[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7718-7724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4706]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5432-3]


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution 
(Stage I)'' (the ``Gasoline Distribution NESHAP''). These final 
amendments extend the initial compliance date for the equipment leak 
provisions applicable to existing sources to no later than December 15, 
1997, and amend the date by which an existing facility must provide an 
initial notification to December 16, 1996 or 1 year after a facility 
becomes subject to the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP, whichever is 
later.

DATES: Effective Date. February 29, 1996.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(Act), judicial review of NESHAP is available only by filing a petition 
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of these final 
amendments. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that 
are the subject of this document may not be challenged later in civil 
or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-38, Categories VI Reconsideration 
and VII Amendments, containing 

[[Page 7719]]
information considered by the EPA in developing the final amendments, 
is available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the EPA's Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, room M1500, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying. This docket also contains information considered by the EPA in 
proposing and promulgating the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP.
    An electronic version of these final amendments and the proposal 
are available for download from the EPA Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN), a network of electronic bulletin boards developed and operated 
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. The service is free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial 
(919) 541-5742 for data transfer of up to 14,400 bits per second. The 
TTN is also available on the Internet (access: TELNET 
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov). If more information on the operation of the TTN 
is needed, contact the systems operator at (919) 541-5384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd at telephone number 
(919) 541-5397 or at fax number (919) 541-3470, Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Background and Final Amendments
    A. Background
    B. Summary of Amendments
II. Comments on the Proposed Amendments
    A. Public Participation
    B. Comments Received on the Proposed Amendments
    C. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses
    1. Opportunity for Comment
    2. Extension of Deadline for Initial Notification
    3. Extension of Initial Compliance Date for Leak Detection and 
Repair (LDAR)
    4. Potential to Emit (PTE)
    5. Risk
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Regulatory Review

I. Background and Final Rule Amendments

A. Background

    On December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64303), the EPA promulgated the 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)'' (the ``Gasoline 
Distribution NESHAP''). The Gasoline Distribution NESHAP regulates all 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from new and existing bulk 
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations that are major 
sources of HAP emissions or are located at sites that are major sources 
of HAP emissions. Among the promulgated requirements for existing 
sources under this rule are the requirements that sources institute an 
equipment leak prevention program and provide an initial notification 
of regulatory status no later than December 14, 1995 (40 CFR 
Secs. 63.424(e) and 63.428(a)).
    On November 7, 1995 (60 FR 56133), the EPA proposed amendments to 
the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP. The EPA proposed to amend the initial 
compliance date for the equipment leak provisions applicable to 
existing sources from no later than December 14, 1995 to no later than 
December 15, 1997, and to amend the date by which an existing facility 
must provide an initial notification to December 16, 1996 or 1 year 
after a facility becomes subject to the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP, 
whichever is later. Those modifications were proposed because the 
compliance date for these provisions was approaching and the EPA 
believes that, under current circumstances, additional time will allow 
sources a better opportunity to establish major or area source status 
without forgoing quantifiable emissions reductions.
    On December 8, 1995 (60 FR 62991), the EPA issued a partial 3-month 
stay of the December 14, 1995 compliance date for equipment leak 
prevention provisions and providing an initial notification of 
regulatory status and use of a screening equation in the Gasoline 
Distribution NESHAP. The December 14, 1995 compliance date for leak 
detection and repair provisions and initial notifications was stayed 
for existing facilities until March 7, 1996. The EPA issued the stay 
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 
7607(d)(7)(B), which provides the Administrator authority to stay the 
effectiveness of a rule during reconsideration.

B. Summary of Amendments

    After considering all of the comments, both for and against the 
proposed amendments, the EPA is promulgating these rule amendments as 
they were proposed. The EPA consideration and response to all the 
comments are contained in the next section of this document. In 
summary, the final amendments consist of two new compliance dates in 
the promulgated rule: the initial compliance date for the equipment 
leak provisions (Sec. 63.424(e)) applicable to existing sources is no 
later than December 15, 1997, and the date by which an existing 
facility must provide an initial notification (Sec. 63.428(a)) is 
December 16, 1996 or 1 year after a facility becomes subject to the 
Gasoline Distribution NESHAP, whichever is later. This action also 
clarifies that all initial notifications are to be submitted by the 
same time (December 16, 1996) as intended at proposal and noted in the 
stay. The EPA is promulgating this related clarifying amendment that 
extends the notification for area source facilities using an emission 
screening equation (Sec. 63.428 (i)(1) and (j)(1)) to that same date. 
The EPA continues to believe that, under current circumstances, this 
additional time is needed to allow sources a better opportunity to 
establish major or area source status without forgoing quantifiable 
emissions reductions.

