Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-8512-3]

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AM74

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

DATES: These final rules are effective on January 10, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 10, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the facilities in the gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source category. We are promulgating these emission standards for hazardous air pollutants pursuant to Clean Air Act section 112(c)(3) and 112(d)(5). We are adding two regulations that address the facilities contained in this area source category. The first includes requirements for bulk distribution facilities, i.e., gasoline distribution bulk terminals, bulk plants, and pipeline facilities. The second includes requirements for loading of storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities. We are also incorporating by reference four test methods. This action also finalizes our decision not to regulate the above noted facilities under Clean Air Act section 112(c)(6).

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability and Compliance Dates

B. Summary of Emission Limits and Management Practices

C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

E. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Additional Actions

A. Title V Permitting Requirements

B. Not Regulating This Source Category Under CAA Section 112(c)(6)
V. Summary of Comments and Responses

A. Applicability

B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative

C. Bulk Terminals

D. Testing and Monitoring

E. Control Costs and Cost Analyses Performed

F. Notifications, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the nonair environmental and energy impacts? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated categories and entities affected by these final rules include:
Examples of regulated Category NAICS \a\ entities Industry....................... 324110 Operations at area 493190 sources that transfer 486910 and store gasoline, 424710 including bulk 447110 terminals, bulk 447190 plants, pipeline facilities, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Federal/State/local/tribal
governments .
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

[[Page 1917]]

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the national emission standards. To determine whether your facility will be affected by the national emission standards, you should examine the applicability criteria in these final rules. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the national emission standards to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13. B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of these final rules is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of these final rules will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 10, 2008. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the persons(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. II. Background Information

On December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64303), we promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for major source facilities within the gasoline distribution source category (see 40 CFR part 63, subpart R (Major Source NESHAP)). The Major Source NESHAP imposed control requirements on sources within the source category that met the definition of major sources, e.g., a source that emits 10 tons per year or more of any individual hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. Gasoline vapors normally contain nine HAP: benzene, ethylbenzene, hexane, toluene, xylenes, isooctane, naphthalene, cumene, and methyl tertbutyl ether. Some gasoline distribution terminals and pipeline facilities were found to be major sources by themselves or to be located at major sources. Gasoline storage tanks at bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations, loading racks at bulk terminals, vapor leaks from gasoline cargo tanks, and equipment components in gasoline service were emission sources that were regulated under the Major Source NESHAP. Area sources of HAP emissions within the source category (many bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations and all pipeline pumping stations, bulk plants, and gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) (service stations, convenience stores, and other retail outlets)) are not subject to the Major Source NESHAP.

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy), EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38706, 38715716, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the source categories that account for 90 percent of the urban HAP emissions in the Strategy.\2\
\1\ An area source is a stationary source of HAP emissions that is not a major source.
\2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999, the area source category list has undergone several amendments.

CAA Section 112(d) standards include new and existing source maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, health threshold standards, and generally available control technology or management practices (GACT) standards for area sources. The standards that are the subject of these final rules are based on GACT pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).

Gasoline vapors contain two HAP (benzene and ethylene dichloride (EDC)) included among the 30 area source HAP listed under the Strategy. The gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source category was listed in the Strategy because the facilities in this category contributed approximately 36 percent of the national emissions of benzene and 2 percent of the EDC emissions from stationary area sources. We are adding two subparts to 40 CFR part 63 to address the benzene emissions from the facilities in this area source category. As explained in the proposed rule, EDC emissions are no longer emitted from facilities in this area source category as a result of the lead phasedown provisions of section 218 of the CAA. We received no comments on this matter; therefore, we are taking no further action regarding EDC emissions in this rulemaking.

III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

This section summarizes the final rules and identifies and discusses changes since proposal. For changes that were made as a result of public comments, we have provided explanations of the changes and the rationale in the responses to comments in section V of this preamble.

A. Applicability and Compliance Dates

These final rules apply to any existing or new gasoline distribution facility that is an area source. 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB applies to bulk gasoline terminals, pipeline facilities, and bulk gasoline plants. 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC applies to GDF. The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the requirements of these final rules by January 10, 2011. The owner or operator of a new area source must comply with these final rules by January 10, 2008 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. [[Page 1918]]

B. Summary of Emission Limits and Management Practices

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB requires that area source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations \3\ that meet the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11081 control emissions from large storage tanks (those at or above 20,000 gallons capacity) by using either specified floating roofs and seals or a closed vent system and control device to reduce emissions by 95 percent. Small storage tanks (those below 20,000 gallons capacity) must be covered.
\3\ See 40 CFR 63.11100 for the definitions of the specific facilities regulated under subpart BBBBBB.

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB also requires that cargo tank loading rack emissions located at bulk gasoline terminals with gasoline throughputs above 250,000 gallons per day be reduced to a level of 80 milligrams (mg), or less, per liter of gasoline loaded into cargo tanks. Those bulk terminals with gasoline throughputs below 250,000 gallons per day must use submerged filling for the loading of cargo tanks.

