The NPDES regulations set forth conditions that all NPDES permits must
contain (40 CFR 122.21).  One of these “standard conditions” allows
for excusable bypasses under certain conditions (40 CFR
122.41(m)(2)-(4)).  Specifically, 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3) and 40 CFR
122.41(j)(2) require that the NPDES permittee provide notice of the
bypass event and maintain records of all such bypass events for at least
three years from the date of report, respectively.  These NPDES permit
conditions for notification and record keeping serve the same objective
as the SPCC rule requirement in §112.3(c)(3), and the documentation is
therefore acceptable to satisfy the SPCC requirement.

Comments:   Support for proposal.  “Reynolds supports EPA’s proposal
to amend 40 CFR 112.7(e)(8) to allow the use of customary business
records, such as those maintained pursuant to API standards 653 and
2610, to satisfy recordkeeping and inspection requirements.  Reynolds
believes that the Agency has taken a sound approach in proposing
streamlined reporting/recordkeeping requirements for this important
program.”  (10, 14, 17, 21, 28, 37, 42, 55, 56, 57, 60, 76, 80, 82,
84, L1, and L5)   Support for final §112.8(c)(3)). (30, 41, 42, 52, 57,
67, 76, 80, L5)

Confluence between API standards and CWA requirements.  “Current
regulations require that aboveground tanks be periodically inspected for
signs of damage or deterioration that could cause a spill or leak.  API
Standard 653 is considered the predominant standard for aboveground tank
inspection and API Standard 2610 concerns recordkeeping for inspections
and preventive maintenance.  CWA recordkeeping regulations require much
the same information as the API Standards provide, therefore a company
with records resulting from following the two API Standards already has
the information required under the CWA.”   (42)

Cost, duplication.  The proposed rule would eliminate the need for
facilities to keep duplicate records.  (37, 56, 57, 80, L5)   The
proposal would help larger facilities with both SPCC plan and FRP
obligations or a discharge permit for a wastewater treatment plant.
(17)  The proposed change would provide some cost savings through the
elimination of redundant inspections.  (21)

Opposition to proposal.

API records inapplicable.  “...API standards are not applied to
Exploration and Production [E&P] tanks.  The majority of E&P tanks are
either bolted or welded steel tanks.  Some old fields still use redwood
stave tanks.“ (7)  ”Typically, E&P tanks are 200 to 1000 bbl
capacity.  They can be inspected under API Standard 653, however, that
is not done since in old fields, the cost could not be sustained.  The
economic life of the field would be shortened by at least 3 years.
Additionally, there is no need to make such a rigorous inspection since
E&P tanks seldom sustain catastrophic failures.  Most oil spills from
E&P tanks are the result of storm damage or human error.  Spending
precious funds on wasteful inspections simply deprives the public of
domestic fuel and adds to the quantity transported by ship (which are
much more prone to spills).”  (8)   API Standards 653, 2610, 620 and
650 are  “...voluntary standards and many of the records discussed
concerning those standards are not commonly kept by smaller oil and gas
companies.  To remedy this problem, we suggest that those requirements
be changed to include the phrase, ‘when available’.” (26)

No consequence.  “I am aware of no requirement in Missouri nor of any
industry in Missouri which reports discharge of stormwaters from
secondary containment enclosure.  This provision, therefore, is of no
consequence in Missouri.”  (7)

Redundancy.  “GLCC appreciates EPA recognizing the redundancy of the
SPCC requirements with current NPDES requirements.”  (56)

Form of records.

API and other voluntary standards.  “...(A) note or comment should
follow 40 CFR §112.7(e)(8) stating that usual and customary business
records may include those maintained pursuant to appropriate API and/or
other voluntary consensus standards. The inclusion of such guidance will
make it easier, in years to come, for regulated entities to understand
the intent of the Agency with respect to the recordkeeping requirements
without the need to locate a copy of this Federal Register notice.  Ash
Grove also believes that the placement of such guidance in the rule
itself will better meet the apparent intent of the National Technology
Transfer Advancement Act (as described on page 63818 of the Proposed
Rule), whether or not the Act applies in this instance.”  (15)

NPDES records.  We should allow the use of records maintained pursuant
to NPDES permits to suffice for the requirements in §112.7(e)(8).  (4,
21, 30, 42, 56, 57, 67, 80, L5)

RCRA/SPCC confluence.  “(C)omparison of the requirements under
sections 112 and (40 CFR) 264/265 indicate that there is little
difference between the requirements of these sections.”  (81)

UL Standards.  Re integrity testing  “Therefore, the methods of
testing can be easily determined by referencing the method used by
Underwriters Laboratories to validate both the primary and secondary
containments of each assembly. The use of: pneumatic (pressure),
hydrostatic, vacuum, sonar, tracer gas, any combination of two of the
aforementioned methodologies or another method as determined by either
the listing authority or authority-having jurisdiction will be
considered acceptable for purposes of this section.” (73)

“...In addition to the aforementioned Standards, please accept those
standards for the storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids developed
by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) and Underwriters Laboratories of
Canada.  These will include standards for construction, design,
performance, testing, maintenance and all facets of storage of materials
in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, including UL Standard 142  for
Bare Steel Aboveground Tanks, UL Subject 2080 for Fire-Resistant Tanks,
UL Standard 2085 for Protected Aboveground Storage Tanks and UL Subject
2245 for At/Below-Grade Aboveground Storage Tanks (Vaults).  The Agency
could easily canvass this proposal by participating in the UL IAG forum
previously mentioned.  Please note that inclusion of these Standards and
Subjects will include the use of an auditing mechanism that might
conceivably reduce the information-collection burden/historical
difficulties for the Agency.”  (73)

”In addition, a new controversy relative to the merits of a UL
Subject 2244, Systems Listing wherein both the storage tank and all its
accessories are evaluated and certified in the form of a listing label
would appear to be logically worth consideration by the US EPA.  While
regulatory authorities traditionally support the Systems Listing and
Industry opposes the Systems Listing, perhaps the involvement of US EPA
can Provide a significant input to resolving this new factor in
evaluating fuel storage.”  (73)

Use optional.  “As long as the tanks and secondary containments are
inspected and maintained, the format used to document these events is
not important.  Utilizing an existing document, such a departmental
maintenance log would be more than adequate to demonstrate that the
facility has compiled with the regulatory obligations.  Furthermore,
using an established plant procedure will be less confusing for the
individuals involved and more readily retrievable when requested.”
(38)    ”...(I)t should be clarified that facilities are not required
to use the API Standards listed in the preamble.  Facilities should be
allowed to continue to use a format specifically designed for
documenting SPCC requirements.”  (51)

