[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46695-46696]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-57-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline
Amendment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Amendment Project (Amendment Project),
proposed by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley) in the
above-referenced docket. Mountain Valley requests authorization to
change the crossing method of specific waterbodies and wetlands from
open-cut dry crossings (as authorized by its October 13, 2017
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity [Certificate]) to
trenchless methods (conventional bore, guided conventional bore, or
Direct Pipe[supreg] \1\). In addition, Mountain Valley requests
authorization for two minor route adjustments to avoid wetlands and
waterbodies and authorization to conduct nighttime construction at
eight trenchless crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Direct Pipe[supreg] is a construction method developed by
Herrenknecht AG that combines microtunneling and horizontal
direction drill (HDD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Amendment Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is a federal cooperating
agency who assisted us in preparing this EA because they have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to impacts to
waters of the U.S. The COE may adopt the EA per 40 CFR 1501.8 if, after
an independent review of the document, it concludes that their
requirements and/or regulatory responsibilities have been satisfied.
However, the COE would present its own conclusions and recommendations
in its respective and applicable records of decision or determinations.
Otherwise, it may elect to conduct its own supplemental environmental
analyses.
    The proposed Amendment Project includes the following:
     120 trenchless crossings (117 conventional bores, 2 guided
conventional bores, and 1 Direct Pipe[supreg]) of 47 wetlands and 136
streams in Wetzel, Lewis, Webster, Nicholas, Greenbrier, Summers, and
Monroe counties, West Virginia and Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke,
Franklin, and Pittsylvania, counties, Virginia;
     avoidance of one wetland via a shift in the permanent
operational right-of-way at MP 0.70;
     avoidance of one waterbody due to a route adjustment at MP
230.8; and
     24-hour construction activities at the previously
authorized Gauley River and Roanoke River, two guided conventional bore
crossings, the Direct Pipe[supreg] crossing, and three conventional
bore locations.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the natural
gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the EA
may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click
on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search),
select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number in the ``Docket
Number'' field, (i.e., CP21-57). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it
is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2021.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-
57-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you

do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the
Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe
for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking
to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and
show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to
intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: August 13, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17782 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 64696-64697]
[DOCID:fr16no07-165]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on August 15, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 157, Page
45864. FAR Part 43 prescribes the rules governing maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration of aircraft and aircraft components, and is
necessary to ensure this work is performed by qualified persons, and at
proper intervals.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and
Alteration.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0020.
    Forms(s) FAA Form 337.
    Affected Public: An estimated 87,769 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 1.6 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 138,083 hours annually.
    Abstract: FAR Part 43 prescribes the rules governing maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration of aircraft and aircraft components, and is
necessary to ensure this work is performed by qualified persons, and at
proper intervals. This work is done by certified mechanics, repair
stations, and air carriers authorized to perform maintenance.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2007.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 07-5688 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


regulated under the SPCC rule; therefore, a specific exemption for
produced water containers that holds no oil is unnecessary. However, EPA
notes that generally, produced water containers may contain oil in
sufficient quantity to cause a harmful discharge. In fact, the Agency
received relatively little specific information on whether there are
unique characteristics to differentiate produced water containers from
other bulk storage containers found at onshore oil production
facilities, and none that warrant differentiated treatment.

Produced water containers typically contain oil. Several comments
expressed support for an exemption of produced water containers from
SPCC regulation. These comments stated that produced water containers
should not be subject to the rule. Most of the comments received,
however, focused on the composition of the produced water mixture and
noted that produced water generally contains varying quantities of oil.
While none of the comments offered detailed information on the amount of
free-phase oil measured in produced water containers as requested by
EPA, they generally confirm that the presence of oil in produced water
is not exceptional, but rather is expected as a matter of regular
operations. Oil may be recovered even after the produced water has
undergone several separations at the onshore production facility, prior
to reinjection of the produced water into the geological formation.
Comments point out that produced water containers have an oil layer
floating on top of the water. One comment indicated that produced water
contains about 0.1 percent oil, but did not indicate whether this
fraction represents oil dissolved or suspended in the produced water
mixture and whether produced water containers may accumulate additional
oil as a free-phase layer. Information received by the Agency from other
sources, which are summarized in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584-0173),
indicates that while the fraction of oil dissolved or suspended within
the aqueous phase may be low, additional oil is often found as a
free-phase layer floating at the surface of the produced water
container. In the event of a discharge, the aqueous phase of the
produced water mixture may serve to carry the oil farther overland and
into waters than cases where crude oil alone is discharged.

The Agency received no data on the efficiency of separators typically
found at onshore oil production facilities or comments on how the
separation efficiency may vary over time. The Agency agrees that
residence time is a key factor in achieving separation of the crude oil
from other well fluids. Many oil production facilities rely on
gravitational separation and long retention times to separate and
recover the crude oil. Based on information reviewed by the Agency,
included in the docket to the rule, separation equipment found at
onshore oil production facilities are not perfectly efficient at
separating oil from the produced fluids and residual oil may remain with
the produced water and further separate in quiescent conditions present
in the produced water container. Furthermore, separation equipment
likely becomes less efficient with age and use, thus allowing more oil
into a produced water container. It is therefore not exceptional for a
layer of oil to accumulate in a produced water container.

In some cases, produced water containers are used as part of the
separation process. In the preamble to the December 2008 amendmnets, EPA
suggested that produced water containers are similar to flow
through-process equipment when they are used as separators (71 FR 74288,
December 5, 2008). However, one comment pointed out that produced water
containers are typically atmospheric storage tanks, whereas, process
vessels have a pressure rating above atmospheric. EPA agrees with the
comment and acknowledges that produced water containers are typically
used as storage containers at the end of the separation process. The
produced water containers are bulk storage containers and, therefore,
should be subject to the same requirements as other bulk storage
containers.

Produced water containers are a source of oil discharges. EPA agrees
with comments arguing that spill data shows that produced water
containers are a source of oil discharges from onshore oil production
facilities. The Agency’s analysis of spill notification data compiled
by the National Response Center (NRC) for the period of 2000 through
2005, for example, identified 314 oil discharges described as having
originated from tanks, including over a quarter specifically described
as involving produced water containers, compared to 20 percent from
crude oil stock tanks (the remaining 55 percent involved tanks holding
unspecified fluids). The Agency believes that additional discharges may
have been reported to State and local authorities.

Produced water containers may be equally or even more likely to fail
than other containers in the tank battery. Information reviewed by the
Agency and presented in the public docket (EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584-0173)
showed corrosion as a common cause of oil and produced water discharges
at onshore oil production facilities. The higher salt content of
produced water fluids as compared to crude oil may lead to the increased
corrosion rate of metallic components of the produced water storage
system. The oil production process is configured to send continuously
flowing and treated well fluids to the storage containers, with the
produced water containers often located at the end of that process. The
Agency’s review of the circumstances of past oil discharges reported
to the NRC shows that produced water containers often receive the
additional well fluids when treatment equipment or appurtenances fail or
when a pumper’s scheduled visit is delayed, thereby increasing the
amount of oil entering the produced water container and the probability
that the tank will overflow, or otherwise discharge oil to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines.

Discharges of produced water can cause harm. Produced water can cause
harm to surface waters, flora, fauna, and other sensitive resources and
ecosystems. As described in the Supplemental DOE Information Relating to
Oil and Gas Industry Relief from SPCC Requirements
(EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-1486-0175), the impacts of produced water discharges
are similar to the impacts observed following other oil discharges.
Additionally, the co-location of oil production facilities with other
land users, including farmers and ranchers, raises additional concern
over potential contamination of water resources that are essential to
agricultural production. One comment expressed concern that produced
water could contaminate surface waterways, groundwater and drinking
water; kill fish, birds, and wildlife; and cause severe health effects
in humans and impact wildlife habitats.  The comment also noted that it
takes only a small amount of oil to affect a large area of water. EPA
agrees with this comment. Under 40 CFR part 110, a discharge of oil in
such quantities as “may be harmful” is defined as one that may
violate applicable water quality standards; or cause a film or sheen
upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining
shorelines; or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the
surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. In the Federal
Register notice published when EPA provided revisions to 40 CFR part
110, EPA stated that “[e]vidence from reviews of laboratory studies
further demonstrates that very small amounts of oil, e.g., less than 1
mg/L (1 ppm) can have lethal and sublethal effects on a wide variety of
organisms.”  (52 FR 10717, April 2, 1987).  Therefore, even if a
produced water container has a very small amount of oil, the container
still holds the potential to cause harm.

