[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17227-17267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8275]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[FRL-6319-1]
RIN 2050-AE64


Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related 
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to amend the Facility Response Plan (FRP) 
requirements in the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response regulation,

[[Page 17228]]

found at 40 CFR part 112 and promulgated under the Clean Water Act, for 
non-transportation-related facilities. The main purpose of this 
proposed rule is to provide a more specific methodology for planning 
response resources that can be used by owners or operators of 
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable 
oils. EPA is issuing this proposed rule in response to Public Law 105-
276, October 18, 1998, which requires EPA to issue regulations amending 
40 CFR part 112 to comply with the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. In 
addition, EPA is providing an advance notice for similar revisions that 
will be proposed for the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 
Plan requirements, also found at 40 CFR part 112.

DATES: Send your comments on or before May 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Address your comments on the proposed FRP rule to the 
Superfund Docket, Docket Number SPCC-9P, mail code 5203G, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Address your comments on the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 
rule to the Superfund Docket, Docket Number SPCC-10P, mail code 5203G, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Send three copies of your comments. You also may submit 
electronic comments in ASCII format to 
[email protected].
    Docket: You may review materials concerning this rulemaking in the 
Superfund Docket, Suite 105, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal 
Gateway I, Arlington, VA 22202. You may inspect the docket (Docket 
Number SPCC-9P and SPCC-10P ) between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays; and you may make an 
appointment to review the docket by calling 703-603-9232.
    You may copy a maximum of 266 pages from any regulatory docket at 
no cost. If the number of pages copied exceeds 266, however, you will 
be charged an administrative fee of $25 and a charge of $0.15 per page 
for each page after 266. The docket will mail materials to you if you 
are outside of the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Davis, Oil Program Center, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 703-603-8823 
([email protected]) concerning the FRP proposed rule; or 
Hugo Fleischman, Oil Program Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, at 703-603-8769 ([email protected]) concerning 
the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the SPCC rule; or the 
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area, 703-412-9810). The Telecommunications Device for the 
Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-553-7672 (in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area, 703-412-3323).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We organized the contents of this Preamble 
in the following outline:

I. Introduction
    A. Regulated Entities
    B. Statutory Authority
    1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Clean Water Act
    2. Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
    3. Appropriations Act
    C. Background of this Rulemaking
    1. The Agency's Jurisdiction
    2. Coordination with the United States Coast Guard
    3. 1994 Final Facility Response Plan Rule
    D. FRP-Related Petitions
    1. Petition for Reconsideration
    2. Differentiating Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils from Other 
Oils
    3. Other Petitions Submitted to EPA and the USCG
II. Request for Comment and Discussion of Proposed Revisions
    A. Request for Comment
    B. Proposed Revisions
    1. Section 112.2 Definitions
    2. Section 112.20(a)(4) Preparation and Submission of Facility 
Response Plans for Animal Fat and Vegetable Oil Facilities
    3. Section 112.20(f) Facility Classification
    4. Section 112.20(h)(5) Response Planning Levels
    5. Other Changes
    6. Appendix E, Section 1.2 Definitions
    7. Appendix E, Section 3.0 Determining Response Resources 
Required for Small Discharges--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum Oils 
Other than Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    8. Appendix E, Section 4.0 Determining Response Resources 
Required for Medium Discharges--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum 
Oils Other than Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    9. Appendix E, Section 6.0 Determining the Appropriate Amount of 
Response Equipment
    10. Appendix E, Section 7.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a 
Worst Case Discharge--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum Oils Other 
than Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    11. Appendix E, Section 8.0 Determining Response Resources 
Required for Small Discharges--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    12. Appendix E, Section 9.0 Determining Response Resources 
Required for Medium Discharges--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    13. Appendix E, Section 10.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a 
Worst Case Discharge--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    C. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Bibliography
IV. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review
    B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership
    C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Unfunded Mandates
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
V. Appendices to the Preamble

I. Introduction

A. Regulated Entities

    Entities Potentially Regulated by this Proposal Include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                           NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starch and Vegetable Fats and Oils       NAICS 31122.
 Manufacturing.
Warehousing and Storage................  NAICS 493.
Petroleum and Coal Products              NAICS 324.
 Manufacturing.
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals..  NAICS 42271.
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas          NAICS 211111.
 Extraction.
Transportation, Pipelines, and Marinas.  NAICS 482-486/488112-48819/4883/
                                          48849/492/71393.
Electric Power Generation,               NAICS 2211.
 Transmission, and Distribution.
Other Manufacturing....................  NAICS 31-33.
Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and  NAICS 4471/5321.
 Leasing.
Heating Oil Dealers....................  NAICS 454311.
Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral        NAICS 2121/2123/213114/213116.
 Mining and Quarrying.
Heavy Construction.....................  NAICS 234.

[[Page 17229]]

 
Elementary and Secondary Schools,        NAICS 6111-6113.
 Colleges.
Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care   NAICS 622-623.
 Facilities.
Crop and Animal Production.............  NAICS 111-112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not exhaustive, but rather it provides a guide for 
you. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
subject to the regulation. To determine whether this action affects 
your facility, you should carefully examine the criteria in Sec. 112.1 
and Sec. 112.20 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular facility, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Statutory Authority

1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Clean Water Act
    Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (Public Law 101-380) 
to expand oil spill prevention and preparedness activities, improve 
response capabilities, ensure that shippers and oil companies pay the 
costs of spills that do occur, provide an additional economic incentive 
to prevent spills through increased penalties and enhanced enforcement, 
establish an expanded research and development program, and establish a 
new Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast 
Guard (USCG). Section 4202(a) of OPA amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) 
section 311(j) to require regulations for owners or operators of 
facilities to prepare and submit ``a plan for responding, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a 
substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous 
substance'' (i.e., a facility response plan or FRP). This requirement 
applies to any offshore facility and to any onshore facility that, 
``because of its location, could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the 
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic 
zone'' (i.e., a ``substantial harm'' facility).
    Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA authorizes the President to issue 
regulations establishing procedures, methods, equipment, and other 
requirements to prevent discharges of oil from vessels and facilities 
and to contain such discharges. By Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757, 
October 22, 1991), the President has delegated to EPA the authority to 
regulate non-transportation-related onshore facilities under sections 
311(j)(1)(C) and 311(j)(5) of the CWA. The President has delegated 
similar authority over transportation-related onshore facilities, 
deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT). Within DOT, the USCG is responsible for developing requirements 
for vessels and marine transportation-related facilities.
2. Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
    Congress enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA) (33 
U.S.C. 2720) on November 20, 1995. Under this law, EPA must, in the 
issuance or enforcement of any regulation or the establishment of any 
interpretation or guideline relating to the transportation, storage, 
discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a fat, oil, or grease, 
differentiate among and establish separate classes for animal fats and 
oils and greases, fish and marine mammal oils, and oils of vegetable 
origin (as opposed to petroleum and other oils and greases).
3. Appropriations Act
    Under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public 
Law 105-276), which was signed into law on October 21, 1998, Congress 
directed EPA to issue regulations amending 40 CFR part 112 not later 
than March 31, 1999, to comply with the requirements of the Edible Oil 
Regulatory Reform Act (Public Law 104-55).

C. Background of this Rulemaking

1. The Agency's Jurisdiction
    The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOT and EPA, dated 
November 24, 1971, established the definitions of non-transportation-
related facilities and transportation-related facilities. The 
definitions in the 1971 MOU are in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112.
2. Coordination with the United States Coast Guard
    EPA and the USCG are proposing to modify their existing FRP rules 
for non-transportation-related facilities and marine transportation-
related facilities that handle, store, and transport animal fats and 
vegetable oils. The two agencies have worked together closely to ensure 
uniformity in the proposed regulations whenever possible. Each agency 
is proposing requirements appropriate to the universe of facilities 
that it regulates. The two proposed rules reflect the similarities and 
differences in the nature and activities of facilities regulated by the 
two agencies. In EPA's proposed rule, the discussion of the rationale 
for revisions addresses the similarities and differences between EPA-
regulated and USCG-regulated facilities.
3. 1994 Final Facility Response Plan Rule
    On February 17, 1993, EPA (``we'') published a proposed rule to 
revise the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation, which was originally 
promulgated under the Clean Water Act (58 FR 8824, February 17, 1993). 
We received a total of 1282 comments on the proposed rule. We 
considered these comments in developing the final rule. On July 1, 
1994, we published the final FRP rule amending 40 CFR part 112 to add 
new planning requirements for worst case discharges to implement 
section 311(j)(5) of the CWA, as amended by OPA (59 FR 34070, July 1, 
1994). Under the authority of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA, we also 
required planning for small and medium discharges of oil, as 
appropriate.
    a. The Clean Water Act applies to non-petroleum oils. In the 
Preamble to the final FRP rule, we noted that for the purpose of CWA 
section 311(j) planning, the CWA includes non-petroleum oils. We 
pointed out that the definition of ``oil'' in the CWA includes oil of 
any kind (40 CFR part 112.2). The oils regulated by 40 CFR part 112 
include animal fats and vegetable oils.
    b. Different rule requirements for non-petroleum oils. The FRP rule 
requires certain facility owners and operators to prepare plans for 
responding to a worst case discharge of oil and to a substantial threat 
of such a discharge. It also includes requirements to plan for a small 
and medium discharge of oil.
    In addressing comments on the proposed FRP rule, we agreed that 
certain response equipment and strategies used for petroleum oil spills 
may be inappropriate for non-petroleum oil. For non-transportation-
related facilities under our jurisdiction, we adapted the USCG approach 
to

[[Page 17230]]

determine response resources for worst case discharges of non-petroleum 
oils. Owners or operators of these facilities must: (1) Show procedures 
and strategies for responding to the maximum extent practicable to a 
worst case discharge; (2) show sources of equipment and supplies 
necessary to locate, recover, and mitigate discharges; (3) demonstrate 
that the equipment identified will work in the conditions expected in 
the relevant geographic areas, and that the equipment and other 
resources will be able to respond within the required times (according 
to Table 1 of Appendix E to part 112); and (4) ensure the availability 
of required resources by contract or other approved means. Unlike 
petroleum oil facilities, owners or operators of non-petroleum 
facilities are not limited to using emulsification or evaporation 
factors in Appendix E (the Equipment Appendix) of the final rule to 
calculate response resources for their facilities. In the final FRP 
rule, we added Section 7.7 to Appendix E to reflect these changes. We 
stated that when there were results from research on such factors as 
emulsification or evaporation of non-petroleum oil, we might make 
additional changes (59 FR 34088, July 1, 1994). Based on our 
examination of recent research, we are today proposing these factors 
for animal fats and vegetable oils.

D. FRP-Related Petitions

1. Petition for Reconsideration
    By a letter dated August 12, 1994, we received a ``Petition for 
Reconsideration and Stay of Effective Date'' of the OPA-mandated final 
FRP rule as the rule applies to facilities that handle, store, or 
transport animal fats or vegetable oils. The petition was submitted on 
behalf of seven agricultural organizations (``the Petitioners''): the 
American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, the 
National Corn Growers Association, the Institute of Shortening & Edible 
Oils, the National Cotton Council, the National Cottonseed Products 
Association, and the National Oilseed Processors Association.
    a. Petitioners' request. To support their claims, the Petitioners 
submitted an industry-sponsored report titled ``Environmental Effects 
of Releases of Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils to Waterways'' (ENVIRON 
Corporation, 1993) and an associated study titled ``Diesel Fuel, Beef 
Tallow, RBD Soybean Oil and Crude Soybean Oil: Acute Effects on the 
Fathead Minnow, Pimephales Promelas'' (Aqua Survey, Inc., 1993). We 
received copies of both of these studies with a comment filed more than 
nine months after the close of the comment period for the FRP 
rulemaking. Based, in part, on these studies, the Petitioners asked us 
to create a regulatory regime for response planning for ``non-toxic,'' 
non-petroleum oils separate from the framework established for 
petroleum oils and ``toxic'' non-petroleum oils. They suggested 
specific language revisions for the July 1, 1994, FRP rule. For 
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable 
oils, their suggested revisions would: modify the definition of animal 
fats and vegetable oil (set out in Appendix E, Section 1.2 of the FRP 
rule); allow mechanical dispersal and ``no action'' options to be 
considered in lieu of the oil containment and recovery devices 
otherwise specified for response to a worst case discharge; require the 
use of containment booms only for the protection of fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments; and increase the required on-scene arrival 
time for response resources at a spill from 12 hours (including travel 
time) to 24 hours plus travel time for medium discharges and worst case 
Tier 1 response resources.
    b. Federal agency findings. The Federal natural resource trustee 
agencies who reviewed the ENVIRON study disagreed with many of the 
study's conclusions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated 
that the ENVIRON Report did not provide an accurate assessment of the 
dangers that non-petroleum oils pose to fish and wildlife and 
environmentally sensitive areas. The FWS further stated that key facts 
were misrepresented, incomplete, or omitted in the ENVIRON Report (U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994). The FWS 
stated that petroleum oils and vegetable oils and animal fats cause 
chronic effects from the fouling of coats and plumage in wildlife, 
which often leads to death. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) also reviewed the ENVIRON study. NOAA evaluated 
the physical and chemical properties, toxicity, and environmental 
effects of spilled non-petroleum oils, including coconut, corn, 
cottonseed, fish, and palm oil, and indicated that some edible oils, 
when spilled, may have adverse environmental effects (U.S. Department 
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993). 
The views of the FWS and NOAA on the adverse effects of animal fats and 
vegetable oils are discussed in detail in the Preamble to the USCG 
final rule setting forth response plan requirements for marine 
transportation-related facilities (61 FR 7890, February 29, 1996); in 
our Notice and Request for Data (59 FR 53742, October 26, 1994); and in 
our Denial of Petition Requesting Amendment of the Facility Response 
Plan (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997). We also discussed comments from a 
bird rescue organization describing the harmful effects of spilled 
animal fats and vegetable oils on birds (Frink, 1994).
    In view of the differing scientific conclusions reached by the 
Petitioners, the FWS, and other groups and agencies, we asked for 
broader public comment on issues raised by the Petitioners in our 
October 26, 1994 Notice and Request for Data. We asked whether we 
should have different specific response approaches for releases of 
animal fats and vegetable oils (rather than increased flexibility), and 
for additional data and comments on the effects on the environment of 
releases of these oils. We also asked commenters to provide specific 
data comparing the properties and effects of petroleum and non-
petroleum oils. We received fourteen comments and considered them in 
our evaluation of the petition. We did not receive any new data on 
these issues.
    c. Denial of petition. On October 20, 1997, EPA denied the petition 
to amend the FRP rule. We found that the petition did not substantiate 
claims that animal fats and vegetable oils differ from petroleum oils 
in properties and effects and did not support a further differentiation 
between these groups of oils under the FRP rule. Instead, we found that 
a worst case discharge or substantial threat of discharge of animal 
fats and/or vegetable oils to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, 
or the exclusive economic zone could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment, including wildlife that may be 
killed by the discharge. We pointed out that the FRP rule already 
provides for different response planning requirements for petroleum and 
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils.
    We also disagreed with Petitioners' claim that animal fats and 
vegetable oils are non-toxic when spilled into the environment and 
should be placed in a separate category from other ``toxic'' non-
petroleum oils. Information and data we reviewed from other sources 
indicate that some animal fats and vegetable oils, their components, 
and degradation products are toxic. Furthermore, we emphasized that 
toxicity is only one way that oil spills cause environmental damage. 
Most immediate environmental effects are physical effects, such as 
coating animals

