\a\  (tpy)               ($1,000/yr)  ($1,000/yr)                   \e\                       \e\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade EFRT fittings \g\.......................          546        1,857          173          -89         -164       -3,272         -164       -3,272
Upgrade IFRT and EFRT fittings \g\..............          772       45,240        4,205        3,835        4,966       99,320       17,330      346,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline emissions of 4,977 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\d\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline.
\e\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.
\f\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\g\ EFRT = external floating roof tank; IFRT = internal floating roof tank.

    While we are not directly proposing additional fitting controls for
internal floating roof tanks, we identified the use of LEL monitoring
within the headspace of an internal floating roof tank as a means to
enhance the annual inspections and more readily identify malfunctioning
internal floating roofs. We estimated the cost of the LEL monitoring
requirement based on the additional time needed to monitor LEL during
the annual inspections. We estimated the impacts of annual LEL
monitoring based on the number of internal floating roof tanks at major
source gasoline distribution facilities and assuming LEL monitoring
identifies defects in about 2 percent of internal floating roofs
resulting in a 2 percent reduction in baseline emissions of internal
floating roofs. Based on our review of available LEL monitoring data,
we expect that this is a conservative estimate of the emission
reductions that would be achieved. Table 12 of this document summarizes
the projected impact of requiring annual LEL monitoring for internal
floating roof tanks as part of the annual roof-top inspections.
    The added cost for conducting LEL monitoring is under $70 per year
per tank and LEL monitoring is expected to result in cost-effective
emission reductions for major source gasoline distribution facilities
(costs of $4,200 per ton of HAP reduced). Therefore, we are proposing
to require LEL monitoring as part of the annual visual inspections
conducted for internal floating roof tanks at major source gasoline
distribution facilities. Our assessment of LEL monitoring at major
sources is summarized in the memorandum ``Major Source Technology
Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals
and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.

                                         Table 12--LEL Monitoring Impacts at Nationwide Major Source Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                TAC \a\  w/o     TAC \a\  w/
                                                                       VOC emission       product          product       CE \b\  ($/ton   CE \b\  ($/ton
                           Facility type                                reduction      recovery  ($/    recovery  ($/         VOC)           HAP) \c\
                                                                          (tpy)             yr)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Major Source Facilities......................................              82           56,290           17,130              210            4,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized cost (TAC) considering annual operating costs; there are no annualized cost of capital for this option.
\b\ Cost effectiveness (CE).
\c\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.

b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The area source rule contains standards for gasoline storage tanks
at bulk gasoline plants, bulk gasoline terminals, and pipeline breakout
stations. The current requirements for bulk gasoline plants require the
use of submerged filling for all gasoline storage tanks with a capacity
of greater than 250 gallons. As noted in section III.A.1.b of this
preamble, we are proposing to require vapor balancing at bulk plants,
both when filling cargo tanks and when unloading cargo tanks (i.e.,
filling storage tanks). The use of vapor balancing when unloading cargo
tanks into the storage tanks will reduce the working losses from the
storage tanks. Several state and local agencies already require the use
of vapor balancing when filling storage tanks at bulk plants with a
maximum design capacity throughput of 4,000 gallons per day or more.
Bulk plants with capacities below 4,000 gallons per day would retain
the requirement to use submerge fill.
    The storage tank standards for area source bulk gasoline terminals
and pipeline breakout stations cross-reference NSPS subpart Kb
requirements or the National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels at
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, but exclude the floating roof fitting
control requirements for both internal and external floating roofs and
secondary seal requirements for internal floating roofs with a vapor-
mounted primary seal. We assessed costs and impacts of requiring
fitting controls separately for internal and external floating roofs.
Specifically, we evaluated the control options of (1) requiring
upgrades of fitting requirements for external floating roofs consistent
with NSPS subpart Kb requirements and (2) requiring upgrades of fitting
requirements for external floating roof tanks plus requiring upgrades
of fitting and seal requirements for internal floating roofs tanks
consistent with NSPS subpart Kb requirements. Table 13 of this document
summarizes the national impacts projected for area source gasoline
distribution facilities. Again, based on our analysis, we consider
adding fitting controls for external floating roof tanks at area source
gasoline distribution facilities to be cost effective. Alternatively,
the projected cost effectiveness of installing secondary seals and
fitting controls for internal floating roof tanks is approximately
$45,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced (incremental costs between
Option 1 and 2) and therefore, we determined these controls are not
cost effective. Accordingly, we are proposing to require fitting
controls for external

floating roof tanks consistent with the requirements in NSPS subpart Kb
and are not proposing to revise the secondary seal and fitting control
requirements for internal floating roof tanks. Our assessment of
control options is summarized in the memorandum ``Area Source
Technology Review for the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk
Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.