FRP record retention period.  “Since the record retention provision
pertaining to Facility Response Plans (FRP) is contained in the model
included in Appendix F (Section 1. 8. 1) and not in Section 112.20
itself, it is not clear whether the five year reference is a guideline
or a requirement.  Even assuming that the five year reference is a
requirement, it is unclear as to why FRP records should be retained for
a period two years longer than the SPCC records.  Retention of
inspection records allows EPA to review a facility's past records.  As
such, this retention period should not be a function of the size of the
facility.  The same retention period should apply to all facilities.
TVA, therefore, recommends that the proposed rule clarify whether the
records retention requirement is intended to apply to records generated
as a result of inspections required in FRPs.  If so, a three year
retention period should apply to those records generated as a result of
facility self-inspections specified in Section 1.8.1 of Appendix F.”
(21)

Maintenance with Plan.  Criticizes the provision that records must be
made a part of the Plan as burdensome and no benefit to the environment.
 (14, 21, 27, 35, 41, 52, 58, 61, 70, 84)   “PM records are much
better kept in a special PM notebook, which is often equipment-
specific.  It would be awkward and administratively burdensome for a
facility, particularly a small facility, to either file the PM report in
the SPCC Plan or to reproduce the PM report and physically insert it
into the SPCC Plan.  It would be far better to simply include in the
SPCC Plan a reference to the fact that PM inspections are performed,
that they are usual and customary, and include the location of the
completed records (e.g., maintenance supervisor's office).  This issue
is particularly critical for records demonstrating compliance with
employee training requirements at 40 CFR 112.7(e)(10).  The best
location for such records is in the employee personnel files, not an
SPCC Plan.”  (14)

NPDES rules.  Seeks clarification on proposed “adoption by
reference” of NPDES rules.   (23, 29, 31, 43, 47, 60, 61, 70, 83)

No SPCC regulation - NPDES instead.  “AFIA believes an exception
should be created for reporting and recording dike bypasses of
112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D) relating to animal and vegetable oil storage,
requiring such reporting and recording only if required by NPDES
stormwater permits.”  (23)

No NPDES requirements either.  “Release of uncontaminated rainwater
from containment areas should not be subject to monitoring and
notification requirements of the NPDES program.”  (29)

NPDES rules sometimes inapplicable.   “...(T)he NPDES regulations
contain requirements which should not apply to SPCC facilities,
including the condition that the permittee must provide notice of a
bypass event.”  (43)

Receipt and understanding.  “...(A)s a matter of usual and customary
business records that the owner/operator of the SPCC Plan/FRP site be
required to sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of
the appropriate plan.  This would indicate that the site had been
properly reviewed, the owner/operator informed and that the liability to
maintain and supervise the site had been specifically acknowledged.  No
cause should be promoted that an SPCC Plan is certified, forwarded to
the site and placed on a shelf without review or acknowledgment.”
(73)

Requirement or recommendation.  “EPA should clarify in the final rule
that references in the preamble to requirements for periodic integrity
testing of aboveground tanks and inspections are only voluntary
recommendations in the current regulation and are not required.  EPA
erroneously refers to periodic integrity testing of aboveground tanks
and inspections as required activities (see page 63815, middle column
under the heading "40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(vi) and page 63815, right column
under the heading "40 CFR 112.7(e)(8)).”  (47, 61, 74)

States.  “If the states maintain the regulation as it currently
stands, it will only negate the Agency's current efforts in these
proposed revisions to the requirement.  The Company is concerned about
the regulatory burden this may create if each state maintains the
current regulation, or makes the decision to develop more stringent
regulations.”  (48)

Usual and customary business records.   Requests clarification regarding
the definition of “usual and customary business records” as written
in the proposed rule. (14, 15, 38, 51, 81)

Response:  Support for proposal.   We appreciate commenter support.

Applicability - §112.8(c)(3).  This paragraph applies to discharges of
rainwater from diked areas that may contain any type of oil, including
animal fats and vegetable oils.  The only purpose of this paragraph is
to offer a recordkeeping option so that you do not have to create a
duplicate set of records for SPCC purposes, when adequate records
created for NPDES purposes already exist.

Applicability - §112.9(b)(1).  We believe that this requirement must be
applicable to both large and small facilities to help prevent discharges
as described in §112.1(b).  The risk of such a discharge and the
accompanying environmental damage may be devastating whether it comes
from a large or small facility.  We disagree that the recordkeeping is
burdensome.  If you are an NPDES permittee, you may use the stormwater
drainage records required pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) and
122.41(m)(3) for SPCC purposes, thereby reducing the recordkeeping
burden.

Discharge records necessary - §112.8(c)(3).  Only records of discharges
“that may be harmful” as described in 40 CFR part 110 are required.
A discharge “that may be harmful” includes a discharge that violates
applicable water quality standards, or which causes a film or sheen upon
or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or
which causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of
the water or upon adjoining shorelines.

Engineering methods -  §112.9(b)(1).  “Equivalent” measures
referenced in the rule might, depending on good engineering practice,
include using structures such as stand pipes designed to handle
flow-through conditions at water flood oil production operations, where
large volumes of water may be directed to oil storage tanks if water
discharge lines on oil-water separators become plugged.   Any alternate
measures must provide environmental protection equivalent to the rule
requirement.

Form of records.  Records of inspections and tests required by this rule
may be maintained in electronic or any other format which is readily
accessible to the facility and to EPA personnel.  Usual and customary
business records may be those ordinarily used in the industry, including
those made under API standards, Underwriters’ Laboratories standards,
NPDES permits, a facility’s QS-9000 or ISO-14000 system, or any other
format acceptable to the Regional Administrator.  If you choose to use
records associated with compliance with industry standards, such as
Underwriters’ Laboratories standards, you must closely review the
inspection, testing, and record keeping requirements of this rule to
ensure that any records kept in accordance with industry standards meets
the intent of the rule.  Some standards have limited record keeping
requirements and may only address a particular aspect of container
fabrication, installation, inspection, and operation and maintenance.
The intent of the rule is that you will not have to maintain duplicate
sets of records when one set has already been prepared under industry or
regulatory purposes that also fully suffices for SPCC purposes.  The use
of these alternative record formats is optional; you are not required to
use them, but you may use them.