[[Page 17231]]

and plants with oil, suffocating aquatic organisms from oxygen 
depletion, and destroying food supply and habitats. We noted that 
toxicity is not one of the criteria in determining which on-shore 
facilities are high-risk and must prepare response plans. Rather, the 
criteria for determining high-risk facilities are certain facility and 
locational characteristics, because we expect that discharges of oil 
from facilities with these characteristics may cause substantial harm 
to the environment.
2. Differentiating Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils From Other Oils
    a. Properties of animal fats and vegetable oils. Petroleum oils, 
vegetable oils and animal fats, and other non-petroleum oils share 
common physical properties and produce similar environmental effects. 
When spilled in the aquatic environment, these oils and their 
constituents can float on water; dissolve or form emulsions in the 
water column; settle on the bottom as a sludge; or contaminate the 
adjacent shoreline, depending on their physical and chemical 
properties. Similar methods of removal and cleanup are used to reduce 
the harm created by spills of petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable 
oils, and other non-petroleum oils. We have compared the properties and 
effects of animal fats and vegetable oils with petroleum oils in detail 
(See 62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997, and supporting technical 
documents). While the physical and chemical properties of vegetable 
oils and animal fats are highly variable, most fall within a range that 
is similar to the physical parameters for petroleum oils. Common 
properties--such as solubility, specific gravity, and viscosity--are 
responsible for the similar environmental effects of petroleum oils, 
vegetable oils, and animal fats.
    In one respect, however, many petroleum oils differ from most 
vegetable oils and animal fats. Unlike most vegetable oils and animal 
fats, many petroleum oils have a high vapor pressure. The high vapor 
pressure of petroleum oils can lead to significant evaporation from 
spills. It may also produce exposure of nearby populations through the 
air pathway.
    We describe some important properties of oil below.
    Solubility. Solubility refers to the ability of a chemical to 
dissolve in water or solvents. Like petroleum oils, vegetable oils and 
animal fats have limited water solubility and high solubility in 
organic solvents.
    Specific Gravity. Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a 
material to the density of fresh water. Specific gravity determines 
whether an oil floats on the surface of a water body or sinks below the 
surface and how long oil droplets reside in the water. It can also give 
a general indication of other properties of the oil. For example, oils 
with a low specific gravity tend to be rich in volatile components and 
are highly fluid (International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, 
1987). The specific gravity of vegetable oils and animal fats whose 
properties we examined is within the range of specific gravity values 
for petroleum oils.
    Viscosity. Viscosity refers to the resistance to flow. It controls 
the rate at which oil spreads on water and how deeply it penetrates the 
shore. Viscosity also determines how much energy organisms need to 
overcome resistance to their movement. At similar temperatures, the 
dynamic viscosity (shear stress/rate of shear) and kinematic viscosity 
(dynamic viscosity/density) of vegetable oils and animal fats are 
somewhat greater than those for light petroleum oils but less than 
those for heavy petroleum oils. The viscosity of canola oil represents 
a medium weight oil and is comparable to that of a lightly weathered 
Prudhoe Bay crude oil after it has evaporated by 10 percent (Allen and 
Nelson, 1983).
    Vapor Pressure. Vapor pressure is the pressure that a solid or 
liquid exerts in equilibrium with its own vapor depending on 
temperature. It controls the evaporation rate of an oil spill and air 
concentrations. The higher the vapor pressure of an oil, the faster it 
evaporates. Vapor pressure varies over a wide range for petroleum oils, 
from moderately volatile diesel-like products to slightly volatile 
heavy crude oils and residual products. The vapor pressure of animal 
fats and vegetable oils is generally much lower than that of many 
petroleum oils. Evaporation is significant for many petroleum oil 
spills, some of which completely evaporate in one to two days, but it 
is rarely an important factor in spills of vegetable oils and animal 
fats. In some vegetable oils, however, there is a small volatile 
fraction that can evaporate. Thermal decomposition can also cause the 
formation of many volatile degradation products.
    Surface Tension. The spreading of oil relates to surface tension 
(interfacial tension) in a complex manner. When the sum of the oil-
water and oil-air interfacial tensions is less than the water-air 
interfacial tension, spreading is promoted. At 25  deg.C, the oil-water 
interfacial tension for canola oil is far less than that of Prudhoe Bay 
crude oil, suggesting that canola oil could spread more (Allen and 
Nelson, 1983). Surface tension measurements in the laboratory, however, 
are not necessarily predictive of the behavior of oil that is being 
transformed by many processes in the environment.
    Emulsions. Emulsions are fine droplets of liquid dispersed in a 
second, immiscible liquid. When oil and water mix vigorously, they form 
a dispersion of water droplets in oil and oil droplets in water (Hui, 
1996c). When mixing stops, the phases separate. Small water drops fall 
toward the interface between the phases, and the oil drops rise. The 
emulsion breaks. When an emulsifier is present, one phase becomes 
continuous, while the other remains dispersed. The continuous phase is 
usually the one in which the emulsifier is soluble.
    The tendency of petroleum and non-petroleum oils to form emulsions 
of water-in-oil or oil-in-water depends on the unique chemical 
composition of the oil as well as temperature, the presence of 
stabilizing compounds, and other factors. When an emulsion is formed in 
the environment, the oil changes appearance and its viscosity can 
increase by many orders of magnitude. Removal of the oil becomes harder 
because of the increased difficulty in pumping viscous fluids with up 
to fivefold increases in volume.
    The similar tendencies for formation of emulsions by petroleum 
oils, vegetable oils, and animal fats is described in greater detail in 
the discussion of Appendix E, Section 10 and Table 7.
    Adhesions. Although the ability to form adhesions is difficult to 
measure and predict, adhesions influence the ease with which spilled 
oil can be physically removed from surfaces. When water is colder than 
the oil pour point, oils become viscous and tar-like or form semi-
solid, spherical particles that are difficult to recover. Weathering 
and evaporation are slowed, and oils may become entrapped or 
encapsulated in ice and later may float on the surface when ice breaks 
up. In ice adhesion tests, canola oil and Prudhoe Bay crude oil had the 
same tendency to coat the surface of sea ice drawn up through an oil/
water interface (Allen and Nelson, 1983). Neither oil adhered to 
submerged sea ice even after surface coating. This study suggests that 
some vegetable oils and petroleum oils have a similar ability to form 
adhesions under certain environmental conditions.
    b. Environmental effects. Physical contact, destruction of food 
sources, and toxic contamination produce the harmful environmental 
effects of spills of petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils, 
and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils

[[Page 17232]]

(62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997). Nearly all of the most immediate and 
devastating environmental effects from oil spills, such as smothering 
of fish or coating of birds and mammals and their food with oil, are 
physical effects related to the physical properties of oils and their 
interactions with living systems.
    These immediate physical effects and effects on food sources may 
not be considered the result of ``toxicity'' in the classic sense--
i.e., effects that are produced when a chemical reacts with a specific 
receptor site of an organism at a high enough concentration for a 
sufficient length of time. Nevertheless, severe debilitation and death 
of fish and wildlife and destruction of their habitats can result from 
spills of animal fats and vegetable oils, other non-petroleum oils, and 
petroleum and petroleum products.
    Like petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils and their 
constituents can cause toxic effects that are summarized below. They 
can:
     Cause devastating physical effects, such as coating 
animals and plants with oil and suffocating them by oxygen depletion;
     Be toxic and form toxic products;
     Destroy future and existing food supply, breeding animals, 
and habitat;
     Produce rancid odors;
     Foul shorelines, clog water treatment plants, and catch 
fire when ignition sources are present; and
     Form products that linger in the environment for many 
years.

Adverse environmental effects can also occur long after the initial 
exposure to animal fats and vegetable oils because of the formation of 
toxic or persistent products in the environment, destruction of food 
sources and habitat, or diminished reproduction.
    Scientific research and experience with actual spills have shown 
that spills of animal fats and vegetable oils kill or injure fish, 
birds, mammals, and other species and produce other undesirable 
effects. Waterfowl and other birds, mammals, and fish that are coated 
with animal fats or vegetable oils can die of hypothermia, dehydration 
and diarrhea, or starvation. They can also sink and drown or fall 
victim to predators. Fish and other aquatic organisms may suffocate 
because of the depletion of oxygen caused by spilled animal fats and 
vegetable oils in water. Animal fats and vegetable oils can kill or 
injure wildlife through physical effects or toxicity.
    Spills of animal fats and vegetable oils have the same or similar 
devastating impacts on the aquatic environment as petroleum oils. 
Reports of real-world oil spills detail the environmental harm that can 
be produced by spills of vegetable oils and animal fats into the 
environment (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997).
    c. Toxicity. Adverse effects occur through both non-toxic and toxic 
mechanisms. Toxicity refers to adverse effects that are produced when a 
chemical reacts with a specific receptor site of an organism at a high 
enough concentration for a sufficient length of time. Toxicity is 
affected by the characteristics of the organisms and properties of the 
chemicals or mixtures involved, the duration of exposure and dose 
required to produce the effects, and the nature of the toxic effects 
(Klaassen et al., 1986).
    Many factors determine the toxicity of chemicals or mixtures. The 
ingestion of small quantities of animal fats and vegetable oils in food 
by humans and animals is a completely different situation from spills 
of oil into the environment. These situations differ markedly in the 
extent and duration of exposure, the route of exposure, the composition 
of the chemicals involved, the organisms and ecosystems exposed, the 
circumstances surrounding the exposure, and the types of effects 
produced--factors that determine the toxicity and severity of the 
adverse effects of chemicals. Thus, even if the human or animal 
consumption of small quantities of oils in food were judged completely 
safe, no inferences could be drawn about the toxicity and other effects 
of animal fats and vegetable oils on environmental organisms exposed in 
the very different circumstances of oil spills.
    The toxic effects from acute exposure to a chemical (e.g., a single 
dose) during a short period of time, such as 24 hours, may differ 
greatly from those produced by repeated or chronic exposures. Oil 
spills may result in chronic exposure if oil or its degradation 
products remain in the environment for a long time.
    Petroleum Oils. Petroleum oils affect nearly all aspects of 
physiology and metabolism and produce impacts on numerous organ systems 
of plants and animals, as well as altering local populations, community 
structure, and biomass (Albers, 1995; National Academy of Sciences, 
1985; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1984). Commonly 
reported individual effects of petroleum oils include impaired 
reproduction and reduced growth, as well as death in plants, fish, 
birds, invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians; blood, liver, and 
kidney disorders in fish, birds, and mammals; malformations in fish and 
birds; altered respiration or heart rate in invertebrates, fish, 
reptiles, and amphibians; altered endocrine function in fish and birds; 
altered behavior in many animal species; hypothermia in birds and 
mammals; impaired salt gland function in birds, reptiles, and 
amphibians; altered photosynthesis in plants; and increased cells in 
gills and fin erosion in fish. Among the group effects of petroleum are 
changes in local population and community structure in plants, 
invertebrates, and birds, and changes in biomass of plants and 
invertebrates.
    Certain petroleum products and crude oil fractions are associated 
with increased cancer in refinery workers and laboratory animals (IARC, 
1989). Many of these petroleum oils contain benzene and polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic constituents that are carcinogenic 
in humans and animals.
    Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats. Some acute lethality tests suggest 
that petroleum oils are more toxic to some aquatic species than certain 
vegetable oils and animal fats. Other studies, however, show that 
vegetable oils are more toxic than certain petroleum oils (62 FR54508, 
October 20, 1997). In one study, no rats receiving mineral oil died, 
although smaller doses of the vegetable oils administered for a shorter 
time period killed rats (Boyd, 1973). Acute lethality tests are 
typically LC50 (lethal concentration 50) or LD50 
(lethal dose 50) tests that do not describe a ``safe'' level but rather 
a level at which 50 percent of test organisms are killed under the 
experimental conditions of the test. Standard acute toxicity tests are 
not designed to test for the effects of spills of highly insoluble 
materials, such as oils, but to measure the toxicity of chemicals in 
normal use and disposal in effluents. Researchers have raised serious 
questions about the relevance of such tests to spills in the 
environment (NAS, 1985).
    Animal fats and vegetable oils produce other types of acute 
toxicity as well. Like petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils 
are laxatives that can produce diarrhea or lipid pneumonia in animals 
and can impair their ability to escape predators (Frink, 1994; USDOI/
FWS, 1994). Clinical signs of toxicity in rats fed large amounts of 
corn oil or cottonseed oil for 4 or 5 days include decreased appetite, 
loss of body weight, diarrhea, fur soiling, incoordination, cyanosis 
(dark blue skin color from deficient oxygenation of the blood), and 
prostration, followed by respiratory failure and central nervous system 
depression, coma, and death (Boyd, 1973). Autopsies showed violent 
local irritation of the gastrointestinal tract

[[Page 17233]]

that allowed the absorption of oil droplets into the bloodstream. In 
tissues, the oil droplets produced inflammation, congestion in the 
blood vessels, and degenerative changes in the kidney, among other 
effects.
    Animals exposed to vegetable oils and animal fats can manifest a 
range of chronic toxic effects. High levels of some types of fats 
increase growth and obesity but cause early death in several species of 
animals and may decrease their reproductive ability or the survival of 
offspring (NAS/NRC, 1995; French et al., 1953). On the other hand, the 
growth of some fish decreases with elevated levels of oils (NAS/NRC, 
1981, 1983; Takeuchi and Watanabe, 1979; Stickney and Andrews, 1971, 
1972). Mussels exposed to one of four vegetable oils began to die after 
2 or 3 weeks of exposure (Salgado, 1995; Mudge, 1995, 1997a). Mussels 
exposed to low levels of sunflower oil exhibited growth inhibition, 
effects on shells and shell lining, and decreases in the foot extension 
activity that is essential to survival.
    Studies have associated dietary fat consumption with the increased 
incidence of some types of cancer, including mammary and colon cancer, 
in laboratory animals and humans (Hui, 1996a; US Department of Health 
and Human Services, 1990; Food and Agriculture Organization/World 
Health Organization, 1994). The intake of dietary fat or certain types 
of fat has also been correlated with the incidence of coronary artery 
disease, diabetes, and obesity in epidemiological studies. High dietary 
fat intake has also been linked to altered immunity, changes in steroid 
excretion, and effects on bone modeling and remodeling in humans.
    Some vegetable oils and animal fats contain toxic constituents, 
including specific fatty acids and oxidation products formed by 
processing, heating, storage, or reactions in the environment (Hui, 
1996a; Berardi and Goldblatt, 1980; Yannai, 1980; Mattson, 1973). We 
have summarized the toxic effects of some of these constituents on the 
heart, red blood cells, and immune system, as well as effects on 
metabolism and impairment of reproduction and growth (62 FR 54508, 
October 20, 1997). In addition, some lipid oxidation products may play 
a role in development of cancer and atherosclerosis.
    d. How properties and effects of oils are changed in the 
environment. The physical and chemical properties of petroleum and non-
petroleum oils can change after spills into the environment (USDOC/
NOAA, 1992, 1996; Lewis et al., 1995; ITOPF, 1987; NAS, 1985; Hui, 
1996a). Primary weathering processes that affect the composition of oil 
include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion, 
emulsification, and sedimentation (USDOC/NOAA, 1992, 1994, 1996). Wind 
transport, photochemical degradation, and microbial degradation may 
also play important roles. These processes can change the composition, 
behavior, routes of exposure, persistence, and toxicity of the spilled 
oil. As the spilled oil is changed by these environmental processes, 
its toxicity may increase, decrease, or stay the same. These changes 
may reduce the volume of some oils and increase the volume in other 
oils because of their persistence in water or ability to form 
emulsions. While some weathering mechanisms are different for petroleum 
oils and animal fats and vegetable oils, spills of all of these oils 
can create heavy sludges and hardened exposed surfaces with aggregates 
or tars that can persist in the environment for many years (USDOC/NOAA, 
1994; NAS, 1985; Mudge, 1995, 1997a, 1997b).
    Oil can affect different parts of the ecosystem as its composition 
changes. For example, when the lighter fractions of petroleum oil 
dissolve or evaporate, the oil sinks and contaminates sediments and 
contributes to water column toxicity (USDOC/NOAA, 1992; Hartung, 1995; 
NAS, 1985). Spilled sunflower oil forms polymers that can wash ashore 
or sink and cover sediments, exposing benthic and intertidal 
communities to the oil (Mudge et al., 1993, 1995). Spilled soybean oil 
can change its environmental behavior, forming rubbery floating masses 
that move downstream and cover sediments on the bottom of water bodies 
or lodge on the shoreline (Minnesota, 1963; USDHHS/PHS, 1963).
    e. How properties affect removal of spilled oils. In aquatic 
environments, the behavior of petroleum oils and vegetable oils and 
animal fats is similar. They can form a layer on water, settle out on 
sediments, foul shorelines and beaches, and form emulsions when there 
is agitation by surf, wind, rapidly flowing streams, or prolonged 
exposure to heat or light (Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 1975; USDOC/
NOAA, 1996). When the emulsions and surface films or masses are 
entangled with debris, they can settle to the bottom as sludge.
    Because of the similarity in properties of petroleum and non-
petroleum oils, including vegetable oils and animal fats, many similar 
methods are used for their containment, removal from the aquatic 
environment, and cleanup from shorelines when the oils are spilled in 
the environment. Canola oil and Prudhoe Bay crude oil exhibited similar 
behavior in field tests with certain types of spill control equipment, 
including their tendency to form emulsions with seawater in cold 
tempera tures and their affinity for surfaces (Allen and Nelson, 1983).
    Because of its greater viscosity at cold temperatures, the recovery 
rate for canola oil with saturated mop fibers was 30 to 40 percent 
greater than that of crude oil; at warm temperatures, the recovered 
volume of canola oil was twice that of crude oil (Allen and Nelson, 
1983). While canola oil penetrated fibers of sorbent pads at a slightly 
slower rate than Prudhoe Bay crude oil, saturation for both occurred 
within minutes. The volumes absorbed and recovered from saturated pads 
were nearly identical for both oils, with amounts absorbed increasing 
with reduced temperatures.
3. Other Petitions Submitted to EPA and the USCG
    On January 16, 1998, we received a request from the Animal Fat/
Vegetable Oil Coalition to modify the FRP rule as it applies to 
facilities that handle, store, or transport vegetable oils and animal 
fats. We met with Coalition representatives on April 6, 1998 to clarify 
their request. On April 9, 1998, we received a second request amending 
two items in the previous request. The requests ask us to revise the 
FRP rule by creating a separate category for response planning for 
animal fat/vegetable oil facilities and a separate Appendix with 
procedures for these facilities. The requests also include suggested 
language for the revised rule. The suggested language would make the 
following changes for facilities that handle, store, or transport 
vegetable oils and animal fats:
     Move the definitions of vegetable oils and animal fats 
from the Preamble and Appendix E of the current FRP rule to the 
definitions section, and modify the language slightly;
     State the applicability dates by which facilities storing 
vegetable oils and animal fats would need to comply with the rule;
     Limit requirements for submitting a facility response 
plan;
     Change the planning distance formula used in determining 
whether a facility storing vegetable oils and animal fats may present 
substantial harm;
     Revise the criteria considered by EPA Regional 
Administrators in determining whether a facility is a significant and 
substantial harm facility;
     Increase required response time from on-scene arrival time 
of 12 hours including travel time to 24 hours, with

[[Page 17234]]

a response commencing within 12 hours of discovery of a discharge;
     Eliminate planning for small or medium discharges of oil 
and eliminate tier planning requirements;
     Eliminate the definitions of non-persistent and persistent 
oil;
     Allow mechanical dispersal and ``no action'' options to be 
considered in lieu of the oil containment and recovery devices 
otherwise specified for response for a worst case discharge; and
     Make other changes in the rule language.
    We address some of these issues in detail in this proposed rule. On 
March 14, 1997, the National Oilseed Processors Association filed a 
petition with the USCG requesting similar amendments to the marine-
transportation-related facility response plan regulations. To further 
address these petitions, EPA and the USCG are requesting comments and 
information on how facilities that handle animal fats and vegetable 
oils should be regulated.

