HO-1-9Z-10Z.
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 246 / Monday. December 23. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 66369
received a baccalaureate or post-
graduate degree in the natural sciences
or engineering, and has sufficient
training and experience in ground-water
hydrology and related fields as may be
demonstrated by state registration,
professional certifications, or
completion of accredited university
courses that enable that individual to
make sound professional Judgements
regarding ground-water monitoring and
contaminant fate and transport.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 285
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6805,6912(a). 6924,
6925, and 6935.
2. In § 285.91 by adding paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:
S 265.91 Ground-water monitoring system.
(a) * * *
(3) The facility owner or operator may
demonstrate that an alternate
hydraulically downgradient monitoring
well location will meet the criteria
outlined below. The demonstration must
be in writing and kept at the facility.
The demonstration must be certified by
a qualified ground-water scientist and
establish that:
(i) An existing physical obstacle
prevents monitoring well installation at
the hydraulically downgradient limit of
the waste management area; and
(ii) The selected alternate
downgradient location is as close to the
limit of the waste management area as
practical; and
(iii) The location ensures detection
that, given the alternate location, is as
early as possible of any statistically
significant amounts of hazardous waste
or hazardous waste constituents that
migrate from the waste management
area to the uppermost aquifer.
(iv) Lateral expansion, new, or
replacement units are not eligible for an
alternate downgradient location under
this paragraph.
* * * * *
tFR Doc. 91-30187 Filed 12-20-fll; 8:45 am]
MLLJNOCODE
1-50-M
S-310999 0029{01X20-DEC-91-09:JO:37)1
40CFRPart280
[FRL-4066-5]
•
Underground Storage Tanks
Containing Petroleum; Financial
Responsibility Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today promulgating a
rule to amend the financial
responsibility requirements for
underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum that appeared in
the Federal Register on October 26,1988
(53 FR 43322). as amended October 31,
1990 (55 FR 46022). Specifically, this rule
modifies the compliance dates under 40
CFR 280.91(d). Under the modification,
all petroleum marketing firms owning 1
to 12 USTs at more than one facility or
fewer than 100 USTs at a single facility
and non-marketers with net worth of
less than $20 million are required to
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 280 subpart H—Financial
Responsibility—by December 31,1993.
Today's rule extends the deadline from
the previous date of October 28,1991.
This change will provide additional time
for the development of financial
assurance mechanisms (especially State
assurance funds) to enable this group to
comply.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment to 40
CFR 280.91(d) contained in this
rulemaking is effective December 23,
1991.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
rule is in room M2427, U.S. EPA, 401M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Call
(202) 280-9327 for an appointment to
review docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)
424-9348 (toll free) or (703) 92O-9810 in
Virginia. For technical questions,
contact Andrea Osborne in the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks at (703)
308-8883.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 26,1988, EPA promulgated
financial responsibility requirements
applicable to owners and operators of
underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum (53 FR 43322). In
the final rule, EPA established a phased
schedule of compliance for owners and
operators of petroleum USTs. Petroleum
marketing firms with 1 to 12 USTs at
more than one facility or fewer than 100
USTs at a single facility, local
government entities, and non-marketers
whose net worth is less than $20 million
were required to comply with the
4700.FMT...[16,30]...12-28-90
financial responsibility requirements by
October 28,1990. The principal reason
for adopting the phased compliance
approach was to provide the time
necessary for providers (including
private insurance companies and States
intending to establish State assurance
funds) of financial assurance
mechanisms to develop new policies
and programs or conform their policies
and programs with EPA requirements.
(See 53 FR 43324.)
On October 31,1990, EPA published
regulations (55 FR 46022) extending for
one year (to October 26,1991) the
compliance deadline for marketers with
1 to 12 USTs at more than one facility or
fewer than 100 USTs located at a single
facility and non-marketers whose net
worth is less than $20 million. The
compliance deadline for local
governments was extended until one
year after the promulgation of a final
rule providing additional mechanisms
for local governments. Additional
mechanisms for local governments were
proposed on June 18,1990 (55 FR 24692).