FRP record retention period.  We recognize that the record retention
periods will differ under the revised rule for SPCC facilities as
opposed to response facilities.  We may consider a uniform record
retention period in the future for all types of facilities.

Maintenance with Plan.  We agree with commenters that it is not
necessary to maintain records as part of the Plan.  Therefore, today’s
rule allows “keeping” of the records “with” the Plan, but not as
part of it.  In the current rule, such records “should be made part of
the SPCC Plan....”   40 CFR 112.7(e)(8).  Because you continually
update these records, this change will eliminate the need to amend your
Plan each time you remove old records and add new ones.  You still
retain the option of making these records a part of the Plan if you
choose.

NPDES rules.  We are not adopting the NPDES rules for SPCC purposes, but
are only offering an alternative for recordkeeping.  The intent of the
rule is that you may, if you choose,  use the NPDES stormwater discharge
records in lieu of records specifically created for SPCC purposes.  We
are not incorporating the NPDES requirements into our rules by
reference.

Receipt and understanding.  The owner or operator of a facility already
is responsible for Plan preparation and implementation.  The Plan must
have the full approval of management at a level of authority to commit
the necessary resources.  Such approval must be documented in the Plan
by signature of the owner or operator.

Records required.  The rule permits use of usual and customary business
records, and covers all of the inspections and tests required by this
part as well as any ancillary records.  “Inspections and tests”
include not only inspections and tests, but schedules, evaluations,
examinations, descriptions, and similar activities required by this
part.  After publication of this rule, we will list all of the
inspections and tests required by part 112 on our website
(www.epa.gov/oilspill).  The applicability of each inspection and test
will depend on the exercise of good engineering practice, because not
every one will be applicable to every facility.

Requirement or recommendation.   We have always interpreted and enforced
our rules as mandatory requirements.

States.   Both the States and EPA have authority to regulate containers
storing or using oil.  Some States have exercised that authority while
others have not.  We do not preempt State rules, and defer to State law
that is more stringent than part 112.

Time period.  We agree with commenters that maintenance of records for
three years is sufficient for SPCC purposes, since that period will
allow for meaningful comparisons of inspections and tests taken.  We
note, however, that certain industry standards, for example API
Standards 570 and 653, may specify record maintenance for more than
three years.

Usual and customary business records.  Usual and customary business
records are those records normally used in commerce.

9.  Capacity of Facilities Storing Process Water/Wastewater for
Response Plan Purposes tc \l1 "9.  Capacity of Facilities Storing
Process Water/Wastewater for Response Plan Purposes  - proposed
§112.20(f)(4)

Background:  In 1997, we proposed to add a new paragraph to §112.20(f)
to provide a method for facility response plan purposes to calculate the
oil storage capacity of storage containers storing a mixture of process
water/wastewater with 10% or less of oil.  This proposal for certain
systems that treat process water/wastewater would be applicable at
certain facilities required to prepare a facility response plan.  It
would have no effect on facilities required to prepare response plans
because they transfer oil over water and have a total oil storage
capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons.  Likewise, the
proposal would have no effect on the method of calculating capacity for
purposes of SPCC Plans.  Under the proposal, we would not count the
entire capacity of process water/wastewater containers with 10% or less
of oil in the capacity calculation to determine whether a facility must
prepare a facility response plan.  We only would count the oil portion
of that process water/wastewater contained in §112.20(f)(2), and
therefore response planning is not necessary.

Today, we are withdrawing the proposal because it is no longer
necessary.  It is unnecessary because we have exempted from part 112 any
facility or part thereof (except at oil production, oil recovery, and
oil recycling facilities) used exclusively for wastewater treatment and
not to satisfy any requirement of part 112.  See the discussion under
§112.1(d)(6).  The exemption in §112.1(d)(6) applies to the types of
facilities treating wastewater that would have been allowed to calculate
a reduced storage capacity if the percentage of oil in the mixture were
10 percent or less.

10.	Facility Response Plan Format tc \l1 "10.	Facility Response Plan
Format  - §112.20(h)

Background:  In 1997, we proposed to amend the requirements for
formatting of a facility response plan to clarify that an Integrated
Contingency Plan (ICP) or other plan format acceptable to the Regional
Administrator is allowable to serve as a facility response plan if it
meets all facility response plan requirements.  Our intent was to track
language in the SPCC rule allowing the Regional Administrator similar
authority to accept differing formats for SPCC Plans.  However, the
Regional Administrator already has the authority to accept differing
formats for response plans, and the existing facility response plan
requirements already provide for cross-referencing.  See §112.20(h).
Therefore, new rule language was unnecessary, and the proposal tracked
current language.  Today, we have made only a minor editorial change in
rule language.

Comments:   Support for proposal.  “Similarly we support the
Agency’s proposal to allow the ICP as an FRP.”  (14, 41, 45, 47, 51,
56, 58, 61, 73).

Any format.   Any equivalent format, not just the ICP format, should be
an acceptable format for a FRP  “...so long as the alternative format
meets all regulatory requirements and includes an appropriate
cross-reference.“  (14, 41, 47, 51, 58, 61)

ICP format beneficial.  This inclusion would simplify compliance with
the FRP rules because it would “consolidate plans and eliminate
duplication.”   (41)  “...(P)reparation and use of an ICP or other
format would not reduce the information collection burden of the FRP
rule, but would simplify compliance with multiple applicable statutes
and rules.”  (45)   Supports “...EPA’s intent for a FRP that is
equivalent to the existing requirements without requiring approval from
the EPA Regional Administrator.”   (47, 58, 61)   The use of the ICP
as an acceptable format for a FRP would reduce the burden on industry
while maintaining the same level of environmental protection.  (65)

No change.  The proposed rule language did not include any changes.
(14, 21, 41, 47, 58, 61)

Acceptable formats.  “Because of earlier jurisdictional
interpretations by EPA regional offices, EPA should clarify that the use
of such an equivalent format for the SPCC Plan or FRP does not require
the approval of the EPA Regional Administrator.”  (47, 52, 58, 61)

Editorial suggestion.  “A response plan shall follow the format of the
model facility-specific response plan included in Appendix F to this
part, unless (i) an equivalent response plan has been prepared to meet
state or other Federal requirements, or (ii) an ICP has been prepared in
accordance with the notice published at 61 Fed. Reg. 28642, June 5,
1996.”  (21)