II. Request for Comment and Discussion of Proposed Revisions

A. Request for Comment

    We request public comments on the usefulness of the new procedure 
and tables in the proposed rule for determining response equipment 
needs for facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and 
vegetable oils compared to the approach provided in the existing rule. 
In connection with these proposed changes, we invite public comment on 
new approaches or data that have been developed since the issuance of 
the rule, which would reduce the burden of FRP rule requirements 
without compromising environmental protection. We are interested in 
research in progress or planned research on the issues raised in this 
rule. We also request data and comments bearing on the issues raised in 
the requests for changes to the existing regulations.
    In addition, we invite public comments for the purpose of securing 
information to develop possible future rules or policies. We seek data 
and comments on approaches for non-petroleum oils other than animal 
fats and vegetable oils that are not now required, but that would 
enhance the environmental protection the FRP rule provides.

B. Proposed Revisions

    The main purpose of these revisions is to provide a more specific 
methodology for planning response resources that can be used by owners 
or operators of facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats 
and vegetable oils. Specific proposed revisions are discussed below.
1. Section 112.2 Definitions
    The FRP rule defines oil as ``oil of any kind or in any form, 
including, but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse 
and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.'' (40 CFR 112.2). 
In response to comments on our 1993 proposed FRP rule (58 FR 8866, 
February 17, 1993), we set forth definitions for ``animal fat,'' 
``vegetable oil, `` ``petroleum oil,'' ``non-petroleum oil,'' and 
``other non-petroleum oil'' in the Preamble to the final FRP rule (59 
FR 34070, 34088 July 1, 1994) to assist owners or operators in 
distinguishing among oil types. We also define non-petroleum oil in 
Appendix E to the rule.
    We propose to add the definitions of ``animal fat,'' ``non-
petroleum oil,'' ``petroleum oil,'' and ``vegetable oil'' to the FRP 
regulations in Sec. 112.2. We believe that adding these definitions to 
the regulatory text will help the regulated community better understand 
the FRP rule. We have made slight revisions to the definitions to more 
closely reflect the language of the 1995 Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
Act. According to the proposed definitions, non-petroleum oils other 
than animal fats and vegetable oils would include, but are not limited 
to, coal tar, silicone oils, and turpentine.
    2. Section 112.20(a)(4) Preparation and Submission of Facility 
Response Plans for Animal Fat and Vegetable Oil Facilities
    The current FRP rule includes requirements for the owner or 
operator of a facility to prepare and submit an FRP to the RA in 
Sec. 112.20(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). The proposed rule includes a new 
Sec. 112.20(a)(4) that describes the requirements for the facility 
owner or operator to prepare and submit an FRP using the new 
methodology for response planning for animal fats and vegetable oils. 
The proposed new methodology for calculating planning volumes for worst 
case discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils is discussed in 
Appendix E, Section 10.
    The proposed requirements for preparation and submission of an FRP 
for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities are as follows:
     If you have an approved FRP, you would not have to prepare 
a new plan, unless there is a planned change in design, construction, 
operation, or maintenance or an unplanned event or change in facility 
characteristics. The existing FRP would be good for the 5-year period 
of approval. The requirements for submitting a new plan after planned 
or unplanned changes or events would be the same as in the current 
rule.
     If you have submitted an FRP to the RA and have not 
received approval, you would recalculate response resources using the 
new methodology. The new methodology is described in detail in the 
discussion of Appendix E, Section 10. If your FRP does not meet or 
exceed the recalculated estimate of response resources, you would 
prepare and submit a new plan to meet this estimate within 60 days of 
the effective date of this rule. A new plan would not be required, 
however, if your existing FRP meets or exceeds the new estimate of 
response resources.
     If you are preparing a new FRP, you would ensure that 
response resources meet or exceed the estimate obtained using the new 
methodology. You would submit the new plan prior to the start of 
operations as required by the existing FRP rule.
     If you are amending your FRP, you would recalculate the 
response resources using the new methodology and ensure that response 
resources meet or exceed the new estimate. If the plan does not meet or 
exceed the requirements, you would submit a new plan. In the proposed 
rule, the time requirements for submitting a new plan remain the same 
as in the existing FRP rule.
3. Section 112.20(f) Facility Classification
    OPA requires agencies to classify facilities for the purposes of 
response planning based on the facility's expected ability to cause 
``substantial harm'' or ``significant and substantial harm'' to the 
environment in the event of a spill or discharge. In Sec. 112.20(f)(1), 
we indicate two sets of criteria that define a ``substantial harm'' 
facility for the purposes of response planning:
     Any non-transportation-related facility that transfers oil 
over water to or from vessels and has a total oil storage capacity 
greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
     Any non-transportation-related facility that has a total 
oil storage capacity of greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and 
meets at least one of the following criteria: has insufficient 
secondary containment to contain the capacity of the facility's largest 
storage container in each storage area plus precipitation; is located 
in proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments; is 
located in proximity to public drinking water intakes; or has 
experienced an oil spill greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within 
the last five years.

[[Page 17235]]

    The owner or operator of a facility that meets one of these 
requirements for ``substantial harm'' must prepare and submit to the 
Regional Administrator (RA) a response plan, or must self-certify that 
the facility does not meet the requirements of the FRP regulations and 
maintain that self-certification on file. An RA may determine that a 
facility could reasonably be expected to cause ``significant and 
substantial harm'' to the environment by considering the facility's 
frequency of past spills, the age of the facility's oil storage tanks, 
the facility's proximity to navigable waters, and other facility and 
Region-specific information, including local impacts on public health. 
If an RA makes such a determination, the RA must notify the facility 
owner or operator and must review and approve the response plan upon 
initial receipt of the plan and at least once every five years 
thereafter. The RA may require amendments to any ``significant and 
substantial harm'' FRP that does not meet the requirements in 40 CFR 
part 112. An appeals process allows facility owners or operators the 
opportunity to challenge the RA's determination.
    Currently, the owner or operator determines whether or not the 
facility can be considered a ``substantial harm'' facility. Then, EPA 
and the USCG make the initial designation of facilities as 
``substantial harm'' or ``significant and substantial harm'' and can 
subsequently reclassify them. For all types of oils, EPA designates a 
facility as ``substantial harm'' initially and then determines whether 
the facility meets criteria for ``significant and substantial harm.'' 
The USCG has determined that any facility capable of transferring any 
type of oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels (10,500 
gallons) or more, except for mobile facilities, could reasonably be 
expected to cause significant and substantial harm in the event of a 
discharge (33 CFR 154.1015(c)). The USCG considers non-petroleum oil 
facilities ``significant and substantial harm'' facilities unless they 
are reclassified. The USCG Captain of the Port may reclassify a 
facility based on certain relevant factors including, but not limited 
to: type and quantity of oil handled in bulk, facility spill history, 
age of facility, proximity to public and commercial water supply 
intakes, proximity to navigable waters, and proximity to sensitive 
environments.
    EPA's response planning rules intentionally do not distinguish 
between types of oils for the purposes of determining ``substantial 
harm'' and ``significant and substantial harm.'' We have decided not to 
modify the ``substantial harm'' and ``significant and substantial 
harm'' criteria or to distinguish between types of oils for the 
purposes of making the designation in this proposed rule. We have come 
to this decision because we believe that all oils addressed in the FRP 
rule have the potential to produce similar effects when released into 
the environment. The USCG is considering revisions to its 
classification scheme that would make its policy on initial 
classification more uniform with ours by initially classifying these 
facilities as ``substantial harm.''
4. Section 112.20(h)(5) Response Planning Levels
    a. Summary of proposed rule. In the existing FRP rule, the response 
plan must include a discussion of three specific planning scenarios for 
all oil discharges--small (2,100 gallons or less), medium (between 
2,100 and 36,000 gallons, or ten percent of the capacity of the largest 
tank), and worst case. Although we would add separate sections for 
animal fats and vegetable oils, we are proposing to keep the same 
response planning scenarios that are required in the existing rule. We 
are proposing no changes in the response planning level requirements 
for petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than to create separate 
regulatory sections for animal fats and vegetable oils. Because we 
understand that at the time of a spill certain factors may exist that 
counter the original assumptions used during response planning, we 
would continue to allow case-by-case deviations when such deviations 
afford equivalent environmental protection. Nothing in the response 
planning regulations is intended to limit the actions of the owner or 
operator of the facility provided that those actions are in accordance 
with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 
Plan (NCP), the Area Contingency Plan (ACP), and the Regional 
Contingency Plan and that the actions are approved by the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator.
    b. Comparison of facilities regulated by EPA and the USCG. Unlike 
EPA, the USCG currently requires response planning for non-petroleum 
oils (including animal fats and vegetable oils) at marine 
transportation-related facilities only for a worst case discharge. 
However, under 33 CFR 154.545 each facility must have ready access to 
enough containment material and equipment to contain any oil discharged 
on the water from operations at the facility. ``Access'' includes 
direct ownership, joint ownership, cooperative venture, or contractual 
agreement. The facility must establish response time limits, which are 
approved by the Captain of the Port, for deployment of containment 
material and equipment. These requirements were issued in 1980 and pre-
date the OPA response planning requirements and were intended to 
prepare a facility for an ``operational'' discharge. The USCG proposed 
rule retains response planning for a worst case discharge and proposes 
planning for Average Most Probable Discharge that is similar to 
existing requirements for identifying response equipment for 
operational discharges.
    EPA and the USCG regulate facilities with different physical 
activities and different response schemes to fit their environment. 
Each of the agencies addresses the most probable activities for the 
facilities under its jurisdiction. EPA's non-transportation-related 
facilities generally have a greater potential for large spills than 
USCG-regulated facilities. The worst case discharge from EPA-regulated 
facilities is often greater by an order of magnitude or more. EPA-
regulated facilities also tend to have a larger number of oil transfers 
than USCG-regulated facilities, and they have a significant potential 
for small and medium discharges. Because of the greater diversity of 
structures and processes, oil can discharge in many ways over a range 
of volumes at EPA-regulated facilities. At these facilities, there is a 
wide range of activities, and many parameters can affect discharges. 
Causes of oil discharges at EPA-regulated facilities can include tank 
failure, deterioration of tanks or valves, transfer from tank cars to 
tank trucks, and discharges from processing units. At USCG-regulated 
facilities, however, discharges usually result from human error or 
equipment failure, such as a barge sinking, or failure of off loading 
lines or valves. The spill size associated with these transfer 
activities is determined primarily by pump rate and pipe diameter and 
covers a narrower range than discharge volumes at EPA-regulated 
facilities.
    c. Rationale for planning for three response scenarios. EPA 
believes that discharges less severe than a worst case scenario may 
pose a serious threat to navigable waters, especially from the 
cumulative effects of several discharges, and that preparation to 
respond to smaller spills produces better overall protection of the 
nation's navigable waters. We have found that small spills of petroleum 
oils, vegetable oils, and animal fats oils can cause significant 
environmental damage (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997). Real-world 
examples demonstrate that spills of animal fats and vegetable oils do 
occur and produce harmful environmental effects.

[[Page 17236]]

    Various sizes of discharges can require different types and amounts 
of equipment, products, and personnel, and must therefore be addressed 
separately. For example, a facility may want to hire a contractor to 
support response to a worst case discharge scenario, but handle 
smaller, operational spills using its own personnel and equipment. To 
the extent that facility personnel are better able to address immediate 
actions associated with smaller spills, they will be better prepared to 
initiate a response to a worst case discharge until back-up resources 
arrive on-scene. Increased proficiency in handling the initial stages 
of a discharge can result in significant reductions in the extent of 
spill movement and associated impacts to the environment.
    We recognize that this planning approach may not be appropriate for 
all facilities, including those where the range of possible spill 
scenarios is small. Under the proposed rule, as under the current rule, 
large facilities would need to plan for three discharge amounts, but a 
small facility may only need to plan for two scenarios or a single 
scenario if the worst case discharge falls within one of the specified 
ranges. Many commenters on the 1993 proposed FRP rule (58 FR 8824, 
February 17, 1993) recognized that planning for responses to more 
commonly occurring discharges may be more beneficial to facilities than 
planning for a worst case discharge with a lower probability of 
occurrence.
    We have examined spill data for animal fats and vegetable oils to 
determine whether the distribution of discharge size for these oils is 
similar to the pattern for all oils. In the existing FRP rule, the 
planning volumes for discharges other than a worst case discharge are 
based on an analysis of Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 
data, which contains data on discharges from facilities, etc. These 
data showed that the average reported discharge is 1,300 gallons, and 
99.5 percent of the discharges of all oils were less than approximately 
36,000 gallons. The planning volume of 2,100 gallons or less for small 
discharges represents a realistic planning quantity. (See the Proposed 
FRP rule, 58 FR 8836, February 17, 1993).
    In many of the ERNS records for spills, animal fats and vegetable 
oils could not be distinguished from other non-petroleum oils, or data 
on spill volume were incomplete. ERNS data for the entire U.S. show 
that approximately 150 oils spills each year are greater than 10,000 
gallons; fewer than one percent of these larger discharges are 
positively identified as vegetable oil or animal fat.
    We also reviewed data from the USCG's Marine Safety Information 
System from 1992 to 1998 and found 28 non-petroleum discharges from 
non-transportation-related facilities and from the non-transportation 
segment of a transportation facility. The size of discharges ranged 
from one gallon to 7,500 gallons. Most discharges (24) were less than 
1,000 gallons and only 4 were greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons. 
Fifty percent of the discharges were less than 20 gallons and 93 
percent were less than 1,500 gallons.
    Other data demonstrate the occurrence of spills of animal fats and 
vegetable oils but do not provide estimates of spill size. Animal fats 
and vegetable oils were among the most frequently spilled organic 
materials, ranking sixth and seventh respectively, and were responsible 
for over 6 percent of all spills (384 of 6076 spills) of organic 
materials reported along the coasts and major waterways in the United 
States in 1973-1979 (Wolfe, 1986). Other authors estimate that at least 
5 percent of all spill notifications are for vegetable oils and animal 
fats (Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 1975). Of the 18,000 to 24,000 spills 
in the United States reported annually to the National Response Center 
and EPA Regions, 2 to 12 percent are from non-petroleum oils, including 
vegetable oils and animal fats (USEPA/OSWER, 1995, 1996).
    These figures represent the minimum number of spills. It is likely 
that they greatly underestimate the actual number of spills because of 
significant underreporting. We made a comparison of reports of spills 
in Ohio of vegetable oil and soybean oil from January 1984 to June 1993 
to the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and to 
the National Response Center (NRC). Only 7 of 27 reports (26 percent) 
to the Ohio EPA were also reported to the NRC (USEPA, 1994). There were 
a number of reports of vegetable and soybean oil spills to the NRC that 
were not on the State list (USEPA, 1994).
    We have also compared spills of animal fats and vegetable oils that 
were reported to the State of Iowa and to the NRC between 1991 and 
1996. Only 32 percent of the reports to Iowa were also reported to the 
NRC. Of 19 reports from fixed facilities, where the amount spilled was 
known, the size of discharges ranged from one gallon to 37,728 gallons. 
Most (13) were less than 1,000 gallons and only two were greater than 
10,000 gallons.
    d. Request for data and comment. Our figures on spill size suggest 
that the most commonly occurring discharges of animal fats and 
vegetable oils are small discharges. We request comment on the 
reliability of these data and whether these data are representative of 
spills of animal fats and vegetable oils at other facilities. We 
request that States or other parties who have data about the discharges 
of animal fats and vegetable oils provide this information to assist 
our rulemaking efforts.
    In keeping with requirements of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
Act, EPA has examined the properties and effects of classes of oils to 
determine how or whether to differentiate them in response planning 
levels. We have found that the properties and environmental effects are 
similar for petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils, and other 
non-petroleum oils. We also analyzed the size of oil discharges. 
According to our data, the size distribution for spills of animal fats 
and vegetable oils is comparable to that of all other oils.
    EPA solicits comments on whether it is feasible to require 
differentiated response planning levels for animal fats and vegetable 
oils. Members of the public have inquired as to whether we will modify 
the rule such that facilities would only be responsible for one or two 
planning levels instead of the three levels required in the existing 
rule. We presently have no basis for making this distinction in 
response planning levels for different classes of oils. Our existing 
information shows similar properties, effects, and spill size for 
animal fats and vegetable oils and other oils at EPA-regulated 
facilities. We solicit data justifying different levels of planning, 
such as combining small and medium discharge planning or eliminating 
some planning levels.
5. Other Changes
    As described in the following sections, most of the proposed 
changes affect Appendix E to part 112, which assists facility owners 
and operators in determining the required FRP response resources. Some 
general changes include adding to the Appendix new Sections 8.0, 9.0, 
and 10.0 for animal fats and vegetable oils, renumbering of existing 
sections, and adding and renumbering definitions in Section 1.2.
6. Appendix E, Section 1.2 Definitions
    a. Non-persistent oils and persistent oils. Sections 1.2.3 and 
1.2.8. In the current FRP rule, the definitions of persistent and non-
persistent oils rely on distillation criteria and specific gravity for 
petroleum oils and specific gravity for non-petroleum oils. We propose 
changing the definitions of

