference the definition of a "small entity" found in the Small Business Act, which itself authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to further define "small business" by regulation. The SBA's small business definitions are codified at 13 CFR 121.601 and the SBA reviews and reissues these definitions every year. 37 Screening Analysis of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Program Impacts on Small Entities, Oil Spill Program Center, U. S. EPA, 1997.

38 American Petroleum Institute. 1989 Aboveground Storage Tank Survey, April 1989; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Facilities Study, January 1991; Weiner, J. L. Nutshell Summary of EPA's National Survey of Oil Storage Facilities, 1997 International Oil Spill Conference.

39 This estimate includes 1, 000 military installations and 2, 300 facilities in Alaska and Hawaii. Military installations are federal facilities and therefore not covered as "persons" by the RFA. Also, the 1995 Survey did not extend to facilities in Alaska or Hawaii. The estimates given in the adjusted national estimate were derived from other sources and are not included in this analysis. However, impacts on facilities in these states are expected to be similar to those on facilities in other states.

84 5. 2 CHARACTERIZING ENTITIES REGULATED UNDER THE SPCC PROGRAM EPA conducted a screening analysis of the effects of the existing SPCC rule on small businesses in 1997. 37 Based on the results of that analysis, EPA determined that the SPCC rule did not have significant adverse impacts on small businesses because many small businesses had a total oil storage capacity that was less than the minimum threshold requirements to be regulated by the rule and because the estimated cost of compliance for the remaining facilities did not constitute a significant percentage of a firm's total revenues.

The 1997 screening analysis relied on the results of several previous studies and analyses to characterize the entities regulated under the SPCC program. These studies include the American Petroleum Institute's 1989 survey of facilities with aboveground storage tanks, EPA's 1991 Facilities Study, and EPA's 1995 Survey. 38 The1995 national survey of oil storage and production facilities was used by EPA in part to estimate the number of these facilities subject to EPA's SPCC program. EPA compared the results of the SPCC Survey to previous government and industry studies and calculated a 1996 adjusted national estimate, which represented EPA's best approximation of the number of facilities regulated by the SPCC program. In 1996, EPA indicated that approximately 438,000 facilities had oil storage capacity great enough to be regulated under the SPCC program. 39 Assuming a one percent annual growth rate in the number of facilities, EPA estimates the number of regulated facilities to have grown by about 36,000, yielding a current total estimate of 474,000 facilities.

These facilities are predominantly found in seventeen industry sectors. Exhibit 5 1 presents a breakdown by SIC code and corresponding NAICS code of the different industry sectors that contain the majority of SPCC facilities, as well as the distribution of facilities by industry sector. The figures represent the 1996 adjusted national 85 estimates increased by the one percent annual growth rate. EPA estimates that most SPCC facilities are located in either the agricultural sector of the economy (174,973 facilities) or the oil production sector of the economy (154,709 facilities). According to these figures, these sectors together account for about 70 percent of the total number of SPCC facilities. 86 EXHIBIT 5 1 PRIMARY INDUSTRY SECTORS, SIC CODES, CORRESPONDING NAICS CODES, AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SPCC FACILITIES Industry Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Estimated Number of Regulated SPCC Facilities (CY 2002) Farms 01 111 174,973 Coal Mining, Nonmetallic Mining 12/ 14 2121, 2123, 2131 54136 1,930 Oil Production 131 211111 154,709 Contract Construction 16 2341, 2349 7,719 Food and Kindred Products 20 311, 3121 4,610 Chemicals and Allied Products 28 2111, 3119, 325, 3313 3,538 Petroleum Refining and Related Industries 29 3241 1,716 Primary Metals 33 3241, 331, 332, 3359 751 Other Manufacturing 20 39 31 33 16,618 Transportation 401/ 411/ 413/ 4 14/ 417/