Since October 1990, EPA has
continued to monitor1 the development of
financial assurance markets, especially
(1) insurance for corrective action and
third party liability and (2) State
assurance funds, to determine whether
financial assurance mechanisms are
becoming available to satisfy the needs
of the regulated community. Based on
this on-going review, EPA believes that
tank owners required to comply by
October 26,1991. need additional time to
meet insurers' standards for coverage.
Also, States need additional time to
develop State assurance funds, to
submit them to EPA for review and
approval as financial assurance
mechanisms, and to make any
modifications necessary for approval.
Therefore. EPA is extending the
compliance date for marketers with 1 to
12 USTs at more than one facility or
fewer than 100 USTs at a single facility
and non-marketers whose net worth is
less than $20 million from October 26,
1991 to December 31,1993. The Agency
believes that this 26-month extension for
Category IV tank owners will provide
adequate time for tank owners and
operators to obtain assurance. By
October 1990, when the deadline was
previously extended, EPA had approved
14 State assurance funds and had begun
to review 11 State assurance funds that
were submitted to EPA for approval. (It
is important to note that upon
submission of a State assurance fund,
the fund is considered to be approved
unless and until EPA disapproves it.)
During the subsequent 12 months, an
additional 13 State assurance funds
-------
68370 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 246 / Monday. December 23. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
have been approved by EPA to serve as
financial responsibility compliance
mechanisms. Currently. 27 State
assurance funds have been approved by
EPA and an additional 9 State assurance
funds have been submitted to EPA for
approval. EPA expects State assurance
fund development to continue during the
2&-month extension. The Agency notes,
however, that States are not required to
develop assurance funds and that
several States have indicated that they
do not intend to develop State fund
programs. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates
that the extension will allow all States
intending to develop State funds
adequate time to do so.
Additionally, States will have more
time to develop and implement financial
assistance programs (e.g., direct loan
programs, loan guarantee programs,
grant programs) which help owners and
operators pay for technical
improvements such as tank upgrading,
which, in turn, helps owners and
operators qualify for insurance. Four
States—Alaska, Hawaii. Maryland, and
Washington—indicated that they have
or are developing State financial
assistance programs, and that an
extension would provide more time for
qualified owners and operators to
obtain financial assistance to upgrade
their UST facilities to meet insurance
underwriting criteria. Finally, extension
of the compliance deadline to December
31,1993 will relate the compliance
deadline for Category IV owners and
operators to the final compliance date
for implementation of release detection.
Implementation of a release detection
program Is a critical element of the
underwriting criteria for many insurers,
and the ability to demonstrate that
tanks are not leaking will allow more
owners and operators to obtain
insurance. Under EPA's phased
schedule for release detection, all
owners and operators must implement
release detection no later than
December 23,1993.
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under the
authority of Sections 2002,9001.9002,
9003. 9004. 9005, 9006, 9007, and 9009 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6912.6991,6991a,
6991b. 6991C, 6991d. 6991e. 6991f. and
6991h).
II. Effective Date
This rule will be effective on
December 23,1991 pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d). This rule may be made effective
immediately because it extends a
deadline for compliance in existing
regulations and therefore is a
"substantive rule which grants or
S-310999 0030(01 X20-DEC-91-09:50:40)
recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction." 5 U.S.C. 553(d](l). The
Agency also finds that there is good
cause to make the rule effective
immediately because the regulated
community does not need time to come
into compliance. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
in. Background
When devising the phased compliance
approach, the Agency wanted to achieve
the best balance between the need to
demonstrate financial responsibility for
UST releases and the time necessary for
owners and operators to obtain
assurance mechanisms. The Agency
attempted to establish compliance dates
that were as early as possible,
considering the type of assurance
different types of facilities were likely to
obtain. Petroleum marketers owning or
operating 1,000 or more USTs and non-
marketers with more than $20 million in
tangible net worth were required to
comply by January 24,1989, based
primarily on their ability to qualify for
self-insurance. Petroleum marketers
with 100 to 999 USTs were required to
comply by October 26,1989. These
marketers were estimated to be
relatively more likely to be able to
obtain insurance; some of them were
also expected to qualify as self-insurers.