Additionally, bulk terminal owners or operators with gasoline throughputs above 250,000 gallons per day must not allow the loading of cargo tanks that do not have the appropriate vapor tightness testing documentation. Before loading at an affected bulk terminal, the owner or operator of a cargo tank must present documentation of passing the vapor tightness test to demonstrate, using EPA Reference Method 27, or equivalent, that they meet a maximum pressure or vacuum decay rate of 3 inches of water, or less, during a 5minute test period.

At bulk plants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB requires the use of submerged filling of gasoline storage tanks and cargo tanks.

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB also requires the implementation of a monthly equipment leak inspection at bulk terminals, bulk plants, pipeline breakout stations, and pipeline pumping stations. The standards allow a sight, sound, and smell inspection of all equipment components in gasoline liquid or vapor service. In the final rule, all leaking equipment components must be repaired within a specified time period.

40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC requires controls at GDF nationwide depending on the GDF's monthly gasoline throughput. All GDF must perform specified good management practices to check for and minimize evaporation of gasoline. All those GDF above 10,000 gallons per month throughput must also employ submerged filling of gasoline storage tanks. The submerged filling requirement is met by either bottom filling the storage tank or by using a fill pipe to load the storage tank that extends to no more than 12 inches from the bottom of the storage tank for fill pipes installed on or before November 9, 2006, and no more than 6 inches from the bottom of the storage tank for fill pipes installed after November 9, 2006. Additionally, those GDF with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons, or more, must also use vapor balancing when filling their gasoline storage tanks.

Additionally, under the final rule, GDF that have tanks with a 250 gallon capacity or less, regardless of monthly throughput, are only required to perform the good management practices to check for and minimize evaporation of gasoline described in section 63.11116(a); these tanks are not required to comply with either the submerged fill or vapor balancing requirements of the final rule.
C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB requires that control devices being used to reduce emissions from loading racks at bulk terminals be tested to demonstrate that they comply with the emission limit. Closed vent systems and control devices used to reduce emissions from storage tanks also have to be tested to demonstrate that they comply with the emission limit. Other options for demonstrating compliance with the rule include using recent performance tests or providing documentation that the devices are complying with enforceable State, local, or tribal rules or operating permits that contain requirements at least as stringent as this final rule.

Affected facilities that use control devices (vapor processors) to comply with the emission limits for storage tanks or loading racks at bulk terminals are required to monitor operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits. The monitored operating parameter values must be determined during a performance test or by engineering assessment. An operating parameter monitoring approach approved by the Administrator and included in an enforceable operating permit is allowed as an alternative.

Annual inspections of storage tank roofs and seals are required for bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations. Such inspections must be conducted using either the procedures required in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Storage Vessels New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)) or the procedures required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks)Control Level 2).

In addition, each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal is required to monitor the loading of gasoline into gasoline cargo tanks to limit the loading to vaportight gasoline cargo tanks. The owner or operator of each gasoline cargo tank loading at an affected bulk terminal is required to perform vapor tightness testing on each cargo tank to demonstrate compliance with the maximum allowable pressure and vacuum change of 3 inches of water, or less, in 5 minutes. Vapor tightness testing must be performed using EPA Reference Method 27. Railcar cargo tanks may also use the ``Railcar Bubble Leak Test Procedures'' specified in the rule.

40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCCC requires that the owner or operator of GDF meeting the applicability criteria for vapor balancing demonstrate initial compliance with this emission limit by conducting an initial performance test on the vapor balance system. The rule also contains other options for demonstrating compliance with this emission limit, such as using recent performance tests or providing documentation that the vapor balance systems are complying with enforceable State, local, or tribal rules or operating permits that contain requirements at least as stringent as this final rule.

Each owner or operator must also determine, at the time of installation and every 3 years thereafter, the leak rate and cracking pressure of pressurevacuum vent valves installed on gasoline storage tanks and must conduct a static pressure test on gasoline storage tanks.
D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

Affected sources that are subject to the control requirements under these final rules are required to submit four types of notifications or reports as set forth in the General Provisions: (1) Initial Notification; (2) Notification of Compliance Status; (3) periodic reports; and (4) other reports. The Initial Notification alerts the regulatory authority of applicability for existing sources or of construction for new sources. This notification also includes a statement as to whether the facility can achieve compliance by the required compliance date. The Notification of Compliance Status demonstrates that compliance has been achieved. This
[[Page 1919]]
notification contains the results of initial performance tests and a list of equipment subject to the standard. Periodic reports are required on a semiannual basis. The semiannual compliance report informs the regulatory authority of the results of required inspections or additional testing results. An excess emissions report, if applicable, must be submitted with the semiannual compliance report and is required if excess emission events occur. Excess emission events include events such as the loading of a cargo tank that does not have documentation of vapor tightness testing, deviations from acceptable operating parameter values, or equipment leaks that are not repaired within the required time.

Other reports are also required under the General Provisions, generally on a onetime basis, for events such as a notification before a performance test or a storage vessel inspection. Reporting these events allows the regulatory authority the opportunity to have an observer present.