42/ 449/ 458 4821, 484 5, 4871, 488, 4922, 4931, 5311, 5324, 56172, 5621, 6219, 7139 17,691 Pipelines 46 4861, 4869 644 Electric Utility Plants 491 2211 3,967 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 5171 4543, 4227 10,293 Gasoline Service Stations/ Vehicle Rental 554/ 751 4471, 5321 13,938 Fuel Oil Dealers 5983 4543 4,181 Health Care/ Education 801/ 802/ 803/ 8 04/ 805/ 806/ 80 7/ 821/ 822 3391, 61111, 61131, 61121, 621, 623 5,575 Other Commercial Facilities NA NA 42,885 Military/ AK/ HI NA NA 3, 538 Total NA NA 469,274 40 SBA has revised the definition of small business and published a new table of small business size standards based on industries as they are defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The outcome of this analysis, while it depends on SIC based definitions, would not change noticeably if it used NAICS based definitions. For further information about why the analysis is not expected to change, please refer to the memo in the SPCC docket titled, Effects of Revisions to the Definition of small business on EPA's SPCC Analyses. For reference purposes, Exhibit 5 1 shows SIC codes, their corresponding NAICS codes, and the number of SPCC facilities. At the level of detail used in this analysis, the SBA definition provided in Exhibit 5 2 captures most of the same facilities whether they are classified by SIC or NAICS.

87 The industry sectors identified in the 1996 adjusted national estimate and listed above were developed based on EPA's 1991 Facilities Study and the 1995 SPCC Survey. To determine the industry sectors containing potentially regulated facilities, EPA's 1991 Facilities Study examined several state databases of facilities that store oil. All of the databases included the facility name and storage capacity, and some databases also had the SIC Code or other industrial classification for the facility. Using this information, EPA identified the industry sectors containing facilities that met the SPCC storage capacity thresholds. For each industry sector in each of the states examined, EPA divided the number of potentially regulated facilities by the total number of facilities in that industry sector in that state, determined from Census data. These fractions were applied to the national totals from the Census to obtain estimates of the total number of potentially regulated facilities in each industry sector. Similarly, EPA's 1995 SPCC Survey determined the fraction of potentially regulated facilities in each industry sector sampled and extrapolated the results to obtain national estimates.

The total number of entities in each industry sector was determined using data from the 1992 U. S. Census at the four digit SIC code level. Census data were obtained to some degree for all industry sectors except electric utility plants. This industry is unique in that the SBA defines small electric utilities in terms of megawatt hours of output, rather than number of employees or annual revenues. Because the Census does not aggregate data for this industry in terms of megawatt hours, a different data source, the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 1995 Form 861 data, was used. The EIA provides both output and revenue data at the individual utility level for virtually all private and public utilities in the U. S.

Next, the number of affected small entities was estimated using the SBA definition of a small business. 40 SBA defines a small business as one that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the industry, size standard eligibility is based on the average number of employees for the preceding 12 months or on sales volume averaged over a three year period. 88 Exhibit 5 2, below, presents the SBA definitions that were used in the 1997 screening analysis to identify small businesses for the main industry sectors affected under the SPCC program. Although these definitions may now be different, they are presented here to be consistent with other data used in the 1997 analysis. Any new definitions are not expected to affect the general conclusion that the revisions will have negligible adverse impacts on small entities.

Exhibit 5 3 compares the total number of small entities within each category to the total number of entities identified by the 1992 Census. The exhibit shows that the SBA definition of small entities used in the 1997 screening analysis encompassed 94 percent or more of the total number of firms or establishments identified by the 1992 Census. 89 EXHIBIT 5 2 SBA DEFINITION OF SMALL ENTITY FOR PRIMARY SPCC INDUSTRY SECTORS USED IN THE 1997 SCREENING ANALYSIS Industry SBA Definition of Small Entity Farms $0. 5 million Coal Mining/ Nonmetallic Mining 500 employees Oil Production 500 employees Contract Construction $17.0 million Food and Kindred Products 500 employees Chemicals and Allied Products 500 employees Petroleum Refining and Related Industries 500 employees Primary Metals 500 employees Other Manufacturing 500 employees Transportation $5. 0 million Pipelines 1,500 employees Electric Utility Plants 4 million MWh (total output) Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 100 employees Gasoline Service Stations/ Vehicle Rental $6. 5 million/$ 18.5 million Fuel Oil Dealers $9. 0 million Health Care/ Education $5. 0 million Other Commercial Facilities $5. 0 million 90 EXHIBIT 5 3 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF SMALL ENTITIES IN PRIMARY SPCC INDUSTRY SECTORS (1992 ESTIMATES)