                          Table 13--Control Option Impacts for Storage Vessels at Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
                                                     [Bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   TAC \c\  w/o     TAC \c\  w/
                                   VOC emission       TCI \b\         product         product      CE \d\  ($/   CE \d\  ($/  ICE \f\  ($/  ICE \f\  ($/
         Control option            reduction \a\     ($1,000)        recovery        recovery       ton VOC)    ton HAP) \e\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \e\
                                       (tpy)                        ($1,000/yr)     ($1,000/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Upgrade EFRT fittings \g\...           3,338           9,488             882            -720          -216        -4,315          -216        -4,315
(2) Upgrade IFRT and EFRT                 10,143         211,100          19,630          14,760         1,455        29,100         2,275        45,500
 fittings \g\...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline emissions of 26,510 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\d\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline.
\e\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.
\f\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\g\ EFRT = external floating roof tank; IFRT = internal floating roof tank.

    As noted for major source gasoline distribution facilities, we
identified the use of LEL monitoring within the headspace of an
internal floating roof tank as a means to enhance the annual
inspections and more readily identify malfunctioning internal floating
roofs. We estimated the cost of the LEL monitoring requirement based on
the additional time needed to monitor LEL during the annual
inspections. We estimated the impact of annual LEL monitoring based on
the number of internal floating roof tanks at area source gasoline
distribution facilities and assuming LEL monitoring identifies defects
in 2 percent of internal floating roofs resulting in a 2 percent
reduction in the baseline emissions for internal floating roof tanks.
Based on our review of available LEL monitoring data, we expect that
this is a conservative estimate of the emission reductions that would
be achieved. Table 14 of this document summarizes the projected impact
of requiring annual LEL monitoring for internal floating roof tanks as
part of the annual roof-top inspections for different types of area
source gasoline distribution facilities. Our assessment of LEL
monitoring at area sources is summarized in the memorandum ``Area
Source Technology Review for the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals,
Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0371.

                                         Table 14--Nationwide LEL Monitoring Impacts for Area Source Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                TAC \a\  w/o     TAC \a\  w/
                                                                       VOC emission       product          product       CE \b\  ($/ton   CE \b\  ($/ton
                           Facility type                                reduction      recovery  ($/    recovery  ($/         VOC)           HAP) \c\
                                                                          (tpy)             yr)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area Source Facilities.......................................             430          353,200          146,700              341            6,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs; there are no annualized cost of capital for this option.
\b\ Cost effectiveness (CE).
\c\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.

    Because area source gasoline distribution facilities are expected
to have smaller storage tanks on average than major source facilities,
LEL monitoring is expected to be somewhat less cost-effective for area
source facilities than major source facilities. Nonetheless, LEL
monitoring is projected to have costs of $6,800 per ton of HAP reduced
when applied to internal floating roof tanks at area source gasoline
distribution facilities. We consider these costs to be reasonable.
Therefore, we are proposing to require LEL monitoring as part of the
annual visual inspections conducted for internal floating roof tanks at
area source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations.
4. Standards for Equipment Leaks
    All gasoline distribution rules (40 CFR part 60, subpart XX; 40 CFR
part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB) have standards for equipment leaks from
equipment components in gasoline or gasoline vapor service. The current
leak detection and repair (LDAR) program requirements rely on
identifying leaks using AVO methods. We reviewed Federal, state, and
local requirements for identifying and repairing equipment leaks.
Although the option to use optical gas imaging (OGI) for monitoring
equipment leaks has been available since 2008 in the General Provisions
to 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 as part of an alternative work practice to
EPA Method 21 monitoring, the EPA has only recently proposed the use of
OGI in leak detection surveys (40 CFR part 60, Appendix K; see 86 FR
63110, November 15, 2021). Therefore, we considered OGI monitoring as a
potential development in equipment leak monitoring. For each subpart,
we assessed LDAR programs based on AVO, EPA Method 21, and OGI. We
developed a Monte Carlo model to randomly initiate leaks from
individual equipment components present at gasoline distribution
facilities. We assumed no leaks were present initially and randomly
generated leaks at the facility on a monthly basis for a period of 5
years. We assessed the emissions that occurred in the 5th year of the
simulation to assess the relative performance of different LDAR
programs. For more information on the Monte Carlo model and modeling
assumptions used to assess alternative