Sized secondary containment is appropriate. Sized secondary containment
is an effective means of preventing oil discharges from produced water
containers and the resulting environmental harm. This is demonstrated in
spills reported to the federal and state authorities where the spill did
not reach navigable waters or adjoining shorelines specifically because
it was contained in a berm or firewall. A comment noted that it is
common practice to locate produced water bulk storage containers with
other bulk storage containers in the tank battery surrounded by sized
secondary containment. Engineered secondary containment measures, such
as dikes or berms are particularly appropriate for oil production
facilities since these facilities can be remotely located and are often
unattended, thus there may be delays in detecting and mitigating an oil
spill.

Some oil production facilities already provide sized secondary
containment around their bulk storage containers, including around their
produced water containers. In fact, the data referenced in comments show
a number of spills from produced water containers were specifically
contained by a sized secondary containment berm or other man-made
structure which prevented the migration of the fluids offsite and to
waters. Discharge incidents are often unpredictable and may be caused by
unexpected and/or uncontrolled events that would not be considered when
designing secondary containment for the most likely discharge as
required by the general secondary containment provision (§112.7(c)). As
stated above, sized secondary containment is a particularly effective
means of preventing discharges to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines from these containers at onshore oil production facilities
because such facilities are often unattended and located in remote
locations.

EPA acknowledges comments who expressed general support for and
opposition to the approaches finalized in the December 2008 notice (73
FR 74236, December 5, 2008). Several comments opposed the approaches,
stating that the change implies the Agency has historically taken a
container by container based approach for applicability, which is not
the case. EPA requires that an operator determine if their facility
poses a threat of discharge, not a specific container. Upon
reconsideration of all relevant facts (as described above), EPA has
decided to remove the provisions related to produced water containers.

Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities

In Section V.M.9 of the December 2008 amendments (73 FR 74291, December
5, 2008), EPA provided preamble discussion regarding EPA and DOT
jurisdiction. In this notice, EPA is further clarifying the jurisdiction
between EPA and DOT to address confusion within the regulated community
and to note that future inter-Agency discussions in the appropriate
forum on this issue will continue. The Agency continues to base its
jurisdictional boundaries on Executive Order 12777 and the 1971
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOT and EPA (36 FR 24080,
November 24, 1971). Under Executive Order 12777, EPA has jurisdiction
over non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities and DOT
has jurisdiction over transportation-related onshore and offshore
facilities. Under the 1971 MOU (See Appendix A of part 112),
transportation-related activities regulated by DOT and
non-transportation-related activities regulated by EPA are defined.

	Equipment, operations, and facilities are subject to DOT jurisdiction
when they are engaged in activities subject to DOT jurisdiction. If
those same facilities are also engaged in activities subject to EPA
jurisdiction (such facilities are considered a “complex”), such
activities would subject the equipment, operation, or facility to EPA
jurisdiction, as well. “Complex” is defined at §112.2 as a
“facility possessing a combination of transportation-related and
non-transportation-related components that is subject to the
jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under section 311(j) of the
Clean Water Act.” This definition was promulgated in 1994 (59 FR
34070, July 1, 1994) when EPA first required certain facility owners and
operators to prepare FRPs to respond to a worst-case discharge of oil
and to a substantial threat of such a discharge.  During the development
of the FRP rule, EPA and other Federal agencies with jurisdiction under
OPA and E.O. 12777 (including DOT) met to create an implementation
strategy that minimized duplication, wherever practicable and recognized
State oil pollution prevention and response programs. One of the
critical outgrowths of these efforts was the development of a definition
for, and a consistent approach to regulate “complexes.” The
jurisdiction over a component of a complex is determined by the activity
involving that component. An activity at one time might subject a
facility to one agency’s jurisdiction, while a different activity at
the same facility using the same structure, container or equipment might
subject the facility to the jurisdiction of another agency.

Because jurisdiction is predicated upon the owner’s or operator’s
activities at the facility, an owner or operator might have questions
concerning jurisdiction at his facility. To clarify jurisdiction,
particularly regarding overlapping jurisdiction over breakout tanks, in
February 2000, EPA and DOT signed a joint memorandum regarding
“Jurisdiction over Breakout Tanks/Bulk Storage Tanks (Containers) at
Transportation-Related and Non-Transportation-Related Facilities”
(February 4, 2000). EPA will continue to work with DOT to minimize dual
regulation, where appropriate.

VI. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning and Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically
significant regulatory action”  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  because it is
likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB’s recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
rulemaking. In addition, EPA prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action
entitled, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the
Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations (40 CFR part 112)” (June 18,
2009). A copy of the RIA is available in the docket for this rulemaking
and is briefly summarized below.

EPA estimated the combined economic impact of the December 2008
amendments and the changes made to it in this action. The SPCC rule
requirements at 40 CFR part 112, as amended in July 2002 (67 FR 47042,
July 17, 2002) is the baseline to estimate the potential cost savings to
regulated facilities associated with these amendments.    SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 The RIA compares the compliance costs for owners and operators
facilities affected by the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the costs
associated with the 2002 SPCC rule revisions. EPA estimated cost savings
from the following rule elements: (1) exempt hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and
HMA containers; (2) exempt pesticide application equipment and related
mix containers when crop oil or adjuvant oil is added to pesticide
formulations; (3) clarify the applicability of mobile refueler
requirements to farm nurse tanks; (4) exempt residential heating oil
containers, including those located at farms; (5) amend the definition
of “facility” to clarify the currently existing flexibility
associated with describing a facility’s boundaries; (6) amend the
facility diagram requirement to provide additional clarity; (7) define
“loading/unloading rack”; (8) provide streamlined requirements for a
subset of qualified facilities; (9) amend the general secondary
containment requirement to provide more clarity; (10) extend the
regulatory relief provided to mobile refuelers in 2006 to
non-transportation-related tank trucks at facilities subject to the SPCC
rule; (11) amend the security requirements; (12) amend the integrity
testing requirements to allow a greater amount of flexibility in the use
of industry standards; (13) amend the integrity testing requirements for
containers that store AFVOs that meet certain criteria; (14) tailor a
number of requirements at oil production facilities; and (15) exempt
underground oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities.
EPA also provided clarification in the preamble to the December 2008
amendments on two additional issues identified by the regulated
community: (1) the consideration of man-made structures in determining
how to comply with the SPCC rule requirements and (2) the applicability
of the rule to wind turbines for electricity generation.

For each of these components, excluding those that only provide clarity,
EPA estimated potential cost savings to regulated facilities that may
result from reductions in compliance costs. The main steps used to
estimate the compliance cost impacts of the rule amendments are:

Develop the baseline universe of SPCC-regulated facilities;

Estimate the number of facilities affected by the rule amendments;

Estimate changes in unit compliance cost for each regulated facility
affected by the rule;

Estimate total compliance cost savings to owners and operators of
potentially affected facilities; and

Annualize compliance cost savings over a ten-year period, 2010 through
2019, and discount the estimates using three and seven percent discount
rates.

In its RIA, EPA uses four key assumptions:

1. 	Cost minimization behavior applies to all owners and operators of
facilities that qualify for the reduced regulatory requirements, whereby
all those affected would seek burden relief.

2. Consistent with EPA’s guidelines for conducting economic analyses,
all existing owners and operators of facilities are in full compliance
with the July 17, 2002 amendments to the SPCC rule (67 FR 47042).

3. Owners and operators of existing SPCC-regulated facilities would
forgo compliance activities offered as alternatives where there is only
a one-time initial investment because they would have already incurred
the one-time cost. For example, EPA assumes that an owner or operator of
an existing facility who qualifies for reduced security requirements
under the rule amendment that allows facility owners or operators to
tailor their security measures to the facility’s specific
characteristics and location, would have already provided the security
measures under the July 2002 rule amendments or demonstrated
environmental equivalence for tailored security measures. Therefore,
owners and operators of existing facilities would not take advantage of
the provided alternative.