Industry U. S. Census Estimate of the Total Number of Firms/ Estab. s Approximate Number of SBA Defined Small Entities Percentage of Firms/ Estabs. Defined as Small Entities Farms 1, 925,300 1,878,386 98% Coal Mining/ Nonmetallic Mining 8, 873 8, 821 99% Oil Production 7,616 7,592 100% Contract Construction 37,180 37,180 100% Food and Kindred Products 20,798 20,240 97% Chemicals and Allied Products 12,004 11,699 97% Petroleum Refining and Related Industries 2,124 2,077 98%

Primary Metals 6, 501 6,286 97% Other Manufacturing 329,485 325,929 99% Transportation 99,536 95,463 96% Pipelines 86 86 100% Electric Utility Plants 3, 215 3, 029 94% Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 7,871 7,755 99%

Gasoline Service Stations/ Vehicle Rental 59,075 56,972 96%

Fuel Oil Dealers 4, 156 4,019 97% Health Care/ Education 382,813 372,734 97% Other Commercial Facilities 2, 669,972 2,543,529 95% Total 5, 576,605 5,381,797 97%

5. 3 THE EFFECTS OF THE RULEMAKING ON SMALL ENTITIES To assess the impacts on small entities affected by the SPCC rulemaking revisions, EPA developed a more detailed characterization of small entities within the main SPCC industry sectors, because using a single industry average to characterize all small entities within a single industry sector could possibly overlook significant impacts on the smallest of the small entities. Specifically, in 1997, EPA subdivided 91 each industry into several size categories, based on the SBA definition of a small entity for that industry. EPA obtained the number of firms in each size category and the total revenue for all firms in that category from the 1992 Census. The Agency then estimated the average revenue for a firm within each group by dividing the total revenue for each group by the total number of firms. Because a firm could be associated with several SPCC facilities, EPA determined the likely number and types of model facilities that a firm in each industry and size category may own.

EPA has estimated the unit costs of the revised provisions in the final rule that may increase burden on facilities subject to the SPCC requirements. EPA calculated the cost to firms based on model facility cost estimates. In most cases, especially when the number of firms in an industry exceeded the number of SPCC facilities, the Agency assumed that each firm was associated with at most a single SPCC facility.

To determine the likelihood of an adverse impact on a typical firm within each size category, EPA compared the estimated costs of the revisions – in 2001 dollars – to the 1992 average annual revenue for a firm in that category. EPA assumes that this approach will overestimate the potential impacts for individual firms. To estimate the total number of small entities affected, EPA assumes that the estimated impact on the average firm within a given size category represents the potential impact on each firm in that size category.

Exhibit 5 4 shows the cost associated with the main revisions that could increase burden. These estimates are based on the exhibits in Section 3.3. Of course, most of the regulatory changes will reduce reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Nevertheless, those provisions have not been included in this analysis to determine whether the rulemaking may produce a significant adverse impact.

EXHIBIT 5 4 Estimated Annual Costs from Key Revisions That Increase Burden Annual Cost per Facility (2001 dollars)

Costs Small Medium Large Large Cross Reference $16 $16 $16 Facility Diagram $33 $39 $5 Brittle Fracture Records $0 $4 $16 Read and Understand Rule $130 $130 $130 92 Total $180 $190 $168 For each main industry sector, EPA presents information from the 1997 screening analysis on the number of firms that were under the SBA definition of a small business and the average revenue per firm within several revenue or employment size categories as of the 1992 Census. The number of SPCC facilities, if any, that the Agency believed were likely to be associated with firms in each size category (as of the 1997 screening analysis) are also shown. For those firms identified in 1997 as likely to be regulated, average revenues (1992 dollars) are compared to the estimated cost (2001 dollars) of the final rulemaking revisions for a firm to estimate a percentage impact per SPCC regulated firm.