II. Comments on the Proposed Amendments

A. Public Participation

    These amendments were proposed in the Federal Register on November 
7, 1995 (60 FR 56133). Public comments were solicited at the time of 
proposal. Electronic versions of the preamble and proposed regulatory 
amendments were made available to interested parties immediately after 
signature (on November 2, 1995) via the TTN bulletin board (see 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more TTN information).
    The preamble to the proposed amendments provided the public the 
opportunity to request a public hearing. However, a public hearing was 
not requested. The public comment period for the proposed amendments 
was from November 7, 1995 until December 7, 1995 and the document was 
available to the public on the TTN even earlier, as of November 2, 
1995. In all, 13 comment letters were received. The comments have been 
carefully considered in arriving at the final amendments being 
promulgated in this document.

B. Comments Received on the Proposed Amendments

    Comments on the proposed amendments were received from 13 
commenters, consisting of oil 

[[Page 7720]]
companies (10), trade organizations (2), and one environmental 
organization. Most of the commenters were in general agreement with the 
proposed amendments. Due to the small number of comments received, and 
the fact that technical issues were not involved, no background 
information document (BID) was prepared to present more detailed 
comments and responses.
    However, the original comment letters have been placed in the 
docket, which is referred to in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 
For summary purposes, all of the comments have been grouped by the 
topic areas they address, and are discussed in the next section.

C. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses

    As mentioned in the previous section, all but one of the commenters 
expressed general agreement with the proposed amendments to the 
Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) NESHAP. A summary of the major comments 
and the EPA's responses is presented below.
(1) Opportunity for Comment
    One commenter considered the comment period for the proposal to be 
inadequate to allow most citizens to comment on the proposal, since it 
frequently requires a week or more for the Federal Register to arrive 
at public libraries, and another week or more for placement on library 
shelves. This leaves less than 2 weeks to research, write, edit, and 
mail comments. This commenter also felt that most citizens were 
unlikely to have learned of the opportunity to request a public hearing 
before the deadline for requesting such a hearing expired. However, the 
commenter did not request extension of the time to comment.
    The EPA placed the proposal preamble and amendments on the TTN on 
November 2, 1995, 1 day after it was signed by the Administrator. The 
TTN is an electronic (computer) bulletin board, free to users, and is 
available on the Internet for use by the public. The usual comment 
period (30 days beginning with publication of the proposal in the 
Federal Register) and opportunity for requesting a hearing were 
provided at the time of proposal. No person contacted the EPA to 
request more time to comment. The time period was consistent with the 
requirements of section 307 of the Act. The EPA did not provide a 
longer comment period due to the relative narrowness and simplicity of 
the proposal and the proximity of the compliance dates. For these 
reasons, the EPA believes that a reasonable amount of time was afforded 
the public for commenting on the proposal.
(2) Extension of Deadline for Initial Notification
    Twelve of the commenters expressed support for the proposed 
amendment to the initial notification date for existing sources. Most 
said that the change was essential to provide many bulk terminals and 
pipeline breakout stations a reasonable opportunity to calculate their 
potential to emit and to determine the applicability of the NESHAP. 
Four commenters supported the non-binding clause of the initial 
notification, feeling that such a clause will encourage would-be major 
sources to consider pollution prevention opportunities or additional 
controls prior to the December 15, 1997 compliance date. Commenters 
also pointed out that the amended notification date would not have any 
adverse impact on the environment. Potential negative consequences of 
not finalizing the amendment cited by commenters included the erroneous 
classification of many facilities as major sources due to the short 
time available to establish area source status, and the avoidance of 
these terminals by outside tank truck firms not wishing to incur the 
vapor tightness testing obligations associated with affected terminals.
    The EPA is promulgating the amendment to the initial notification 
deadline for existing sources as it was proposed: 1 year after an 
affected source becomes subject to the NESHAP or by December 16, 1996, 
whichever is later. In addition, the clause specifying that 
declarations of major source status submitted by this deadline will be 
considered non-binding for 1 year has been retained in the final 
amendments. This means that facilities that include in their 
notification a brief description and schedule for their planned actions 
for achieving area source status by December 15, 1997 can make a change 
to their status until this latter deadline. The EPA believes that 
although the information in the notifications may change, it provides 
necessary information for tank truck companies in planning their vapor 
tightness testing schedules and for Federal, State, and local air 
pollution control agencies in planning for rule implementation and 
compliance activities.
(3) Extension of Initial Compliance Date for Leak Detection and Repair 
(LDAR)
    Twelve of the commenters also supported the proposed amendment to 
the initial compliance date, which affects only periodic visual 
inspection programs for leaks from gasoline equipment components. These 
commenters said that the change was essential to provide many terminals 
and pipeline breakout stations a reasonable chance to demonstrate that 
they are not major sources subject to the NESHAP, and to allow time for 
the resolution of the potential to emit issue (see next comment topic). 
One commenter stated that this amendment would provide State and local 
agencies additional time to develop EPA-approved federally enforceable 
State operating permit (FESOP) programs and to complete permit 
processing. Another company said that EPA approvals of its 33 FESOP and 
15 Title V permit actions have been very slow and the company would not 
be able to obtain these permits by the promulgated first compliance 
date of December 14, 1995. The company felt that this date extension 
would give them a reasonable opportunity to obtain approval of 
artificial limits on potential to emit from most, if not all, of the 
appropriate State agencies. Commenters believed that having a common 
compliance date for all aspects of the regulation would allow more time 
for facility owners and operators to consider pollution prevention 
opportunities or additional controls. A number of commenters pointed 
out that equipment leak emissions represent a minor portion of a 
facility's total HAP emission inventory, and most facilities already 
have some type of routine visual inspection program. Therefore, the 
proposed change would have no long-term adverse impact on human health 
or the environment.
    One commenter, however, expressed concern that the EPA, by delaying 
the initial compliance date, would put citizens at risk on the basis of 
the already high levels of benzene and other gasoline components in the 
air around terminals.
    The EPA has considered all of these comments, including the comment 
opposing the compliance date extension. The EPA continues to believe 
that deferral of the compliance date for the equipment leak provisions 
for existing sources until December 15, 1997 is the most appropriate 
way to allow sources a better opportunity to establish major or area 
source status without forgoing quantifiable emissions reductions. The 
EPA also agrees with commenters that equipment leak emissions are 
relatively small under normal operations, and so delaying compliance 
with the visual inspection requirement for major source facilities will 
not produce any significant increase in risk to exposed populations. 
(See the more complete discussion of risk under section (5) Risk 
below.) 

[[Page 7721]]