[[Page 17237]]

persistent and non-persistent oils to eliminate their applicability to 
animal fats and vegetable oils. The terms ``persistent'' and ``non-
persistent'' would still apply to petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils 
other than animal fats and vegetable oils. The definitions would also 
be renumbered.
    We are proposing to change these definitions because persistence or 
non-persistence of animal fats and vegetable oils does not depend 
merely on specific gravity. Instead, it depends on many environmental 
factors. The same oil may exhibit differing degrees of persistence in 
different environmental situations. In addition to the scientific 
imprecision of ``persistent'' and ``non-persistent'' for animal fats 
and vegetable oils, these terms do not determine response planning 
requirements for animal fats and vegetable oils in the current FRP rule 
or in the approach proposed in this rule.
    In our evaluation of studies on the environmental fate of animal 
fats and vegetable oils, we found that the extent of degradation or 
persistence depends on many factors (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997). 
Although some animal fats and vegetable oils can degrade rapidly, 
others persist in the environment years after the oil was spilled 
(Mudge et al., 1995; Mudge, 1995, 1997a, 1997b).
    Every spill is different. Factors such as pH (acidity), 
temperature, oxygen concentration, dispersal of oil, the presence of 
other chemicals, soil characteristics, nutrient quantities, and 
populations of various microorganisms at the location of the spill 
profoundly influence the degradation of oil. Environmental processes 
can alter the chemical composition and environmental behavior of the 
spilled oils and influence their proximity to environmentally sensitive 
areas and the environmental damage they cause.
    All oils can deplete oxygen and suffocate aquatic organisms. Under 
certain conditions, however, some animal fats and vegetable oils 
present a far greater risk to aquatic organisms than other oils spilled 
in the environment, as indicated by their greater biological oxygen 
demand (BOD). According to studies designed to measure the degradation 
of fats in wastewater, some food oils exhibit nearly twice the BOD of 
fuel oil and several times the BOD of other petroleum-based oils 
(Groenewold et al., 1982; Institute, 1985; Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 
1975). While the higher BOD of food oils is associated with greater 
biodegradability by microorganisms using oxygen, it also reflects the 
increased likelihood of oxygen depletion and suffocation of aquatic 
organisms under certain environmental conditions. Oil creates the 
greatest demand on the dissolved oxygen concentration in smaller water 
bodies, depending on the extent of mixing (Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 
1975). Furthermore, spilled animal fats and vegetable oils can cause 
long-term harm even if they remain in the environment for relatively 
short periods of time because they destroy existing and future food 
sources, reduce breeding animals and plants, and contaminate eggs and 
nesting habitats.
    b. Definitions for groups of oils. Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.9. We 
propose reclassifying the oil categories for animal fats and vegetable 
oils to further differentiate between classes of oils. We would add 
definitions of three new groups (Groups A, B, and C) for animal fats 
and vegetable oils. We have found that the specific gravity of most 
animal fats and vegetable oils falls within the range for Group 3 oils, 
so that we can reduce the number of categories for these oils. We are 
proposing to combine Groups 2, 3, and 4 into a single group (Group B) 
for animal fats and vegetable oils. No longer would animal fats and 
vegetable oils be considered Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in our proposed 
rule. Rather, they would belong to Groups A, B, or C. These groups 
would be used in new Tables 6 and 7 in Appendix E to assist owners or 
operators of facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats 
and vegetable oils in determining response equipment needs.
    The groups of oils are based on the specific gravity of the animal 
fats and vegetable oils. Most of the common vegetable oils and animal 
fats found in commerce will be classified in Group B with a specific 
gravity greater than or equal to 0.8 but less than 1.0. Group A 
substances are defined as having a specific gravity of less than 0.8 
and will include a few substances such as light greases. Group C 
substances are those with a specific gravity equal to or greater than 
1.0 and are likely to drop below the water's surface.
7. Appendix E, Section 3.0 Determining Response Resources Required for 
Small Discharges--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum Oils Other Than 
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    The current FRP rule describes planning requirements for small 
discharges of all oils in one section (Section 3.0). We are proposing 
to add a new section (Section 8.0) for animal fats and vegetable oils. 
The planning requirements for small discharge of other oils would 
remain in Section 3.0.
    Section 3.2. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for 
response planning for small discharges at installations with both EPA-
regulated and USCG-regulated facilities and describe current USCG 
requirements. This section would apply to petroleum oils and non-
petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils. We would add 
a separate section (Section 8.2) for animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Section 3.3. We propose minor revisions to clarify the 
determination of response resources. We would change the word ``spill'' 
to the more specific term ``discharge'' and change the number of the 
section mentioned in Section 3.3.3 to make it consistent with the new 
section numbers in the proposed rule.
8. Appendix E, Section 4. 0 Determining Response Resources Required for 
Medium Discharges--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum Oils Other Than 
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    The current FRP rule describes planning requirements for medium 
discharges of all oils in one section (Section 4.0). This section would 
apply to petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats 
and vegetable oils. We are proposing a new section (Section 9.0) for 
medium discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Section 4.2. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for 
response planning for medium discharges at EPA-USCG complexes and 
describe current USCG requirements. This section would apply to 
petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and 
vegetable oils.
    Section 4.4. We propose replacing the word ``spill'' with the more 
specific term ``discharge.''
9. Appendix E, Section 6.0. Determining the Appropriate Amount of 
Response Equipment
    We will continue to use the criteria in Section 6.0 to determine 
the effective daily recovery capacity (EDRC) of oil recovery devices. 
These criteria are specified in Section 5.4. Section 6.0 provides for 
primary and alternative criteria for determining the EDRC of oil 
recovery devices. We have no data to suggest that a different EDRC 
would be appropriate for animal fats and vegetable oils. We request 
comment and data on the EDRC of oil recovery devices for animal fats 
and vegetable oils and whether different rates are appropriate for 
animal fats, vegetable oils, and petroleum oils with similar physical 
and chemical characteristics.

[[Page 17238]]

10. Appendix E, Section 7.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst 
Case Discharge--Petroleum Oils and Non-petroleum Oils Other Than Animal 
Fats and Vegetable Oils
    In the current FRP rule, the worst case discharge of all oils is 
described in one section (Section 7.0). We propose adding new Section 
10.0 for animal fats and vegetable oils and removing animal fats and 
vegetable oils from provisions in Section 7.0. We propose to modify 
Section 7.0 to include only petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other 
than animal fats and vegetable oils. Our revisions would clarify that 
petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and 
vegetable oils are included in Sections 7.0, 7.1, 7.7, 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 
and 7.7.3.
    Section 7.7.5. Our revisions would require the facility owner or 
operator to ensure fire fighting resources by contract or other 
approved means. In the current rule, we recommend that the owner or 
operator ensure these resources. We propose this revision because 
although most oils do not easily catch fire by themselves, once oil 
fires begin, they are difficult to extinguish and can cause 
considerable environmental damage.
11. Appendix E, Section 8.0 Determining Response Resources Required for 
Small Discharges--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    In the current FRP rule, small discharges of all oils are included 
in one section (Section 3.0). We propose adding a new section (Section 
8.0) for small discharges for facilities that handle, store, or 
transport animal fats and vegetable oils. The requirements for other 
oils would remain in Section 3.0. The planning requirements for small 
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils would stay the same, 
except for the revisions that we propose below.
    Section 8.2. The proposed rule would explain the requirements for 
response planning for small discharges at EPA-USCG complexes and 
describe current USCG requirements.
    Section 8.3.1. The specific term ``discharge'' would replace 
``spill,'' which is used in current Section 3.3
    Section 8.3.3. We would renumber the section referred to in current 
Section 3.3.3.
12. Appendix E, Section 9.0 Determining Response Resources Required for 
Medium Discharges--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    In the current FRP rule, medium discharges of all oils are included 
in one section (Section 4.0). We propose adding Section 9.0 for medium 
discharges for facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats 
and vegetable oils. The requirements for other oils would remain in 
Section 4.0. The planning requirements for medium discharges of animal 
fats and vegetable oils would stay the same, except for the revisions 
that we propose below.
    Section 9.2. The proposed rule would explain the requirements for 
response planning for medium discharges at EPA-USCG complexes and would 
separate sections for petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils. The 
proposed rule would clarify current USCG requirements.
    Sections 9.4 and 9.6. We would renumber the sections described in 
current Sections 4.4 and 4.6.
    Section 9.7. We are including a new example that demonstrates the 
method discussed in this Appendix for calculating response planning 
equipment for medium discharges.
13. Appendix E, Section 10.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst 
Case Discharge--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
    a. Summary of Proposed Revisions. In the current FRP rule, worst 
case discharges for all oils are included in one section (Section 7.0), 
which includes separate provisions for non-petroleum oils (Section 
7.7). We address the likely differences in responding to spills of 
petroleum oil as opposed to non-petroleum oils, and create an approach 
that allows owners or operators of facilities that handle, store, or 
transport non-petroleum oils the flexibility to determine appropriate 
response equipment within the framework established by the regulation. 
(See Section 7.7 of Appendix E to 40 CFR part 112.) We provide further 
flexibility by allowing the Regional Administrator to assess the 
adequacy of response plans, including those for non-petroleum 
facilities, to account for site-specific factors. We do not prescribe 
the type and amount of equipment that response plans for non-petroleum 
oil discharges must identify. As required at Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(i), in 
cases where it is not appropriate to follow part of Appendix E to 
identify response resources to meet the facility response plan 
requirements, owners or operators must clearly demonstrate in the plan 
why use of Appendix E is not appropriate at the facility and make 
comparable arrangements for response resources.
    Our review of FRPs submitted to date shows that most owners and 
operators of facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats 
and vegetable oils have voluntarily employed the petroleum oil 
methodology for determining response resources. The petroleum oil 
methodology is appropriate for determining response resources for 
petroleum discharges at facilities that store both petroleum oils and 
animal fats and vegetable oils. We are proposing a similar approach 
with some different factors for derermining response resources for 
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils at such facilities and at 
facilities that store only animal fats and vegetable oils.
    We are proposing a separate section (Section 10.0) describing the 
approach for calculating planning volumes for a worst case discharge of 
animal fats and vegetable oils. This new section reflects recent 
knowledge about the emulsification and environmental fate of animal 
fats and vegetable oils. It clearly differentiates between animal fats 
and vegetable oils and other classes of oils. The definitions and 
groups of animal fats and vegetable oils described above--Groups A, B, 
and C--are included in this section. The requirements for other oils 
would remain in Section 7.0.
    We propose two new tables for animal fats and vegetable oils--Table 
6, Removal Capacity Planning Table for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils, 
and Table 7, Emulsification Factors for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils. 
These tables are discussed in detail below.
    The proposed methodology includes paragraphs on the following 
topics:
    Section 10.1. Accounting for the potential for loss of oil to the 
environment through physical, chemical, and biological processes and 
deposition of oil on the shoreline or on sediments when planning for 
on-water oil recovery.
    Section 10.2. Steps in determining the on-water recovery capacity.
    Section 10.3. Procedures to calculate the volume for shoreline 
cleanup resource planning and identify appropriate shoreline cleanup 
capacity.
    Section 10.4. Identifying response resources with appropriate fire 
fighting capability.
    Section 10.5. An example showing how the proposed method and tables 
would be applied.
    Section 10.6. Procedures for Group C oils (oil with a specific 
gravity greater than 1.0).
    Section 10.7. Procedures used to determine appropriate response 
plan development and evaluation criteria.
    b. Calculating planning volumes for a worst case discharge using 
the current FRP rule. EPA and the USCG considered the components of the 
weathering process in developing criteria for

[[Page 17239]]

determining adequate response resources for the purpose of response 
planning for oils. These criteria considered loss to the environment, 
potential for on-water recovery, and potential for shoreline impact. In 
developing rules for response planning for facilities and tank vessels, 
EPA and the USCG have previously discussed the applicability, 
development, and use of these criteria in several Federal Register 
notices (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997; 61 FR 7890, February 29, 1996; 
61 FR 1081, January 12, 1996; 59 FR 34070, July 1, 1994; 58 FR 7330, 
February 5, 1993; 58 FR 7376, February 5, 1993; 57 FR 27514, June 19, 
1992).
    The current FRP rule details several steps to calculate planning 
volume for a worst case discharge of petroleum oils. These steps 
involve selecting factors from tables and multiplying these factors by 
other numbers. The rule includes a worksheet that explains these steps. 
If you are a petroleum oil facility owner or operator, you must follow 
the steps in Appendix E to identify response resources or, where not 
appropriate, clearly demonstrate in the response plan why use of 
Appendix E is not appropriate at your facility and make comparable 
arrangements for response resources.
    Under the current rule, if you are an owner or operator of a 
facility that handles, stores, or transports petroleum oils, you would 
determine the worst case discharge, the oil groups at the facility, and 
the geographic areas in which the facility operates (Table 1). Next, 
you would determine the percentages of oil volume used to determine 
resource planning for recovery of floating oil and shoreline cleanup 
(based on Table 2). Then you would obtain the on-water oil recovery 
capacity by multiplying this figure by an emulsification factor (Table 
3) and an on-water oil recovery resource mobilization factor (Table 4). 
This latter value depends on the geographic area where your facility 
operates (such as rivers and canals or inland/nearshore areas) and 
three levels of response tiers. As a facility owner or operator, you 
would have to plan for a certain proportion of response resources to 
arrive at the scene of the discharge within the time frames that 
correspond to the three response tiers. Next, you would determine 
whether the requirements for the three response tiers exceed the values 
for response capability caps by operating area (Table 5). You would 
have to ensure by contract or other approved means, as described in 
Sec. 112.2, availability of the quantity of resources required to meet 
the cap. You would not need to contract for resources that are above 
the response capability caps in advance, but you must identify sources 
of additional response resources. Once you had determined the amount 
and type of response equipment that you need, you would have to 
identify the additional response resources available by contract or 
other approved means, as described in Sec. 112.2. The equipment that 
you identify must be capable of operating effectively in the conditions 
where the facility operates and within the tier response times.
    If you are the owner or operator of a non-petroleum oil facility, 
including an animal fat or vegetable oil facility, you would have 
greater flexibility than the owner or operator of a petroleum oil 
facility. You would have to show procedures and strategies for 
responding to the maximum extent practicable to a worst case discharge; 
show sources of equipment and supplies necessary to locate, recover, 
and mitigate discharges; demonstrate that the equipment identified will 
work in the conditions expected in the relevant geographic areas, and 
respond within the required times; and ensure the availability of 
required resources by contract or other approved means. You would not 
be limited to using the emulsification and evaporation factors in the 
petroleum tables (Tables 2 and 3).
    c. Calculating planning volumes for a worst case discharge of 
animal fats and vegetable oils under the proposed rule. The proposed 
rule would make no changes in the methodology for calculating planning 
volumes for a worst case discharge of petroleum oils or non-petroleum 
oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils. For animal fats and 
vegetable oils, we propose to modify the methodology that is used to 
assess response equipment needs for petroleum oils to account for 
factors that are specific to animal fats and vegetable oils. With the 
proposed methodology, the owner or operator of an animal fat or 
vegetable oil facility would calculate response resources using the 
same steps that are used for petroleum oils, but some factors used in 
the calculation would be different. Section 10.0 describes the proposed 
methodology.
    The proposed methodology includes two new tables to Appendix E 
(Table 6, Removal Capacity Planning for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils, 
and Table 7, Emulsification Factors for Animal Fats and Vegetable 
Oils). For animal fats and vegetable oils, these tables would replace 
Tables 2 and 3, which apply to petroleum oils. Three existing tables 
(Table 1, Response Resource Operating Criteria; Table 4, On-Water Oil 
Recovery Resource Mobilization Factors; and Table 5, Response 
Capability Caps by Operating Area) would remain the same in the 
proposed methodology. We are including Table 5 to recognize the 
practical limitations on the availability of response resources. The 
use of response caps in the methodology for petroleum oils and animal 
fats and vegetable oils would prevent excessive planning requirements 
for response equipment that does not exist in general operating areas. 
Any equipment identified in a response plan would have to be capable of 
operating in the conditions expected in the geographic area(s) (i.e., 
operating environments) in which the facility operates using the 
criteria in Table 1 (see Section 10.7.2 of Appendix E). The proposed 
rule also includes an example (Section 10.5) and a new worksheet that 
shows a second example of the calculation of response resources for a 
worst case discharge of animal fat or vegetable oils (Attachment E-2).
    If you are the owner or operator of an animal fat or vegetable oil 
facility who is using the proposed methodology, you would follow the 
steps listed in the new worksheet to determine response resources. 
First you would calculate the worst case discharge for your facility 
and determine the oil group and operating area. The oil group is listed 
in Table 7 and defined in Section 1.2 of this Appendix. The operating 
areas are defined in Section 1.1 of Appendix C and listed in Table 1 of 
Appendix E. In the next step, you would determine the percentage of 
your oil that is apportioned to the three segments listed in Table 6--
oil lost to the environment, recovered floating oil, and oil onshore. 
By multiplying the percentage of oil on-water or onshore by the worst 
case discharge, you would determine on-water oil recovery or shoreline 
recovery. Next, you would multiply the on-water recovery or shoreline 
recovery by the emulsification factor, which is determined in Table 7. 
You would multiply that figure by the on-water oil recovery resource 
mobilization factors for the three response tiers in Table 4 and 
compare the values to the response capability caps in Table 5. You must 
ensure by contract, or other approved means, as described in 
Sec. 112.2, availability of the quantity of resources to meet the 
applicable caps. You would not need to contract in advance for amounts 
of response resources above the caps, but you must identify sources of 
additional response resources.
    d. Removal capacity planning for animal fats and vegetable oils. In 
the current FRP rule, owners or operators of non-petroleum oil 
facilities do not have to use the evaporation factors that apply