Generally, the smallest firms are expected to have little or no oil storage capacity, while the larger firms are expected to have greater amounts of oil storage capacity. Within some size categories, a range of estimates is given, because it is likely that SPCC regulated firms are associated with more than one type of model facility. For most industry sectors, EPA determined the distribution of small, medium, and large model facilities based on the total number of firms reported by Census and the total number of SPCC facilities as determined in previous Agency analyses. Industry specific assumptions made by the Agency concerning the estimation of impacts are discussed for each industry. This section only examines the impacts to small businesses relative to a base year of 1992 and does not address impacts to larger businesses. 93 EXHIBIT 5 5 Distribution of Farms Classified as Small Businesses by Agricultural Revenue Size (SIC Codes 01/ 02)

Total Number of Farms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Farms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Farm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Farm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Farm Sales < $1,000 212,580 0 $57,709 $0.27 $0 0.00%

Sales $1,000  $2,499 210,187 0 $353,403 $1.68 $0 0.00%

Sales $2,500  $4,999 231,867 0 $835,832 $3.60 $0 0.00%

Sales $5,000  $9,999 251,883 0 $1,796,553 $7.13 $0 0.00%

Sales $10,000  $19,999 232,067 0 $3,291,314 $14.18 $0 0.00%

Sales $20,000  $24,999 69,737 0 $1,549,347 $22.22 $0 0.00%

Sales $25,000  $39,999 134,582 0 $4,259,990 $31.65 $0 0.00%

Sales $40,000  $49,999 60,772 0 $2,706,693 $44.54 $0 0.00%

Sales $50,000  $99,999 187,760 0 $13,516,761 $71.99 $0 0.00%

Sales $100,000  $249,999 208,405 102,118 $32,710,764 $156.96 $180 0.11%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 78,546 38,488 $26,914,023 $342.65 $180 0.05% 94 EXHIBIT 5 6 Distribution of Establishments in the Coal and Nonmetallic Mining Industries Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Codes 12/ 14)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

Coal Mining 0  4 employees 830 0 $565,800 $682 $0 0. 00%

5  9 employees 419 0 $419,900 $1,002 $0 0.00%

10  19 employees 582 0 $1,554,800 $2,671 $0 0.00%

20  49 employees 652 447 $4,331,700 $6,644 $180  $190 0.00%

50  499 employees 560 384 $17,069,000 $30,480 $180  $190 0.00%

Nonmetallic Mining 0  19 employees 4,418 0 $3,211,400 $727 $0 0. 00%

20  249 employees 1,357 931 $7,694,200 $5,670 $180  $190 0.00%

250  499 employees 3 2 $295,588 $92,062 $180  $190 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 7 Distribution of Firms in the Oil Production Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Code 131)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm 0  9 employees 6,216 6,216 $2,632,100 $423 $180 0.04%

10  19 employees 600 2,091 $1,623,800 $2,706 $627 0.02%

20  49 employees 500 4,439 $3,671,000 $7,342 $1,598  $1,687 0.02%

50  99 employees 200 6,284 $5,811,800 $29,059 $5,656  $5,970 0.02%

100  249 employees 32 2,822 $2,698,400 $84,325 $14,816  $16,756 0.02%

250  499 employees 44 7,584 $8,420,200 $191,368 $28,957  $32,749 0.02% 95 EXHIBIT 5 8 Distribution of Establishments in the Construction Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Code 16)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

Sales < $100,000 6,291 0 $318,057 $51 $0 0.00%

Sales $100,000  $249,999 7,078 0 $1,183,140 $167 $0 0.00%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 6,299 0 $2,259,805 $359 $0 0.00%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 5,134 1,939 $3,637,836 $709 $180 0.03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 5,651 2,134 $8,834,980 $1,563 $180 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 2,920 1,103 $10,356,805 $3,547 $180 0.00%

Sales $5,000,000  $9,999,999 1,903 1,012 $13,359,385 $7,020 $168  $190 0.00%

Sales >= $10,000,000 1,904 1,013 $58,578,174 $30,766 $168  $190 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 9 Distribution of Establishments in the Food and Kindred Products Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Code 20)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