Reporting requirements for owners or operators of bulk plants and GDF are limited in most cases to the Initial Notification and the Notification of Compliance Status. Those bulk plants that are located in States that require the use of submerged fill would not be required to submit these notifications. The same is true for GDF located in States or counties that already require submerged fill or submerged fill plus vapor balancing.

Records required under these final rules must be kept for 5 years. These include records of cargo tank vapor tightness test
certifications, records of storage tank and equipment component inspections, and records of monthly throughput.

E. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

As a result of the public comments received in response to the November 9, 2006 proposal, we have made several changes in the final rules for this source category. This section presents a summary of the major changes since proposal. Additional discussion of the details of the changes and the rationale for making these changes is presented in section V of this preamble.

As proposed, 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB applied to both bulk facilities nationwide and GDF in Urban 1 and Urban 2 areas. We also requested comment on whether to require vapor balancing at GDF in Urban 1 areas and provided rule text in the docket. In order to simplify the final rules, we have included the requirements for bulk facilities in subpart BBBBBB and have included all requirements for GDF in a separate subpart (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC).

We have made some changes to the requirements for bulk facilities. Internal floating roof storage tanks at bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations will not have to be equipped with secondary rim seals (as proposed) if they have vapor mounted primary seals. Also, we are clarifying that storage tanks below 20,000 gallons in capacity require a cover, and those at or above 20,000 gallons in capacity require the controls as proposed and mentioned above.

We have also made some changes to the requirements for loading racks at bulk terminals. We proposed a requirement that all bulk terminals meet an 80 mg per liter (mg/l) emission standard for loading racks. Based on comments received, however, the type of control required in the final rule depends on the daily gasoline throughput of the bulk terminal. Loading racks at bulk terminals with daily gasoline throughputs of less than 250,000 gallons are required to use submerged filling; those at or above a daily gasoline throughput of 250,000 gallons are required to meet the 80 mg/l standard.

Additionally, we requested comment and supporting information on alternative parameter monitoring approaches for vapor processors used to meet the 80 mg/l standard for bulk terminal loading racks. After consideration of the public comments, we have decided to include presence of flame monitoring (as was proposed) for thermal oxidizers, and vacuum level monitoring for carbon adsorbers, as alternatives for monitoring the performance of vapor processors. We also took comments and requested data on additional requirements for these alternative monitoring approaches. We have incorporated these additional periodic equipment and maintenance inspections of the vapor processor systems into the final rule.

No major changes since proposal have been made to the requirements for pipeline facilities or bulk plants.

For GDF (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC), we have incorporated changes to the submerged fill requirements and the vapor balance requirements on which we requested comments. The final rule contains specific requirements for GDF nationwide depending on the GDF's monthly gasoline throughput. All GDF, regardless of size, must implement management practices that will minimize vapor releases to the atmosphere. GDF with a monthly gasoline throughput of 10,000 gallons or more must also use submerged fill when loading their storage tanks. In addition to the requirements described above, GDF with a monthly gasoline throughput of 100,000 gallons or more must use vapor balancing when loading the storage tank. Subpart CCCCCC also contains requirements applicable to gasoline cargo tanks.

IV. Additional Actions

In today's final rulemaking, we are also finalizing two additional actions that were announced at proposal. These final actions address title V permit requirements and our decision not to regulate the gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source category under CAA section 112(c)(6).

A. Title V Permitting Requirements

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that EPA may exempt one or more area source categories from the requirements of title V if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on such categories. EPA must determine whether to exempt an area source from title V at the time we issue the relevant CAA section 112 standard (40 CFR 70.3(b)(2)). In this action, we are finalizing the proposed exemption of gasoline distribution area sources from the requirement to apply for and obtain a title V permit as a result of being subject to these final rules. We justified this finding at proposal and did not receive any negative comments during the public comment period regarding this issue. In fact, we received two positive comments supporting the exemption. As a result, gasoline distribution area sources are not required to obtain title V permits because of being subject to these final rules. However, if such sources are otherwise required to obtain title V permits, e.g., due to being part of a major source defined under title V (40 CFR 70.2, 40 CFR 71.2, and 40 CFR 63.2), they must apply for and obtain title V permits. The applicability criteria for title V are in 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b). We are adding additional regulatory text to this rule to clarify the above.
B. Not Regulating This Source Category Under CAA Section 112(c)(6)

On November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68124), the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) Area Source category was added to the list of source categories for development of standards under CAA section 112(c)(6) toward the 90 percent requirement for polycyclic organic matter (POM). One [[Page 1920]]
surrogate for POM is the sum of 16 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (16PAH) measured in EPA Test Method 610. Naphthalene is the only 16PAH estimated and reported in the 1990 inventory that is emitted from gasoline distribution facilities. As explained in the proposal preamble, we have revised the 1990 inventory of naphthalene from this source category downward based on additional data received. Based on that information, we have concluded that gasoline distribution facilities (area sources) contribute only 0.02 percent of the total 16 PAH (1.73 tons out of 8,051 tons) and are not needed to meet the 90 percent requirement for POM in CAA section 112(c)(6). This action finalizes our decision not to regulate this source category under CAA section 112(c)(6) since we fully justified this conclusion at proposal and did not receive any negative comments at proposal.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