PE certification.   Suggests revised second sentence in 40 CFR 112.3(d)
to allow a PE “to more easily certify the SPCC portion of an
Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP).”  With these changes an ICP will
now “...discuss the preventive structures such as tanks, berms,
containments, and process systems of the SPCC plan, which a PE can
easily review, quantify, and certify in accordance with their license,
as well as the imprecise response theory for oil and hazardous materials
releases, fire fighting and other emergency plans which are not within
the scope of a PE certification.”  (63)  “As previously submitted
relative to SPCC Plans, SPC Corp suggests that Facility Response Plans
may be prepared by qualified individuals such as tank/equipment
representatives, licensed technicians, personnel with significant
experience in composition of SPCC and/or FRP Plans who submit their
draft plans to independent PE’s for certification in order to reduce
the financial burden to the owner/operator.  The existing interpretation
often requires a PE to physically inspect the site to the extent that
certification fees can outweigh the purchase price of innovative and
safe onsite equipment.  Certainly the Agency does not want to see these
“soft costs” discourage the implementation of a secure and safe
sight.”  (73)

Response:   Acceptable formats.  It is not necessary for the rule to
mention the ICP or any other format specifically because the rule
already allows the Regional Administrator flexibility to accept any
format that meets all Federal requirements.  Any format that contains
all the required elements of a response plan would be presumptively
acceptable.  See §112.20(h).  You may use the ICP, a State response
plan, or other format acceptable to the Regional Administrator, at your
option.  We do not require use of any alternative format, but merely
give you the option to do so.

Editorial suggestion.  We added the words “acceptable to the Regional
Administrator” in the first sentence after the words “response
plan.”

No change.  The commenters are correct that the proposed rule is
identical to the current rule.  The current rule allows the submission
of an “equivalent response plan that has been prepared to meet State
or other Federal requirements.”

Partially acceptable formats.  You have the option to integrate any or
all parts of an ICP with your response plan.  This gives you flexibility
in formatting.  Similar to SPCC Plans, the Regional Administrator may
accept partial use of alternative formats.

PE certification.  PE certification is only required for the SPCC
portion of any ICP.

11.	Supporting Analyses tc \l1 "11.	Supporting Analyses

Background:   For the 1997 proposed rule, we performed supporting
regulatory analyses in accordance with Executive Order 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Edible Oil
Regulatory Reform Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

Comments:  Costs.  Operates and maintains numerous aboveground storage
tanks, of which  “...approximately 20% have a storage capacity greater
than 660 gallons, but less than 1,320 gallons.  The majority of U S WEST
facilities only contain one AST at any particular site.  When these
tanks are constructed, they often remain intact for many years without a
construction disturbance or a need of any repair.  The average cost to
the Company to develop an SPCC plan for these tanks has been
approximately $2,500.  U S WEST corporate policy also makes responsible
environmental management a company priority.  In doing so, the Company
frequently inspects all tanks during operations reviews and audits.”
(48)

Small facilities.  Costs do not vary significantly by size of facility.
(31)  Questions the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.
(7, 52)   We certified that the October 22, 1991 and the December 2,
1997 proposed rulemakings would not have a significant adverse impact on
a substantial number of small entities and that no regulatory
flexibility analysis was done.  (7)

Disagreements with economic analyses tc \l2 "Disagreements with economic
analyses .

Electrical equipment facilities.  EPA does not intend to regulate
substations because “...EPA has not included substations in its
calculations of burden imposed by SPCC regulations for the 1991, 1996,
as well as the December 19, 1997 submittal to the Office of Management
and Budget.”  (57)   We must recalculate the costs associated with
compliance because we have significantly underestimated the number of
electric utility facilities that would be subject to the rules if their
scope included electrical equipment.  (70)

Information collection - FRP rule.  “(T)he Agency has previously
estimated that it requires approximately 118 hours for facility
personnel in a "large, consumption facility" to comply with the annual
subsequent year reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the FRP rule
after adjusting for compliance with other Federal and State regulations.
 CasChem believes this estimate to be low.  CasChem is not a “large,
consumption facility”.  For CasChem, the FRP development and approval
process has been frustrating.  Over the years the facility has developed
a comprehensive DPCC/SPCC/DCR.BMP Plan to incorporate New
Jersey-specific and federal requirements. The Plan has been developed
and maintained primarily by one environmental engineer with heavy
reliance on outside consulting expertise. Our current FRP is being
revised at this time to improve formatting and to provide more details.
This effort alone will take more than 118 hours to complete at a cost of
more than $50,000.  We anticipate future annual estimates for FRP
maintenance to require more than 118 hours.”  (84)

Requests for Differentiation.

Electrical equipment facilities.  “The data presented in this report
suggests that it would perhaps be more appropriate to consider mineral
oil dielectric fluids as more akin to food grade oils rather than to
petroleum-based fuels.  This argument is made based on comparisons of
PAH, metals and BTEX concentrations, as well as overall toxic effects
exhibited by the two classes of materials.  Consequently, a release of
dielectric fluid to the environment does not have the same types of
short-term or long-term impacts as less refined fuel-type oils.  This
claim has been substantiated through observations documented during and
after the response action to the August 1993 dielectric fluid release at
Entergy's Roland Road substation near Little Rock, Arkansas--one of the
two incidents alluded to in the introduction to these comments.”  (18)

Requests for Use of Other Sources in Analyses.

Animal fats and vegetable oils.  “It is important for EPA to recognize
animal fats and vegetable oil spills can not reasonably be expected to
cause substantial harm to the environment.  Documented spill records
indicate that animal fats and vegetable oils account for only 0.4
percent of the oil spill incidents in U.S. waters, and only 0.02 percent
of those involved releases of over 1,000 gallons.  EPA must agree the
animal fats and vegetable oils industry not only has an excellent safety
record, but is committed to prevention of oil spills and protecting the
environment.  ...  ...(T)he feed industry, SIC code 2048, is regulated
by EPA's stormwater runoff regulation.  Feed industry facilities already
administer management and engineering controls for the reduction and
prevention of pollutant loading in storm water.  Pollution prevention
plans detail spill prevention, clean up, housekeeping and maintenance
programs to safeguard stormwater becoming loaded with any pollutants
from the grounds of the facility.”  (23)