[[Page 17240]]

to petroleum oils in Table 2. Unlike petroleum oils, most animal fats 
and vegetable oils do not contain substantial amounts of volatile 
materials that evaporate. Compared to some petroleum oils, a greater 
proportion of spilled vegetable oils and animal fats usually remains in 
the water, collects on sediments or land, or contaminates biota (USDOC/
NOAA, 1992, 1996; Hui, 1996a, 1996b).
    We are proposing a new table, Table 6, Removal Capacity Planning 
Table for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils. This table accounts for the 
potential for natural degradation of oil as spilled animal fats and 
vegetable oils undergo changes in the environment. Although we 
recognize that degradation is affected by many factors and conditions 
that are specific to each spill, we are proposing the percentages of 
loss and recovery in Table 6 to aid in response planning.
    To arrive at the numbers in Table 6, EPA has examined numerous 
studies on the fate and effects of animal fats and vegetable oils in 
the environment (62 FR 54508, October 20, 1997). Experiments using 
three vegetable oils (olive oil, sunflower oil, and linseed oil) 
demonstrated that natural degradation occurred at a rate of between 3 
and 8 percent per day (Mudge et al., 1994). At some stage during the 
degradation process, the oils polymerized and degradation rates were 
reduced to less than 1 percent per day. Polymerization, a chemical 
reaction in which a large number of relatively simple molecules combine 
to form a chain-like macromolecule, occurs spontaneously in the 
environment (Sax and Lewis, 1987). With polymerization, soybean oil and 
sunflower oil form a concrete-like aggregate with soil and sand that 
cannot be readily degraded by bacteria and may remain in the 
environment for many years after they are spilled (Minnesota, 1963; 
Mudge, 1995, 1997a, 1997b). Petroleum oils also undergo oxidation and 
polymerization reactions and can form tars that persist in the 
environment for years (NAS, 1985). Animal fats and vegetable oils can 
also be transformed by other chemical reactions, such as hydrolysis.
    Another study, which is being conducted for EPA by Battelle 
Columbus Laboratories, measures the biodegradation of vegetable oils 
(Venosa and Alleman, Personal Communication, 1999). Preliminary data 
provide an estimate of the biodegradation of two vegetable oils that 
occurs under the conditions of the experiment. The experiment was 
carried out at three pH levels (5, .7, and 9) and at two temperatures 
(10  deg.C and 25  deg.C). Bacterial cultures were added to samples of 
crude soybean oil and crude canola oil, and oil was extracted from the 
samples at various times using standard method 5520B (APHA, 1992). 
Because this extractable oil includes lipids derived from the bacteria 
and other sources, the values represent the minimum amount of 
biodegradation of the samples. At 25 C at least 20 to 25 percent of the 
crude soybean oil was biodegraded after 25 days, and at least 15 to 39 
percent of the crude canola oil was biodegraded after 36 days, 
depending on pH. At the lower temperature less biodegradation occurred. 
The total extractable oil was measured for a period up to 36 days. The 
sample was cloudy, indicating significant emulsification. During 
biodegradation an increase in toxicity was observed using the Microtox 
test (ASTM, 1997).
    Other reports indicate that the degradation of animal fats and 
vegetable oils depends on a variety of factors. A summary of a group of 
studies by the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 
(MAFF) explains that biodiesel (rape methyl ester), which was tested at 
three concentrations, disappeared from the waterbody, plants, and 
sediments more quickly than marine diesel (MAFF, 1996). Another report 
describes the deterioration of olive oil by hydrolysis, phytoxidation, 
and microbial action (Kiritsakis, 1991). The transformation of 
vegetable oils exposed to air and light has been measured in terms of 
deterioration of flavor (Hui, 1996a). A study of land disposal of 
cooking oils used in potato processing measured a decomposition of 70 
to 76 percent of the oil in soils over 12 weeks (Smith, 1974). When 
adequate nitrogen was present, palm oil and soybean oil decomposed 
rapidly. Another study reported that various fungal species caused 
biochemical changes in the constituents of palm oil (Cornelius et al., 
1965). Factors that affect the biodegradation of oils include pH, 
dispersal of oil, dissolved oxygen, presence of nutrients, soil type, 
type of oil, and the concentration of undissociated fatty acids in 
water (Ratledge, 1994; Venosa et al., 1996; Salanitro et al., 1997).
    Based on the above information, we are suggesting that 
approximately 20 percent of the volume of a Group B animal fat or 
vegetable oil may be lost due to natural processes. We also expect that 
facilities could plan to recover from the water approximately 15 
percent of the total oil discharged during a 3-day period of sustained 
operations in the Rivers and Canals operating environment. Due to the 
narrowness of many of these operating environments, the spilled oil is 
more likely to become stranded on the shoreline. We expect that 
facilities could plan to recover approximately 20 percent of the oil 
discharged during a 4-day period of sustained operations in the 
Nearshore, Inland, and Great Lakes operating environments. Because of 
the open nature of these operating environments, there will be a 
greater opportunity for on-water recovery before the oil is stranded on 
the shoreline. However, one study comparing canola oil (rapeseed oil) 
to crude oil indicates that under certain conditions a 30 to 40 percent 
increase in the recovery of canola oil is likely when compared to crude 
oil (Allen and Nelson, 1983). In actual spill situations, some 
responders have indicated that a larger percentage of the discharged 
animal fats or vegetable oils may be recovered on the water than the 
level we are proposing for on-water recovery in Table 6.
    We request data and comments on the factors listed in Table 6, 
including whether higher factors (percentage recovered) for on-water 
recovery are appropriate. We are particularly interested in receiving 
data on recovery of animal fats and vegetable oils from oil spill 
contractors, such as Oil Spill Removal Organizations, or others who may 
have experience in responding to discharges of animal fats and 
vegetable oils. We are also interested in ongoing or planned research 
on animal fats and vegetable oils that relates to these factors.
    e. Emulsification factors for animal fats and vegetable oils. The 
tendency of petroleum and non-petroleum oils to form emulsions of 
water-in-oil or oil-in-water depends on the unique chemical composition 
of the oil (NAS, 1985; Knowlton and Pearce, 1993; Fingas et al., 1995; 
Lewis et al., 1995). Emulsification also depends on tempera ture, the 
presence of stabilizing compounds, and other factors. Some oils contain 
natural emulsifiers, such as lecithin, or form compounds, such as 
monoglycerides, that are used as commercial emulsifiers (Hui, 1996c). 
When an emulsion is formed in the environment, the oil changes 
appearance, and its viscosity can increase by many orders of magnitude 
(USDOC/NOAA, 1994). Removal of the oil becomes harder because of the 
increased difficulty in pumping viscous fluids with up to fivefold 
increases in volume.
    While there is no simple method for determining the tendency of 
oils to form emulsions in the environment, one study demonstrated that 
canola oil and crude oils have similar tendencies for emulsification in 
cold temperature tests

[[Page 17241]]

(Allen and Nelson, 1983). Each oil took up approximately 10 percent of 
the original volume in water globules that did not settle out for 
several hours in the shake test. Under warm conditions, canola oil 
formed small stable emulsions, while crude oil formed emulsions with 
large amounts of seawater.
    Another study indicates that certain crude and refined vegetable 
oils form emulsions, ranging from 10 to 32 percent. The investigators 
observed that crude corn oil has a greater tendency to emulsify than 
refined corn oil (Calanog et al., 1999).
    According to one scale, the characteristics of some animal fats and 
vegetable oils and petroleum oils are similar (Hui, 1996c). The 
hydrophilic-lyphophilic balance (HLB) scale characterizes the 
solubility of emulsifiers. The scale has been used by manufacturers 
seeking emulsifier systems with high stability and long shelf life. The 
original HLB scale ranges from 0 to 20. The low end of the scale 
signifies an emulsifier that is more soluble in oil than water, while 
emulsifiers in the high end of the scale are more soluble in water than 
in oil. Water/oil emulsions are most stable in the 3 to 6 range; oil/
water emulsions are favored in the 11 to 15 range; and emulsions with 
intermediate values are generally not stable.
    Some petroleum oils and vegetable oils and animal fats have a 
similar range of HLB values in water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions 
used in commercial products (Knowlton and Pearce, 1993). The required 
HLB values for water-in-oil emulsions are 5 for cottonseed oil, 4 to 6 
for mineral oil, 6 for kerosene, and 7 for gasoline. For oil-in-water 
emulsions, HLB values for vegetable oils and animal fats include 5 for 
lard, 6 for tallow, 6 to 10 for cottonseed oil, 12 for menhaden oil, 
and 14 for castor oil; for other oils, HLB values for oil-in-water 
emulsions are 7 to 8 for petrolatum, 10 to 12 for mineral oils, 12 for 
kerosene, and 14 for petroleum naphtha.
    While the physical properties of vegetable oils and animal fats are 
highly variable, most fall within a range that is similar to the 
physical parameters for petroleum oils (October 20, 1997, 63 FR 24508, 
Appendix I, Table 1). Common properties, such as solubility, specific 
gravity, and viscosity, are responsible for the similar environmental 
effects of discharges of petroleum oils and animal fats and vegetable 
oils. These common properties are also likely to result in similar 
emulsification factors between petroleum oils and animal fats and 
vegetable oils.
    Based on similarities in chemical and physical characteristics of 
petroleum oils, vegetable oils, and animal fats, we are proposing 
emulsification factors for animal fats and vegetable oils which are 
similar to the emulsification factors for petroleum oils in 
corresponding oil groups. Emulsification factors are unitless 
multipliers that are used in calculating planning volumes for worst 
case discharges. The emulsification factors in Table 7 account for the 
increases in volume that result when discharged oil forms emulsions. 
For example, the emulsification factor of 2.0 means that the volume of 
the oil increases two-fold when emulsified with water under appropriate 
mixing conditions.
    We request data on emulsification factors for animal fats or 
vegetable oils from either laboratory testing or from actual 
discharges.
    f. Example--Application of Response Capability Caps to determine 
response resources. We propose to apply the Response Capability Caps in 
Table 5 in Appendix E to response equipment requirements for animal 
fats and vegetable oils. In reviewing response plans submitted by 
facilities that handle or store animal fats or vegetable oils, we 
discovered that most plan holders had voluntarily employed the 
petroleum oil methodology for determining response resources. In 
proposing a methodology for animal fats and vegetable oils that is 
similar to but different from the methodology for petroleum oils, we 
determined that it is appropriate to recognize the practical 
limitations on the availability of response resources. Failure to do 
this may result in excessive planning requirements for response 
equipment that does not exist in the general operating areas. See 
Appendix A in the preamble and Appendix B in the preamble for examples 
of the Planning Worksheet from Appendix E in 40 CFR part 112 and 
application of the values in proposed Tables 6 and 7. The examples 
demonstrate how the application of the Response Capability Caps is as 
relevant for vegetable oils and animal fats as it is for petroleum 
oils.
    Determining the planning volume and response resources. To follow 
the methodology, you would establish the volume of the worst case 
discharge using one of the methods in Appendix D in part 112. Then you 
would identify the oil group using the definitions in Section 1.2 of 
Appendix E, identify the facility operating area using the definitions 
in Appendix C, and locate the appropriate operating area (spill 
location) in Table 6 in Appendix E. From Table 6, column Nearshore/
Inland/Great Lakes, you would identify the ``Percent Recovered Floating 
Oil'' and the ``Percent Recovered Oil from Onshore.'' You would 
multiply the ``Percent Recovered Floating Oil'' by the worst case 
discharge and multiply the resulting value by the proper emulsification 
factor in Table 7 to establish the on-water oil recovery volume in 
barrels. You would consult Table 4 in Appendix E to establish the On-
Water Oil Recovery Resource Mobilization Factors. Then you would 
multiply the factors in each of the three tiers by the on-water oil 
recovery volume to determine the on-water recovery capacity (barrels 
per day) that must be planned to be on scene at the response times 
provided in Section 5.3 in Appendix E. You can check these values 
against the Response Capability Caps (expressed in barrels per day) in 
Table 5 for the specific operating area and date. The facility owner or 
operator (plan holder) must ensure by contract or other approved means 
the availability of response resources for the lesser of either the on-
water recovery capacity or the capability caps. Response resources are 
required to be identified (but not contracted for in advance) for the 
volume above the response capability caps. The capability of oil 
recovery devices can be determined using Section 6.0 in Appendix E in 
part 112. To establish the shoreline cleanup volume, you would multiply 
the ``Percent Recovered Oil from Onshore'' from Table 6, column 
Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes in Appendix E times the worst case 
discharge times the proper emulsification factor. The resulting volume 
must be used to identify an oil spill removal organization with the 
appropriate shoreline cleanup capability.
    Comparison of planning volumes and response resources. Appendix C 
in this preamble provides an example of the application of existing 
regulations for petroleum oils. When the on-water recovery capacity 
(Part II of the Worksheets) is compared in each of the three examples 
in Appendix A, B, and C of the preamble, it is apparent that the 
required planning volume for animal fats and vegetable oils to be 
recovered from the water is less than for petroleum oils. The proposed 
rule will require lesser amounts of response equipment to be identified 
in a response plan for facilities that are located in the nearshore or 
inland operating areas relative to a similar facility with petroleum 
oil. It is also apparent that application of the Response Capability 
Caps in Table 5 in Appendix E limits the amount of daily recovery 
capacity

[[Page 17242]]

required to be ensured by contract or other approved means.
    Section 10.5 in the proposed rule provides a similar example of 
calculating the planning volume from a worst case discharge of animal 
fats and vegetable oils into an Inland Operating Area. The planning 
volume for on-water recovery is for a worst case discharge of 21 
million gallons (500,000 barrels) of Group B vegetable oil.
    By using the Response Capability Caps in Table 5, facilities that 
handle or store oils are limited in the amount of response resources 
they must have under contract or otherwise identify in the FRP. The 
caps in Table 5 reflect the limits of technology and private removal 
capability. Table 5 also provides the increases in the response 
capability caps after February 18, 1998 to reflect the increase in 
private removal resources. One study by the USCG on the scheduled 
increases in removal resources indicates that the response capability 
caps that were scheduled for 1998 have been exceeded in many areas.

C. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    EPA requests comment concerning ways we might differentiate among 
the various classes of oils listed in the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
Act for purposes of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 
Rule, found at 40 CFR part 112. Those classes of oil are: animal fats 
and oils and greases, and fish and marine mammal oils; oils of 
vegetable origin, including oils from seeds, nuts, and kernels; and 
other oils and greases, including petroleum. We are interested in how 
we might differentiate in the prevention requirements for these classes 
of oils based on the physical, chemical, biological, and other 
properties of these oils, and on their environmental effects if 
discharged into the environment.