The gasoline distribution area source rules were proposed on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064). The 60day public comment period ended on January 8, 2007, and we received 36 comment letters. Comments were received from industry representatives, trade associations, State and local air pollution control agencies, environmental groups, air pollution control device vendors, and private citizens. The final rules reflect our consideration of all of the comments received on the proposed action. This section summarizes the significant comments and those that resulted in changes in the final rules. Our responses to comments not specifically addressed in this preamble are presented in the Response to Comments Document, which is available in Docket No. EPAHQOAR20060406.
A. Applicability

1. Area Sources

Comment: One commenter questioned whether EPA intended the area source rules to apply to facilities that are major sources and that have GDF on site for refueling of their vehicles (fleet vehicle refueling centers). Another commenter stated that EPA should clarify that the proposed rule does not apply to gasoline distribution major sources.

Response: The gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source rules apply to those gasoline distribution facilities that qualify as area sources. Facilities that are major sources (emit >= 10 tons per year of one HAP or emit >= 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP) as a result of their gasoline distribution activities, or as a result of any other activities, would not be subject to these final area source rules. We have clarified in the final rules that these rules only apply to area sources.

2. GACT Versus MACT Approach

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's own interpretation of CAA section 112(d)(5) allowed it to set GACT standards ``when the imposition of MACT is determined to be unreasonable,'' (60 FR 4948, 4953, January 25, 1995) and that because EPA did not offer any technological or economic reasons why MACT was unreasonable for this source category, the selection of GACT rather than MACT was arbitrary and capricious.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion. The commenter has taken the phrase cited above in a prior Federal Register notice out of context and erroneously asserts that EPA must first justify why it is not setting a MACT standard before it can issue a GACT standard for a particular area source category.

In the Federal Register notice cited above, EPA promulgated final rules limiting the discharge of chromium compound emissions from both major sources and area sources in the hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks source categories. In developing that rulemaking, we first established the MACT standards for the major sources in each source category. Once we determined the standards for major sources, which must be based on MACT, we then evaluated what the standards should be for area sources. At that time, EPA recognized that it had authority to issue GACT standards for area sources. In determining what was GACT for those area sources, EPA considered the standards it had just set for the major sources and evaluated the technical feasibility of imposing the major source requirements on the area sources.

Additionally, since EPA could consider cost in setting a GACT standard, EPA also evaluated whether the cost of imposing the major source standards on the area sources in those source categories would be reasonable. The statements in the prior Federal Register notice concerning CAA section 112(d)(5) were focused on the factual circumstances of that rule, which involved the simultaneous promulgation of major and area source standards. We did not, in that rulemaking, conduct a thorough analysis of the requirements for setting a GACT standard under CAA section 112(d)(5).

As recognized in the Federal Register notice cited above, and in this final rule, Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission standards for area sources in section 112(d)(5) of the CAA. Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which is entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

With respect only to categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. (Emphasis added.)

There are two critical aspects to CAA section 112(d)(5). First, CAA section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does not dispute that EPA listed the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) Area Source category pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), EPA ``may, in lieu of '' the authorities provided in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established under that provision ``require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as MACT). CAA Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the ``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing sources. See CAA section 112(d)(3).\4\ Webster's dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available control
[[Page 1921]]
technologies or management practices (GACT), instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), which is the case here.\5\
\4\ Specifically, section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, and for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the Administrator has emissions information. CAA section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to consider whether more stringentso called beyond thefloor limitsare technologically achievable considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction. \5\ CAA section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and for which an emission standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).

The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for why issuing MACT standards for this area source category is
``unreasonable'' before it can issue GACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(5). The commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category, and only if cost or some other reason made applying the MACT standard ``unreasonable'' for the category would EPA be able to issue a standard under CAA section 112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in CAA section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis, or beyondthefloor analysis before the Agency could issue a CAA section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories listed under CAA section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has done in this rulemaking.

Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, EPA must set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. In determining what constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that are generally available for the area source category.\6\ The legislative history supporting CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes GACT for the area source category.\7\ EPA cannot consider cost in setting MACT floors, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). Area sources differ from major sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA to consider costs in setting GACT standards for area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5), but did not permit that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources. This important dichotomy between CAA section 112(d)(3) and CAA section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress sought to do precisely what the title of CAA section 112(d)(5) statesprovide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area sources.'' EPA properly issued standards for this area source category under CAA section 112(d)(5), and as demonstrated below, EPA has a reasoned basis for each of its GACT determinations.
\6\ As explained above, in developing GACT for the area sources subject to this rule, EPA analyzed both the control technologies and management practices used by area sources in the category to reduce HAP and the control approaches employed by the major sources in this category to reduce HAP.
\7\ Additional information on the definition of ``generally available control technology or management practices'' (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA (S. Rep. No. 101228, 101st Cong. 1st session, 171172). That report states that GACT is to encompass:
* * * Methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Finally, even accepting, for arguments sake, the commenter's assertion that EPA must provide a rational basis for setting a GACT standard as opposed to a MACT standard, we did so in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we explained that we can and do consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. We also explained that the facilities in the source categories at issue here are already well controlled for the Urban HAP for which the source category was listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for the well controlled facilities in this area source category because, given current wellcontrolled levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in control for this area source category.