(4) Potential to Emit (PTE)
    Several commenters took issue with the EPA's policy that only 
federally enforceable control standards or operating limitations would 
be considered in determining the potential to emit of facilities and, 
consequently, whether they would be a major source and subject to the 
NESHAP. Four commenters cited a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that the EPA's stand on the 
issue is unlawful, which the commenters interpreted to indicate that 
the policy has been vacated and is no longer in effect. One commenter 
stated that the EPA's insistence on maintaining its policy on this 
matter creates confusion on the part of facilities potentially subject 
to this rule. Three other commenters said that requiring federally 
enforceable emission controls in determinations of potential to emit 
inflates emission estimates, which could cause area sources to be 
classified as major sources required to undertake unnecessary controls 
and programs. Two commenters concluded that the EPA should allow 
permitting authorities to take into account State and local controls 
that the permitting authority deems effective in limiting facilities' 
potential to emit.
    The EPA's proposal to amend the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP 
focused narrowly on the issue of modifying compliance dates for two 
provisions, the equipment leak inspection requirements and the 
notification of major source status, rather than the distinct issues of 
whether the emission screening equation and the emissions inventory 
methods of calculating potential to emit should be revised to reflect 
limitations on emissions that are not federally enforceable, and 
whether Federal enforceability should be a necessary criterion for 
determination of potential to emit under section 112 in general. Thus, 
comments regarding these latter two issues are outside the scope of the 
topics raised by the proposal. However, the EPA believes it is useful 
in response to these comments to summarize the impact of the court 
decision referenced by commenters, as well as related EPA guidance 
recognizing State-enforced PTE limits under section 112 during a 
transition period.
    The EPA interpreted the impact of the referenced court decision in 
a January 22, 1996 guidance memorandum, which is contained in the 
docket and is also available on the TTN (see ADDRESSES section). The 
memorandum stated that, in National Mining Association v. EPA, 59 F.3d 
1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the court addressed regulations under subpart A 
of 40 CFR part 63, the ``General Provisions'' of hazardous air 
pollutant programs under section 112. The court found that the EPA had 
not adequately explained why only federally enforceable measures should 
be considered as limits on a source's potential to emit. Accordingly, 
the court remanded the section 112 General Provisions regulation to the 
EPA for further proceedings. The EPA must either provide a better 
explanation as to why Federal enforceability promotes the effectiveness 
of State controls, or remove the exclusive Federal enforceability 
requirement. The court did not vacate the section 112 regulations; that 
is, the court did not declare the regulations null and void. The 
regulations remain in effect pending completion of new rulemaking.
    The EPA plans to hold discussions with stakeholders and propose 
rulemaking amendments by spring 1996, and to issue final rules by 
spring 1997, that would address the court decisions impacting 
regulations promulgated pursuant to section 112 as well as other air 
act provisions. The EPA currently plans to address the following 
options, after discussions with stakeholders:
    (a) An approach that would recognize ``effective'' State-
enforceable limits as an alternative to federally enforceable limits on 
a source's potential to emit. Under this option, a source whose maximum 
capacity to emit without pollution controls or operational limitations 
exceeds relevant major source thresholds may take a State or local 
limit on its potential to emit. In such circumstances, the source must 
be able to demonstrate that the State-enforceable limits are (1) 
enforceable as a practical matter, and (2) being regularly complied 
with by the facility.
    (b) An approach under which the EPA would continue to require 
Federal enforceability of limits on a source's potential to emit. Under 
this approach, in response to specific issues raised by the court in 
National Mining, the EPA would present further explanation regarding 
why the Federal enforceability requirement promotes effective controls. 
Under this approach, the EPA would propose simplifying changes to the 
administrative provisions of the current Federal enforceability 
regulations.
    Any method for limiting potential to emit made available as a 
result of the EPA's response to the NMA remand will be available to 
sources in the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) source category. The EPA 
expects to respond to the remand in NMA with adequate time to allow 
such sources to seek any new methods developed.
    The EPA today reiterates that independent from the decision in 
National Mining, current EPA policy already recognizes State-
enforceable PTE limits under section 112 in many circumstances under a 
transition policy intended to provide for orderly implementation of 
these new programs under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This 
policy is set forth in a memorandum, ``Options for Limiting the 
Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and 
Title V of the Clean Air Act'' (January 25, 1995), and has been amended 
in one significant way by the January 22, 1996 guidance memorandum as 
noted below. (Both memoranda are contained in the docket and are also 
available on the TTN, see ADDRESSES section.)
    Under the terms of the EPA's transition policy, the transition 
period is to end in January 1997. In addition, completion of the EPA's 
rulemaking in response to the recent court decisions, which the EPA 
anticipates will occur by early 1997, may render the transition policy 
unnecessary after that time. However, in conjunction with the 
rulemaking, the EPA will consider whether it is appropriate to extend 
the transition period beyond January 1997.
    In recognition of the absence in some States of suitable federally 
enforceable mechanisms to limit PTE applicable to sources that might 
otherwise be subject to section 112 or Title V, the EPA's policy 
provides for the consideration of State-enforceable limits as a gap-
filling measure during a transition period that extends until January 
1997. Under this policy, for the 2-year transition period, restrictions 
contained in State permits issued to sources that actually emit more 
than 50 percent, but less than 100 percent, of a relevant major source 
threshold are treated by the EPA as acceptable limits on potential to 
emit, provided: (a) the permit and the restriction in particular are 
enforceable as a practical matter, and (b) the source owner submits a 
written certification to the EPA accepting EPA and citizen enforcement. 
In light of National Mining, the EPA believes that the certification 
requirement is no longer appropriate as part of this policy. 
Accordingly, under the January 1996 guidance, the EPA amended the 
January 1995 transition policy by deleting the certification 
requirement.
    In addition, under the transition policy, sources with consistently 
low levels of actual emissions relative to major source thresholds can 
avoid major source requirements even absent any permit or other 
enforceable limit on PTE. Specifically, the policy provides 