equipment LDAR programs, see memorandum entitled ``Control Options for
Equipment Leaks at Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' available in
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
    Based on our Monte Carlo simulations, we found that periodic
monitoring using EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv
achieved similar emission reductions as OGI monitoring at the same
frequency. We evaluated options of (1) maintaining the monthly AVO
inspections, (2) using instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21 or OGI
following Appendix K) on an annual basis, (3) using instrument
monitoring on a semiannual basis, and (4) using instrument monitoring
on a quarterly basis. The periodic instrument requirement also includes
a requirement to fix any readily identified leaks observed using AVO
methods during the normal duties. The results of our assessment of
alternative LDAR programs by rule are detailed in the following
subsections.
    Costs for EPA Method 21 monitoring and OGI monitoring were
developed based on information collected from equipment leak monitoring
contractors. OGI monitoring contractors commonly include a daily
instrument rental charge, but they can monitor many more components per
day than EPA Method 21 monitoring contractors. For facilities with a
large number of equipment components to be monitored, OGI monitoring
costs less than EPA Method 21 monitoring (the savings in time to
conduct OGI monitoring more than makes up for the equipment rental
charge). However, for facilities with a small number of equipment
components to be monitored, EPA Method 21 monitoring costs less than
OGI monitoring because the time saving to conduct OGI monitoring is not
significant enough to cover the added equipment rental charge. When
evaluating ``instrument monitoring'' costs for different types of
gasoline distribution facilities, we assumed facilities would elect to
use the lowest cost instrument monitoring option between EPA Method 21
and OGI. For more information on the cost assumptions used to assess
alternative equipment LDAR programs, see memorandum ``Control Options
for Equipment Leaks at Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' available in
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
a. NESHAP Subpart R
    The major source rule contains equipment leak standards for bulk
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. Prior to the initial
performance test, the major source rule requires equipment leak
monitoring to be conducted using EPA Method 21 using a leak definition
of 500 parts per million (ppm). The major source rule also requires
subsequent monitoring monthly and allows the use of any leak
identification method, including AVO techniques. We evaluated the
current monthly AVO inspection requirements with LDAR programs based on
periodic instrument monitoring.
    Table 15 of this document summarizes the projected impacts of
requiring periodic instrument monitoring combined with a general
requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods) during normal
duties. For the major source gasoline distribution facilities (bulk
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations), OGI is the least
costly of the instrument monitoring alternatives. Annual OGI instrument
monitoring was projected to result in cost savings compared to monthly
AVO inspections and semi-annual instrument monitoring was projected to
be about the same cost as monthly AVO inspections. Even with
uncertainty in the relative performance of monthly AVO monitoring, we
conclude that periodic instrument monitoring along with a general
requirement to fix any readily identified leaks during the normal
course of activities yields similar to better reductions at a net cost
savings. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the
memorandum ``Major Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                               Table 15--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options for Major Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                TAC \b\  w/o   TAC \b\  w/
                                                                 VOC  emissions   VOC emission     TCI \a\       product       product     CE \c\  ($/   CE \c\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/
                             Option                                   (tpy)         reduction      ($1000)      recovery      recovery      ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\
                                                                                (tpy)                    ($1000/yr)    ($1000/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (monthly inspection).......................................           1,124
Annual instrument \f\..........................................             664             461        217.5          -380          -602        -1,310       -13,100        -1,310       -13,100
Semiannual instrument \f\......................................             439             686        217.5         -47.8          -377          -550        -5,550           999         9,990
Quarterly instrument \f\.......................................             309             816        217.5           557           166           203         2,030         4,170        41,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ HAP content assumed to be 10% of VOC.
\e\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\f\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified, however,
  connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