Costs - electrical equipment facilities.  Has approximately 3,500
transmission and distribution electrical equipment installations
potentially subject to the 40 CFR Part 112 rule.  “Insofar as cost of
compliance, generation of site-specific oil spill prevention control and
countermeasure (SPCC) plans for these facilities has been estimated to
average $4000 per facility, for a total cost for plan generation of
approximately $14 million.  In addition, imposing the requirement for
secondary containment on Entergy's electrical equipment installations
would require expenditures estimated at $30,000 per installation, for a
total cost in excess of $100 million.  Costs of plan maintenance,
including the current triennial evaluation and possible professional
engineer recertification of the site-specific plans, are uncertain, but
would possibly approach $2 million per year.  In light of the extremely
low spill rates occurring from oil-filled electrical devices at Entergy
facilities; such costs, which would ultimately be shouldered by our
customers, are unjustified.  It should be noted that for the time period
encompassing years 1993 through 1997, oil releases at Entergy electrical
substations totaled seventy incidents.  Discounting spills of less than
one hundred gallons, this number drops to twenty-five.  Of these
releases, two incidents impacted waters of the United States.  These
numbers translate to two occurrences per 17,500 facility-years.“  (18)

Dielectric fluids.  We should  “...consider information contained
within the Electric Power Research lnstitute's Mineral Insulation Oil
Characterization Report.  This document was submitted with the USWAG
comments.  While Entergy is aware of the Agency's recently published
decision document regarding regulation of vegetable oils and animal fats
under the Part 112 rule, this technical information should not be
discounted when evaluating what constitutes a prudent course of action
for addressing releases of mineral oil dielectric fluid.  The EPRI study
provides an in-depth comparison of the chemical/physical characteristics
of mineral oil-based dielectric fluids compared with gasoline and diesel
oil.”  (18)  Our recognition that “...electrical equipment is
fundamentally different from other oil-storage equipment is an important
step in crafting regulations appropriate to this area.”  (65)

Response:  Costs.  We recognize that electrical equipment is not bulk
storage and do not regulate it as such.  However, electrical equipment
remains subject to the general requirements of the rule, including
secondary containment.  If secondary containment is not practicable, you
may instead provide a contingency plan.  The final rule also allows for
equivalent prevention plans, which might include a multi-facility plan,
that will enable certain firms to economize on the preparation of plans
for similar types of facilities.  We are also no longer going to
regulate facilities having a total oil storage capacity of 1,320 gallons
or less, but that have a single aboveground container in excess of 660
gallons.  We will have a regulatory threshold of greater than 1,320
gallons instead.  Nor will we regulate containers smaller than 55
gallons.  Therefore, the compliance burden for the smallest facilities
will end.  In summary, however, we estimate the burden of the rule using
a model facility approach, which differentiates compliance costs by
facility size.  We recognize that some facilities may actually incur
higher costs, while others incur lower costs, than estimated for each
model facility.  We did perform a small business analysis for our 1991
proposed rulemaking, which was included in our economic impact analysis
of the proposed rulemaking (January 1991).  The commenter is correct,
though, that we did not perform a formal regulatory flexibility analysis
for our 1997 proposed rulemaking because the proposed revisions were
deregulatory in nature and posed no significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Electrical equipment facilities.  Substations are included in the scope
of the SPCC rule, and we have included them in our burden calculations
for the final rule.  Our 1996 SPCC renewal ICR adjusted upwards the
burden estimate for utilities for the number of SPCC-regulated
electrical equipment based on similar comments received during that
renewal period.

Information collection - FRP rule.  We acknowledge the final comment
concerning the information collection burden for response facilities,
but it is outside the scope of this final rulemaking because the
proposed revision to §112.20(f) has been withdrawn.  We will consider
your comment in future reviews of the Information Collection Request for
the FRP rule.

Requests for Differentiation.   Because at the present time EPA has not
proposed differentiated requirements for public notice and comment, the
requirements for facilities storing or using all classes of oil will
remain the same.  We have, however, established separate rule sections
for facilities storing animal fats and vegetable oils.  We also have
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on
how we might differentiate requirements for facilities storing or using
the various classes of oil.  64 FR 17227, April 8, 1999.  After
considering these comments, if there is adequate justification for
differentiation, we will propose a rule.

Requests for Use of Other Sources in Analyses

Dielectric fluids.  We have reviewed the document mentioned.  We will
also consider it in our upcoming proposed rule to consider
differentiated requirements for facilities storing or using different
types of oils.

12.	Miscellaneous Comments tc \l1 "12.	Miscellaneous Comments

Applicability.    We should provide guidance to clarify the
applicability of SPCC plan regulations at 40 CFR 112.3(a).  “...(I)n
relation to ‘due to their location, could reasonably be expected to
discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters or adjoining
shore lines.’ What does ‘due to location’ mean? What does
"reasonably expected” mean?”  (L4)

Applicable items.  Section 112.7, “Guidelines for the preparation and
implementation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan,”
should read as follows:  “The complete SPCC plan shall follow the
sequence outline below, but listing only applicable items, unless it is
in another format acceptable to the Regional Administrator, such as
described in 112.2, and include a discussion of the facility's
conformance with the appropriate guidelines listed.”  “This change
is intended to clarify that SPCC plans are only required to contain a
citation of all 112.7 items that are applicable, rather than list all
non-applicable items too and explain why.  This will simplify SPCC plan
preparation and avoid violation notices about missing non-applicable
items.  (44)

Burden reduction.    “In the supplemental December 1997 proposal, EPA
has done so in certain respects by proposing a few amendments to the
SPCC and OPA rules.  While these efforts are certainly laudatory, they
fail to address the basic problem with the SPCC program, which is the
Agency's attempt to impose a "one-size-fits-all" regulatory program on
facilities that differ by orders of magnitude in size, characteristics,
method of operation, and risk to the environment.”  (31)  “Such
burdens can be reduced a lot more by having the SPCC Plan actually
written as a plan....  Simply put, a Plan should tell someone how to do
something, not how it is being done or what they should consider doing
or what they are not doing!”  (40)