Comment: One commenter encouraged EPA to reevaluate GACT based on the costeffectiveness of controls for volatile organic compounds (VOC) as a function of the source's throughput instead of using the cost effectiveness of controls for benzene. The commenter believes doing so would demonstrate that more stringent emission standards and monitoring requirements (similar to the MACT) are warranted for all but the smallest of facilities. The commenter pointed out that in 1980, when EPA developed the Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for VOC control in ozone nonattainment areas, $2,000 per ton was considered reasonably available control technology (RACT). With inflation over the past 26 years, it should be in the range of $6,000 per ton. According to the commenter, since benzene constitutes only about 1 percent of the VOC emissions, the costeffectiveness of these controls for VOC will be about 100 times better. The commenter prefers applicability thresholds based on throughput, rather than geographical boundaries, as proposed. The commenter believes that the proposed GACT neglects consideration of the risk posed by individual sources to the local communities. The commenter also encouraged EPA to consider more stringent requirements for ``new sources.''

Another commenter pointed out that, in addition to benzene exposure, VOC from gasoline fueling play a role in the formation of ground level ozone (smog). The commenter stated that EPA should consider the full scope of air pollution concerns that are affected by emissions from gasoline distribution and should design its Stage I regulations to maximize the amount of reductions achieved for both air toxics and ozone precursor emissions.

Response: We understand the commenters' desires for achieving greater VOC emission reductions in this rulemaking. We agree that VOC emissions contribute to other air pollution concerns and appreciate the State and local agencies' efforts in addressing these emissions through their regulatory programs. We also agree that an analysis of the impacts of this rule based strictly on the control of VOC would yield different costeffectiveness values and potentially support requiring more stringent control technologies for these facilities. In fact, we did calculate VOC impacts during our analysis of the proposed and final regulatory alternatives and these values are presented in the supporting documentation. But, as explained in other sections of this preamble, the primary focus of these area source rules is fulfilling our obligations under CAA section 112(c)(3) for regulating stationary sources of benzene. While the controls finalized today will achieve reductions in both HAP and VOC emissions, we appropriately focused on the HAP costeffectiveness values in determining what is GACT for facilities in this area source category.

Based on comments received, we have reconsidered the use of gasoline throughput for determining what is GACT for these facilities and have
[[Page 1922]]
incorporated multiple throughputs into the final rules. The final rules require controls at affected facilities nationwide, thus, addressing the impacts of benzene emissions from this area source category regardless of geographical boundaries.

In the final rules we distinguish between new and existing sources for the submerged fill requirements applicable to bulk gasoline plants and GDF. See 40 CFR 63.11086, 40 CFR 63.11117, and 40 CFR 63.11118 for the specific requirements. Control requirements at the remaining facilities (bulk gasoline terminals, pipeline breakout stations, and pipeline pumping stations) apply equally to both new and existing sources.

3. Proposed Exemptions

Comment: One commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not authorize EPA to base GACT decisions on whether it believes that control technologies are or are not costeffective but, rather, intended EPA to consider ``economic impacts.'' Therefore, EPA's decision not to require a control level of 35 mg/l for loading racks, 1inch pressure drop testing for cargo tanks, and vapor balancing of storage tanks at bulk plants and GDF, based on costeffectiveness rather than technological or economic impact issues, is unlawful.

Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not authorize EPA to consider costeffectiveness as well as economic impacts in determining what is GACT for the affected facilities in an area source category. The legislative history supporting CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes GACT for the area source category (see footnote 7). Area sources differ from major sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA to consider costs, including costeffectiveness, in setting GACT standards for area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5), but did not permit that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources. The commenter did not cite any specific language in the CAA that prevents us from considering costeffectiveness as well as other economic impacts in determining the level of control that constitutes GACT for an area source category. We believe EPA properly considered costeffectiveness in each of its GACT determinations for this area source category under CAA section 112(d)(5). See also Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (finding EPA's decision to consider costs on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost analysis).

Comment: One commenter stated that because the CAA requires standards for all sources in a category, EPA's refusal to set standards for storage tanks with a capacity less than 20,000 gallons is unlawful. The commenter stated that EPA does not claim that no control technology is generally available for storage tanks with a capacity less than 20,000 gallons or provide any reason that they cannot employ the same technology that is used by larger storage tanks.

Response: In response to this comment, EPA reexamined its GACT determination for storage tanks with a capacity less than 20,000 gallons. As explained above, determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the facilites in the area source category. We also consider standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. We further consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that source category.