    The semiannual instrument monitoring is projected to yield a net
cost savings compared to monthly AVO inspections. The incremental cost-
effectiveness from going from annual to semiannual instrument
monitoring is just under $10,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced.
Taken together, we determined that semiannual instrument monitoring is
cost effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness of going to
quarterly instrument monitoring is over $40,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced; therefore, we determined this option is not cost-
effective. Considering the developments in equipment leak monitoring
practices, we are proposing to require semiannual instrument monitoring
for major source gasoline distribution facilities.
b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The area source rule contains equipment leak standards for bulk
gasoline terminals, pipeline breakout stations, bulk gasoline plants,
and pipeline pumping stations. Prior to the initial performance test,
the area source

rule requires equipment leak monitoring to be conducted using EPA
Method 21 using a leak definition of 500 ppm. The area source rule
requires subsequent monitoring monthly and allows the use of any leak
identification method, including AVO techniques. We evaluated the
current monthly AVO inspection requirements with LDAR programs based on
periodic instrument monitoring.
    Table 16 of this document shows the estimated impacts of applying
instrument monitoring for equipment leaks at area source gasoline
distribution facilities. For the smaller area source facilities, EPA
Method 21 was generally less costly than OGI as an instrument
monitoring method. For the larger area sources, we expect facilities to
use OGI. The annual instrument monitoring requirement combined with a
general requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods)
during the normal course of activities is projected to be less costly
than monthly AVO and yield additional emission reductions. Thus, we
determined that annual instrument monitoring is cost effective. The
relative cost of moving from annual monitoring to semi-annual
monitoring is approximately $18,000 per ton of HAP removed which we
determined is not cost-effective. Therefore, semi-annual instrument
monitoring was rejected because of the high incremental cost-
effectiveness compared to annual instrument monitoring and we are
proposing to require annual instrument monitoring combined with a
requirement to repair any leaks identified (i.e., observed using AVO
methods) during the course of regular business activities. Again, EPA
is seeking comment on adopting more protective standards at costs above
levels that we generally consider to be cost effective for these type
of HAP given that many of these sources are located in highly populated
areas where the communities surrounding these facilities already have
the potential to be overburdened from multiple sources of air
pollution. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the
memorandum ``Area Source Technology Review for the Gasoline
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                                Table 16--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options for Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                TAC \b\  w/o   TAC \b\  w/
                                                                 VOC  emissions   VOC emission     TCI \a\       product       product     CE \c\  ($/   CE \c\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/
                             Option                                   (tpy)         reduction      ($1000)      recovery      recovery      ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\
                                                                                (tpy)                    ($1000/yr)    ($1000/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO............................................................          17,080
Annual instrument \f\..........................................           9,800           7,280        5,750        -4,180        -7,670        -1,050       -10,500        -1,050       -10,500
Semiannual instrument \f\......................................           6,950          10,100        5,750         2,290        -2,570          -254        -2,540         1,790        17,900
Quarterly instrument \f\.......................................           5,320          11,800        5,750        14,600         8,980           764         7,640         7,100        71,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ HAP content assumed to be 10% of VOC.
\e\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\f\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified, however,
  connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

c. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The NSPS subpart XX contains equipment leak standards for bulk
gasoline terminals. Prior to the initial performance test, the NSPS
requires monitoring to be conducted of the vapor collection system
using EPA Method 21 using a leak definition of 10,000 ppm. The NSPS
also requires subsequent monitoring of the loading racks, vapor
collection system and vapor processing system monthly using any leak
identification method, including AVO techniques.
    Regarding monitoring requirements prior to performance tests, we
determined that these requirements are effective requirements for the
closed vent system used to transfer vapors from the loading racks to
the control system. Generally, the EPA requires these closed vent
systems to operate with no detectable emissions (which is defined as
less than 500 ppmv above background using EPA Method 21). Both major
and area source NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB require the monitoring of
the vapor collection system prior to a performance test using this no
detectable emissions threshold (500 ppmv using EPA Method 21).
Consistent with current practices for closed vent systems, we are
proposing in subpart XXa to require that monitoring of the vapor
collection system prior to a performance test be conducted using EPA
Method 21 and that the vapor collection system be operated with no
detectable emissions (no leaks greater than 500 ppmv).
    For the ongoing leak monitoring requirements, we evaluated the
current monthly AVO inspection requirements compared to LDAR programs
based on periodic instrument monitoring along with a general
requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods) during the
normal course of activities. Table 17 of this document provides
estimated costs for newly affected bulk gasoline terminals. When
considering VOC emission impacts, the overall cost effectiveness of the
quarterly monitoring option is $259 per ton VOC reduced and the
incremental cost effectiveness of quarterly monitoring compared to
semi-annual monitoring is $4,020 per ton of VOC reduced. Taken
together, we determined that quarterly instrument monitoring is cost
effective for reducing VOC emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to
require quarterly monitoring for bulk gasoline terminals in NSPS
subpart XXa along with a general requirement to fix any leaks
identified (via AVO methods) during normal duties. Our assessment of
control options is summarized in the memorandum ``New Source
Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals'' in EPA
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

               Table 17--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options per Newly Affected Bulk Gasoline Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                TAC \b\ w/o     TAC \b\  w/
                                          VOC  emissions   VOC emission                       product         product     CE \c\  ($/ton   ICE \d\  ($/
                 Option                        (tpy)         reduction     TCI \a\  ($)    recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/       VOC)          ton VOC)
                                                               (tpy)                            yr)             yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (monthly inspection)................            4.47
Annual instrument \e\...................            2.64            1.83           1,000          -1,240          -2,120          -1,160          -1,160
Semiannual instrument \e\...............            1.74            2.73           1,000              60          -1,250            -458             962
Quarterly instrument \e\................            1.22            3.25           1,000           2,405             843             259           4,020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\e\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be
  monitored at the frequency specified, however, connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and
  connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for
those actions?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing to remove exemptions from the requirement to comply during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). We also are
proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
require the use of electronic reporting of performance test reports and
semiannual reports. We also are proposing to correct section reference
errors and make other minor editorial revisions. Our rationale and
proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir.
2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the
CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature
and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some
section 112 standards apply continuously. With the issuance of the
mandate in Sierra Club v EPA, the exemption language in 63.6(f)(1) and
(h)(1) are null and void and any cross reference to those provisions
have no effect.
    In March 2021, the EPA issued a rule \8\ to reflect the court
vacatur that revised the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to remove
the SSM exemptions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). In this action, we
are proposing to eliminate references to these SSM exemptions that are
null and void, remove any additional SSM exemptions or references to
SSM exemptions, and remove any cross-references to provisions in 40 CFR
part 63 (General Provisions) that are unnecessary, inappropriate or
redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA determined the
reasoning in the court's decision in Sierra Club applies equally to CAA
section 111. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards that we
are proposing in NSPS subpart XXa would apply at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption From Emission Standards
During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86 FR 13819,
March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption in NESHAP Subpart R
    We are proposing the elimination of the vacated exemption provision
and several revisions to Table 1 of this document, (the General
Provisions Applicability Table to subpart R of part 63, hereafter
referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart R'') as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we
are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant
in the absence of the SSM exemption.
    The EPA considers that processes at Gasoline Distribution
facilities are not continuous and that there will be variation in
emission stream characteristics over time. The standards consider this
variation and provide sources the ability to meet the standards at all
times. Therefore, we have not proposed alternate standards for startup
and shutdown.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2
and 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section
112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction
to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Therefore, the standards
that apply during normal operation apply during periods of malfunction.
    We are also proposing the following revisions to the General
Provisions table to subpart R as detailed below.
1. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to
``no.'' Section 63.6(e) describes the general duty to minimize
emissions and requirements for an SSM plan. Some of the language in
that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.420(k) that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the