4.	Compliance is nationally consistent, although EPA recognizes that
there is variability in state regulations and the distribution of
affected facilities.

Exhibit 1 presents the estimated cost savings for each rule provision
and for the rule amendments in total. For several rule amendments, such
as the security requirements and facilities handling AFVOs, EPA did not
have data on the number of affected facilities within a general industry
sector; thus, it developed three scenarios to evaluate a range of cost
savings. EPA estimates that the total cost savings for this action is
about $95 million on an annualized basis (2007$). The total cost savings
estimates range from a low of about $92 million to a high of about $100
million on an annualized basis (2007$).These estimates are not
necessarily additive, given that they do not account for interactions
that might exist among the various components of the rule.

The oil production sector and farms will benefit from multiple
components of the 2008 and 2009 amendments. Specifically, farms will
benefit from the exemption of pesticide application equipment, the
exemption of residential heating oil containers, the clarification to
the facility diagram requirements, the streamlined requirements for Tier
I qualified facilities, the final amendments to the security
requirements, and the amendments to integrity-testing requirements. The
total cost savings to farm owners and operators from these amendments
are estimated at $13 million on an annualized basis (2007$).

The oil production sector will also benefit from a number of the
revisions to the SPCC rules, including the clarification to the facility
diagram requirements, the streamlined requirements for Tier I qualified
facilities, the six-month delay in SPCC Plan preparation and
implementation, and the exemption of flow-through process vessels from
the sized secondary containment requirements. The total savings to
owners and operators of oil production facilities from all of the
amendments that affect this sector are estimated at $35 million on an
annualized basis (2007$).

Exhibit 1. Estimated Compliance Cost Savings for the Regulatory
Amendments

Rule Component/Scenario	Annualized Cost Savings ($2007, in Millions, 7%
Discount Rate)

Hot-Mix Asphalt

Exempt HMA containers	$8

Farms

Exempt pesticide application equipment and related mix containers 	$4

Applicability of Mobile Refueler Requirements to Farm Nurse Tanks

	Residential Heating Oil Containers

Exempt single-family residential heating oil containers	$2

Definition of Facility

Revise the definition of “facility”	No cost impact

Facility Diagram

Revise facility diagram requirement	$3

Loading/Unloading Racks

Define “loading/unloading rack”	No cost impact

Tier I Qualified Facilities

Provide streamlined requirements for Tier I qualified facilities	$24

General Secondary Containment

Revisions to the general secondary containment provision	No cost impact

General Secondary Containment for Non-Transportation-Related Tank Trucks

Extend regulatory relief for mobile refuelers to the
non-transportation-related tank trucks.	No cost impact

Security Requirements

Revise security requirements2	$9

Integrity Testing

Amend the integrity testing requirements to allow a greater amount of
flexibility in the use of industry standards at all facilities	$11

Animal Fats and Vegetable Oil

Amend integrity testing requirements for AFVO containers that meet
certain criteria 3	$2

Oil Production Facilities

Six-month delay for Plan preparation and implementation	$24

Exempt flowlines and gathering lines from secondary containment	No net
cost impact

Flow-through process vessels 	$7

Man-Made Structures

Consider manmade structures in determining SPCC rule applicability	No
cost impact

Nuclear Power Stations

Exempt underground oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation
facilities.	Less than $1

Wind turbines

Clarify applicability of the rule to wind turbines used to produce
electricity	No cost impact

Total	$95

1 Mid-point estimate (50% of farms affected). Cost savings might be
higher or lower using different assumptions.

3 Mid-point estimate (65% of facilities affected). Cost savings might be
lower using different assumptions.

EPA recognizes that the economic analysis is constrained by limited
availability of data and information. The SPCC regulation does not have
a notification requirement for regulated facilities and thus, EPA relies
on state information; Federal and proprietary databases; and information
from industry experts as a basis for the cost information included in
the analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements for this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them. The Information Collection Request
(ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 0328.15.

EPA does not collect the information required by the SPCC rule on a
routine basis. SPCC Plans ordinarily need not be submitted to EPA, but
must generally be maintained at the facility. Preparation,
implementation, and maintenance of an SPCC Plan by the facility owner or
operator helps prevent oil discharges to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines and mitigate the environmental damage caused by such
discharges. Therefore, the primary user of the data is facility
personnel. While EPA may, from time to time, request information under
these regulations, such requests are not routine.

Although facility personnel are the primary data user, EPA also uses the
data in certain situations. In particular, EPA reviews SPCC Plans: (1)
when it requests a facility owner or operator to submit required
information in the event of certain discharges of oil or to evaluate an
extension request; and (2) as part of EPA’s inspection program. State
and local governments also may use the data, which are not necessarily
available elsewhere and can greatly assist local emergency preparedness
efforts. Preparation of the information for affected facilities is
required under section 311(j)(1) of the CWA, as implemented by 40 CFR
part 112.

EPA estimates that in the absence of the December 2008 final rule and
the changes made in this action, approximately 623,000 existing
facilities would be subject to the SPCC rule in November 2010 and would
be expected to have SPCC Plans. In addition, EPA estimates that
approximately 17,400 new facilities would become subject to the SPCC
requirements during that year, resulting in a total of about 640,000
regulated facilities in 2010.

Under the December 2008 and 2009 amendments, EPA is: exempting the
storage capacity of containers solely containing HMA, residential
heating oil containers at single-family residences, pesticide
application equipment and related mix containers, and underground oil
storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities from the SPCC
requirements; amending the definition of “facility” to clarify that
contiguous or non-contiguous buildings, properties, parcels, leases,
structures, installations, pipes, or pipelines may be considered
separate facilities, and to specify that the “facility” definition,
rather than the “production facility” definition, governs the
applicability of 40 CFR part 112; amending the facility diagram
requirement to provide additional clarity for all facilities; providing
a definition for the term “loading/unloading rack,” which determines
whether a facility is subject to the provisions at §112.7(h); providing
an option that allows a subset of qualified facilities (Tier I) to
complete and implement an SPCC Plan template (Appendix G to 40 CFR part
112) in order to comply with the SPCC rule requirements; amending the
general secondary containment requirements to provide more clarity;
exempting non-transportation-related tank trucks from the sized
secondary containment requirements; modifying the security requirements
to allow an owner or operator to tailor its security measures to the
facility’s specific characteristics and location, which are the same
as those provided for qualified facilities, as promulgated in December
2006; replacing the current integrity testing requirements with the
requirements provided for qualified facilities, as promulgated in
December 2006; providing flexibility in the rule for determining the
scope of integrity testing that is appropriate for containers that store
AFVOs that are intended for human consumption and that meet other
criteria; and finally, streamlining the requirements for oil production
facilities by modifying the definition of production facility to be
consistent with the amendments to the definition of facility, extending
the timeframe by which a new oil production facility must prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan, providing an alternative option for flow-through
process vessels at oil production facilities to comply with the general
secondary containment requirements and additional oil spill prevention
measures in lieu of the sized secondary containment requirements,
establishing more specific requirements for the flowline/intra-facility
gathering line maintenance program, providing an alternative compliance
option for contingency planning in lieu of secondary containment for
flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines at oil production
facilities, providing an exemption for certain intra-facility gathering
lines that are regulated by DOT, and clarifying the definition of
“permanently closed” as it applies to an oil production facility.

Under the 2008 and 2009 final amendments, an estimated 640,000 regulated
facilities are subject to the SPCC information collection requirements
of this rule in 2010. The Agency estimates that as a result of these
amendments to tailor, clarify, and streamline certain SPCC requirements,
the reporting and recordkeeping burden would decrease by approximately
1.3 million hours. The rule amendments would reduce capital and
operation and management costs by approximately $7.5 million on an
annualized basis. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the
approved information collection requirements contained in this final
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined
in the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201— the SBA defines small businesses by category of business
using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and
in the case of farms and oil production facilities, which constitute a
large percentage of the facilities affected by this rule, generally
defines small businesses as having less than $0.5 million to $27.5
million per year in sales receipts, depending on the industry, or 500 or
fewer employees, respectively; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

	After considering the economic impacts of the December 2008 amendments
and the changes made in this action on small entities, the Agency
certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule
has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
“which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities” (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities
subject to the rule.