In the proposed and final rule, we distinguished storage tanks based on size and developed a 20,000 gallon capacity threshold. This size threshold is similar to the threshold used in several other standards that apply to storage tanks, including 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and the Gasoline Distribution Major Source NESHAP. As explained in the 1994 ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks'' (EPA453/R94001), 20,000 gallons is generally considered to be the breakpoint between horizontal and vertical tanks. The document reports that most storage tanks below 20,000 gallons are horizontal rather than vertical and a large percentage of these tanks are also underground tanks.

In the final rule, we are requiring storage tanks with a capacity of 20,000 gallons or more to have floating roof and seal technologies. In response to this comment, we reevaluated the application of these same controls on tanks with a capacity less than 20,000 gallons and determined that these control approaches do not represent GACT for tanks with a capacity less than 20,000 gallons. First, for horizontal tanks, which are generally tanks with a capacity below 20,000 gallons, the floating roof technology is not technically feasible. Horizontal tanks do not have perpendicular sides; this precludes the application of floating roof technology to these tanks. Second, our analysis shows that the costeffectiveness of requiring the application of floating roof technology to vertical storage tanks below the 20,000 gallon size is, at best, about $8,000 per ton of HAP.

Instead, in the final rule, we are requiring that facilities using storage tanks with a capacity below 20,000 gallons follow certain management practices for controlling emissions. See 40 CFR 63.11087 for those specific requirements.

Comment: One commenter believes it is not necessary to regulate GDF that are already using submerged fill, especially when required by an enforceable State, local, or tribal rule or permit. The commenter believes that facilities already have safety, economic, and environmental reasons to minimize spills, clean them up quickly, and prevent gasoline from remaining in the environment; thus, according to the commenter, additional emission reductions achieved by including these management practices in the final rule might not be significant. The commenter recommends that EPA evaluate the potential for emission reductions achievable by requiring these management practices and, if minimal emission reductions would result, EPA could either entirely exclude tanks already equipped with a submerged fill system, or exclude tanks covered by a submerged fill requirement in an enforceable State, local, or tribal rule or permit. In either case, the commenter suggests that the provision in the proposed 40 CFR 63.11085(f) would become an exclusion in the proposed 40 CFR 63.11081.

Another commenter believes that GDF should be excluded from any and all proposed and final regulatory alternatives because most States/ regions with unacceptable levels of VOC and HAP already require Stage I controls which include submerged filling of underground storage tanks. The commenter believes that including GDF in the applicability of the proposed rule will inordinately increase the amount of paperwork (requiring the submittal of Initial Notifications and Notification of Compliance Status to dozens of States and local agencies) with little to no environmental benefit. The commenter believes that GDF should be regulated at the State and local level as they are today.

Response: By suggesting that we should not set Federal emission [[Page 1923]]
standards, the commenters ignore the language of the statute. The CAA requires that EPA set Federal emission standards under CAA section 112(d) for source categories listed under CAA section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what we are doing here. GDF are affected facilities within the gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source category. These facilities formed part of the basis for listing this area source category; hence, EPA is promulgating rules regulating emissions from these facilities. As summarized in section III.B of this preamble, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC requires controls at GDF nationwide depending on their monthly gasoline throughput. All GDF must employ certain management practices. GDF with monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more must use submerged fill when loading their storage tanks. GDF with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or more must also install a vapor balance system. These controls are GACT for these facilities in this area source category.

We agree with the concept of reducing the reporting and recordkeeping burden on affected facilities. We have taken steps in the proposed and final rules to minimize these burdens by not requiring notifications or reports from facilities that are already operating in compliance with enforceable State, local, or tribal rules and permits that include requirements that are at least as stringent as those contained in these final rules.

Comment: Two commenters support exempting bulk plants and pipeline pumping facilities because emissions from pipeline pumping stations are insignificant and because the recordkeeping and reporting would represent a burden with no benefit. The commenters stated that if EPA does not agree to fully exempt bulk plants and pipeline pumping stations, at the very least, those facilities that do not have a storage tank or loading rack subject to controls should be exempted from the equipment leak requirements.

Response: As explained above, by suggesting that we should not set Federal emission standards for these facilities, the commenters ignore the language of the statute. The CAA requires that EPA set Federal emission standards under CAA section 112(d) for source categories listed under CAA section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what we are doing here. Bulk plants and pipeline pumping stations are affected facilities within the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) Area Source category. These facilities formed part of the basis for listing this area source category; hence, EPA is promulgating rules regulating emissions from these facilities. As such, 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB includes requirements for controls at these facilities based on what EPA determined was GACT for each facility.

We have, however, taken steps to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden on these facilities. The requirement to submit a combined Initial Notification/Notification of Compliance Status is the only routine reporting requirement imposed on these facilities. No periodic reports are required as part of the equipment leak inspection program as long as leaks are repaired in a timely manner. We believe that the potential safety and environmental benefits of an equipment leak inspection program justify the minimal expense involved. 4. Nationwide Coverage Versus Urban Area Coverage for Standards

Comment: Several commenters stated that they were strongly opposed to EPA's intended approach to narrow the application of CAA section 112(d) area source rules to urban areas, while other commenters were opposed to broadening the applicability of the rules to all areas.

