New Rules Still Leave Lingering Questions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week released two proposed amendments to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, which are required at airports that provide and store aircraft fuel. The new rules represent a significant revision of previous EPA proposals, removing many of the requirements included in earlier proposals that would have placed a costly burden on aviation fuel providers.

Under the new rules, aviation fuel providers will no longer be required to have "sized secondary containment" as proposed earlier. This provision, the most contentious among the aviation industry, removes the mandate that trucks must be parked in special containment or "bermed" areas when not in service.

Such requirements would have cost aviation fuel providers tens of thousands of dollars and would have constricted airport runway space, creating safety and security hazards. Fuel trucks will still be subject to general secondary containment requirements, which include a number of more reasonable containment options. The rules also provide flexibility for small facilities.

Facilities that store less than 10,000 gallons of oil have the option of self-certifying their facilities, rather than using the services of a professional engineer (PE). In doing so, however, the facilities must strictly follow all SPCC requirements with no exceptions.

The rules extend the compliance date for SPCC plans from August 2006 to October 2007. All facilities subject to SPCC regulations must have a plan certified and implemented by then.However, it is unclear whether the extension applies to aviation fuel providers.

The new rules also leave many unanswered questions and appear to contradict each other in some areas. The documents issued by the EPA state that the agency has documented evidence of fuel spillage from airport refueling vehicles, a claim disputed by the aviation industry.

To date, the EPA has not shared the evidence with industry officials. Additionally, the rules provide exemptions from SPCC regulations for other types of motor vehicles, stating that the vehicles are inspected regularly and have an "economic incentive" to guard against oil spills. Aviation refueling vehicles undergo similar maintenance and inspection schedules, yet are not offered this same exemption.

"We are pleased that the EPA has listened to the aviation industry and rescinded many of the costly requirements the agency had supported earlier," National Air Transportation Association (NATA) President James K. Coyne said. "The EPA's new rules on the surface seem reasonable, although there are still several areas that need clarification. Overall, however, these rules reflect the EPA's willingness to work with the industry to come to a practical solution.

"I would like to thank those in both Congress and the President's administration who worked to ensure that the EPA rules do not place an unnecessary burden on the aviation industry. I would especially like to thank Senator James Inhofe for his relentless pursuit of policies that would be both fair and environmentally sound. We look forward to working with the EPA in clarifying some of the questions we have regarding this rule, particularly regarding the extension of the deadlines for SPCC compliance and their applicability to the aviation industry. NATA will take advantage of the opportunity to comment on these rules and hopes to reopen a dialogue with the EPA to help reach the best possible policy."

The EPA proposals are currently in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) form, and the agency has issued a 60-day comment period for the public to weigh in on the proposals.

FMI: www.nata.aero