III. Bibliography

Albers, P.H. (1995). Oil, Biological Communities and Contingency 
Planning. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir, and C. Smith, Editors, Wildlife 
and Oil Planning, Response, Research, and Contingency Planning. Tri-
State Bird Rescue and Research, Newark, Delaware, pp. 1-9.
Allen, A. and W.C. Nelson. (1983). Canola Oil As a Substitute for Crude 
Oil in Cold Water Tests. Spills Technology Newsletter, January-
February, pp. 4-10.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works 
Association, Water Pollution Control Federation. (1992). Standard 
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 5520B--Partition 
Gravitation Method. American Public Health Association, Washington, 
D.C. 18th Edition.
Aqua Survey, Inc. (1993). Diesel Fuel, Beef Tallow, RBD Soybean Oil and 
Crude Soybean Oil: Acute Effects on the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales 
Promelas. Study # 93-136, May 21, 1993.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1997). Annual Book 
of ASTM Standards, Section 11. Water and Environmental. Volume 11.04., 
Designation D 5660-96. Standard Test Method for Assessing the Microbial 
Detoxification of Chemically Contaminated Water and Soil Using a 
Toxicity Test with a Luminescent Marine Bacterium. pp. 235-242.
Berardi, L.C. and L.A. Goldblatt. (1980). Gossypol. In: I.E. Liener, 
Editor, Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs. Second Edition, 
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 183-237.
Boyd, E.M. (1973). Toxicity of Pure Foods. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH, 
pp. 71-111.
Calanog, S. A., J.Y. Chen, and R.F. Toia. (1999). Preliminary 
Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Non-Petroleum Oils in the Aquatic 
Environment, Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill 
Conference, March 8-11, 1999, Seattle, Washington, in press.
Cornelius, J.A., H.O.W. Eggins, and A. Wallbridge. (1965). 
Biodeterioration of Palm Oil Constituents Caused by Fungi. Intern. 
Biodeterior. Bull. 1:46-55.
Crump-Wiesner, H. J. and A.L. Jennings. (1975). Properties and Effects 
of Non-petroleum Oils. Pro. of 1975 Conference on Prevention and 
Control of Pollution. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 
29-32.
ENVIRON Corporation. (1993). Environmental Effects of Releases of 
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils to Waterways. Arlington, VA, June 3, 
1993.
Fingas, M., Z. Wang, P. Jokuty, P. Lambert, B. Fieldhouse, and G. 
Sergy. (1995). Oil Behaviour, Fate and Modeling Projects, Pro. Second 
International Oil Spill Research and Development Forum. International 
Maritime Organization, London, UK, Volume 1, May 1995, pp. 399-407.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health 
Organization (FAO/WHO). (1994). Fats and Oils in Human Nutrition. 
Expert Consultation, October 19-26, 1993, Rome. Published by FAO, pp. 
1-102, 113-147.
French, C.E., R.H. Ingram, J.A. Uram, G.P. Barron, and R.W. Swift. 
(1953). The Influence of Dietary Fat and Carbohydrate on Growth and 
Longevity in Rats. J. Nutr. 51:329-339. Cited in: National Research 
Council, Nutrient Requirement of Laboratory Animals, 4th Edition. 
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p. 20, 1995.
Frink, L. (1994). Statement on Regulatory Standards for the 
Transportation of Edible Oil. Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research, Inc., 
January 30, 1994.
Groenewold, J.C., R.F. Pico, and K.S. Watson. (1982). Comparison of BOD 
Relationships for Typical Edible and Petroleum Oils. Journal of the 
Water Pollution Control Federation, 54(4):398-405, April 1982.
Hartung, R. (1995). Assessment of the Potential for Long-Term 
Toxicological Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds and 
Mammals. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler, and J.S. Hughes, Editors, Exxon 
Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters, American Society 
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 693-725.
Hui, Y.H. (1996a). Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Edible Oil 
and Fat Products: General Application. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New 
York, NY, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, pp.1-280, 397-439.
Hui, Y.H. (1996b). Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Edible Oil 
and Fat Products: Oils and Oilseeds. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 
NY, Volume 2, Fifth Edition, pp.1689.
Hui, Y.H. (1996c). Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Edible Oil 
and Fat Products: Products and Application Technology. John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc., New York, NY, Volume 4, Fifth Edition, pp.1-655.
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc. (1985). Treatment of 
Wastewaters from Food Oil Processing Plants in Municipal Facilities. 
October 1985, pp. 1-18.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1984). Evaluation 
of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Polynuclear Aromatic 
Compounds, Part 2, Carbon Blacks, Mineral Oils and Some Nitroarenes. 
IARC, France, 33:29-31, 87-168.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1989). Evaluation 
of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Occupational Exposures 
in Petroleum Refining: Crude Oil and Major Petroleum Fuels. IARC, 
France, 45:13-272.
Internationa1 Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd. (ITOPF). (1987). 
Response to Marine Oil Spills, pp. I.5-I.11.

[[Page 17243]]

Kiritsakis, A.K. (1991). Olive Oil. American Oil Chemists' Society, 
Champaign, IL, pp. 25-33, 104-127, and 157-161.
Klaassen, C.D., M. O. Amdur, and J. Doull. (1986). Casarett and Doull's 
Toxicology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, Third Edition, 
pp. 11-98, 519-635.
Knowlton, J. and S. Pearce. (1993). Emulsions In: Handbook of Cosmetic 
Science and Technology. Elsevier Advanced Technology, Oxford, U.K., 
First Edition, pp. 21-32, 95-118, 528-529.
Lewis, A., P.S. Daling, T. Strom-Kristiansen, and P.J. Brandvik. 
(1995). The Properties and Behavior of Crude Oil Spilled at Sea. Pro. 
Second International Oil Spill Research and Development Forum. 
International Maritime Organization, London, United Kingdom, Volume 1, 
May 1995, pp. 408-420.
Mattson, F.H. (1973). Potential Toxicity of Food Lipids. In: National 
Academy of Sciences, Toxicants Occurring Naturally in Foods. National 
Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, DC, pp. 189-209.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Alternative Crops 
Unit, London. (1996). Degradation and Phytotoxicity of Biodiesel Oil--
Executive Summary, pp. 1-2.
Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish. 
(1963). Waterfowl Mortality Caused by Oil Pollution of the Minnesota 
and Mississippi Rivers in 1963. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual 
Meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, pp. 149-
177.
Mudge, S.M. (1995). Deleterious Effects from Accidental Spillages of 
Vegetable Oils. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 2 (2/3): 187-191.
Mudge, S.M. (1997a). Presentation, Third International Ocean Pollution 
Symposium, April 6-11, 1997, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, 
Ft. Pierce, Florida.
Mudge, S.M. (1997b). Can Vegetable Oils Outlast Mineral Oils in the 
Marine Environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Mudge, S.M., H. Saunders, and J. Latchford. (1994). Degradation of 
Vegetable Oils in the Marine Environment. Countryside Commission for 
Wales Report, CCW, Bangor, ME, pp. 1-41.
Mudge, S.M., I.D. Goodchild, and M. Wheeler. (1995). Vegetable Oil 
Spills on Salt Marshes. Chemistry and Ecology 10: 127-135.
Mudge, S.M., M.A. Salgado, and J. East. (1993). Preliminary 
Investigation into Sunflower Oil Contamination Following the Wreck of 
the M.V. Kimya. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(1):40-43.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC). 
(1981). Nutrient Requirements of Coldwater Fishes. National Academy 
Press, Washington, DC, Number 16, pp. 6-53.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC). 
(1983). Nutrient Requirements of Warmwater Fishes and Shellfishes. 
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, Revised Edition, pp. 2-58.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1985). Oil in the Sea--Inputs, 
Fates and Effects. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 89-547.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC). 
(1995). Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals. National Academy 
Press, Washington, DC, Fourth Revised Edition.
Ratledge, C. (1994). Biodegradation of Oils, Fats, and Fatty Acids. In: 
C. Ratledge, Editor, Biochemistry of Microbial Degradation. Kluwer 
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 89-141.
Salanitro, J.P., P. Dorn, M. Huesemann, K.O. Moore, I.A. Rhodes, L.M.R. 
Jackson, T.E. Vipond, M.M. Western, and H.L. Wisniewski. (1997). Crude 
Oil Hydrocarbon Bioremediation and Soil Ecotoxicity Assessment. 
Environ. Sci. Technol. 31:1769-1776.
Salgado, M. (1995). The Effects of Vegetable Oil Contamination on 
Mussels. PhD Thesis, School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, 
Menai Bridge, Gwynedd, United Kingdom. October 1995, pp. 1-219.
Sax, N.I. and R.J. Lewis, Jr. (1987). Hawley's Condensed Chemical 
Dictionary, 11th edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., p. 939.
Smith, J.H. (1974). Decomposition in Soil of Waste Cooking Oils Used in 
Potato Processing. J. Environ. Quality, 3:279-281.
Stickney, R.R. and J.W. Andrews. (1971). Combined Effects of Dietary 
Lipids and Environmental Temperature on Growth, Metabolism and Body 
Composition of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). J. Nutr. 101: 
1703-1710. Cited in: NAS/NRC (1983), Nutrition Requirements of 
Warmwater Fishes and Shellfishes. National Academy Press, Washington 
DC, pp. 9-11.
Stickney, R.R. and J.W. Andrews. (1972). Effects of Dietary Lipids on 
Growth, Food Conversion, Lipid and Fatty Acid Composition of Channel 
Catfish. J. Nutr. 102: 249-258. Cited in: NAS/NRC (1983), Nutrition 
Requirements of Warmwater Fishes and Shellfishes. National Academy 
Press, Washington DC, pp. 9-11.
Takeuchi, T. and T. Watanabe. (1979). Studies on Nutritive Value of 
Dietary Lipids in Fish. XIX. Effect of Excessive Amounts of Essential 
Fatty Acids on Growth of Rainbow Trout. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 45: 
1517-1519. Cited in: NAS/NRC (1983), Nutrient Requirements of Warmwater 
Fishes and Shellfishes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 9-
11.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). (1992). An Introduction to Oil Spill Physical 
and Chemical Processes and Information Management. April, 1992, 
Chapters 2 and 3, pp. 2-1 to 2-56 and 3-1 to 3-97.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). (1994). Options for Minimizing Environmental 
Impacts of Freshwater Spill Response. NOAA and American Petroleum 
Institute, September 1994, pp. 2-11, 122-124.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). (1996). Damage Assessment and Restoration 
Program. Injury Assessment: Guidance Document for Natural Resource 
Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Silver Spring, 
Maryland, Appendix C, Oil Behavior, Pathways, and Exposure, pp. C-1-24 
and Appendix D, Adverse Effects From Oil, pp. D-1-69, August 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). (1993). Memorandum of Record, from NOAA 
Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, June 3, 1993.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS), Public Health 
Service (PHS). (1963). Report on Oil Spills Affecting the Minnesota and 
Mississippi Rivers, Winter of 1962-1963. Cincinnati, OH, pp. 1-40.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS). (1990). Healthy 
People 2000. Conference Edition, pp. 119-137, 390-436.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 
(1994). Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. 
FWS Memorandum from Peter H. Albers, Leader, Contaminant Ecology Group 
to Oil Spill Response Coordinator,

[[Page 17244]]

December 29, 1993. USDOI, FWS. FWS Letter from Michael J. Spear, 
Assistant Director, Ecological Services, to Ms. Ana Sol Gutierrez, 
Research and Special Projects Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, April 11, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994). Memorandum from 
Kathleen Bogan, ABB to Dana Stalcup, Oil Program Branch, USEPA, June 
22, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response (OSWER). Emergency Response Notification System 
(ERNS) database, 1996 and ``An Overview of ERNS,'' March 1995.
Venosa, A.D. and B. Alleman (1999). Preliminary Results of Laboratory 
Experiments on the Biodegradability and Change in Toxicity of Vegetable 
Oils During Aerobic Biodegradation. Personal Communication to B. Davis. 
January 21, 1999.
Venosa, A.D., M.T. Suidan, B.A. Wrenn, K.L. Strohmeier, J.R. Haines, 
B.L. Eberhart, D. King, and E. Holder. (1996). Bioremediation of an 
Experimental Oil Spill on the Shoreline of Delaware Bay, Environ. Sci. 
Technol. 30:1764-1775.
Wolfe, D.A. (1986). Source of Organic Contaminants in the Marine 
Environment: Ocean Disposal and Accidental Spills. In: C.S. Giam and 
H.J.M. Dou, Editors, Strategies and Advanced Techniques for Marine 
Pollution Studies: Mediterranean Sea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 237-
288.
Yannai, S. (1980). Toxic Factors Induced by Processing. In: I.E. 
Liener, Editor, Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs, Academic Press, 
New York, NY, Second Edition, pp. 371-427.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). A ``significant regulatory action'' is an action that results in 
a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise new legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles in the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. EPA believes that no State, local, or tribal governments are 
included in its FRP-regulated community. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to prove to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. EPA believes that no tribal 
governments are included in its FRP-regulated community. Accordingly, 
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply 
to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 F.R. 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. EPA 
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045, because it is not economically significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children. This is so, because 
the types of risks resulting from oil discharges do not have a 
disproportionate effect on children.
    The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies 
and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assessed results 
from early-life

[[Page 17245]]

exposure to vegetable oils and animal fats.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our determination.
    We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and have determined that 
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on a survey of FRPs, we 
have determined that out of approximately 29 companies that are 
affected by this rulemaking (because they have one or more FRP 
facilities with animal fats or vegetable oils), only about twelve meet 
the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business 
(Screening Analysis of the Facility Response Planning Requirements on 
Small Non-Petroleum Entities).
    In this rulemaking, we are proposing to add a methodology that can 
be used by facilities to plan for the appropriate volume of response 
resources needed for a worst case discharge of an animal fat or 
vegetable oil, similar to the existing methodology provided for 
petroleum oils. As a result, the overall economic effect of this 
regulation has been determined to reduce the reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for facilities that are required to prepare and 
maintain plans for the discharge of vegetable oils and animal fats 
because they no longer will be required to provide additional 
documentation to support their determinations. We believe that 
facilities will save on the order of one to four labor hours in annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden as a result of the proposed changes. 
These effects are discussed in greater detail in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section of this Preamble. Furthermore, we believe that 
some facilities could realize additional cost savings as a result of 
calculations performed in estimating the appropriate amount of response 
planning resources needed to respond to a worst case discharge based on 
new information provided in proposed Tables 6 and 7. However, we have 
not attempted to quantify the total cost savings associated with this 
possibility in order to avoid overestimating the effects of the 
rulemaking. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, 
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    We will submit the information collection requirements in this 
proposed rule to OMB for approval as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We prepared Information 
Collection Request (ICR) documents (EPA ICR No. 1630.05), and you may 
obtain a copy by contacting Sandy Farmer, OP Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; 
Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling 202-260-2740. You may also view or 
download these ICRs at our ICR Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20-21) requires that owners or operators 
of facilities that could cause ``substantial harm'' to the environment 
by discharging oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines 
prepare plans for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a 
worst case discharge of oil, to a substantial threat of such a 
discharge, and, as appropriate, to discharges smaller than worst case 
discharges. All facilities subject to this requirement must submit 
their plans to us. In turn, we review and approve plans submitted by 
facilities identified as having the potential to cause ``significant 
and substantial harm'' to the environment from oil discharges. Other 
low-risk, regulated facilities are not required to prepare FRPs but are 
required to document their determination that they do not meet the 
``substantial harm'' criteria.
    Through this rulemaking, we propose to reduce the reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for facilities that are regulated under the FRP 
rule due to the storage of animal fats and vegetable oils by clarifying 
response planning requirements for these facilities. Specifically, we 
propose to add a new methodology to allow facilities to calculate 
planning volumes for a worst case discharge of animal fats or vegetable 
oils similar to the methodology provided for discharges of petroleum 
oils. Currently these facilities are required to identify in their 
plans the procedures used to determine the appropriate amount of 
resources needed to respond to a worst case discharge of a non-
petroleum oil. As a result, we believe that the overall economic effect 
of this proposal will be to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping 
burden for these facilities.
    In addition, we are proposing to allow case-by-case deviations for 
facility response planning levels and are soliciting comment on whether 
to allow facilities to combine response planning at either the small 
and medium stage, or the medium and large stage for discharges of 
vegetable oils and animal fats. We estimate the cost savings from this 
proposal to be minimal, as our Regional Administrators already give 
consideration to unique facility characteristics during their review of 
FRPs in allowing plan deviations.
    We do not expect the number of facilities subject to the 
requirements to develop an FRP and maintain the plan on a year-to-year 
basis to change as a result of this proposed rulemaking. In the current 
ICR, we estimate that 5,465 facilities would be required to develop and 
submit FRPs. Of these 5,465 facilities, we estimate that approximately 
61 facilities (owned or operated by 29 companies) are required to 
develop and submit FRPs due to the storage of vegetable oils and animal 
fats.
    We have previously estimated that it requires between 85 and 126 
hours for facility personnel in a large facility (i.e, total storage 
capacity greater than one million gallons) and between 21 and 44 hours 
for personnel in a medium facility (i.e., total storage capacity 
greater than 42,000 gallons and less than or equal to one million 
gallons) to comply with the annual, subsequent-year reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of the FRP rule. We have also estimated that 
a newly regulated facility will require between 225 and 280 hours to 
prepare a plan in the first year. We estimate that the present 
information collection burden of the FRP rule for facilities that are 
regulated due to the storage of vegetable oils and animal fats to be 
approximately 5,979 hours a year. Through this rulemaking, we propose 
to reduce that burden by approximately four hours for a large facility 
and one hour for a medium facility. This proposed reduction would 
result in an annual average burden of 5,751 hours.

[[Page 17246]]

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
required to perform the following tasks: (1) review instructions; (2) 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; (3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; (4) train personnel to be 
able to respond to a collection of information; (5) search data 
sources; (6) complete and review the collection of information; and (7) 
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. We 
request your comments on our need for this information, the accuracy of 
the provided burden estimates, and the accuracy of the supporting 
analyses used to develop the burden estimates. We also request your 
suggestions on methods for further minimizing respondent burden, 
including the use of automated collection techniques. Send your 
comments and suggestions on the ICR to both:
    (1) The Director, OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, 
D.C. 20460, or E-mail to [email protected]; and
    (2) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW.; Washington, D.C. 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
    Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB must make 
a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 8, 
1999, OMB requests your comments by May 10, 1999. In the final rule, we 
will respond to any OMB or public comments we receive on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

G. Unfunded Mandates

    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 the 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 the 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 final 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 the 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.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. This determination is based on the 
fact that the proposed revisions are designed to clarify the 
requirements for certain facilities that store vegetable oils and 
animal fats to comply with the FRP rule. The proposed revisions are 
designed to decrease the current reporting or recordkeeping burden and 
cost for these facilities and do not impose any additional 
requirements. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments for similar reasons. Furthermore, based on a survey 
of FRPs submitted to EPA, we did not identify any small governments 
that would be affected by this rulemaking.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, Sec. 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 (e.g., 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.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites you to identify potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 17247]]

V. Appendices to the Preamble
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.000


[[Page 17248]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.001



[[Page 17249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.002



[[Page 17250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.003



[[Page 17251]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.004



[[Page 17252]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.005



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 17253]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Environmental protection, Fire prevention, Flammable materials, 
Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution, Oil spill response, 
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tanks, Water 
pollution control, Water resources.

    Dated: March 26, 1999.
Peter D. Robertson,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons discussed in the Preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 112 as follows:

PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 33 U.S.C. 2720.