One commenter stated that because CAA section 112 does not authorize EPA to decline to set standards for any sources within a category of sources that it has listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), the threshold for sources that are not in urban areas (as well as those below the proposed size applicability thresholds) would be unlawful.

One commenter stated that there is little justification apparent in the proposed rule for mandating submerged fill for loading of storage tanks in nonurban areas. The commenter claimed that to do so would result in additional costs to GDF, while achieving minimal reductions in emissions. The commenter stated that, as a matter of law, the Agency's discretion is limited to imposing area source controls to area sources located within urban areas.

One commenter believes that EPA should apply the rule in accordance with the expressed intent of Congress, which was to reduce ``risks to public health in urban areas.'' Therefore, according to this commenter, the rule should apply only to facilities that are located in or near urban areas. The commenter also stated that health risk should be taken into account in evaluating costeffectiveness, and riskdistance issues should be considered. The commenter provided an analysis of their recommended use of a riskdistance lookup table to determine applicability of the rule.

Other commenters stated that regardless of whether residential populations are urban or rural, individuals living in close proximity to GDF are subjected to elevated exposures to HAP and, given the trend of building very high volume throughput GDF, the level of exposure is likely to remain high and even increase.

One commenter urged EPA to follow conventional approaches in determining the scope of controls, and, in so doing, apply proposed Regulatory Alternatives (RA) 2 and 3 to all counties nationwide. The commenter urges EPA in this rulemaking, and in future area source rulemakings, to apply area source standards uniformly in all counties nationwide, particularly in circumstances where the area source category is ubiquitous, as is the case with gasoline distribution.

Another commenter stressed that the impacts of emissions from gasoline distribution and dispensing facilities are localized and would be similar for most urban and rural areas. The commenter stated that the cost of controlling these facilities would be the same in rural or urban settings as well; therefore, because the costs and environmental impacts are the same, there does not appear to be any rationale for treating rural and urban facilities differently.

One commenter stated that the fact that some State and local agencies already regulate these sources does not relieve EPA of its obligation to reduce emissions under CAA section 112. According to another commenter, many State and local agencies cannot be more stringent than the Federal government. The commenter further stated that once a Federal rule is promulgated, some agencies must change their regulations to make them consistent with those of the Federal government, which could result in backsliding if the State or local rule was more stringent to begin with.

Two comments expressed opposition to limiting the geographic scope of the proposed regulatory alternatives to reduce the ``overall cost of the rule.''

Response: After consideration of all comments related to the issue of nationwide versus urban applicability of the proposed standards for submerged fill and vapor balancing at GDF (proposed RA 2 and 3), we believe a nationwide approach is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this particular area source category. As suggested by commenters, the final rule requires GDFs nationwide to control HAP emissions, and those control requirements differ depending on the monthly throughput of the GDF, which
[[Page 1924]]
is a reasonable factor for distinguishing between GDF. As explained in other responses and sections of this preamble, the final rule requires all GDF, regardless of size, to implement certain management practices to reduce vapor evaporation. Additionally, GDF with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more must use submerged fill, while GDF with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or more must install vapor balance systems.

As proposed, the rule would have only required controls at GDF located in Urban 1 and Urban 2 areas. Some commenters suggested further narrowing the applicability of the rule to GDF based on the health risks and distance to the population of individual facilities. However, facilities located in Urban 1 and Urban 2 areas were the basis for listing area source categories pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of the CAA. We are currently under courtordered deadlines to complete issuing standards for all listed area source categories. Changing our focus would mean recreating an area source category list which may differ significantly from the current list, greatly hindering our effort to complete our obligation by the courtordered deadlines. Therefore, we believe that revisiting the basis for listing the area source categories is inappropriate at this time. And, as further explained below, we believe the particular facts for this area source category indicate that GDF nationwide should implement controls based on their monthly gasoline throughput.

We believe that the CAA provides the Agency with the authority to regulate area sources nationwide. As explained in the Strategy and the proposed rule, we interpret these provisions as providing EPA authority to regulate listed area source categories on a nationwide basis. Indeed, in several other area source rules, EPA has exercised this discretion and issued rules of nationwide applicability, as it has done here. See, e.g., 72 FR 26 (January 3, 2007); 72 FR 2930 (January 23, 2007); 72 FR 38864 (July 16, 2007).

A rule of nationwide applicability is particularly appropriate here because control costs are not expected to differ in rural vs. urban settings, so the control's costeffectiveness is the same, and economic impacts are equally distributed. In addition, after reviewing the public comments and the additional analyses presented in support of those comments, we determined that the controls discussed above are commercially available as they are being used by many bulk facilities and GDF, and they are costeffective (considering the source type and size thresholds noted above) for bulk facilities and GDF.

Therefore, consistent with CAA section 112(d)(5), the final rule establishes standards that reflect the application of generally available control technology or management practices, and we properly considered costeffectiveness and other economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT for this area source category.

