National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 1916-1953 [E7-25400]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1916-1953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25400]



[[Page 1915]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 1916]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-8512-3]
RIN 2060-AM74


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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).

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.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 
and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center's Web site is: https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
The electronic mail (e-mail) address for the Air and Radiation Docket 
is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the telephone number is (202) 566-1742, and 
the Fax number is (202) 566-9744.

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 (E143-01), 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone: (919) 541-5397, 
facsimile number: (919) 685-3195, e-mail 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 (C339-01), EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone: (919) 541-5311, facsimile number: (919) 541-
0242, e-mail 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) 564-7027, facsimile 
number: (202) 564-0050, e-mail address: malave.maria@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 non-air 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 Low-Income 
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: https://
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 
tert-butyl 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, 38715-716, 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 phase-down 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 5-minute 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 vapor-tight 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 pressure-vacuum 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 semi-annual basis. The semi-annual 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 semi-annual 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 one-time 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 (16-PAH) measured in EPA Test Method 610. Naphthalene is the 
only 16-PAH 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 60-day 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. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406.

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 best-controlled 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 stringent--so called beyond-
the-floor limits--are 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 beyond-the-floor 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) states--provide 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. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session, 171-172). 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 well-controlled 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 cost-effectiveness 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 non-attainment 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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effective 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, 
1-inch pressure drop testing for cargo tanks, and vapor balancing of 
storage tanks at bulk plants and GDF, based on cost-effectiveness 
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 cost-effectiveness 
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 cost-effectiveness, 
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 cost-effectiveness 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 
cost-effectiveness 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'' 
(EPA-453/R-94-001), 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 re-evaluated 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 cost-effectiveness 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 non-urban 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 cost-effectiveness, and risk-distance issues 
should be considered. The commenter provided an analysis of their 
recommended use of a risk-distance look-up 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 court-ordered 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 court-ordered 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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effective (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 cost-effectiveness 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 two-phase 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 pha