Certification by other environmental professionals. tc \l2
"Certification by other environmental professionals.   We should accept
other environmental professionals for Plan certification.  (33, 44, 62,
63, 64, 73)   “The Environmental Professional who provides
certification for review of and amendment to the SPCC Plan should be
familiar with 40 CFR 112, the facility, and the facility's operations.
The DFW Airport Board anticipates that the Environmental Professional
responsible for implementing and maintaining the SWPPP would also be
responsible for implementing and maintaining the SPCC Plan.”  (33)
“...(I)t is also timely to consider the addition of another
professional group (other than Professional Engineers) to sign-off on
the appropriate documentation.  Specifically, we are proposing the new
provisions state the inclusion of either a Professional Engineer or a
Master-Level Certified Hazardous Materials Manager as authorized
signators.”  The commenter continued to describe the qualifications of
a Master-Level CHMM as well as point out that other Federal agencies,
such as the DOE, DOT, Corps of Engineers and branches of the DOD, that
have recognized the benefits of CHMMs.   (62)   Endorses the eligibility
of other qualified individuals to certify a Plan.   If a facility
“...does not have a registered professional engineer for a particular
state, it must hire one, at some cost, to review the plans prepared by
internal, non-PE staff.  Questar believes that this cost is unnecessary
since good engineering practice, like best management practices in water
pollution control, are not the exclusive province of the engineer.
Questar further believes that individuals who are familiar with
particular facilities and with the local meteorology, who understand the
operations of the facilities and who are familiar with the requirements
of 40 CFR 112, can (and should) develop spill prevention plans.  The
qualification of the PE, while valuable in many other respects, is
unnecessary for this pursuit.”  (64)   Suggests that the site
preparation of the SPCC plan be expanded to include “...qualified
individuals such as representatives of the tank manufacturer, licensed
technicians, personnel with significant experience in composition of
SPCC or FRP Plans who submit their draft plans to independent PE's for
certification in order to reduce the financial burden to the
owner/operator.  The existing interpretation often requires a PE to
physically inspect the site to the extent that certification fees can
outweigh the purchase price of innovative and safe equipment.  Certainly
the Agency does not want to see these "soft costs" discourage the
implementation of a secure and safe site.”  (73)

Completely buried tanks.  “Update portions dealing with underground
storage tanks as they are now covered by other regulations.”  (40)
“The EPA includes underground storage tank (UST) capacity in the
applicability section and the bulk storage tank section of the rule. 40
CFR 112, implemented in 1973, is an above ground storage tank (AST) rule
while 40 CFR 280, implemented in 1988, is a UST rule.  The newer 40 CFR
280 rule very clearly establishes UST construction, spill prevention,
and release detection standards which are more detailed and more
stringent than the older SPCC rule.  FPC requests the EPA acknowledge
the replacement of the UST portions of the SPCC rule by 40 CFR 280 by
removing the duplicative and confusing sections of 40 CFR 112,
specifically, 40 CFR 112.1(d)(2)(I), 112.7(e)(2)(iv), and 112.7(e)(2)(v)
should be deleted.”  (63)

“Delegated” States.  We should urge delegated states to change their
corresponding regulations to match our regulations so that the benefits
of the proposed changes in the SPCC plan can be fully realized.  (67)

Endorsed comments.

API.  Supports proposed revisions, refers us to API comments submitted
on the 1997 proposal, which proposed additional revisions in regard to
underground storage tank thresholds.  (24, 50)

USWAG.  Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) member endorses the
comments filed on its behalf under separate cover.  (35)   Supports
comments submitted by the USWAG, the Edison Electric Institute, the
American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (collectively, “USWAG”), on the subject
proposed rule.  Reiterates support for the USWAG comments previously
submitted on the 1991 and 1993 SPCC proposals (56 Fed. Reg. 54612 and 58
Fed. Reg. 8824, respectively).  (69)

FRP applicability. “For Facility Response Plans, require that the
Plan identify those locations from which a release can be monitored, and
those locations where access to the river can be achieved for the
equipment necessary to contain and to recover a release.  That way the
response people/contractor knows where to go. These locations should be
identified by name, by directions from major streets (so that
information can be conveyed by telephone, by map, and by the ETA after a
release based on no less than three flow conditions (low flow, typical
flow, high-water flow).  I have developed a means to estimate the
center-of-stream flow rate at any point in time.  The width of selected
bridges downstream are measured and a chart prepared giving the flow
rate based on how long it takes an object to float under the bridge.  I
recommend 6-inch pieces of 2 by 4 painted fluorescent orange along with
a large flashlight and a watch with a second hand.”  (40)   Recommends
that 40 CFR 112.20(e), which requires facilities not otherwise subject
to facility response planning regulation to certify non-applicability,
be deleted.   (L4)

Inspection periods.  Asks that  “...this section of the regulatory
text describe in more specific terms the inspection periods to be once a
year.  This will aid in the elimination of collapsed AST’s in 2 or 3
years after the last integrity testing further reducing the threat or
potential of a threat of environmental impact subject to AST’s
collapsing.”  (1)

Integrity testing.  Suggests “1.  A maximum interval for testing of
tanks, etc. needs to be specified, such as not less than 5 years on
tanks 10 years old or older; 2.  It needs to be clarified if the visual
inspection means an internal inspection; and, 3.  It needs to be
clarified if these periodic inspections must be conducted by or under
the direction of a qualified professional engineer (especially when
structural and foundation inspections are a part of the work - that is
engineering work).”  (40)

Loading areas.  Disagrees with the proposed 40 CFR 112.7(h)(2).
“(V)ery few facilities provide such containment.  Most facilities
depend on continuous attendance during loading/unloading and the use of
drip pans or buckets to prevent spills of any size at the truck or tank
car.  Requiring secondary containments for tank car and tank truck
loading areas is a very costly requirement especially for small
businesses which has very little payback in terms of spill prevention
beyond present practices.”   (7)

Points out two situations where the rule provisions on loading areas
poses a burden on facilities: (1)  An industrial facility has a 1,500
gallon aboveground storage tank for the collection of used oil generated
during equipment maintenance.  A 4,500 gallon single compartment tanker
truck comes three times a year to ship the used oil to a recycler.
According to U.S. EPA interpretation, the facility would have to provide
4,500 gallons of containment for a bulk tanker truck for an aboveground
tank that is only 1,500 gallons in volume.; and, (2)  An industrial
facility has three 500 gallon tanks to provide diesel fuel at different
locations around the plant.  One 500 gallon tank provides fuel to a
diesel pump that is a back-up system for the plant's fire protection.
The other two 500 gallon tanks are used to fuel plant vehicles.  Each of
the three tanks is filled approximately once or twice each year from a
4,500 gallon single compartment tanker truck.  According to U.S. EPA
interpretation, the facility would have to provide 4,500 gallons of
containment in three separate locations for three 500 gallon aboveground
tanks.  Installation of containment structures for tanker trucks is
costly, requires significant space, and typically raises issues of
handling collected storm water.  The current rules are burdensome for
these facilities where small volume transfers occur on an infrequent
basis.”  “A requirement for written procedure regarding
loading/unloading operations could be included in the SPCC Plan in lieu
of providing containment for the tanker truck ... Although this method
may create additional paperwork, the overall economic burden to the
facility is significantly reduced, yet a similar level of environmental
protection is provided.”  (12)