	Under the 2008 and 2009 amendments, the following issues are addressed:
exempt HMA and HMA containers, pesticide application equipment and
related mix containers, residential heating oil containers at
single-family residences, and underground oil storage tanks at nuclear
power generation facilities from the SPCC requirements; amend the
definition of “facility” to clarify the flexibility associated with
the existing definition in describing a facility’s boundaries; clarify
how containers, fixed and mobile, are identified on the facility
diagram; define “loading/unloading rack” to clarify whether a
facility is subject to the SPCC rule requirements of §112.7(h);
streamline the requirements for a subset of qualified facilities (Tier I
qualified facilities); amend the general secondary containment
requirements to provide more clarity; exempt non-transportation-related
tank trucks from the sized secondary containment requirements; amend the
facility security requirements to allow an owner or operator to tailor
security measures to a facility’s specific characteristics and
location, which are the same as those provided for qualified facilities,
as promulgated in December 2006; replace the current integrity testing
requirements with the regulatory requirements for a qualified facility
promulgated in December 2006; provide flexibility in the rule to
determine the scope of integrity testing that is appropriate for
containers that store AFVOs that are intended for human consumption and
that meet other criteria; and initiate a number of amendments to tailor
the requirements for oil production facilities to address concerns
raised by the oil production sector, respectively.

Overall, EPA estimates that the December 2008 amendments and the
revisions made in this action will reduce annual compliance costs by
approximately $95 million on an annualized basis (2007$) for owners and
operators of affected facilities. Total costs were annualized over a
10-year period using a seven percent discount rate. EPA derived these
savings by estimating the number of facilities affected by each 2008 and
2009 amendment; identifying the specific behavioral changes that may
occur (for example, choosing to prepare an SPCC Plan template instead of
a full SPCC Plan); estimating the unit costs of compliance under the
baseline and amended scenarios; and applying the change in unit costs to
the projected number of affected facilities.

	EPA has therefore concluded that this rule will relieve regulatory
burden for small entities and therefore, certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.

	Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.

	EPA has determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year. The December 2008 final rule and the changes made in
this action would reduce compliance costs on owners and operators of
affected facilities by approximately $95 million on an annualized basis
(2007$), although EPA acknowledges this total estimate is derived from
analyses of individual major components of the rule that are not
necessarily additive, given that they do not account for interactions
that may exist among the various components. Thus, this rule amendment
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

	EPA has determined that this rule amendment contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As explained above, the effect of the rule amendment will
be to reduce burden for facility owners and operators, including certain
small governments that are subject to the rule.

Executive Order – 13132 Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
“Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”

	The December 2008 amendments and the changes made in this action do not
have federalism implications. It would 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Under CWA section 311(o), states may impose
additional requirements, including more stringent requirements, relating
to the prevention of oil discharges to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. EPA recognizes that some states have more stringent
requirements (56 FR 54612, October 22, 1991). This rule amendment will
not preempt state law or regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.” This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule amendment
will not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian trial
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045 – Protection of Children from Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045,“Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant”
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

Although the combined impact of the December 2008 final rule and of the
changes made in this action is economically significant, it is not
subject to the Executive Order because the Agency does not have reason
to believe the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this
action presents a disproportionate risk to children.

Executive Order 13211 – Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The
overall effect of the action is to decrease the regulatory burden on
facility owners or operators subject to its provisions.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards, such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

	The owner or operator of a facility subject to the SPCC rule has the
flexibility to consider applicable industry standards in the development
of an SPCC Plan, in accordance with good engineering practice. However,
this rulemaking does not involve technical standards, as it does not set
or incorporate by reference any one specific technical standard.
Therefore, the NTTAA does not apply.

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

	Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this action
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The overall effect of the action is to decrease the
regulatory burden on facility owners or operators subject to its
provisions, while increasing the level of compliance with the SPCC
program requirements, which should provide greater environmental
protection.

Congressional Review Act

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) because it will likely
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This
rule will be effective on January 14, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

	Environmental protection, Animal fats and vegetable oils, Hot-mix
Asphalt, Farms, Flammable and combustible materials, Integrity testing,
Loading racks, Materials handling and storage, Natural gas, Oil
pollution, Oil and gas exploration and production, Oil spill response,
Oil spill prevention, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Secondary containment, Security, Tanks, Unloading racks,
Water pollution control, Water resources.

	Dated:	____________________________

		____________________________

		Lisa P. Jackson,

		Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 112 – OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; and E.O. 12777
(October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

Subpart A - [Amended]

Amend §112.1 as follows:

By revising paragraph (d)(2)(i);

By removing paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F);

By revising paragraph (d)(4); and

By removing paragraph (d)(12)

§112.1 General applicability.

*     *     *     *     *

	(d)  *   *   *

	(2)(i) The completely buried storage capacity of the facility is 42,000
U.S. gallons or less of oil. For purposes of this exemption, the
completely buried storage capacity of a facility excludes the capacity
of a completely buried tank, as defined in § 112.2, and connected
underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment
systems, that is currently subject to all of the technical requirements
of part 280 of this chapter or all of the technical requirements of a
State program approved under part 281 of this chapter, or the capacity
of any underground oil storage tanks deferred under 40 CFR part 280 that
supply emergency diesel generators at a nuclear power generation
facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and subject to
any Nuclear Regulatory Commission provision regarding design and quality
criteria, including but not limited to 10 CFR part 50. The completely
buried storage capacity of a facility also excludes the capacity of a
container that is ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in §112.2
and the capacity of intra-facility gathering lines subject to the
regulatory requirements of 49 CFR part 192 or 195.

*     *     *     *     *

	(4) Any completely buried storage tank, as defined in §112.2, and
connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and
containment systems, at any facility, that is subject to all of the
technical requirements of part 280 of this chapter or a State program
approved under part 281 of this chapter, or any underground oil storage
tanks including below-grade vaulted tanks, deferred under 40 CFR part
280, as originally promulgated, that supply emergency diesel generators
at a nuclear power generation facility licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, provided that such a tank is subject to any
Nuclear Regulatory Commission provision regarding design and quality
criteria, including but not limited to 10 CFR part 50.  Such emergency
generator tanks must be marked on the facility diagram as provided in
§112.7(a)(3), if the facility is otherwise subject to this part.

*     *     *     *     *

	3. Amend §112.2 by removing the definition for “Produced water
container”

Amend §112.3 as follows:

By designating paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a), and removing paragraph
(a)(2);

By revising the newly designated paragraph (a);

By removing paragraph (b)(2), and designating paragraph (b)(3) as
(b)(2);

By revising paragraph (b)(1) and the newly designated paragraph (b)(2);

By removing paragraphs (d)(1)(vi) and (d)(1)(vii);

By removing paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii); and

By revising paragraph (g)(2).

§112.3 Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

    *       *       *       *      *

	(a) If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or before
August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but must amend it, if
necessary to ensure compliance with this part, and implement the Plan no
later than November 10, 2010. If your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through November 10, 2010,
and could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in
§112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan on or before November
10, 2010.

	(b)(1) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility (excluding oil production facilities) that becomes operational
after November 10, 2010, and could reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in §112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a
Plan before you begin operations.

	(2) If you are the owner or operator of an oil production facility that
becomes operational after November 10, 2010, and could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge as described in §112.1(b), you must
prepare and implement a Plan within six months after you begin
operations.

   *     *     *     *    *

	(g) *     *     *     *    *

	(2) A Tier II qualified facility is one that has had no single
discharge as described in §112.1(b) exceeding 1,000 U.S. gallons or no
two discharges as described in §112.1(b) each exceeding 42 U.S. gallons
within any twelve month period in the three years prior to the SPCC Plan
self-certification date, or since becoming subject to this part if the
facility has been in operation for less than three years (other than
discharges as described in §112.1(b) that are the result of natural
disasters, acts of war, or terrorism), and has an aggregate aboveground
oil storage capacity of 10,000 U.S. gallons or less.

Amend §112.5 as follows:

By removing paragraphs (b) and (c) and designating paragraph (d) as
paragraph (b)

By  revising the newly designated paragraph (b); and

By designating paragraph (e) as paragraph (c).