The commenter also suggested that we should consider health risks in making our GACT determination for each facility. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress established a twophase approach for setting HAP emission standards. Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 980 (DC Cir. 2004). The first phase is the initial standard setting phase, which is the phase at issue in this rulemaking.\8\ In this phase, the standards are technologybased, and this is true regardless of whether we issue MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), or GACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(5).\9\ See Senate Report at 148 (1989); Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d at 980.
\8\ The second phase of standard setting involves a riskbased analysis. Specifically, CAA section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to determine8 years after issuance of the initial MACT standard whether residual risks remain that warrant more stringent standards than achieved through MACT. CAA section 112(f)(5) provides that the Agency shall not be required to conduct a residual risk for area sources for which EPA has issued a GACT standard.
\9\ CAA section 112(d)(4) does provide, however, that with respect to pollutants for which the EPA Administrator has
established a health threshold, EPA can consider such threshold in setting standards under CAA section 112(d). Benzene is a carcinogen and is, thus, not a pollutant for which the Administrator has established a health threshold, and, therefore, CAA section 112(d)(4) is not relevant to this category.

In this final rule, EPA is establishing emissions standards for this area source category under CAA section 112(d)(5), which authorizes EPA to set emissions standards based on GACT for a listed area source category. The legislative history describes GACT as ``methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.'' S. Rep. No. 101228, at 171 (1989) (Senate Report). Consistent with the statute and the legislative history, in determining GACT, we evaluated the control technologies and management practices that reduce benzene emissions from the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) Area Source category, and we assessed the costs of implementing such approaches. We did not consider health impacts or risks in determining GACT for the facilities in this area source category, as the commenter recommended, nor were we required by statute to do so. However, we note that health risk did play a role in this process in that the determination of which pollutants to regulate and from which categories was governed by the statutory requirement to regulate sources accounting for 90 percent or more of the 30 HAP that present the greatest health threat in urban areas.

Regarding the comment concerning whether State and local regulations may be more stringent than Federal regulations, we recognize that this could be an issue in a few States. As an initial matter, however, for the reasons described herein, we believe the record for this final rule fully supports the GACT determinations that we made for the affected facilities. A survey conducted by STAPPA ALAPCO in 2002 showed that only two States, Idaho and South Dakota, were precluded from issuing State regulations more stringent than Federal rules. Twenty four other States have similar restrictions but include a variety of exceptions such as: (1) Preexisting rules; (2) when significant benefits can be achieved; or (3) when the requirements are needed to meet State Implementation Plan (SIP) commitments. We believe that most States that have elected to implement standards more stringent than the GACT standards finalized today for the gasoline distribution (Stage I) area source category will be able to justify maintaining their standards based on VOC reduction benefits or ozone nonattainment requirements.

B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative

Comment: Two commenters recommended that if proposed RA 2 or RA 3 are considered, that the throughput volume of the GDF storage tanks be taken into consideration and explicitly expressed in the regulatory text. In the commenters' view, GDF should be redefined to address commercial or commerciallike operations only. The commenters further asserted that facilities with storage tanks between 250 and 2,000 gallons that do not have high volume throughputs should not be regulated as the reduction in emissions will not be significant if the facility is filling the tanks only once or twice a year. One commenter stated that, using AP42 emission factors, a rough estimate of the costeffectiveness for a throughput of 1,000 gallons per year over the 15year life of the tank is $79,000 dollars per ton of VOC and $1,100,000 dollars per ton of HAP.

[[Page 1925]]

Two of the commenters stated that if EPA adopts either proposed RA 2 or RA 3, it would pose unnecessary regulatory burdens, conflict with most State RACT requirements, and likely prove to be ineffective in controlling ozonecausing vapors. One commenter stated that if EPA adopts either proposed RA 2 or RA 3, the NESHAP should be limited to GDF with storage tanks of greater than 1,000 gallons capacity.

One commenter stated that, with very few exceptions, State/local RACT rules set tank capacity thresholds much higher than 250 gallons. In objecting to proposed RA 2 and 3, the commenters stated: (1) The 250 gallon NESHAP applicability threshold under proposed RA 2 and 3 for GDF is lower than all but two State RACT regulatory applicability thresholds; (2) establishing a NESHAP threshold lower than most RACT regulations will lead to confusion on the part of small owners of small tanks who would be subject to the NESHAP, but not the RACT requirements in most urban areas; (3) many manufacturing facilities operate numerous smallcapacity gasoline dispensing units to fuel a variety of fire protection, maintenance, fleet and pool vehicles, as well as small non road equipment such as forklifts

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT General and Technical Information: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E14301), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone: (919) 5415397, facsimile number: (919) 6853195, email address: shedd.steve@epa.gov.

Economic Analysis Information: Mr. Tom Walton, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group (C33901), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone: (919) 5415311, facsimile number: (919) 541 0242, email address: walton.tom@epa.gov.

Compliance Information: Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Compliance, Air Compliance Branch (2223A), EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 5647027, facsimile number: (202) 5640050, email address: malave.maria@epa.gov.