    2. Amend Sec. 112.2 to add the following definitions in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 112.2  Definitions

* * * * *
    Animal fat means non-petroleum oils, fats, and greases of animal, 
fish, or marine mammal origin.
* * * * *
    Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not petroleum-
based, including but not limited to: fats, oils, and greases of animal, 
fish, or marine mammal origin; and vegetable oils, including oils from 
seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.
* * * * *
    Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form, including but not 
limited to crude oil, fuel oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and 
refined products.
* * * * *
    Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat of vegetable origin, 
including but not limited to oils and fats derived from plant seeds, 
nuts, fruits, and kernels.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 112.20 by adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising the 
phrase ``section 10'' in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) to read section 13 as 
follows:


Sec. 112.20  Facility response plans.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Preparation and submission of response plans--Animal fat and 
vegetable oil facilities. The owner or operator of any non-
transportation-related facility that handles, stores, or transports 
animal fats and vegetable oils must prepare and submit a facility 
response plan as follows:
    (i) Facilities with approved plans. The owner or operator of a 
facility with a facility response plan that has been approved by 
[effective date of the final rule] need not prepare or submit a revised 
plan except as otherwise required by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 
this section.
    (ii) Facilities with plans that have been submitted to the Regional 
Administrator. Except for facilities with approved plans as provided in 
(a)(4)(i) of this section, the owner or operator of a facility that has 
submitted a response plan to the Regional Administrator prior to 
[effective date of the final rule] must review the plan to determine if 
it meets or exceeds the applicable provisions of this part. An owner or 
operator need not prepare or submit a new plan if the existing plan 
meets or exceeds the applicable provisions of this part. If the plan 
does not meet or exceed the applicable provisions of this part, the 
owner or operator must prepare and submit a new plan by [date sixty 
days after the effective date of the final rule].
    (iii) Newly regulated facilities. The owner or operator of a newly 
constructed facility that commences operation after [effective date of 
the final rule] must prepare and submit a plan to the Regional 
Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 
The plan must meet or exceed the applicable provisions of this part. 
The owner or operator of an existing facility that must prepare and 
submit a plan after [effective date of the final rule] as a result of a 
planned or unplanned change in facility characteristics that causes the 
facility to become regulated under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
must prepare and submit a plan to the Regional Administrator in 
accordance with paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section, as 
appropriate. The plan must meet or exceed the applicable provisions of 
this part.
    (iv) Facilities amending existing plans. The owner or operator of a 
facility submitting an amended plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of 
this section after [effective date of the final rule], including plans 
that had been previously approved, must also review the plan to 
determine if it meets or exceeds the applicable provisions of this 
part. If the plan does not meet or exceed the applicable provisions of 
this part, the owner or operator must revise and resubmit revised 
portions of an amended plan to the Regional Administrator in accordance 
with paragraphs (d) of this section, as appropriate. The plan must meet 
or exceed the applicable provisions of this part.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec. 112.21 by revising the phrase ``section 10'' to read 
``section 13'' in the second sentence of paragraph (c).
    5. Amend Appendix C to part 112 by revising phrase ``section 10'' 
to read ``section 13'' in the second sentence of section 2.3, the last 
sentence in section 4.0, and the second sentence of Attachment C-II, 
paragraph 3.
    6. Amend Appendix D to part 112 by revising the phrase ``section 
10'' to read ``section 13'' in the second sentence in section 1.4.
    7. Appendix E to part 112 is amended by revising the phrase 
``section 10'' to read ``section 13'' wherever it appears;
    by revising the phrase ``section 9.2'' to read ``section 12.2'' 
wherever it appears;
    by revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' wherever it 
appears;
    by revising the phrase ``non-petroleum oils'' to read ``non-
petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils'' wherever it 
appears;
    by redesignating sections 1.2.1 through 1.2.7 as section 1.2.2 
through 1.2.8, respectively, and by redesignating section 1.2.8 as 
1.2.10;
    by adding new sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 to read as set forth below;
    by revising newly designated section 1.2.3 (2) to read as set forth 
below;
    by revising newly designated section 1.2.4 to read as set forth 
below;
    by revising the first sentence of newly designated section 1.2.8 
(2) to read as set forth below;
    by revising newly designated section 1.2.10 to read as set forth 
below;
    by revising the phrase ``section 4.3'' to read ``sections 4.3 and 
9.3'' in the third sentence of section 2.6;
    by revising section 3.0 to read as set forth below;
    by revising section 3.2 to read as set forth below;
    by adding new sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 to read as set forth below;
    by revising section 4.0 to read as set forth below;
    by revising section 4.2 to read as set forth below;
    by adding new sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 to read as set forth below;
    by revising the phrase ``Section 7'' to read ``Sections 7 and 10'' 
in the second sentence of section 5.1;
    by revising the phrase ``Attachment E-1'' to read ``Attachments E-1 
and E-2'' in the third sentence of section 5.1;
    by revising the phrase ``sections 7.2 and 7.3 of this appendix'' to 
read ``sections 7.2 and 7.3 or sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this 
appendix'' in the third sentence of section 5.3;

[[Page 17254]]

    by revising the phrase ``Table 2'' to read ``Table 2 and Table 6'' 
in the fifth sentence of section 5.7;
    by revising the phrase ``Tables 2 and 3'' to read ``Tables, 2, 3, 
6, 7'' in the second sentence of section 5.8;
    by revising section 7.0 to read as set forth below;
    by revising the second sentence of section 7.2.1 to read as set 
forth below;
    by revising the third sentence of section 7.4 to read as set forth 
below;
    by revising the third sentence of section 7.6.3 to read as set 
forth below;
    by revising the second sentence of section 7.7 to read as set forth 
below;
    by revising section 7.7 (1) to read as set forth below;
    by revising the second, third and fourth sentences of section 7.7.5 
to read as set forth below;
    by redesignating sections 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2 as sections 11.0, 11.1, 
11.2, respectively, and revising those sections to read as set forth 
below;
    by redesignating sections 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 as sections 12.0, 
12.1, 12.2 and 12.3, respectively, and revising those sections to read 
as set forth below;
    by redesignating sections 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 as sections 
13.0, 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3, respectively, and revising those sections to 
read as set forth below; and
    by adding new sections 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 to read as set forth 
below.

Appendix E to Part 112--Determination and Evaluation of Required 
Response Resources for Facility Response Plans

* * * * *
    1.2.1 Animal fat means non-petroleum oils, fats, and greases of 
animal, fish, or marine mammal origin. Animal fats are further 
classified based on specific gravity as follows:
    (A) Group A--specific gravity less than 0.8.
    (B) Group B--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.8 and 
less than 1.0.
    (C) Group C--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
    1.2.2 * * *
    1.2.3 * * *
    (2) A non-petroleum oil, other than an animal fat or vegetable 
oil, with a specific gravity less than 0.8.
    1.2.4 Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not 
petroleum-based, including but not limited to: fats, oils, and 
greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; and vegetable 
oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.
* * * * *
    1.2.8 * * *
    (2) A non-petroleum oil, other than an animal fat or vegetable 
oil, with a specific gravity of 0.8 or greater. * * *
* * * * *
    1.2.9 Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat of 
vegetable origin, including but not limited to oils and fats derived 
from plant seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. Vegetable oils are 
further classified based on specific gravity as follows:
    (A) Group A--specific gravity less than 0.8.
    (B) Group B--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.8 and 
less than 1.0.
    (C) Group C--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
    1.2.10 Other definitions are included in Sec. 112.2, section 1.2 
of Appendices C and E, and section 3.0 of Appendix F.
* * * * *
    3.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Small 
Discharges--Petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal 
fats and vegetable oils
* * * * *
    3.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also 
consider planning quantities for the transportation-related transfer 
portion of the facility.
    3.2.1 Petroleum oils. The USCG planning level that corresponds 
to EPA's ``small discharge'' is termed ``the average most probable 
discharge.'' A USCG rule found at 33 CFR 154.1020 defines ``the 
average most probable discharge'' as a discharge of 50 barrels 
(2,100 gallons). Owners or operators of complexes that handle, 
store, or transport petroleum oils must compare oil spill volumes 
for a small discharge, and an average most probable discharge, and 
plan for whichever quantity is greater.
    3.2.2 Non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable 
oils. Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or 
transport non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable 
oils must plan for oil spill volumes for a small discharge. There is 
no USCG planning level that directly corresponds to EPA's ``small 
discharge.'' However, the USCG (at 33 CFR 154.545) has requirements 
to identify equipment to contain oil resulting from an operational 
discharge.
* * * * *
    4.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Medium 
Discharges--Petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal 
fats and vegetable oils
* * * * *
    4.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also 
consider planning quantities for the transportation-related transfer 
portion of the facility.
    4.2.1 Petroleum oils. The USCG planning level that corresponds 
to EPA's ``medium discharge'' is termed ``the maximum most probable 
discharge''. The USCG rule found at 33 CFR part 154 defines ``the 
maximum most probable discharge'' as a discharge of 1,200 barrels 
(50,400 gallons) or 10 percent of the worst case discharge, 
whichever is less. Owners or operators of complexes that handle, 
store, or transport petroleum oils must compare spill volumes for a 
medium discharge and a maximum most probable discharge and plan for 
whichever quantity is greater.
    4.2.2 Non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable 
oils. Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or 
transport non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable 
oils must plan for oil spill volumes for a medium discharge. For 
non-petroleum oils, there is no USCG planning level that directly 
corresponds to EPA's ``medium discharge.''
* * * * *
    7.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst Case Discharge--
Petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and 
vegetable oils.
* * * * *
    7.2.1 * * * See sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.8 of this appendix for 
the definitions of non-persistent and persistent oils, respectively. 
* * *
* * * * *
    7.4 * * * The facility owner or operator shall ensure, by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the 
availability of these resources. * * *
* * * * *
    7.6.3 * * * The facility owner or operator shall ensure, by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the 
availability of these resources. * * *
    7.7 * * * Refer to section 11 of this appendix for information 
on the limitations on the use of chemical agents for inland and 
nearshore areas.
    7.7.1 * * *
    (1) * * * Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst 
case discharge to the maximum extent practicable; and
* * * * *
    7.7.5 * * * The owner or operator of a facility that handles, 
stores, or transports non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and 
vegetable oils that does not have adequate fire fighting resources 
located at the facility or that cannot rely on sufficient local fire 
fighting resources must identify adequate fire fighting resources. 
The owner or operator shall ensure, by contract or other approved 
means as described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of these 
resources. The response plan must also identify an individual 
located at the facility to work with the fire department for fires 
of these oils. * * *
    8.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Small 
Discharges--Animal fats and vegetable oils
    8.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient 
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, to respond to a small discharge of animal 
fats or vegetable oils. A small discharge is defined as any 
discharge volume less than or equal to 2,100 gallons, but not to 
exceed the calculated worst case discharge. The equipment must be 
designed to function in the operating environment at the point of 
expected use.
    8.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also 
consider planning quantities for the marine transportation-related 
portion of the facility.
    8.2.1 Owners or operators of complexes that handle, transport, 
or store only animal fats or vegetable oils must plan for a small 
discharge. There is no USCG planning level that directly corresponds 
to EPA's ``small discharge.'' Although the USCG does not have 
planning requirements for small discharges, they do have 
requirements (at 33 CFR 154.545) to identify equipment to

[[Page 17255]]

contain oil resulting from an operational discharge.
    8.3 The response resources shall, as appropriate, include:
    8.3.1 One thousand feet of containment boom (or, for complexes 
with marine transfer components, 1,000 feet of containment boom or 
two times the length of the largest vessel that regularly conducts 
oil transfers to or from the facility, whichever is greater), and a 
means of deploying it within 1 hour of the discovery of a discharge;
    8.3.2 Oil recovery devices with an effective daily recovery 
capacity equal to the amount of oil discharged in a small discharge 
or greater which is available at the facility within 2 hours of the 
detection of a discharge; and
    8.3.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered oily material indicated 
in section 12.2 of this appendix.
    9.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Medium 
Discharges--Animal fats and vegetable oils
    9.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient 
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, to respond to a medium discharge of animal 
fats or vegetable oils for that facility. This will require response 
resources capable of containing and collecting up to 36,000 gallons 
of oil or 10 percent of the worst case discharge, whichever is less. 
All equipment identified must be designed to operate in the 
applicable operating environment specified in Table 1 of this 
appendix.
    9.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also 
consider planning quantities for the transportation-related transfer 
portion of the facility. The USCG planning level that corresponds to 
EPA's ``medium discharge'' is termed ``the maximum most probable 
discharge.'' The USCG revisions to 33 CFR part 154 define ``the 
maximum most probable discharge'' as a discharge of 1,200 barrels 
(50,400 gallons) or 10 percent of the worst case discharge, 
whichever is less. Owners or operators of complexes must compare 
spill volumes for a medium discharge and a maximum most probable 
discharge and plan for whichever quantity is greater.
    9.2.1 Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or 
transport animal fats or vegetable oils must plan for oil spill 
volumes for a medium discharge. For non-petroleum oils, there is no 
USCG planning level that directly corresponds to EPA's ``medium 
discharge.'' Although the USCG does not have planning requirements 
for medium discharges, they do have requirements (at 33 CFR 154.545) 
to identify equipment to contain oil resulting from an operational 
discharge.
    9.3 Oil recovery devices identified to meet the applicable 
medium discharge volume planning criteria must be located such that 
they are capable of arriving on-scene within 6 hours in higher 
volume port areas and the Great Lakes and within 12 hours in all 
other areas. Higher volume port areas and Great Lakes areas are 
defined in section 1.2 of Appendix C to this part.
    9.4 Because rapid control, containment, and removal of oil are 
critical to reduce discharge impact, the owner or operator must 
determine response resources using an effective daily recovery 
capacity for oil recovery devices equal to 50 percent of the 
planning volume applicable for the facility as determined in section 
9.1 of this appendix. The effective daily recovery capacity for oil 
recovery devices identified in the plan must be determined using the 
criteria in section 6 of this appendix.
    9.5 In addition to oil recovery capacity, the plan shall, as 
appropriate, identify sufficient quantity of containment boom 
available, by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 112.2, to arrive within the required response times for oil 
collection and containment and for protection of fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments. For further description of fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III 
to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: 
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (59 FR 14713, March 
29, 1994) and the applicable ACP. While the Guidance does not set 
required quantities of boom for oil collection and containment, the 
response plan shall identify and ensure, by contract or other 
approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of the 
quantity of boom identified in the plan for this purpose.
    9.6 The plan must indicate the availability of temporary storage 
capacity to meet section 12.2 of this appendix. If available storage 
capacity is insufficient to meet this level, then the effective 
daily recovery capacity must be derated (downgraded) to the limits 
of the available storage capacity.
    9.7 The following is an example of a medium discharge volume 
planning calculation for equipment identification in a higher volume 
port area: The facility's largest aboveground storage tank volume is 
840,000 gallons. Ten percent of this capacity is 84,000 gallons. 
Because 10 percent of the facility's largest tank, or 84,000 
gallons, is greater than 36,000 gallons, 36,000 gallons is used as 
the planning volume. The effective daily recovery capacity is 50 
percent of the planning volume, or 18,000 gallons per day. The 
ability of oil recovery devices to meet this capacity must be 
calculated using the procedures in section 6 of this appendix. 
Temporary storage capacity available on-scene must equal twice the 
daily recovery capacity as indicated in section 12.2 of this 
appendix, or 36,000 gallons per day. This is the information the 
facility owner or operator must use to identify and ensure the 
availability of the required response resources, by contract or 
other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2. The facility owner 
shall also identify how much boom is available for use.
    10.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst Case Discharge--
Animal fats and vegetable oils.
    10.1 A facility owner or operator shall plan for a response to 
the facility's worst case discharge. The planning for on-water oil 
recovery must take into account a loss of some oil to the 
environment due to physical, chemical, and biological processes, 
potential increases in volume due to emulsification, and the 
potential for deposition of oil on the shoreline or on sediments. 
The procedures for animal fats and vegetable oils are discussed in 
section 10.7 of this appendix.
    10.2 The following procedures must be used by a facility owner 
or operator in determining the required on-water oil recovery 
capacity:
    10.2.1 The following must be determined: the worst case 
discharge volume of oil in the facility; the appropriate group(s) 
for the types of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility 
(Groups A, B, C); and the facility's specific operating area. See 
sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 of this appendix for the definitions of 
animal fats and vegetable oils and groups thereof. Facilities that 
handle, store, or transport oil from different oil groups must 
calculate each group separately, unless the oil group constitutes 10 
percent or less by volume of the facility's total oil storage 
capacity. This information is to be used with Table 6 of this 
appendix to determine the percentages of the total volume to be used 
for removal capacity planning. Table 6 of this appendix divides the 
volume into three categories: oil lost to the environment; oil 
deposited on the shoreline; and oil available for on water recovery.
    10.2.2 The on-water oil recovery volume shall, as appropriate, 
be adjusted using the appropriate emulsification factor found in 
Table 7 of this appendix. Facilities that handle, store, or 
transport oil from different groups must compare the on-water 
recover volume for each oil group (unless the oil group constitutes 
10 percent or less by volume of the facility's total storage 
capacity) and use the calculation that results in the largest on-
water oil recovery volume to plan for the amount of response 
resources for a worst case discharge.
    10.2.3 The adjusted volume is multiplied by the on water oil 
recovery resource mobilization factor found in Table 4 of this 
appendix from the appropriate operating area and response tier to 
determine the total on water oil recovery capacity in barrels per 
day that must be identified or contracted to arrive on-scene within 
the applicable time for each response tier. Three tiers are 
specified. For higher volume port areas, the contracted tiers of 
resources must be located such that they are capable of arriving on-
scene within 6 hours for Tier 1, 30 hours for Tier 2, and 54 hours 
for Tier 3 of the discovery of a discharge. For all other rivers and 
canals, inland, nearshore areas, and the Great Lakes, these tiers 
are 12, 36, and 60 hours.
    10.2.4 The resulting on water oil recovery capacity in barrels 
per day for each tier is used to identify response resources 
necessary to sustain operations in the applicable operating area. 
The equipment shall be capable of sustaining operations for the time 
period specified in Table 6 of this appendix. The facility owner or 
operator shall identify and ensure the availability, by contract or 
other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, of sufficient oil 
spill recovery devices to provide the effective daily oil recovery 
capacity required. If the required capacity exceeds the applicable 
cap specified in Table 5 of this appendix, then a facility owner or 
operator shall ensure, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, only for the quantity of resources required 
to meet the cap, but shall identify