[[Page 7722]]
that sources which maintain their emissions at levels that do not 
exceed 50 percent of any applicable major source threshold are not 
treated as major sources and do not need a permit to limit PTE, so long 
as they maintain adequate records to demonstrate that the 50 percent 
level is not exceeded.
    The EPA's action in this rule to extend the compliance dates for 
the two provisions will give more opportunities for sources to obtain 
potential to emit limits consistent with the EPA's guidance and hence 
avoid being subject to regulation as major sources.
    One commenter disagreed with the EPA's interpretation that if a 
facility does not demonstrate area source status by the first 
substantive compliance date, then the facility, regardless of actual 
emissions or any subsequent State operating permit limitation, would be 
permanently classified as a major source.
    The EPA's interpretation was explained in an EPA guidance 
memorandum from John S. Seitz, ``Potential to Emit for MACT Standards--
Guidance on Timing Issues'' (May 16, 1995), which is contained in the 
docket (item no. VI-B-6) and is also available on the TTN (see 
ADDRESSES section). The EPA notes that the commenter viewed finalizing 
the proposed amendments to the compliance dates as a ``critical need * 
* * [to] avoid unintended inclusion of area sources.'' For the 
facilities in this source category, the EPA and many commenters believe 
that delaying the first compliance date will provide the relief being 
sought by the above commenters.
    A number of commenters noted that the emission screening equation 
in the final rule cannot be used by bulk terminals because essentially 
all terminals handle non-gasoline products, such as diesel fuel or home 
heating oil, which makes them ineligible to use the equation. The 
commenters urged the EPA to reexamine the issue of which facilities are 
eligible to use the equation, pointing out that the HAP emitted from 
these products are ``de minimis'' and should not compel facilities to 
use the more cumbersome and costly emissions inventory mechanism for 
determining potential to emit.
    As discussed in the proposal preamble, the EPA is considering data 
and information submitted by the API (and available in the docket) in 
order to evaluate a possible expansion of the screening equation to 
include non-gasoline products that emit HAP, and will make a final 
decision about changes to the equation under a separate action. The EPA 
is still reviewing this information and is not prepared to discuss any 
specific changes to the equation at this time. Depending on the results 
of its review of the pertinent data, the EPA may propose changes to the 
equation and request comment in a forthcoming and separate action in 
the Federal Register.
(5) Risk
    One commenter opposed the proposal to delay the initial compliance 
date for the NESHAP on the grounds that the health risk to populations 
exposed to ambient HAP concentrations near terminals would be 
increased. The commenter expressed a belief that the language and 
legislative history of the Clean Air Act reflects a Congressional 
intent to limit public exposures to carcinogens to a level that will 
not produce a lifetime risk of cancer at a rate greater than one in a 
million. According to the commenter, a 50-year lifetime constant 
exposure to a gasoline vapor concentration of 0.639 part per billion 
(ppb) would correspond to the Act's one-in-a-million lifetime risk 
standard. The commenter cited a 1993 air quality study at the Paw Creek 
terminals in North Carolina that indicated a maximum benzene 
concentration of 2.2 ppb, which they claimed corresponds to a lifetime 
cancer risk of at least 131 per million. The commenter concluded that 
emission levels corresponding to such risks ought to be reduced as 
quickly as possible.
    The EPA has not performed a risk analysis to allow the EPA to 
verify the risk estimation results cited by the commenter, nor did the 
commenter include a copy of the study with their comments. However, in 
accordance with sections 112 (d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Act, the Gasoline 
Distribution NESHAP will be reviewed within 8 years after the date of 
promulgation (i.e., by December 14, 2002). This review may include an 
assessment of residual health risk, in addition to many other aspects 
of the regulation. As discussed above, the proposal and this final 
action only extend the compliance time for instituting programs to 
perform visual inspections and subsequent repair of equipment 
components in gasoline service at terminals and pipeline breakout 
stations. Most facilities are already carrying out similar informal 
programs and, furthermore, data show that the HAP emissions from this 
equipment in normal operation are very low. The compliance date of 
December 15, 1997 promulgated in the final rule for the remaining 
emission sources at bulk terminals will not be affected by this action. 
Due to these factors, the EPA believes that this action will not 
substantially change the emissions near major source gasoline 
distribution facilities. For these reasons, the EPA is finalizing the 
extension of the compliance date for LDAR until December 15, 1997 as 
proposed on November 7, 1995.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of the previously 
promulgated NESHAP were submitted to and approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (OMB control number 2060-0325) may be obtained 
from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street., S.W. (mail code 2136), Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    Today's amendments to the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP have no 
impact on the information collection burden estimates made previously. 
No additional certifications or filings were promulgated. Therefore, 
the ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore 
subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 
criteria set forth in section 1 of the Order for determining whether a 
regulation is a significant rule are as follows:
    (1) Is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, or adversely and materially affect a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;
    (2) Is likely to create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Is likely to materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or
    (4) Is likely to raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The Gasoline Distribution NESHAP promulgated on December 14, 1994, 
was treated as a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning 
of the Executive Order. An estimate of the cost and benefits of the 
NESHAP was prepared at proposal as part of the 