1  4 employees 5,767 0 $2,046,000 $355 $0 0.00%

5  9 employees 2,886 826 $3,793,400 $1,314 $180 0.01%

10  19 employees 2,816 806 $8,304,600 $2,949 $180 0.01%

20  49 employees 3,569 1,021 $30,301,600 $8,490 $180 0.00%

50  99 employees 2,147 614 $46,984,400 $21,884 $180  $190 0.00%

100  249 employees 2,139 612 $97,147,900 $45,417 $180  $190 0.00%

250  499 employees 916 262 $82,756,800 $90,346 $168  $190 0.00% 96 EXHIBIT 5 10 Distribution of Establishments in the Chemicals and Allied Products Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Code 28)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

1  4 employees 3,102 0 $1,703,200 $549 $0 0.00%

5  9 employees 1,937 718 $3,386,200 $1,748 $180 0.01%

10  19 employees 1,921 712 $7,122,400 $3,708 $180 0.00%

20  99 employees 3,469 1,286 $48,277,000 $13,917 $180  $190 0.00%

100  249 employees 920 341 $50,976,600 $55,409 $168  $190 0.00%

250  499 employees 350 130 $54,197,000 $154,849 $168 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 11 Distribution of Establishments in Petroleum Refining and Related Industries Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Code 29)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

1  4 employees 700 527 $913,600 $1,305 $180  $190 0.01%

5  9 employees 442 333 $1,196,400 $2,707 $190 0.01%

10  19 employees 294 221 $1,349,400 $4,590 $190 0.00%

20  49 employees 317 239 $4,169,200 $13,152 $168  $190 0.00%

50  99 employees 146 110 $4,914,500 $33,661 $168 0.00%

100  249 employees 123 93 $18,055,800 $146,795 $168 0.00%

250  499 employees 55 41 $46,949,811 $853,633 $168 0.00% 97 EXHIBIT 5 12 Distribution of Establishments in the Primary Metals Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Code 33)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

1  4 employees 1,270 0 $622,488 $490 $0 0.00%

5  9 employees 760 102 $372,512 $490 $180 0.04%

10  49 employees 2,206 295 $7,566,500 $3,430 $180  $190 0.01%

50  249 employees 1,685 225 $35,521,900 $21,081 $190 0.00%

250  499 employees 365 49 $26,767,200 $73,335 $190 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 13 Distribution of Other Establishments in the Manufacturing Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Employment Size (SIC Codes 20 39)

Total Number of Estab. s (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Estab. s)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Estab.

('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Estab.

(2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Estab.

1  4 employees 118,255 0 $21,291,512 $180 $0 0.00%

5  9 employees 60,021 4,404 $34,785,288 $580 $180 0.03%

10  249 employees 141,542 10,386 $742,914,200 $5,249 $180  $190 0.00%

250  499 employees 6,111 448 $271,092,589 $44,361 $168  $190 0.00% 98 EXHIBIT 5 14 Distribution of Firms in the Transportation Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Codes 411/ 413/ 414/ 417/ 42/ 449/ 458)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCCRegulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm Sales < $100,000 20,173 0 $1,209,005 $60 $0 0. 00%

Sales $100,000  $249,999 26,897 5,592 $4,391,119 $163 $180 0.11%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 18,581 3,863 $6,576,471 $354 $180 0.05%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 13,863 2,882 $9,709,760 $700 $180  $190 0. 03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 11,354 2,361 $17,602,357 $1,550 $190 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 4,595 955 $15,892,677 $3,459 $190 0.01%

EXHIBIT 5 15 Distribution of Firms in the Pipeline Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Code 46)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm 0  9 employees 31 31 $150,888 $4,867 $180 0.00%

10  19 employees 10 10 $34,498 $3,450 $180 0.00%

20  49 employees 3 4 $24,166 $8,055 $240 0.00%

50  99 employees 10 38 $258,358 $25,836 $684 0.00%

100  249 employees 11 65 $433,023 $39,366 $1,064 0.00%

250  499 employees 6 84 $1,787,777 $297,963 $2,520  $2,660 0.00%

500  999 employees 12 310 $3,230,336 $269,195 $4,340  $4,908 0.00%

1,000 or more employees 3 58 $1,128,968 $376,323 $3,248 0.00% 99 EXHIBIT 5 16 Distribution of Electric Utilities Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Code 4911)