§112.5  Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
by owners or operators

*      *     *     *     *

(b) Notwithstanding compliance with paragraph (a) of this section,
complete a review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan at least once every
five years from the date your facility becomes subject to this part; or,
if your facility was in operation on or before August 16, 2002, five
years from the date your last review was required under this part. As a
result of this review and evaluation, you must amend your SPCC Plan
within six months of the review to include more effective prevention and
control technology if the technology has been field-proven at the time
of the review and will significantly reduce the likelihood of a
discharge as described in §112.1(b) from the facility. You must
implement any amendment as soon as possible, but not later than six
months following preparation of any amendment. You must document your
completion of the review and evaluation, and must sign a statement as to
whether you will amend the Plan, either at the beginning or end of the
Plan or in a log or an appendix to the Plan. The following words will
suffice, “I have completed review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan for
(name of facility) on (date), and will (will not) amend the Plan as a
result.’’

*      *     *     *     *

Revise §112.6 as follows:

a.	By revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii);

b.	By revising paragraph (b)(1)(vii)

c.	By removing paragraph (b)(3)(iii)

d.	By removing paragraph (b)(4)(ii);

e.	By designating paragraph (b)(4)(iii) as (b)(4)(ii); and

f. 	By revising the newly designated (b)(4)(ii).

§112.6 Qualified Facilities Plan Requirements.

*      *     *     *     *

	(a) *      *     *     *     *

	(1) *      *     *     *     *

	(vii) The Plan does not deviate from any requirement of this part as
allowed by §112.7(a)(2) and 112.7(d); and

*      *     *     *     *

	(b) *      *     *     *     *

	(1) *      *     *     *     *

	(vii) The Plan does not deviate from any requirement of this part as
allowed by §112.7(a)(2) and 112.7(d); and

*      *     *     *     *

	(4) *     *     *

	(ii) The review and certification by the Professional Engineer under
this paragraph is limited to the alternative method which achieves
equivalent environmental protection pursuant to §112.7(a)(2); or to the
impracticability determination and measures in lieu of secondary
containment pursuant to §112.7(d).

Amend §112.7 as follows:

By revising paragraph (a)(3) introductory text; and

By revising paragraph (h) introductory text.

§112.7 General requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plans.

*     *     *     *     *

(a) *   *   *

(3) Describe in your Plan the physical layout of the facility and
include a facility diagram, which must mark the location and contents of
each fixed oil storage container and the storage area where mobile or
portable containers are located. The facility diagram must identify the
location of and mark as “exempt” underground tanks that are
otherwise exempted from the requirements of this part under
§112.1(d)(4). The facility diagram must also include all transfer
stations and connecting pipes, including intra-facility gathering lines
that are otherwise exempted from the requirements of this part under
§112.1(d)(11). You must also address in your Plan:

*     *     *     *     *

 (h) Facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading rack (excluding
offshore facilities).

*     *     *     *     *

Subpart B - [Amended]

Amend §112.9 as follows:

By revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3); and

By removing paragraph (c)(6).

§112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Requirements
for onshore oil production facilities (excluding drilling and workover
facilities).

*    *    *    *    *

(c) *     *     *

	(2) Except as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section for
flow-through process vessels, construct all tank battery, separation,
and treating facility installations, so that you provide a secondary
means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest single
container and sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation. You must
safely confine drainage from undiked areas in a catchment basin or
holding pond.

	(3) Except as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section for
flow-through process vessels, periodically and upon a regular schedule
visually inspect each container of oil for deterioration and maintenance
needs, including the foundation and support of each container that is on
or above the surface of the ground.

	*     *     *     *     *

	9. Revise Appendix G to read as follows:

Tier I Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

This template constitutes the SPCC Plan for the facility, when completed
and signed by the owner or operator of a facility that meets the
applicability criteria in §112.3(g)(1). This template addresses the
requirements of 40 CFR part 112. Maintain a complete copy of the Plan at
the facility if the facility is normally attended at least four hours
per day, or for a facility attended fewer than four hours per day, at
the nearest field office.  When making operational changes at a facility
that are necessary to comply with the rule requirements, the
owner/operator should follow state and local requirements (such as for
permitting, design and construction) and obtain professional assistance,
as appropriate.

Facility Description

Facility Name

	Facility Address

	City

State

ZIP

	County

Tel. Number	(    )   -

	Owner or operator Name

	Owner or operator Address

	City

State

ZIP

	County

Tel. Number	(    )   -

I. Self-Certification Statement (§112.6(a)(1))

The owner or operator of a facility certifies that each of the following
is true in order to utilize this template to comply with the SPCC
requirements:

I __________________________________, certify that the following is
accurate:

I am familiar with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 112;

I have visited and examined the facility;

This Plan was prepared in accordance with accepted and sound industry
practices and standards;

Procedures for required inspections and testing have been established in
accordance with industry inspection and testing standards or recommended
practices;

I will fully implement the Plan;

This facility meets the following qualification criteria (under
§112.3(g)(1)):

The aggregate aboveground oil storage capacity of the facility is 10,000
U.S. gallons or less; and

The facility has had no single discharge as described in §112.1(b)
exceeding 1,000 U.S. gallons and no two discharges as described in
§112.1(b) each exceeding 42 U.S. gallons within any twelve month period
in the three years prior to the SPCC Plan self-certification date, or
since becoming subject to 40 CFR part 112 if the facility has been in
operation for less than three years (not including oil discharges as
described in §112.1(b) that are the result of natural disasters, acts
of war, or terrorism); and

There is no individual oil storage container at the facility with an
aboveground capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons.

This Plan does not deviate from any requirement of 40 CFR part 112 as
allowed by §112.7(a)(2) (environmental equivalence) and §112.7(d)
(impracticability of secondary containment)

This Plan and individual(s) responsible for implementing this Plan have
the full approval of management and I have committed the necessary
resources to fully implement this Plan.

I also understand my other obligations relating to the storage of oil at
this facility, including, among others:

To report any oil discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
to the appropriate authorities. Notification information is included in
this Plan.

To review and amend this Plan whenever there is a material change at the
facility that affects the potential for an oil discharge, and at least
once every five years. Reviews and amendments are recorded in an
attached log [See Five Year Review Log and Technical Amendment Log in
Attachments 1.1 and 1.2.]

Optional use of a contingency plan. A contingency plan:

May be used in lieu of secondary containment for qualified oil-filled
operational equipment, in accordance with the requirements under
§112.7(k), and;

Must be prepared for flowlines and/or intra-facility gathering lines
which do not have secondary containment at an oil production facility,
and;

Must include an established and documented inspection or monitoring
program; must follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 109; and must include
a written commitment of manpower, equipment and materials to
expeditiously remove any quantity of oil discharged that may be harmful.
 If applicable, a copy of the contingency plan and any additional
documentation will be attached to this Plan as Attachment 2

I certify that I have satisfied the requirement to prepare and implement
a Plan under §112.3 and all of the requirements under §112.6(a). I
certify that the information contained in this Plan is true.

Signature

	Title:

	Name

	Date:	____/_____/20___

II. Record of Plan Review and Amendments

Five Year Review (§112.5(b)):

Complete a review and evaluation of this SPCC Plan at least once every
five years. As a result of the review, amend this Plan within six months
to include more effective prevention and control measures for the
facility, if applicable. Implement any SPCC Plan amendment as soon as
possible, but no later than six months following Plan amendment.
Document completion of the review and evaluation, and complete the Five
Year Review Log in Attachment 1.1. If the facility no longer meets Tier
I qualified facility eligibility, the owner or operator must revise the
Plan to meet Tier II qualified facility requirements, or complete a full
PE certified Plan.