Petroleum marketers owning 13 to 99
USTs at more than one facility were
originally required to comply by April
26,1990. However, on May 2,1990, the
Agency published a rule (55 FR18566)
extending this compliance date to April
26,1991. These marketers were thought
to be less likely to be able to obtain
insurance than members of the October
26,1989, compliance group. Petroleum
marketers owning or operating fewer
than 13 USTs at more than one facility
or owning or operating only one facility
with fewer than 100 USTs, and UST
owners and operators who were not
petroleum marketers (including local
government entities) were required to
comply by October 26,1990. This group
was expected to rely primarily on State
assurance funds for compliance. On
October 31.1990, EPA extended the
compliance deadline for one year for
small marketers (marketers with fewer
than 13 USTs or fewer than 100 USTs at
a single facility) and small non-
marketers (non-marketers with less than
$20 million in net worth). This extension
was based on the rate of development of
State assurance funds. In addition, EPA
extended the compliance deadline for
local governments until one year after
publication of a final rule with
additional mechanisms for local
governments to demonstrate
compliance. Additional mechanisms for
local governments •were proposed on
4700.FMT...[16,30]...12-28-90
June 18,1990 (55 FR 24692). The deadline
for compliance by local governments is
not affected by this rule.
Through monitoring the development
of financial assurance mechanisms, the
Agency has learned more about the way
insurers operate in the UST insurance
market. EPA now believes that the
extended compliance date of October
26,1991 for Category IV tank owners
(marketers owning 1 to 12 USTs or fewer
than 100 USTs at one facility and non-
marketers whose net worth is less than
$20 million) did not allow adequate time
for compliance. When devising the
original and revised phased compliance
schedule, the Agency expected that'
members of this compliance group
would rely on insurance and State '
assurance funds. The Agency had
originally believed that 24 months from
promulgation of the final financial
responsibility rule would provide
adequate time for owners and operators
to upgrade their USTs to meet insurers'
requirements and for States to develop
and submit assurance funds to EPA;
Since promulgation of the 1988 final rule,
however, EPA has learned that tank
owners and operators require additional
time to comply with conditions imposed
on them by the insurance industry. Some
of these conditions include operation of
only tanks younger than 15 years of age,
clean site conditions, a reliable method
of leak detection, etc. For example, some
insurers have informed EPA that they
have rejected UST coverage
applications because of existing ;
contamination, poor tank management,
and inadequate leak detection
monitoring. Many members of this
compliance group may not be able to •
meet these standards by October 26,
1991, and thus would be required to seek
an alternative financial assurance
mechanism.
On August 14,1991, EPA proposed to
extend the compliance deadline for this
group (56 FR 40292). EPA based the
proposal on its understanding that more
members of this compliance group than
the Agency had originally projected
must rely on State assurance funds,
rather than on insurance, to demonstrate
compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements. EPA
believed that, in order for owners arid
operators to rely on State assurance
funds as compliance mechanisms, States
must have more time to submit their
State assurance funds to EPA for
approval.
At this time, EPA has approved 27
State assurance funds to serve as ;
financial responsibility compliance
mechanisms that provide full or partial
coverage; 9 more have formally :
-------
Fedetal Register / Vol. 56. No. 246 / Monday. December 23. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
66371
submitte'd their State assurance funds to
EPA for approval.
In addition to State assurance funds,
which serve as financial responsibility
compliance mechanisms, some States.
such as Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, and Maryland, are
developing financial assistance
programs, such as grant programs and
loan programs, to assist UST owners in
upgrading their facilities to meet
insurance underwriting standards. The
State of Washington has also
implemented a reinsurance program.
under which the State relies on private
insurers to sell insurance but provides
reinsurance coverage to limit the
insurers' risk and reduce premium costs.