[[Page 7723]]
background information document (BID) and was updated in the BID for 
the final rule to reflect comments and changes to the final rule. The 
amendments issued today have no impact on the estimates in the BID. The 
EPA's earlier estimates of costs and emission reductions were based on 
the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP affecting only major sources and did 
not quantify the emission reductions associated with the visual 
equipment leak detection program; in any event, these emission 
reductions are small relative to the total reduction for the source 
category.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this action is a ``non-significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such, this action was not 
submitted to OMB for review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 
EPA to consider potential impacts of regulations on small business 
entities. The Act specifically requires the preparation of a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business impacts 
are possible. When the EPA promulgated the Gasoline Distribution 
NESHAP, it analyzed the potential impacts on small businesses, 
discussed the results of this analysis in the Federal Register, and 
concluded that the promulgated regulation would not result in financial 
impacts that significantly or differentially stress affected small 
companies. Since today's action imposes no additional impacts, a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that today's action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

E. Regulatory Review

    In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act, 
this regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. 
This review may include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of 
the residual health risk, any overlap with other programs, the 
existence of alternative methods of control, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Petroleum bulk stations and terminals, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    1Dated: February 23, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 63.424 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.424  Standards: Equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (e) Initial compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (a) 
through (d) of this section shall be achieved by existing sources as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 15, 1997. For 
new sources, initial compliance shall be achieved upon startup.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.428 is amended by revising paragraph (a), the first 
sentence of paragraph (f)(1), paragraph (i)(1), and paragraph (j)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.428  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) The initial notifications required for existing affected 
sources under Sec. 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted by 1 year after an 
affected source becomes subject to the provisions of this subpart or by 
December 16, 1996, whichever is later. Affected sources that are major 
sources on December 16, 1996 and plan to be area sources by December 
15, 1997 shall include in this notification a brief, non-binding 
description of and schedule for the action(s) that are planned to 
achieve area source status.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) In the case of an existing source or a new source that has an 
initial startup date before the effective date, the report shall be 
submitted with the notification of compliance status required under 
Sec. 63.9(h), unless an extension of compliance is granted under 
Sec. 63.6(i). * * *
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Document and report to the Administrator not later than 
December 16, 1996 for existing facilities, within 30 days for existing 
facilities subject to Sec. 63.420(c) after December 16, 1996, or at 
startup for new facilities the methods, procedures, and assumptions 
supporting the calculations for determining criteria in Sec. 63.420(c);
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Document and report to the Administrator not later than 
December 16, 1996 for existing facilities, within 30 days for existing 
facilities subject to Sec. 63.420(d) after December 16, 1996, or at 
startup for new facilities the use of the emission screening equations 
in Sec. 63.420(a)(1) or (b)(1) and the calculated value of ET or 
EP;
* * * * *
    4. Table 1 to subpart R is amended by revising the entry 
``63.9(b)(2)'' to read as follows:
* * * * * 

[[Page 7724]]


                      Table 1 to Subpart R.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart R                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Reference                   Applies to subpart R                           Comment                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
63.9(b)(2).....................  No.............................  Subpart R allows additional time for existing 
                                                                   sources to submit initial notification. Sec. 
                                                                   63.428(a) specifies submittal by 1 year after
                                                                   being subject to the rule or December 16,    
                                                                   1996, whichever is later.                    
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-4706 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P