Table G-1 Technical Amendments (§§112.5(a), (c) and 112.6(a)(2))

This SPCC Plan will be amended when there is a change in the facility
design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects
the potential for a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. Examples include adding or removing containers,
reconstruction, replacement, or installation of piping systems, changes
to secondary containment systems, changes in product stored at this
facility, or revisions to standard operating procedures.	□

Any technical amendments to this Plan will be re-certified in accordance
with Section I of this Plan template. [§112.6(a)(2)] [See Technical
Amendment Log in Attachment 1.2]	□

III. Plan Requirements

Oil Storage Containers (§112.7(a)(3)(i)):

□

Oil Storage Container (indicate whether aboveground (A) or completely
buried (B))	Type of Oil	Shell Capacity (gallons)

	Total Aboveground Storage Capacitya	_____________ gallons

	Total Completely Buried Storage Capacity	_____________ gallons

	Facility Total Oil Storage Capacity	_____________ gallons

aCounts toward qualified facility applicability threshold

Secondary Containment and Oil Spill Control 	(§§112.6(a)(3)(i) and
(ii), 112.7(c) and 112.9(c)(2)):

□

a Use one of the following methods of secondary containment or its
equivalent: (1) Dikes, berms, or retaining walls sufficiently impervious
to contain oil; (2) Curbing; (3) Culverting, gutters, or other drainage
systems; (4) Weirs, booms, or other barriers; (5) Spill diversion ponds;
(6) Retention ponds; or (7) Sorbent materials.

Table G-4 below identifies the tanks and containers at the facility
with the potential for an oil discharge; the mode of failure; the flow
direction and potential quantity of the discharge; and the secondary
containment method and containment capacity that is provided.

Table G-4 Containers with Potential for an Oil Discharge

Area	Type of failure (discharge scenario)	Potential discharge volume
(gallons)	Direction of flow for uncontained discharge	Secondary
containment methoda	Secondary containment capacity (gallons)

Bulk Storage Containers and Mobile/Portable Containersb

	Oil-filled Operational Equipment (e.g., hydraulic equipment,
transformers)c

	Piping, Valves, etc.

	Product Transfer Areas (location where oil is loaded to or from a
container, pipe or other piece of equipment.)

	Other Oil-Handling Areas or Oil-Filled Equipment (e.g. flow-through
process vessels at an oil production facility)

	a Use one of the following methods of secondary containment or its
equivalent: (1) Dikes, berms, or retaining walls sufficiently impervious
to contain oil; (2) Curbing; (3) Culverting, gutters, or other drainage
systems; (4) Weirs, booms, or other barriers; (5) Spill diversion ponds;
(6) Retention ponds; or (7) Sorbent materials.

b For storage tanks and bulk storage containers, the secondary
containment capacity must be at least the capacity of the largest
container plus additional capacity to contain rainfall or other
precipitation.

c For oil-filled operational equipment: Document in the table above if
alternative measures to secondary containment (as described in
§112.7(k)) are implemented at the facility.

Inspections, Testing, Recordkeeping and Personnel Training
(§§112.7(e) and (f), 112.8(c)(6) and (d)(4), 112.9(c)(3), 112.12(c)(6)
and (d)(4)):

Table G-5 Inspections, Testing, Recordkeeping and Personnel Training

An inspection and/or testing program is implemented for all aboveground
bulk storage containers and piping at this facility. [§§112.8(c)(6)
and (d)(4), 112.9(c)(3), 112.12(c)(6) and (d)(4)]	□

The following is a description of the inspection and/or testing program
(e.g. reference to industry standard utilized, scope, frequency, method
of inspection or test, and person conducting the inspection) for all
aboveground bulk storage containers and piping at this facility:

□

A record of the inspections and tests are kept at the facility or with
the SPCC Plan for a period of three years. [§112.7(e)] [See Inspection
Log and Schedule in Attachment 3.1]	□

Inspections and tests are signed by the appropriate supervisor or
inspector. [§112.7(e)]	□

Personnel, training, and discharge prevention procedures [§112.7(f)]

Oil-handling personnel are trained in the operation and maintenance of
equipment to prevent discharges; discharge procedure protocols;
applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations; general
facility operations; and, the contents of the facility SPCC Plan.
[§112.7(f)]	□

A person who reports to facility management is designated and
accountable for discharge prevention. [§112.7(f)]

Name/Title:_____________________________________________________________
______

	□

Discharge prevention briefings are conducted for oil-handling personnel
annually to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that
facility. Such briefings highlight and describe past reportable
discharges or failures, malfunctioning components, and any recently
developed precautionary measures. [§112.7(f)]

[See Oil-handling Personnel Training and Briefing Log in Attachment 3.4]
	□

4. Security (excluding oil production facilities) §112.7(g):

Table G-6 Implementation and Description of Security Measures

Security measures are implemented at this facility to prevent
unauthorized access to oil handling, processing, and storage area.	□

The following is a description of how you secure and control access to
the oil handling, processing and storage areas; secure master flow and
drain valves; prevent unauthorized access to starter controls on oil
pumps; secure out-of-service and loading/unloading connections of oil
pipelines; address the appropriateness of security lighting to both
prevent acts of vandalism and assist in the discovery of oil discharges:

5. Emergency Procedures and Notifications (§112.7(a)(3)(iv) and
112.7(a)(5)):

Table G-7 Description of Emergency Procedures and Notifications

The following is a description of the immediate actions to be taken by
facility personnel in the event of a discharge to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines [§112.7(a)(3)(iv) and 112.7(a)(5)]:

	6. Contact List (§112.7(a)(3)(vi)):

Table G-8 Contact List

Contact Organization / Person	Telephone Number

National Response Center (NRC)	1-800-424-8802

Cleanup Contractor(s)

Key Facility Personnel

Designated Person Accountable for Discharge Prevention:	Office:

Emergency:

	Office:

	Emergency:

	Office:

	Emergency:

	Office:

	Emergency:

State Oil Pollution Control Agencies

	Other State, Federal, and Local Agencies

	Local Fire Department

Local Police Department

Hospital

Other Contact References (e.g., downstream water intakes or neighboring
facilities)

7. NRC Notification Procedure (§112.7(a)(4) and (a)(5)):

□

The exact address or location and phone number of the facility;

Date and time of the discharge;

Type of material discharged;

Estimate of the total quantity discharged;

Estimate of the quantity discharged to navigable waters;

Source of the discharge; 	Description of all affected media;

Cause of the discharge;

Any damages or injuries caused by the discharge;

Actions being used to stop, remove, and mitigate the effects of the
discharge;

Whether an evacuation may be needed; and

Names of individuals and/or organizations who have also been contacted.

8. SPCC Spill Reporting Requirements (Report within 60 days) (§112.4):

Submit information to the EPA Regional Administrator (RA) and the
appropriate agency or agencies in charge of oil pollution control
activities in the State in which the facility is located within 60 days
from one of the following discharge events:

A single discharge of more than 1,000 U.S. gallons of oil to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines or

Two discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines each more
than 42 U.S. gallons of oil occurring within any twelve month period

* * * * *

NOTE: Complete one of the following sections (A, B or C)

as appropriate for the facility type.

A. Onshore Facilities (excluding production) (§§112.8(b) through (d),
112.12(b) through (d)):

The owner or operator must meet the general rule requirements as well as
requirements under this section. Note that not all provisions may be
applicable to all owners/operators. For example, a facility may not
maintain completely buried metallic storage tanks installed after
January 10, 1974, and thus would not have to abide by requirements in
§§112.8(c)(4) and 112.12(c)(4), listed below. In cases where a
provision is not applicable, write “N/A”.

□

Valves of manual, open-and-closed design are used for the drainage of
diked areas. [§§112.8(b)(2) and 112.12(b)(2)]	□

The containers at the facility are compatible with materials stored and
conditions of storage such as pressure and temperature. [§§112.8(c)(1)
and 112.12(c)(1)]	□

Secondary containment for the bulk storage containers (including
mobile/portable oil storage containers) holds the capacity of the
largest container plus additional capacity to contain precipitation.
Mobile or portable oil storage containers are positioned to prevent a
discharge as described in §112.1(b). [§112.6(a)(3)(ii)] 	□

If uncontaminated rainwater from diked areas drains into a storm drain
or open watercourse the following procedures will be implemented at the
facility: [§§112.8(c)(3) and 112.12(c)(3)]

	Bypass valve is normally sealed closed	□

Retained rainwater is inspected to ensure that its presence will not
cause a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines	□

Bypass valve is opened and resealed under responsible supervision	□

Adequate records of drainage are kept [See Dike Drainage Log in
Attachment 3.3]	□

For completely buried metallic tanks installed on or after January 10,
1974 at this facility [§§112.8(c)(4) and 112.12(c)(4)]:

	Tanks have corrosion protection with coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.	□

Regular leak testing is conducted.	□

For partially buried or bunkered metallic tanks [§112.8(c)(5) and
§112.12(c)(5)]:

	Tanks have corrosion protection with coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.	□

Each aboveground bulk container is tested or inspected for integrity on
a regular schedule and whenever material repairs are made. Scope and
frequency of the inspections and inspector qualifications are in
accordance with industry standards. Container supports and foundations
are regularly inspected.