 “Clarify 112.7(e)(4) or define "Rack".  Most unloading and many
loading points are not an actual rack but a coupling outside the tank
containment area.  Many SPCC Plans [do] not address the potential of a
spill from such locations.”  (40)  “Also regarding racks, the use of
the largest compartment of the vehicle is reasonable for unloading, but
may fall way short for loading considerations - the potential spill
would be the capacity of the tank.  The containment required for both
instances should be based on the fact that such operations should be
attended and controlled.  The secondary containment should be a function
of flow rates, time to respond, and the fail-safe features of the
response action.”  (40)  Bulk petroleum loading/unloading at trucking
facilities are considered “in transport” and therefore are under
USDOT regulations, not SPCC.  Cities January 6, 1998 publication of the
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Amendments (63 FR 640).  Explains that the volume of spills
from such unloading operations are small, and compliance under SPCC
requirements would involve enormous costs.  (42)

“...(M)ember cooperatives, in addition to secondary containment for
these tanks, are required to install a containment system in loading and
unloading areas where there is no catchment basin, treatment facility,
or a quick drainage system to handle spills as per 112.7(e)(4)(ii).
This means a concrete spill pad for company-use tanks such as two-1000
gallon tanks must have the capacity to hold whatever the maximum
capacity of the largest tank truck compartment (typically 600 gallons).
Small tank sites are required to go through all the steps in developing
a SPCC plan as would a larger petroleum storage facility.  This simply
does not make sense and is highly resented by the smaller operators.
There needs to be a more simple, less expensive way of doing this for
the small operator.”  (71)

More information.  “Enforce the Rule you've got! I can't drive 40
miles without seeing tanks without secondary containment.  Require the
O/O submit a letter to the EPA stating that they have a SPCC Plan for
each facility over the threshold, and state who is the certifying
engineer.  That list can be checked against registrations of above
ground tanks now required by at least some of the states.  Also, it is
one thing to ignore the rule, another to falsify information.”  (40)

Oil, definition of.  We should publish a specific definition of oil to
reflect the method of calculating the storage capacity for tanks
containing oil/water mixtures for potential substantial harm facilities.
 Wants a revised definition in order to “...clarify what types of
substances actually qualify as oil under these rules.  The current
definition is broad and ambiguous.  Manufacturing facilities use many
kinds of solvents and machining fluids.  Many are derived from a
petroleum base.  Under the current definition, such solvents as napthas,
hexane, mineral spirits, toluene and xylene could be considered oil.
General Motors believes that this is not the intent of the SPCC rules,
and that solvents should not be included in the definition of oil.”
(51)

PE-related issues.

Mandatory requirements, PEs.  Concerned that elements of the previous
proposed rules for the SPCC Program, such as the 1991 proposed rules,
are “...not consistent with this tenor of conciliation and
flexibility. E.g., making the guidance in 40 CFR 112.7 mandatory and
requiring third party professional engineers for certification is
proceeding in a direction opposite to that which the subject proposed
rule goes and, we emphasize, opposite to that which we should be
going.”  (14)

PE notification. “Require that the certifying PE be notified when a
reportable spill occurs, when changes are made to the secondary
containment system, when a tank or loading/unloading point is added, or
when a tank is replaced with a larger tank.”  (40)

Secondary containment.  Surprised that the revised proposal did not
address 40 CFR 112.7(c), which requires secondary containment, including
the walls and floor, to be impervious to oil for 72 hours.  The
associated compliance costs for this proposed requirement well exceed
any possible benefit and it would be a detriment.  (32)

Accumulation of storm water.  “Specify what ‘an accumulation of
storm water means’.  The 1991 proposed rule noted the 25-year return,
24-hour duration storm.  This is on the order of 6 to 8 inches of rain
at many facilities in the midwest and southeast.  Many facilities only
have a 12 inch curb and cannot contain more than a 2 or 3 inch rainfall
without their secondary containment being insufficient for the largest
tank.”  (40)

Available secondary containment.  “Specify who is to calculate the
available containment, the plant operator or the certifying engineer.
Plant operators often do not deduct for the footprint of other tanks
within the containment, or do not allow for precipitation off of roofs
or drainage onto the site.  One client installed a new culvert under
railroad tracks to triple the containment capacity.  The problem was
that the product was asphaltic cement that would have to flow through
any standing water in the pipes and equalize out before over-topping the
first containment area.  Also, the final free-board was only 1 inch.”
(40)

Double-walled tanks. “ We have recently upgraded the storage tanks at
this facility.  Each of the four (4) buried tanks has been removed.
Each system was more than 20 years old and represented a potential
source of contamination to the groundwater.  Four new above-ground
double walled storage vaults have been installed with all the extra
bells and whistles: leak detection systems, high and low level alarms,
and overspill protection.  The present situation is much more
environmentally friendly.  The potential for a spill is less today than
ever before.  HOWEVER, according to the proposed rule, the U.S. Army
will now be required to have a "PE certified” spill plan on hand.”
(L3)

Impermeability.  “EPA should confirm that the term "impervious" to oil
for 72 hours means that the containment system ensures that oil is not
discharged to navigable waters within 72 hours, a determination to be
based on good engineering practice.”   (70)

Impracticability.  “The EPA should modify the proposal to eliminate
elements that are impracticable (i.e., secondary containment for
electrical equipment) or that impose undue costs compared with the
avoided risk (i.e., certification by an independent, rather than
in-house engineer; preparation of an OPA response plan where secondary
containment is impractical).”  (70)

Manmade structures.  “The EPA should modify the risk criteria to
ensure that only facilities that pose a real risk of harm to navigable
waters are covered by the program (i.e., the fact that oil may create a
sheen on the water is not the type of "harm" envisioned by the statute
and regulatory costs should not be imposed to avoid minimal or
theoretical risks; manmade structures that serve operational purposes
should be considered in evaluating the risk posed by a facility).”
(70)