Total Number of Utilities (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Utilities)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Utility ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Utility (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Utility 0.0  0.1 million MWh 1,707 1,707 $4,229,382 $2,478 $180 0.01%

0.1  1.0 million MWh 1,145 1,145 $22,735,357 $19,856 $180 0.00%

1.0  4.0 million MWh 177 177 $17,848,257 $100,838 $180 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 17 Distribution of Firms in the Petroleum Bulk Station and Terminal Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Code 5171)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCC Regulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm 0  4 employees 2,429 2,429 $4,137,395 $1,703 $180  $190 0.01%

5  9 employees 2,241 2,241 $11,092,383 $4,950 $190 0.00%

10  19 employees 1,765 1,765 $16,307,761 $9,240 $190 0.00%

20  49 employees 1,036 2,072 $20,842,729 $20,118 $380 0.00%

50  99 employees 284 568 $13,833,068 $48,708 $336  $380 0.00% 100 EXHIBIT 5 18 Distribution of Firms in the Gasoline Service Station and Vehicle Rental Industries Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Codes 554/ 751)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCCRegulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm Gasoline Service Stations Sales < $250,000 8,253 0 $1,184,947 $144 $0 0.00%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 9,358 2,437 $3,443,224 $368 $180 0.05%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 11,942 3,109 $8,683,722 $727 $180  $190 0.03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 17,286 4,501 $27,262,533 $1,577 $190 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 5,006 1,303 $16,794,841 $3,355 $190 0.01%

Sales $5,000,000  $6,499,999 433 113 $2,935,738 $6,782 $168  $190 0.00%

Vehicle Rental Sales < $100,000 893 0 $49,577 $56 $0 0.00%

Sales $100,000  $249,999 1,042 271 $172,145 $165 $180 0.11%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 872 227 $313,020 $359 $180 0.05%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 739 192 $510,392 $691 $180  $190 0.03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 668 174 $1,040,266 $1,557 $190 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 261 68 $912,764 $3,497 $190 0.00%

Sales $5,000,000  $9,999,999 170 44 $1,166,011 $6,859 $190 0.00%

Sales $10,000,000  $18,499,999 49 13 $727,354 $14,925 $168  $190 0.00% 101 EXHIBIT 5 19 Distribution of Firms in the Fuel Oil Dealer Industry Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Code 5983)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCCRegulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm Sales < $250,000 495 465 $72,499 $146 $180 0.11%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 679 637 $254,251 $374 $180 0.04%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 1,065 999 $775,040 $728 $180  $190 0.02%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 1,211 1,136 $1,903,389 $1,572 $190 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 431 404 $1,447,285 $3,358 $190 0.01%

Sales $5,000,000  $8,999,999 138 130 $943,029 $6,814 $168  $190 0.00%

EXHIBIT 5 20 Distribution of Firms in the Health Care and Education Industries Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Codes 801/ 802/ 803/ 804/ 805/ 806/ 807)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCCRegulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm Sales < $100,000 38,331 0 $2,450,771 $64 $0 0.00%

Sales $100,000  $249,999 112,109 1,692 $19,552,771 $174 $180 0.10%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 115,694 1,746 $40,932,245 $354 $180 0.05%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 63,069 952 $43,104,472 $683 $180 0.03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 32,910 497 $49,866,711 $1,515 $180  $190 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 10,621 160 $36,507,348 $3,437 $190 0.01% 102 EXHIBIT 5 21 Distribution of Other Commercial Firms Classified as Small Businesses by Revenue Size (SIC Codes 50 89, excluding SIC Codes 5171, 554, 5983, 751, and 801 807)

Total Number of Firms (1992) Number of SPCCRegulated Facilities (1996) Total Revenue (Firms)

('000 dollars, 1992) Average Revenue per Firm ('000 dollars, 1992) Cost of Revisions per SPCCRegulated Firm (2001) %Impact per SPCCRegulated Firm Sales < $250,000 1,307,107 0 $152,478,332 $117 $0 0.00%

