← National Federation of Independent Business
EPARulemakingEPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001

Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Requirements - Amendments

RIN
—
Last modified
Mar 24, 2022
Comment window
closed 7473d ago
National Federation of Independent Business filings
1

Activity

National Federation of Independent Business filed 1 comment on this docket between Feb 16, 2006 and Feb 16, 2006. 68 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 7473d ago.

What National Federation of Independent Business filed (1)

Feb 16, 2006· Comment submitted by Karen R. Harned, National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation· EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001-0140

February 10, 2006 EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Submitted via electronic mail Re: SPCC Proposed Rule ? Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001 To Whom It May Concern: The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the NFIB Legal Foundation hereby submit these comments on the proposed rule, ?Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention Control, and Countermeasure Plan Requirements ? Amendments; Proposed Rule.? This proposed rulemaking would amend Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan (SPCC plans) requirements to reduce the regulatory burden for small facilities. NFIB is the nation?s oldest and largest organization dedicated to representing the interests of small-business owners throughout all 50 states. The 600,000 members of NFIB own a wide variety of America?s independent businesses, many thousands of which will be impacted by this proposal. The NFIB Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest law firm, is the legal arm of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Like EPA, NFIB and its members appreciate the need to protect the natural environment from potential ?major? discharges of oil. We consider EPA?s proposal a much-needed improvement on the previous rule; particularly EPA?s concerted effort to lessen the regulatory burden on small facilities. The ability for small facilities to self-certify their plans, rather than hire a professional engineer (PE), will save small businesses ? like farms, construction sites, and car dealerships ? thousands of dollars. The self-certification provision makes sense for these facilities ? which hold less than 10,000 gallons of oil ? since they are less likely to have a ?major? discharge than are larger facilities. While overall, NFIB, and the small businesses that it represents, are pleased with the regulatory relief this rule would grant, we have a few concerns we would like EPA to address. The first concern is that the smallest facilities would still face a disproportionate regulatory burden by having to develop written plans, even if they do choose the option of self certification. We believe that there is a better way to increase compliance and protect the natural environment. The following is a suggested tiered approach that we believe would lessen the regulatory burden on small facilities while still protecting against discharges: Tier I: 1,321-5,000 Gallons: Facilities would neither develop nor periodically update written SPCC plans, but would implement compliance with all applicable substantive SPCC requirements. Industry outreach efforts, with EPA assistance would enhance compliance. Tier II: 5,001- 10,000 Gallons: Facilities would have written SPCC plans, but PE certification would not be mandatory. Trade association and other industry efforts, with EPA input and assistance, would generate model "best practices" SPCC plans designed to be easily tailored to individual small facilities ? especially in industry sectors having a significant number of substantially similar small facilities. These model plans (which could be designed by PEs), would include simple facility diagrams, and would be reviewed (and amended as necessary) every ten years. Facilities would implement compliance consistent with their plans. Tier III: 10,001+ Gallons: Facilities would have and implement written PE certified plans. A second concern is in regard to the possible use of industry standards as a guide for EPA?s enforcement. This SPCC program is supposed to consist of a ?performance based regulation? and facilities are supposed to have flexibility in determining how to comply with the requirements of the regulation. Our concern is that if EPA requires everyone to follow the specific, inflexible requirements of a standard, then the flexibility ? the standard of PE certification, if chosen, by a small facility ? and intent be…

View on regulations.gov →

Abstract

Contact: Vanessa Rodriguez, OSWER/OEM/RPDD, 202-564-7913, 5104A, HQ.

View on regulations.gov →

Co-filers (68)

See everyone who commented →