Secondary containment, changes in.  “Require that the plant operator
sign-off on a memo to the file whenever the capacity of the secondary
containment system is decreased either temporarily or permanently.  The
memo should list contingency plans, temporary containment measures or
mitigating measures (e.g., reduce tank volumes). This happens quite
often when some construction is going on inside the containment -
sometimes even to the point that no significant secondary containment
capacity remains in place.”  (40)

Sufficient freeboard.  “Specify a required freeboard.  Many people
check the capacity but fail to recognize that if the final freeboard is
only 1 or 2 inches then oil may be released.”  (40)

“Should to Shall to Must “Clarification.  “Ford believes that
absent ‘shall’, all ‘should’ language represents agency
preference and possibly, good practice.  There may be other ways to
accomplish the same thing.  Thus, only ‘shalls’ indicate regulatory
requirements and inflexibility.”  (44)  “Although there is some
merit to the agency's legal interpretation of this matter (in
interpreting should to mean shall because of the mandatory language of
112.3) we believe that changing this language to reflect all shalls
throughout the rule is unnecessary.  PNM believes that such a change
would eliminate the needed flexibility that implementation of this rule
demands due to the differences in facility age and design.”  (79)

Tank manufacturer liability.  “... (T)he tank manufacturer remains the
most knowledgeable entity in how his/her tank design complies with all
pertinent UST or AST requirements.  Therefore, failure to inform a
prospective client could naturally result in a subrogated liability
against the tank manufacturer.  Such a movement is already taking place
as demonstrated in the December 7-11, 1997 Uniform Fire Code Hearings in
Tucson, Arizona.”  (73)

Warning lights, etc.  We should reconsider 40 CFR 112.7(h)(2).  (7)

Response:  Applicability.  The issue of whether a facility can due to
its location reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful
quantities into navigable waters or adjoining shore lines is in the
first instance a judgment requiring application of good engineering
practice.  See §112.1(b).  If the RA disagrees with the facility’s
determination, he may require the preparation of either a total or
partial plan.  See §112.1(f).

Applicable items.  For a discussion on applicable items in an SPCC Plan,
see §112.7(a)(2) in the preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991
Comment Response Document.  See also the discussion on good engineering
practice under §112.3(d).

Burden reduction.  We disagree that the rule does not do anything to
reduce the record keeping or the information collection burden.  Burden
is reduced by approximately 40% over the current rule.   We believe that
performance standards, rather than design standards, are preferable,
because they give a facility flexibility to accomplish prevention
requirements in the most efficient way.

Certification by other environmental professionals.   See the discussion
under §112.3(d) in the preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991
Comment Response Document.

Completely buried tanks.  For a discussion on the applicability of the
SPCC rule to completely buried tanks, see the discussion under
§112.1(d)(2)(i) in today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response
Document.

“Delegated” States.  We note that we do not delegate our authority
under the SPCC program to States.  For a discussion of State prevention
rules, see §112.7(j) of today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment
Response Document.

FRP applicability.  The issue concerning §112.20(e) is covered in the
Comment Response Document for the 1993 final rule.

Inspection periods.  For a discussion of the merits of prescribed
inspection frequencies or the use of industry standards, see section
IV.J of the preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment
Response Document.

Integrity testing.  We address integrity testing in the preamble to
today’s final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document.  See
§§112.7(d) and 112.8(c)(6).

Loading areas.   For a discussion on loading areas, see §112.7(h) in
today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.  See also
40 CFR part 112, Appendix A, section II.(I).

More information.   We disagree that we should require the owner or
operator to submit a letter to the EPA stating that he has an SPCC Plan
for each facility over the threshold, and stating who is the certifying
engineer.  This information may be ascertained by on-site inspection.

Oil, definition of.  Should you have any question about a specific
substance, you should contact the appropriate Regional SPCC program.
See also the discussion concerning the definition under §112.2 in the
preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

PE-related issues.  See the discussion under section IV.D and §112.3(d)
of today’s preamble and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Mandatory requirements, PEs.  We disagree that we are “going in the
wrong direction” by clarifying that the rules are mandatory.  We note
that we are not requiring a third party PE for certification.  See the
discussion under section IV.D and §112.3(d) of today’s preamble and
the 1991 Comment Response Document.

PE notification.  We address PE-related issues in the preamble to
today’s final rule under section IV.D and §112.3(d) and in the 1991
Comment Response Document.

Secondary containment.  We address secondary containment issues in the
preamble to today’s final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response
Document.  See §§112.7(c), 112.7(h)(1), 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11),
112.9(c)(2), and 112.10(c).

Accumulation of storm water.  Concerning "sufficient freeboard” see
the discussion under §112.8(c)(2) in today’s final rule and the 1991
Comment Response Document.

Available secondary containment.   We address secondary containment
issues in the preamble to today’s final rule and in the 1991 Comment
Response Document.  See §§112.7(c), 112.7(h)(1), 112.8(c)(2),
112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), and 112.10(c).  See also the discussion
concerning the definition of “storage capacity” at §112.2 in the
preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response Document.

Impermeability.  See the discussion under §§112.7(c) and 112.8(c)(2)
in the preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response
Document.

Manmade structures.  See also the discussion under §112.1(d)(1)(i) in
the preamble to today’s final rule and the 1991 Comment Response
Document.

Sufficient freeboard.  Concerning "sufficient freeboard” see the
discussion under §112.8(c)(2) in today’s final rule and the 1991
Comment Response Document.

“Should to Shall to Must “Clarification.  For a discussion of the
“s潨汵潴猠慨汬琠畭瑳ₔ摥瑩牯慩汣牡晩捩瑡
潩Ɱ猠敥猠捥楴湯䤠⹖⁃景琠敨瀠敲浡汢潴琠摯祡玒
映湩污爠汵湡桴㤱ㄹ䌠浯敭瑮删獥潰獮潄畣敭
瑮മ名湡慭畮慦瑣牵牥氠慩楢楬祴吠湡慭畮慦瑣
牵牥氠慩楢楬祴椠⁳湡椠獳敵映牯琠敨挠畯瑲ⱳ渠瑯琠
楨⁳畲敬慭楫杮മ

1$

T

U

¢

£

J

㄀Ĥᘀ

@

Warning lights, etc.  We address warning lights in the preamble to
today’s final rule and in the 1991 Comment Response Document.  See
§112.7(h)(2).

 PAGE  1