Sales $250,000  $499,999 505,076 14,824 $177,619,257 $352 $180 0.05%

Sales $500,000  $999,999 360,813 10,590 $250,677,354 $695 $180 0.03%

Sales $1,000,000  $2,499,999 266,512 7,822 $401,805,824 $1,508 $180 0.01%

Sales $2,500,000  $4,999,999 104,021 3,053 $348,644,995 $3,352 $180 0.00%

5. 4 CONCLUSION Overall, the Agency does not find the SPCC rulemaking revisions to cause a significant impact on a substantial number of small firms. Based on 1992 U. S. Census data and 2001 cost estimates for the revisions, the Agency did not find a significant economic impact on any single group of small businesses within any industry category identified as being subject to the SPCC program. In all cases the total cost of the revisions was estimated to be less than two tenths of one percent of the revenue of the firm.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50406-50407]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20132]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER13-1851-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: 2013-2014 Emergency Winter Amendments to be effective
9/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1953-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 08-08-2013 BREC-KU T-T IA Revised Concurrence to be
effective 9/3/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2134-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 136 APS Mead-Phoenix Project
Concurrence to be effective 4/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130808-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2135-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession to be effective 8/9/2013.

    Filed Date: 8/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130808-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2136-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per FERC Order No. 676-G RM05-5-020
to be effective 5/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20130808-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2137-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Energy Inc., Wholesale Power Sales Service to
be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2138-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the PJM Tariff re Interconnection Agmt
Execution & Study Deposits to be effective 10/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2139-000.
    Applicants: Merline One, LLC.
    Description: Application for Initial Tariff to be effective 8/9/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2140-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to PJM OATT re Must Offer Requirement
Exception for Deactivation to be effective 10/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR13-8-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Petition of North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Amendments to Exhibit B to the Delegation
Agreement with Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Amendments to Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. Bylaws.
    Filed Date: 8/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130809-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20132 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14093]
[DOCID:fr26mr07-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-49-000]

CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE), Complainant v.
California Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Water
Resources, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, City and County of San
Francisco, Respondents; Notice of Complaint

March 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 16, 2007, pursuant to section 205 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc.
(complainant) filed a formal complaint against California Public
Utilities Commission for authorizing on December 15, 2005, City and
County of San Francisco to enter in a power purchase agreement with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by assuming contractual obligations of
the California Department of Water Resources, in violation of the FPA
under the ``filed rate doctrine''. The Complainant requests the
contract be subject to the Commission's review as required under remand
to the Commission on December 16, 2006 by the United State Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a pair of opinions, Public Utility
Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 471 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) and Public Utility
Commission of California v. FERC, 474 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. Dec. 19,
2006).
    The Complainant states that copies of this Complaint were served
upon the Respondents and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 5, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5457 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1195-1197]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00030]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0255; FRL-9972-78-Region 9]