Comments on the proposed rule were
received from 57 commenters. A
Response to Comments Document is in
the public docket for the rule. Most
commenters supported the extension of
the compliance deadline for Category IV
owners and operators. Commenters
asserted that the proposed extension
would allow the time needed for owners
and operators seeking insurance to meet
insurers' standards for coverage. They
also stated that an extension would
allow the time necessary for States that
do not have State assurance funds or
financial assistance programs to
develop such funds and programs;
whereas in States where these funds
and programs exist, the extension would
provide States with more time to
develop outreach programs, and would
provide owners and operators with more
time to participate.
Some commenters argued against
extending the compliance deadline,
however, stating that affordable private
insurance is available to both marketers
and nonmarketers, and that an
extension would discourage UST
owners from taking the necessary steps
toward compliance and would
undermine the credibility of the UST
program. Some of the comments
regarding the availability and
affordability of insurance in certain
States were countered directly by
comments from UST owners in those
States that they were able to obtain only
minimal pollution liability coverage,
with high deductibles, and that the costs
for this coverage were prohibitive. Some
of the commenters opposing a general
extension acknowledged that an
extension was justified in States without
State assurance funds.
One commenter. who removed tanks
before the proposal to extend the
compliance deadline, argued that an
additional extension places those who
have already complied with the
regulations at a competitive
disadvantage with respect to those who
have not. The Agency believes that this
situation is an unfortunate result of the
regulatory development process,;but is
not indicative of the potential;effects on
the majority of the regulated community
The Agency is unable to determine
whether an extension is necessary until
near the deadline for compliance,
however, and so is unable to provide
more advanced notice of the extension.
This difficulty is exacerbated'by
statutory requirements to obtain public
participation in the rulemaking process.
which further restricts EPA's ability to
provide definitive answers about
forthcoming changes in the regulations.
The Agency regrets any problems
experienced by specific UST owners
and operators as a result of the changes
in the regulatory deadline.
Regarding the length of an extension,
many commenters supported the
proposal to extend the compliance
deadline to December 31,1992. One
commenter proposed a shorter extension
of the deadline to allow States more
time to develop State assurance funds,
yet not undermine the financial
responsibility requirements through
excessive delay of compliance
deadlines. Several commenters favored
an extension until December 31,1993.
These included the Hawaii Department
of Health, which requested the extra
time to implement its loan program for
UST owners, and the National Air
Transportation Association, which
advocated synchronizing the compliance
schedule for financial responsibility
requirements with that for release
detection requirements. Other
commenters also suggested longer
extensions; two of these requested an
indefinite extension.
Based on a review of the comments,
EPA has decided to extend the
compliance date to December 31,1993,
for small petroleum marketing firms
(those with fewer than 13 USTs or fewer
than 100 USTs at a single facility) and
nonmarketers with net worth of less
than $20 million. This 26-month
extension will allow all States that
intend to develop State assurance funds
or financial assistance programs to do
so, and will allow UST owners and
operators in these States to participate.
It will also delay the need for meeting
financial responsibility requirements
until after the December 22,1993
compliance deadline for release
detection under 40 CFR 280.40. Installing
release detection may be a requirement
for obtaining insurance in some areas;
this extension will assure that all UST
owners seeking insurance would have
already complied with Federal release
detection requirements. The Agency
notes that the extension provided by
this rule does not preclude States from
adopting an earlier deadline; in those
States where a State assurance fund
exists, States may find it appropriate to
maintain the previous deadlines for
compliance with financial responsibility
requirements. This final rule applies to
the Federal compliance date only, and
does not preclude different State
compliance deadlines.
Several commenters requested that
the extension be broadened to include
owners and operators hi compliance
Category HI, which were required to
have complied by April 26,1991.