□

□

Each container is provided with a system or documented procedure to
prevent overfills for the container. Describe:

	□

Liquid level sensing devices are regularly tested to ensure proper
operation [See Inspection Log and Schedule in Attachment 3.1].
[§112.6(a)(3)(iii)] 	□

Visible discharges which result in a loss of oil from the container,
including but not limited to seams, gaskets, piping, pumps, valves,
rivets, and bolts are promptly corrected and oil in diked areas is
promptly removed. [§§112.8(c)(10) and 112.12(c)(10)]	□

Aboveground valves, piping, and appurtenances such as flange joints,
expansion joints, valve glands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline
supports, locking of valves, and metal surfaces are inspected regularly.
[See Inspection Log and Schedule in Attachment 3.1] [§§112.8(d)(4) and
112.12(d)(4)]	□

Integrity and leak testing are conducted on buried piping at the time of
installation, modification, construction, relocation, or replacement.
[See Inspection Log and Schedule in Attachment 3.1] [§§112.8(d)(4) and
112.12(d)(4)]	□

B. Onshore Oil Production Facilities (excluding drilling and workover
facilities) (§112.9(b), (c), and (d)):

The owner or operator must meet the general rule requirements as well as
the requirements under this section. Note that not all provisions may be
applicable to all owners/operators. In cases where a provision is not
applicable, write “N/A”.

□

Flow-through process vessels and associated components are:

Are constructed with a capacity to hold the largest single container
plus additional capacity to contain rainfall. Drainage from undiked
areas is safely confined in a catchment basin or holding pond;
[§112.9(c)(2)] and

That are on or above the surface of the ground, including foundations
and supports, are visually inspected for deterioration and maintenance
needs on a regular schedule. [See Inspection Log and Schedule in
Attachment 3.1] [§112.9(c)(3)]

Or

□

□

Visually inspected and/or tested periodically and on a regular schedule
for leaks, corrosion, or other conditions that could lead to a discharge
to navigable waters; and	□

Corrective action or repairs are applied to flow-through process vessels
and any associated components as indicated by regularly scheduled visual
inspections, tests, or evidence of an oil discharge; and 	□

Any accumulations of oil discharges associated with flow-through process
vessels are promptly removed; and	□

Flow-through process vessels are provided with a secondary means of
containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container and
sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation within six months of a
discharge from flow-through process vessels of more than 1,000 U.S.
gallons of oil in a single discharge as described in §112.1(b), or a
discharge more than 42 U.S. gallons of oil in each of two discharges as
described in §112.1(b) within any twelve month period. [§112.9(c)(5)]

(Leave blank until such time that this provision is applicable.)	□

All aboveground valves and piping associated with transfer operations
are inspected periodically and upon a regular schedule. The general
condition of flange joints, valve glands and bodies, drip pans, pipe
supports, pumping well polish rod stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge
valves, and other such items are included in the inspection. [See
Inspection Log and Schedule in Attachment 3.1] [§112.9(d)(1)]	□

An oil spill contingency plan and written commitment of resources are
provided for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines [See Oil Spill
Contingency Plan and Checklist in Attachment 2 and Inspection Log and
Schedule in Attachment 3.1] [§112.9(d)(3)]

or

Appropriate secondary containment and/or diversionary structures or
equipment is provided for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines
to prevent a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. The
entire secondary containment system, including walls and floor, is
capable of containing oil and is constructed so that any discharge from
the pipe, will not escape the containment system before cleanup occurs.
□

□

A flowline/intra-facility gathering line maintenance program to prevent
discharges from each flowline has been established at this facility. The
maintenance program addresses each of the following:	□

Flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines and associated valves and
equipment are compatible with the type of production fluids, their
potential corrosivity, volume, and pressure, and other conditions
expected in the operational environment; 	□

Flowlines, intra-facility gathering lines and associated appurtenances
are visually inspected and/or tested on a periodic and regular schedule
for leaks, oil discharges, corrosion, or other conditions that could
lead to a discharge as described in §112.1(b). The frequency and type
of testing allows for the implementation of a contingency plan as
described under part 109 of this chapter.	□

Corrective action and repairs to any flowlines and intra-facility
gathering lines and associated appurtenances as indicated by regularly
scheduled visual inspections, tests, or evidence of a discharge.	□

Accumulations of oil discharges associated with flowlines,
intra-facility gathering lines, and associated appurtenances are
promptly removed. [§112.9(d)(4)]	□

The following is a description of the flowline/intra-facility gathering
line maintenance program implemented at this facility:

C. Onshore Oil Drilling and Workover Facilities (§112.10(b), (c) and
(d)):

The owner or operator must meet the general rule requirements as well as
the requirements under this section.

□

Catchment basins or diversion structures are provided to intercept and
contain discharges of fuel, crude oil, or oily drilling fluids.
[§112.10(c)]	□

A blowout prevention (BOP) assembly and well control system was
installed before drilling below any casing string or during workover
operations. [§112.10(d)]	□

The BOP assembly and well control system is capable of controlling any
well-head pressure that may be encountered while the BOP assembly and
well control system are on the well. [§112.10(d)]	□

ATTACHMENT 1 – Five Year Review and Technical Amendment Logs

ATTACHMENT 1.1 – Five Year Review Log

I have completed a review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan for this
facility, and will/will not amend this Plan as a result.

□	□

	□	□

	□	□

	□	□

	□	□

	□	□

	□	□

	□	□

ATTACHMENT 1.2 – Technical Amendment Log

Any technical amendments to this Plan will be re-certified in accordance
with Section I of this Plan template.

Table G-14 Description and Certification of Technical Amendments

Review Date	Description of Technical Amendment	Name and signature of
person certifying this technical amendment

ATTACHMENT 2 – Oil Spill Contingency Plan and Checklist

An oil spill contingency plan and written commitment of resources is
required for:

Flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines at oil production
facilities and

.

4

c

ù

!

…

Š

°

±

º

»

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Ï

Ð

Ý

â

ø

ù

ú

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

h·

h·

hy

hy

摧ⵣm܀搒Ǡ摧ⵣm

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

葠ː摧ⵣm

☊଀うഀ߆ꀁąи༆㢄ሄā㄀Ĥ葞и摧磙Ñ

hb#

hÐ

hb#

葠ː摧⍢

摧ⵣm

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧⍢

hb#

hä

h§

hb#

h§

hä

hä

hb#

摧ⵣm

hN

h02

hR

hN

h02

摧糓

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧ఓm

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧ⵣm

摧ⵣm

D

E

î

ý

(

6

7

E

à

ê

í

hp4

hJ

hp4

葠ː摧䟭i ਀&䘋

hp4

[

hp4

hp4

hp4

hp4

h

hp4

h

h

h

h

葠ː摧Kô	ሀā㄀Ĥ摧ⵣmЀ摧ⵣm

'

hª

☊଀⽆ሀā㄀Ĥ摧㴂4

hñ

hª

hª

¡

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧ⵣm

ø

ü

/

;

葠Ũ摧䄛ã

摧ᭋv

葠ː摧ᭋvȑ਀&䘋

葠ː摧ᭋvȑ਀&䘋

hÚ

hÚ

搒Ǡ摧ⵣm

搒Ǡ摧ⵣm	ሀā㄀Ĥ摧ᭋv

@

&

&

&

萎ć搒Ǡ葝ć摧࡝è܀"搒Ǡ摧࡝è

葞ː摧࡝è

萏ː葞ː摧࡝è

퀄ꀂ瀅䀈

@

@

@

@

퀁搒Ǡ摧࡝è

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

ᜀ8␃ംᓆ쀁ꀃ者怇䀉

騆

$

€	`	@

hÄ

$

€	`	@

	”

hÄ

²

È

Ê

Ì

Ê

Ì

hÄ

hÄ

ô

econdary containment.