Determination To Defer Sanctions; Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality; PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the State of Arizona has corrected a
deficiency in its Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) state implementation plan
(SIP) provisions concerning air permitting. Specifically, based on a
proposed conditional approval published elsewhere in this Federal
Register, and based on a prior proposed approval, previously published
in the Federal Register, EPA is making an interim final determination
that the State of Arizona (State) has satisfied the requirements of
part D of the CAA permitting program for areas under the jurisdiction
of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) with respect
to fine particular matter (PM2.5) precursors. The effect of
this interim final determination that the State has corrected the
deficiency in the permitting program is that the imposition of
sanctions that were triggered by a previous limited disapproval action
by EPA in 2016 is now deferred. If the State meets its commitment that
is the basis for the conditional approval, relief from these sanctions
will become permanent upon the EPA's full approval of the State
submission. If the EPA determines that the State has not met its
commitment and the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval,
these sanctions will no longer be deferred.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on January 10,
2018. However, comments will be accepted until February 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2017-0255, at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-
3811, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40525), the EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of ADEQ's nonattainment New Source Review (NA-NSR) program
because it did not fully address fine PM2.5 precursors as
required by section 189(e) of the Act (referred to hereinafter as ``our
2016 PM2.5 precursor action''). Our 2016 PM2.5
precursor action was a final limited disapproval action under title I,
part D of the Act, relating to requirements for PM2.5
precursors in nonattainment areas. Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA
and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, this action under title I, part D
started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months
after the action's effective date of July 22, 2016, and highway
sanctions 6 months following imposition of the offset sanctions.
    On March 21, 2017, ADEQ revised its New Source Review (NSR)
permitting program rules and on April 28, 2017, ADEQ submitted revised
NSR permitting rules to the EPA for approval into the Arizona SIP
(April 2017 NSR submittal), including rules intended to address the
limited disapproval issue under title I, part D that we identified in
our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action. On June 1, 2017, we
proposed approval of the April 2017 NSR submittal, based in part on a
finding that the submittal addressed most of the deficiencies with
ADEQ's NA-NSR program identified in our 2016 PM2.5 precursor
action. See 82 FR 25213, 25219 (June 1, 2017); May 2017 Technical
Support Document (TSD) supporting our June 1, 2017 proposed rule action
at 21-22.
    To address the remaining deficiency identified by the EPA in our
2016 PM2.5 precursor action, which pertains to a particular
requirement regarding the regulation of ammonia as a PM2.5
precursor, in a letter dated December 6, 2017, ADEQ committed to adopt
revisions to provisions in ADEQ Rule R18-2-101 and/or make other
specific demonstrations to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
189(e) and related EPA regulations governing ammonia as a precursor to
PM2.5 under the NA-NSR program. The State committed to make
such submissions and demonstrations no later than March 31, 2019, or
within one year from the date on which the EPA takes final action on
the April 2017 NSR submittal, whichever is earlier. See Letter from
Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Alexis
Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated Dec. 6,
2017. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we have
proposed conditional approval of ADEQ's April 2017 NSR submittal with
respect to the remaining deficiency identified in our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action concerning ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor under section 189(e) of the Act.

II. EPA Action

    Based on the proposed conditional approval action and our June 1,
2017 proposed approval action, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2), we are
issuing this interim final determination, effective on publication,
determining that ADEQ's revised plan corrects the deficiencies that
triggered the sanctions clock. The effect of this action is to defer
imposition of the offset sanctions and highway sanctions that were
triggered by our 2016 limited disapproval of ADEQ's NA-NSR permitting
program with respect to PM2.5 precursors.
    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this interim final determination that the deficiency has been corrected
and the resultant deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that
change our assessment described in this interim final determination
and/or the proposed conditional approval of ADEQ's April 2017 NSR
submittal with respect to the title I, part D deficiencies identified
in our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action, we would take final
action to lift this deferral of sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31. If no
comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions
and any sanction clocks triggered by our 2016 PM2.5
precursor action would be deferred unless and until (1) the EPA
proposes or takes final action to disapprove the April 2017 NSR
submittal with respect to the deficiencies identified in our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action, (2) the conditional approval
converts to a disapproval, or (3) the EPA determines through a finding
of failure to submit or through a proposed or final action disapproving
in whole or in part the SIP submittal that ADEQ is required to submit
to fulfill its commitment in the conditionally approved plan in
accordance with ADEQ's December 6, 2017 letter. Sanctions and sanctions
clocks triggered by our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action would be
permanently terminated on the effective date of a final approval of the
SIP submittal that ADEQ submits to fulfill the commitment in the
conditionally approved plan.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that ADEQ's April 2017
NSR submittal and December 6, 2017 commitment letter address the
deficiencies under part D of title I of the CAA for PM2.5
precursors identified in our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action,
relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible.
Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However,
by this action, the EPA is providing the public with a chance to
comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date, and the
EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to
reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and,
through our proposed actions, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects
deficiencies under part D of the Act that were the basis for the action
that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public
interest to impose sanctions. Moreover, with respect to the effective
date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to
the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this
notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This action defers sanctions and imposes no new requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
defers sanctions and imposes no new requirements.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action defers sanctions and imposes no new
requirements. In addition, this action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This action defers sanctions
in accordance with CAA regulatory provisions and imposes no additional
requirements.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this action as
discussed in section II of this preamble, including the basis for that
finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 12, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this interim final
determination does not affect the finality of this action for the
purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see CAA section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-00030 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P