Commenters argued that these owners
and operators are also having difficulty ^
obtaining insurance or otherwise '
demonstrating financial responsibility,
and that extending the compliance
deadline for owners and operators in
Category IV only would place owners
and operators in Category III at a
competitive disadvantage. EPA believes,
however, that owners and operators
with financial assurance mechanisms
may have an advantage over
competitors without these mechanisms
since the infrequent, unknown and
possibly large costs associated with a
leak may be greater than the regular,
known, and possibly smaller costs of the
financial assurance mechanism. In
addition, EPA analysis suggests that up
to 8096 of the owners and operators in
Category III have already obtained
assurance mechanisms through State
funds and private insurance. The
Agency emphasizes that its intention
has been and continues to be to require
demonstration of financial responsibility
at the earliest date reasonably
achievable, which for Category III has
already passed. UST owners and
operators in Category 01 were required
to have demonstrated compliance with
the financial responsibility requirements
more than six months ago. The Agency
believes that "extending" the deadline
at this time would penalize those
owners and operators who have made a
good faith effort to comply with the
requirements.
Several commenters argued for
special treatment for USTs owned by
Indian Tribes and for USTs located on
tribal lands. The commenters claimed
that these USTs are not covered by
State assurance funds, are not eligible
for coverage by the LUST Trust Fund,
are located in geographic regions that
offer a low potential for contamination
of groundwater supplies, and have
limited access to insurance. While
Indian Tribes cannot get State program
grants or LUST Trust Fund Cooperative
Agreements (as States can), they are
eligible to receive LUST Trust Fund
S-310999 0031(01X20-DEC-91-09:50:43)
4700.FMT...[16,30]...12-28-90
-------
66372 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 246 / Monday. December 23. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
dollars from EPA under certain
circumsjances. State financial assurance
funds do not necessarily exclude
Iribally-owned tanks; however, since
States do not have taxing powers over
tribal lands, States cannot collect the
taxes and fees that are usually required
for participation and access to these
State funds unless the Tribe or
individual owner opts to pay the fee
voluntarily to participate in the fund.
The Agency anticipates that the
extension will provide additional time
for many owners and operators of USTs
located on tribal lands to obtain
financial assurance mechanisms.
Nevertheless, EPA acknowledges the
concerns expressed by these
conuncnters. As discussed below, EPA
intends to continue to monitor the
development of financial assurance
mechanisms during the extension period
to determine whether specific groups of
UST owners and operators, including
owners and operators of USTs located
on tribal lands, may require additional
consideration.
USTs directly owned or operated by
Tribal governments are not within the
scope of this rule because the Agency
treats them as local governments for the
purposes of the financial responsibility
requirements. Tribal governments will
be eligible to use the new mechanisms
being developed for local governments
by the Agency and will be required to
, comply within 12 months of publication
of the new mechanisms for
demonstrating financial responsibility.
IV. Discussion of Options Considered
But Not Proposed
In addition to the proposed rule, EPA
considered, but did not propose, two
additional options to grant relief to UST
owners and operators. Under the first
option, a subset of those entities
currently required to comply by October
28,1991 would be granted an additional
extension. Under the second option, any
UST facility meeting certain Federally-
specified conditions as determined by
the .States would receive an extension.
Under the first option, retail marketers
in Category IV that provided essential
services such as being the sole source of
petroleum products for a rural
community and whose tanks posed
minimal environmental risks would be
granted an extension of the compliance
deadline of up to 90 days following the
final date for compliance with the
technical standards for new tanks (i.e..
March 22.1999). Owners and operators
must generally meet these technical
requirements (which include tank
upgrading, leak detection, etc.) to qualify
for private insurance.
S-310999 0032(02X20-DEC-9l-09:51:24)
If EPA were to adopt the second
option, EPA would extend the federal
deadline for any facility, regardless of
its compliance category, if the State
made certain findings based on
• federally determined criteria. The
extension would last up to 90 days
following the final date for compliance
with the technical standards for new
tanks (March 22,1999). The specified
criteria could include facilities that (1)
had been identified by States as entities
in need of an extension, (2) sold
petroleum products on a retail basis, (3)
were the sole provider of a class of
petroleum transportation fuels (e.g.,
gasoline or diesel fuel) within a 25-mile
radius, and (4) met certain
environmental criteria such as that the
underground storage tank not be too
close to groundwater or that the
percentage of the local population that
relies on groundwater as their drinking
water source not exceed a certain
number. Under this option, the federal
extension could be granted to local
governments, especially those in
isolated rural areas that provide
essential community services (e.g.,
public health and safety). Additionally,
EPA could allow extensions for Indian
tribes owning and operating USTs on
Indian lands or to owners and operators
of USTs on Indian lands that provided
essential services.