[[Page 17256]]

sources of additional resources as indicated in section 5.4 of this 
appendix. The owner or operator of a facility whose planning volume 
exceeded the cap in 1998 must make arrangements to identify and 
ensure the availability, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, for additional capacity to be under 
contract by 2003, as appropriate. For a facility that handles 
multiple groups of oil, the required effective daily recovery 
capacity for each oil group is calculated before applying the cap. 
The oil group calculation resulting in the largest on water recovery 
volume must be used to plan for the amount of response resources for 
a worst case discharge, unless the oil group comprises 10 percent or 
less by volume of the facility's oil storage capacity.
    10.3 The procedures discussed in sections 10.3.1-10.3.3 of this 
appendix must be used to calculate the planning volume for 
identifying shoreline cleanup capacity (for Groups A and B oils).
    10.3.1 The following must be determined: the worst case 
discharge volume of oil for the facility; the appropriate group(s) 
for the types of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility 
(Groups A or B); and the geographic area(s) in which the facility 
operates (i.e., operating areas). For a facility handling, storing, 
or transporting oil from different groups, each group must be 
calculated separately. Using this information, Table 6 of this 
appendix must be used to determine the percentages of the total 
volume to be used for shoreline cleanup resource planning.
    10.3.2 The shoreline cleanup planning volume must be adjusted to 
reflect an emulsification factor using the same procedure as 
described in section 10.2.2 of this appendix.
    10.3.3 The resulting volume shall be used to identify an oil 
spill removal organization with the appropriate shoreline cleanup 
capability.
    10.4 A response plan must identify response resources with fire 
fighting capability appropriate for the risk of fire and explosion 
at the facility from the discharge or threat of discharge of oil. 
The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group A or B oils that does not have adequate fire 
fighting resources located at the facility or that cannot rely on 
sufficient local fire fighting resources must identify adequate fire 
fighting resources. The facility owner or operator shall ensure, by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the 
availability of these resources. The response plan must also 
identify an individual to work with the fire department for Group A 
or B oil fires. This individual shall also verify that sufficient 
well-trained fire fighting resources are available within a 
reasonable response time to a worst case scenario. The individual 
may be the qualified individual identified in the response plan or 
another appropriate individual located at the facility.
    10.5 The following is an example of the procedure described in 
section 10.2 and 10.3 of this appendix. A facility with a 37.04 
million gallon (881,904 barrel) capacity of several types of 
vegetable oils is located in the Inland Operating Area. The 
vegetable oil with the highest specific gravity stored at the 
facility is soybean oil (specific gravity 0.922, Group B vegetable 
oil). The facility has ten aboveground oil storage tanks with a 
combined total capacity of 18 million gallons (428,571 barrels) and 
without secondary containment. The remaining facility tanks are 
inside secondary containment structures. The largest aboveground oil 
storage tank (3 million gallons or 71,428 barrels) has its own 
secondary containment. Two 2.1 million gallon (50,000 barrel) tanks 
(that are not connected by a manifold) are within a common secondary 
containment tank area, which is capable of holding 4.2 million 
gallons (100,000 barrels) plus sufficient freeboard.
    10.5.1 The worst case discharge for the facility is calculated 
by adding the capacity of all aboveground vegetable oil storage 
tanks without secondary containment (18.0 million gallons) plus the 
capacity of the largest aboveground storage tank inside secondary 
containment (3.0 million gallons). The resulting worst case 
discharge is 21 million gallons or 500,000 barrels.
    10.5.2 With a specific worst case discharge identified, the 
planning volume for on-water recovery can be identified as follows:

    Worst case discharge: 21 million gallons (500,000 barrels) of 
Group B vegetable oil
    Operating Area: Inland
    Planned percent recovered floating vegetable oil (from Table 6, 
column Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes): Inland, Group B is 20%
    Emulsion factor (from Table 7): 2.0
    Planning volumes for on-water recovery:
    21,000,000 gallons x .2 x 2.0 = 8,400,000 gallons or 200,000 
barrels.
    Determine required resources for on-water recovery for each of 
the three tiers using mobilization factors (from Table 4, column 
Inland/Nearshore/Great Lakes)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Inland operating area         Tier 1        Tier 2        Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning volume on water X....           .15           .25           .40
Estimated Daily Recovery           30,000        50,000        80,000
 Capacity (bbls)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10.5.3 Because the requirements for On-Water Recovery Resources 
for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 for inland Operating Area exceed the caps 
identified in Table 5 of this appendix, the facility owner will 
contract for a response of 12,500 barrels per day (bpd) for Tier 1, 
25,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 50,000 bpd for Tier 3. Resources for the 
remaining 17,500 bpd for Tier 1, 25,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 30,000 
bpd for Tier 3 shall be identified but need not be contracted for in 
advance.
    10.5.4 With the specific worst case discharge identified, the 
planning volume of onshore recovery can be identified as follows:

    Worst case discharge: 21 million gallons (500,000 barrels) of 
Group B vegetable oil
    Operating Area: Inland
    Planned percent recovered floating vegetable oil from onshore 
(from Table 6, column
    Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes): Inland, Group B is 65%
    Emulsion factor (from Table 7): 2.0
    Planning volumes for shoreline recovery:
    21,000,000 gallons x 0.65 x 2.0 =27,300,000 gallons or 650,000 
barrels
    10.5.5 The facility owner or operator shall, as appropriate, 
also identify or contract for quantities of boom identified in the 
response plan for the protection of fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments within the area potentially impacted by a worst case 
discharge from the facility. For further description of fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III 
to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: 
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments,'' (see Appendix E to 
this part, section 1.1, for availability) and the applicable ACP. 
Attachment C-III to Appendix C provides a method for calculating a 
planning distance to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments 
and public drinking water intakes that may be adversely affected in 
the event of a worst case discharge.
    10.6 The procedures discussed in sections 10.6.1-10.6.3 of this 
appendix must be used to determine appropriate response resources 
for facilities with Group C oils.
    10.6.1 The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, 
or transports Group C oils shall, as appropriate, identify the 
response resources available by contract or other approved means, as 
described in Sec. 112.2. The equipment identified in a response plan 
shall, as appropriate, include:
    (1) Sonar, sampling equipment, or other methods for locating the 
oil on the bottom or suspended in the water column;
    (2) Containment boom, sorbent boom, silt curtains, or other 
methods for containing the oil that may remain floating on the 
surface or to reduce spreading on the bottom;
    (3) Dredges, pumps, or other equipment necessary to assess the 
impact of such discharges;
    (4) Equipment necessary to assess the impact of such discharges; 
and
    (5) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a 
discharge involving the type of oil handled, stored, or transported.
    10.6.2 Response resources identified in a response plan for a 
facility that handles, stores, or transports Group C oils under 
section 10.6.1 of this appendix shall be capable of being deployed 
on scene within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
    10.6.3 A response plan must identify response resources with 
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that 
handles, stores, or transports Group C

[[Page 17257]]

oils that does not have adequate fire fighting resources located at 
the facility or that cannot rely on sufficient local fire fighting 
resources must identify adequate fire fighting resources. The owner 
or operator shall ensure, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of these resources. The 
response plan shall also identify an individual located at the 
facility to work with the fire department for Group C oil fires. 
This individual shall also verify that sufficient well-trained fire 
fighting resources are available within a reasonable response time 
to respond to a worst case discharge. The individual may be the 
qualified individual identified in the response plan or another 
appropriate individual located at the facility.
    10.7 The procedures described in sections 10.7.1-10.7.5 of this 
appendix must be used to determine appropriate response plan 
development and evaluation criteria for facilities that handle, 
store, or transport animal fats and vegetable oils. Refer to section 
11 of this appendix for information on the limitations on the use of 
chemical agents for inland and nearshore areas.
    10.7.1 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, 
or transports animal fats and vegetable oils must provide 
information in the response plan that identifies:
    (1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case 
discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to locate, 
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
    10.7.2 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, 
or transports animal fats and vegetable oils must ensure that any 
equipment identified in a response plan is capable of operating in 
the geographic area(s) (i.e., operating environments) in which the 
facility operates using the criteria in Table 1 of this appendix. 
When evaluating the operability of equipment, the facility owner or 
operator must consider limitations that are identified in the 
appropriate ACPs, including:
    (1) Ice conditions;
    (2) Debris;
    (3) Temperature ranges; and
    (4) Weather-related visibility.
    10.7.3. The owner or operator of a facility that handles, 
stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils must identify 
the response resources that are available by contract or other 
approved means, as described in Sec. 112.2. The equipment described 
in the response plan shall, as appropriate, include:
    (1) Containment boom, sorbent boom, or other methods for 
containing oil floating on the surface or to protect shorelines from 
impact;
    (2) Oil recovery devices appropriate for the type of animal fat 
or vegetable oil carried; and (3) Other appropriate equipment 
necessary to respond to a discharge involving the type of oil 
carried.
    10.7.4 Response resources identified in a response plan 
according to section 10.7.3 of this appendix must be capable of 
commencing an effective on-scene response within the applicable tier 
response times in section 5.3 of this appendix.
    10.7.5 A response plan must identify response resources with 
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that 
handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils that 
does not have adequate fire fighting resources located at the 
facility or that cannot rely on sufficient local fire fighting 
resources must identify adequate fire fighting resources. The owner 
or operator shall ensure, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of these resources. The 
response plan shall also identify an individual located at the 
facility to work with the fire department for animal fat and 
vegetable oil fires. This individual shall also verify that 
sufficient well-trained fire fighting resources are available within 
a reasonable response time to respond to a worst case discharge. The 
individual may be the qualified individual identified in the 
response plan or another appropriate individual located at the 
facility.
    11.0 Determining the Availability of Alternative Response 
Methods
    11.1 For chemical agents to be identified in a response plan, 
they must be on the NCP Product Schedule that is maintained by EPA. 
(Some States have a list of approved dispersants for use within 
State waters. Not all of these State-approved dispersants are listed 
on the NCP Product Schedule.)
    11.2 Identification of chemical agents in the plan does not 
imply that their use will be authorized. Actual authorization will 
be governed by the provisions of the NCP and the applicable ACP.
    12.0 Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response 
Operations
    12.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient 
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 112.2, to respond to a medium discharge of animal 
fats or vegetables oils for that facility. This will require 
response resources capable of containing and collecting up to 36,000 
gallons of oil or 10 percent of the worst case discharge, whichever 
is less. All equipment identified must be designed to operate in the 
applicable operating environment specified in Table 1 of this 
appendix.
    12.2 A facility owner or operator shall evaluate the 
availability of adequate temporary storage capacity to sustain the 
effective daily recovery capacities from equipment identified in the 
plan. Because of the inefficiencies of oil spill recovery devices, 
response plans must identify daily storage capacity equivalent to 
twice the effective daily recovery capacity required on-scene. This 
temporary storage capacity may be reduced if a facility owner or 
operator can demonstrate by waste stream analysis that the 
efficiencies of the oil recovery devices, ability to decant waste, 
or the availability of alternative temporary storage or disposal 
locations will reduce the overall volume of oily material storage 
requirement.
    12.3 A facility owner or operator shall ensure that response 
planning includes the capability to arrange for disposal of 
recovered oil products. Specific disposal procedures will be 
addressed in the applicable ACP.
    13.0 References and Availability
    13.1 All materials listed in this section are part of EPA's 
rulemaking docket and are located in the Superfund Docket, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia 
22202, Suite 105 (Docket Numbers SPCC-2P, SPCC-3P, and SPCC-9P). The 
docket is available for inspection between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Appointments to 
review the docket can be made by calling 703-603-9232. Docket hours 
are subject to change. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying services.
    13.2 The docket will mail copies of materials to requestors who 
are outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Materials may be 
available from other sources, as noted in this section. As provided 
in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
services. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 may also 
provide additional information on where to obtain documents. To 
contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area, dial 703-412-9810. The Telecommunications Device 
for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-553-7672, or, in the 
Washington, DC metropolitan area, 703-412-3323.
    13.3 Documents
    (1) National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP). 
The PREP draft guidelines are available from United Coast Guard 
Headquarters (G-MEP-4), 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20593. (See 58 FR 53990, October 19, 1993, Notice of Availability of 
PREP Guidelines).
    (2) ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and 
Wildlife and Sensitive Environments' (published in the Federal 
Register by DOC/NOAA at 59 FR 14713, March 29, 1994.). The guidance 
is available in the Superfund Docket (see sections 13.1 and 13.2 of 
this appendix).
    (3) ASTM Standards. ASTM F 715, ASTM F 989, ASTM F 631-80, ASTM 
F 808-83 (1988). The ASTM standards are available from the American 
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, 
PA 19103-1187.
    (4) Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities, 
Interim Final Rule. Published by USCG, DOT at 58 FR 7330, February 
5, 1993.
    8. Amend the Tables to Appendix E to Part 112 by revising Table 
2 and adding Tables 6 and 7 to read as follows:

[[Page 17258]]



       Table 2 to Appendix E--Removal Capacity Planning Table for Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum Oils other than Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Spill location                                      Rivers and canals                               Nearshore/inland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sustainability of on-water oil recovery                              3 days                                          4 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent         Percent                         Percent         Percent
                      Oil Group\1\                            natural        recovered     Percent  oil       natural        recovered     Percent  oil
                                                            dissipation    floating oil       onshore       dissipation    floating oil       onshore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Non-persistent oils...................................              80              10              10              80              20              10
2 Light crudes..........................................              40              15              45              50              50              30
3 Medium crudes and fuels...............................              20              15              65              30              50              50
4 Heavy crudes and fuels................................               5              20              75              10              50              70
     Group 5 oils are defined in section 1.2.8 of this appendix; the response resource considerations are outlined in section 7.6 of this appendix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petroleum oil, non-petroleum oil, animal fat, and vegetable oil are defined in Sec.  112.2

* * * * *

                                Table 6 to Appendix E--Removal Capacity Planning Table for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Spill location                                      Rivers and canals                         Nearshore/inland Great Lakes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sustainability of on-water oil  recovery                              3 days                                          4 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Percent         Percent                         Percent         Percent
                      Oil group \1\                           Percent        recovered     recovered oil      Percent        recovered     recovered oil
                                                           natural loss    floating oil    from onshore    natural loss    floating oil    from onshore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A.................................................              40              15              45              50              20              30
Group B.................................................              20              15              65              30              20             50
 Group C oils are defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 of this appendix; the response resource procedures are discussed in section 10.6 of this appendix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Substances with a specific gravity greater than 1.0 generally sink below the surface of the water. Response resource considerations are outlined in
  section 8.6 of this appendix. The owner or operator of the facility is responsible for determining appropriate response resources for Group C oils
  including locating oil on the bottom or suspended in the water column; containment boom or other appropriate methods for containing oil that may
  remain floating on the surface; and dredges, pumps, or other equipment to recover animal fats or vegetable oils from the bottom and shoreline.


    Table 7 to Appendix E--Emulsification Factors for Animal Fats and
                             Vegetable Oils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Oil Group \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A.........................................................     1.0
Group B.........................................................    2.0
  Group C oils are defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 of this appendix;
 the response resource procedures are discussed in section 10.6 of this
                                appendix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Substances with a specific gravity greater than 1.0 generally sink
  below the surface of the water. Response resource considerations are
  outlined in section 8.6 of this appendix. The owner or operator of the
  facility is responsible for determining appropriate response resources
  for Group C oils including locating oil on the bottom or suspended in
  the water column; containment boom or other appropriate methods for
  containing oil that may remain floating on the surface; and dredges,
  pumps, or other equipment to recover animal fats or vegetable oils
  from the bottom and shoreline.

    9. Amend the attachments to Appendix E by revising Attachment E-1 
and Attachment E-1 Example and adding Attachment E-2 and Attachment E-2 
Example to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 17259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.006



[[Page 17260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.007



[[Page 17261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.008



[[Page 17262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.009



[[Page 17263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.010



[[Page 17264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.011



[[Page 17265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.012



[[Page 17266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP99.013




[[Page 17267]]


    10. Amend Appendix F to Part 112 by revising the phrase ``section 
10'' to read ``section 13'' in the last sentence of section 1.3(4), in 
footnote 2 to section 1.4.2, in section 1.8.2(A), and in footnote 3 of 
the attachments to appendix F.

[FR Doc. 99-8275 Filed 4-2-99; 12:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C