□

Complete the checklist below to verify that the necessary operations
outlined in 40 CFR part 109 - Criteria for State, Local and Regional Oil
Removal Contingency Plans - have been included.

□

(3) A preplanned location for an oil discharge response operations
center and a reliable communications system for directing the
coordinated overall response operations.	□

(4) Provisions for varying degrees of response effort depending on the
severity of the oil discharge.	□

(5) Specification of the order of priority in which the various water
uses are to be protected where more than one water use may be adversely
affected as a result of an oil discharge and where response operations
may not be adequate to protect all uses.	□

(6) Specific and well defined procedures to facilitate recovery of
damages and enforcement measures as provided for by State and local
statutes and ordinances.	□

a The contingency plan must be consistent with all applicable state and
local plans, Area Contingency Plans, and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP).

ATTACHMENT 3 – Inspections, Dike Drainage and Personnel Training Logs

ATTACHMENT 3.1 – Inspection Log and Schedule

Table G-16 Inspection Log and Schedule

This log is intended to document compliance with §§112.6(a)(3)(iii),
112.8(c)(6), 112.8(d)(4), 112.9(b)(2), 112.9(c)(3), 112.9(d)(1),
112.9(d)(4), 112.12.(c)(6), and 112.12(d)(4), as applicable.

Date of Inspection	Container / Piping / Equipment	Describe Scope

(or cite Industry Standard)	Observations	Name/ Signature of Inspector
Records maintained separately a

□

□

□

□

□

a Indicate in the table above if records of facility inspections are
maintained separately at this facility.ATTACHMENT 3.2 – Bulk Storage
Container Inspection Schedule – onshore facilities (excluding
production):

To comply with integrity inspection requirement for bulk storage
containers, inspect/test each shop-built aboveground bulk storage
container on a regular schedule in accordance with a recognized
container inspection standard based on the minimum requirements in the
following table.

Table G-17 Bulk Storage Container Inspection Schedule

Container Size and Design Specification	Inspection requirement

Portable containers (including drums, totes, and intermodal bulk
containers (IBC))

	Visually inspect monthly for signs of deterioration, discharges or
accumulation of oil inside diked areas

55 to 1,100 gallons with sized secondary containment	Visually inspect
monthly for signs of deterioration, discharges or accumulation of oil
inside diked areas plus any annual inspection elements per industry
inspection standards

1,101 to 5,000 gallons with sized secondary containment and a means of
leak detectiona

	1,101 to 5,000 gallons with sized secondary containment and no method
of leak detectiona	Visually inspect monthly for signs of deterioration,
discharges or accumulation of oil inside diked areas, plus any annual
inspection elements and other specific integrity tests that may be
required per industry inspection standards

a Examples of leak detection include, but are not limited to,
double-walled tanks and elevated containers where a leak can be visually
identified.

ATTACHMENT 3.3 – Dike Drainage Log

Table G-18 Dike Drainage Log

Date	Bypass valve sealed closed	Rainwater inspected to be sure no oil
(or sheen) is visible	Open bypass valve and reseal it following drainage
Drainage activity supervised	Observations	Signature of Inspector

	□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

□	□	□	□

	ATTACHMENT 3.4 – Oil-handling Personnel Training and Briefing Log

Table G-19 Oil-Handling Personnel Training and Briefing Log

Date	Description / Scope	Attendees

ATTACHMENT 4 – Discharge Notification Form

In the event of a discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, the following information will be provided to the National
Response Center [also see the notification information provided in
Section 7 of the Plan]:

Table G-20 Information provided to the National Response Center in the
Event of a Discharge

Discharge/Discovery Date

Time

	Facility Name

Facility Location (Address/Lat-Long/Section Township Range)

Name of reporting individual

Telephone #

	Type of material discharged

Estimated total quantity discharged	Gallons/Barrels

Source of the discharge

Media affected	 Soil

	 Water (specify) ________________

	 Other (specify) ________________

Actions taken

Damage or injuries	 No  Yes (specify)	Evacuation needed?	 No
 Yes (specify)

Organizations and individuals contacted	 National Response Center
800-424-8802 Time ____________

	 Cleanup contractor (Specify) Time ____________

	 Facility personnel (Specify) Time ____________

	 State Agency (Specify) Time ____________

	 Other (Specify) Time ____________

옍

&

@

&

@

&

@

䀆

䀆

䀆

䀆

䀆

䀆

kd)

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

h·

h·

h·

«

搒Ǡ摧粂~ᘀ v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008). The only
issue resolved through litigation was the challenge to the definition of
navigable waters in the July 2002 rule amendment.

 Several comments requested that the Agency codify the clarifications as
part of the December 2008 rulemaking. To the extent the subject matter
of the clarification were reflected in the rulemaking, the Agency either
incorporated the clarification in the regulatory text or reaffirmed the
Agency’s position in the preamble. See 73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008,

 This action was taken in accordance with an order issued by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) in American
Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp.2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008).

 See Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 2006: “Marginal Wells:
Fuels for Economic Growth”, p. 4 (defining “stripper wells” as
wells that produce 10 barrels of oil per day or less).

 were incorrectly referenced as 112.3(d)(vi) and (d)(vii).  These
provisions are being removed entirely.

 For example, to develop a range for the number of affected AFVO
facilities, EPA contacted industry experts who determined that 40
percent to 90 percent of containers at AFVO facilities are made of
stainless steel and almost all containers have bottom drainage.
Therefore, based on professional judgment, the Agency considered three
scenarios: 40% (low), 65% (medium) and 90% (high) of all AFVO facilities
would have food oil tanks that are eligible.

 Certain industry sectors are affected by multiple rule provisions. As a
result, taking advantage of one revised provision might preclude a
facility from benefiting from another amendment. The six-month delay is
specifically designed to allow time for the facility oil production
operations to stabilize in order to avoid the need for multiple
certifications of the Plan by a PE

 To estimate the number of SPCC-regulated facilities in 2010, EPA used
the estimated number of facilities for 2005 (571,000) and applied
annual, industry-specific growth rates that resulted in about 640,000
facilities.

 To estimate the number of SPCC-regulated facilities in 2010, EPA used
the estimated number of facilities for 2005 (571,000) and applied annual
industry-specific growth rates.

 Aboveground storage containers that must be included when calculating
total facility oil storage capacity include: tanks and mobile or
portable containers; oil-filled operational equipment (e.g.
transformers); other oil-filled equipment, such as flow-through process
equipment. Exempt containers that are not included in the capacity
calculation include: any container with a storage capacity of less than
55 gallons of oil; containers used exclusively for wastewater treatment;
permanently closed containers; motive power containers; hot-mix asphalt
containers; heating oil containers used solely at a single-family
residence; and pesticide application equipment or related mix
containers.

 Although the criteria to determine eligibility for qualified facilities
focuses on the aboveground oil storage containers at the facility, the
completely buried tanks at a qualified facility are still subject to the
rule requirements and must be addressed in the template; however, they
are not counted toward the qualified facility applicability threshold.

 PAGE

DRAFT – INTERNAL, DELIBERATIVE

	  PAGE  1 	6/23/09

 PAGE   104

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]		     page			Tier I Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

 PAGE   117

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]	page		Tier I Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

 PAGE   118

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]		    page			Tier I Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

 PAGE   119

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]	          page		                     Tier I
Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

 PAGE   120

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]	          	    page		                     Tier I
Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

 PAGE   121

[INSERT FACILITY NAME]	           page		                     Tier I
Qualified Facility SPCC Plan

DRAFT – INTERNAL, DELIBERATIVE

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE OF EPA	  PAGE  122

You must submit the following information to the RA:

(1) Name of the facility;

(2) Your name;

(3) Location of the facility;

(4) Maximum storage or handling capacity of the facility and normal
daily throughput;

(5) Corrective action and countermeasures you have taken, including a
description of equipment repairs and replacements;

(6) An adequate description of the facility, including maps, flow
diagrams, and topographical maps, as necessary;

(7) The cause of the reportable discharge, including a failure analysis
of the system or subsystem in which the failure occurred; and

(8) Additional preventive measures you have taken or contemplated to
minimize the possibility of recurrence

(9) Such other information as the Regional Administrator may reasonably
require pertinent to the Plan or discharge