Most commenters opposed Option 1.
Some claimed that the definitions of
"rural" or "sole source provider" would
prove unworkable. Others claimed that
non-marketers have an equivalent need
for an extended compliance deadline. A
few commenters stated that the
definitions could provide some firms
with unfair competitive advantages. A
few commenters supported Option 1.
Commenters in favor of Option 1 stated
that current UST regulations are
reducing the retail availability of
petroleum products in rural areas where
retail outlets for these products may
already be scarce. Commenters also
proposed definitions of "rural area" for
EPA to consider if the Agency were to
propose Option 1.
Many more commenters supported
Option 2, under which any facility
unable to comply with the financial
responsibility deadline, or having •
difficulty in obtaining financial
assurance, could be granted an
extension in States where certain
findings are made based on Federally-
determined criteria. Others advocated
extensions when neither State
assurance funds, financial assistance
programs, nor affordable insurance were
available. Some commenters challenged
the use of "sole provider" as a criterion.
4700.FMT...[16,30]...12-28-90
while others suggested definitions for
"sole provider" for EPA's consideration
if the Agency were to propose Option 2.
Commenters also proposed
environmental criteria to be considered
for use under Options 1 or 2.
Three commenters requested that EPA
review the special circumstances of
tribal governments and of UST owners
and operators on tribal lands. The
commenters noted that Indian tribes do
not impose taxes and therefore do not
have the financial resources to self-
insure. At the same time, they said that
State assurance funds generally do not
apply to tribes, because States do not
have the authority to levy and collect
taxes on Indian lands. EPA
acknowledges the concerns expressed
by these commenters. EPA intends to
use the time available during this
extension period to continue to monitor
the development of financial assurance
mechanisms and to determine whether
specific groups of UST owners and
operators, including owners and
operators of USTs located on tribal
lands, may require additional
consideration. Under today's rule,
however, category IV USTs on Tribal
lands that are not owned by Tribal
governments must demonstrate financial
responsibility by December 31.1993.
USTs directly owned or operated by
Tribal governments are not within the
scope of today's rule. The Agency treats
Indian Tribes as local governments for
the purposes of the financial
responsibility requirements.
Consequently, USTs owned by Tribal
governments will be required to comply
within one year of the publication of the
final rule providing additional
mechanisms for local governments to
demonstrate financial responsibility;
these mechanisms were proposed on
June 18,1990 (55 FR 24892).
EPA appreciates the efforts of
commenters in providing information
relative to Options 1 and 2. These
comments suggest that some specific
classes or categories of UST owners or
facilities may face exceptional or unique
difficulty in complying with the financial
responsibility requirements by
December 31,1993. Although neither
option is being adopted in today's rule,
EPA is continuing to review how and
whether some variation of Option 2
should be adopted. EPA will use the 26
month period provided by today's rule
to continue to monitor the development
of programs to assist the most affected
segments of the regulated community
and to determine whether additional
relief may be necessary. If further relief
is determined to be appropriate, after
considering all statutory, environmental,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 246 / Monday. December 23. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 66373
economic, and programmatic concerns,
EPA will determine the best method, if
any, to provide the relief. The Agency
believes, however, that more
information will be necessary to
characterize fully the segments that may
require further assistance and to
develop appropriate criteria. To obtain
this information, EPA intends to
continue its dialogue with States and the
regulated community.
V. Economic Impacts
This section provides an estimate of
the economic impacts of the proposed
rule. Because the proposed rule will not
cause an annual impact on the sconomy
of $100 million or more and will not
cause an increase in the costs of
production or the prices charged by the
affected community, a Regulatory
Impact Analysis is not required. Instead,
EPA has prepared an economic impact
analysis to estimate the number of
affected facilities and the costs to
affected facilities under the proposed
and alternate options, and has
evaluated the impacts on small entities
as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
A. Economic Impact Analysis
The economic analysis examines the
potential economic effects of extending
the compliance deadline. It provides an
estimate of the number of potentially
affected entities, a comparison of the
financial condition of affected entities
with and without a State assurance
hind, and an analysis of rural stations.
EPA analyses have suggested that a
large number of USTs and UST-owning
entities are subject to the October 26,
1991 deadline. Of the approximately 1.7
million USTs subject to the technical
and financial responsibility standards,
about 790,000 are owned by petroleum
marketers with 12 or fewer USTs, by
marketers that own or operate fewer
than 100 USTs at a single facility, or by
non-marketers with net worth of less
than $20 million. These USTs are
located at about 216,000 facilities, and
are owned by about 213,000 firms (for an
average of 3.8 USTs per owner). As a
i result, the extension of the compliance
I deadline will affect a significant
j proportion of the UST-owning
population.
The development of State assurance
funds and State financial assistance
programs provides relief to UST owners
and operators, particularly those with
fewer facilities and USTs. Small service
stations (including single-outlet stations)
required to obtain private insurance or
otherwise cope with cleanup costs
without State aid face potentially severe
impacts. EPA estimates that 45 percent
S-316999 0033(02X20-DEC-91-09:51:27)
of small stations could suffer severe
financial distress, and 41 percent could
fail. (The figure for severe financial
distress includes those firms that would
fail; thus, about 90 percent of thoseTfirms
suffering financial distress would fail.)
Small stations in rural areas may be
even more heavily affected, because
they tend to have a smaller revenue
base and are less financially robust than
stations in metropolitan areas.
In general, State assurance funds can
reduce instances of failure over the next
ten years if their deductibles are small
enough. State assurance funds with
$10,000 deductibles can reduce failures
from 41 percent to only 14 percent. State
assurance funds with $50,000
deductibles are predicted to reduce
failures by a much smaller amount.
State financial assistance programs that
help firms upgrade their USTs can also
help by alleviating some of the burden
associated with obtaining insurance.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory .Flexibility Act
generally requires all federal agencies to
review the impact of their regulations to
determine whether the regulations will
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities! If
so, the Agency must prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. EPA
believes that this rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The proposed
extension of the compliance date will
provide relief to members of this
compliance group by allowing them
additional time to comply with the
financial responsibility requirements.
Accordingly, the Agency has concluded
that the law does not require a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and
certifies that this rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 280
Administrative practice and
procedure, Environmental protection,
Hazardous materials insurance, Oil
pollution. Penalties, Petroleum,
Reporting and recbrdkeeping
requirements, State program approval,
Surety bonds, Underground storage
tanks. Water pollution control.
Dated: December 18,1991.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, .part 280 of title 40, chapter I
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows: *
47nn FMT flR-wil -I9.90.on
PART 280—TECHNICAL STANDARDS
AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS (UST)
1. The authority citation for part 280
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991. 6991(a),
8991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d). 6991(e), 8991(f), and
6991(h).
2. Section 280.91 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 280.91 Compliance dates.
*****
(d) All petroleum UST owners not
described in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of
this section, excluding local government
entities; December 31,1993.
[FR Doc. 91-30581 Filed 12-20-91; 8:45 am]
BIUJNO COM 8MO-SO-M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Part 205
RIN 0970-AA81
Aid to Families With Dependent
Children and AduR Assistance
Programs; Computer Matching and
Privacy Protection Act
AGENCY: Administration for Children
and Families (ACF), HHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: This interim final rule applies
to State agencies administering the Aid
to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) Program under title IV-A and
the Adult Assistance Programs under
titles I, X, XIV, and XVI (Aid to the
Aged, Blind, or Disabled) of the Social
Security Act. it implements provisions of
the Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act of 1988 and the Computer
Matching and Privacy Protection
Amendments of 1990, amending the
requirement for independent verification
of computer match findings before
imposing any adverse action(s).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 22.1992.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23,1991.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted in writing to the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families,
Attention: Mr. Mack A. Storrs, Director.
Division of Policy, Office of Family
Assistance, Fifth Floor, 370 L'Enfant
-------
------- |