general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the
SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing
the general duty. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are
not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.420(k). Therefore, in addition to changing the applicability of
63.6(e) from ``yes'' to ``no'' in the table, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.420(k) does not include the language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)
2. SSM Plan
    As noted in the previous paragraph, the proposed revisions to the
General Provisions table to subpart R for 40 CFR 63.6(e) will also
remove provisions to that require an SSM plan. Generally, the
paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units are subject to an emission standard during
such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will
ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) from ``yes'' in column 2 to ``no.'' As
noted above, with the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v EPA, the
exemption language in 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) are null and void and any
cross reference to those provisions have no effect. The EPA amended 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the court order
and revise the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. However, the second
sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the
existence of an exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the
exemption. Thus, rather than cross-referencing 63.6(f)(1), we are
adding the language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires compliance with
standards at all times to the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.420(k). The
court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously.
    As noted in the General Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40
CFR 63.6(h), there are no opacity standards in NESHAP subpart R, so the
General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(h) were marked as ``no'' in column 2.
There are visible emissions observations for flares, so we are
proposing to revise the comment in column 3 to note that NESHAP subpart
R specifies the requirements for visible emissions observations for
flares.
4. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.425(a). The performance testing requirements
we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions specifically note
the batch operation of gasoline loading operations and include periods
when cargo tanks are being changed out when a full cargo tank is
disconnected, and a new cargo tank is moved into position for loading.
As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart
should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e)(1) requires that the owner or operator make
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
5. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R of Part 63 by adding separate entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and
(iii) and including a ``no'' in column 2. The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the major source General Provisions
table to subpart R of Part 63 by splitting the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)
into two separate entries, one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1) and (2) and
retaining the ``yes'' in column 2 and one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and
including a ``no'' in column 2. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no
longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add provisions to subpart R
at 40 CFR 63.428(d)(4) that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan as required
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
6. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R of Part 63 by adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),
(ii), (iv) and (v) and including a ``no'' in column 2.
     Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements for startup and shutdown periods when the source exceeds
any applicable emission limitation in a relevant standard and section
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements for
malfunctions. We are instead proposing to add recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of for all exceedances.
    The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.428(g).
The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR
63.428(g) that sources keep records that include a list of the affected
source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the
standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and

a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv), when
applicable, requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 63.428(g).
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(v), when
applicable, requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events
to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required.
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart R of Part 63 by adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15)
and including a ``no'' in column 2. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an
owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in
40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40
CFR 63.428(m). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semiannual report already
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain
the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments at
63.10(d)(5), therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    The proposed amendments at 63.10(d)(5) will also eliminate the
cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii)
describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners or operators to report
when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
b. Proposed Revisions To Address SSM Provisions in NESHAP Subpart
BBBBBB
    We are proposing to remove references to malfunction throughout
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. Specifically, we are removing the requirements
at 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(iv), 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(iv),
63.11092(d)(4), 63.11095(b)(4), and 63.11095(d) and revising the
requirements at 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(v),
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(v), 63.11092(d), 63.11092(d)(3),
63.11094(f)(4), and 63.11094(g). We are also proposing limited
revisions to Table 4 of this document (as proposed, formerly Table 3),
the General Provisions Applicability Table to subpart BBBBBB of part
63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart
BBBBBB'' to address selected SSM provisions. NESHAP subpart BBBBBB was
amended on January 24, 2011 (76 FR 4156) to address SSM provisions. We
are proposing one additional SSM revision. Specifically, we are
proposing to revise the area source General Provisions table to subpart
BBBBBB by splitting the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) into two separate
entries, one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)-(2) and retaining the ``yes'' in
column 2 and one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in column
2. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add provisions to subpart BBBBBB at 40 CFR 63.11094(h)
that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence
is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan as required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).''
c. Proposal of NSPS Subpart XXa Without SSM Exemptions
    We are proposing standards in the NSPS subpart XXa that apply at
all times. We are proposing that emission limits will apply at all
times, including during SSM. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR
60.8(c) contains an exemption from non-opacity standards. We are
proposing in NSPS subpart XXa specific requirements at 40 CFR
60.500a(c) that override the general provisions for SSM. We are
proposing that all standards in NSPS subpart XXa apply at all times.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups
and shutdowns are part of normal operations at Bulk

Gasoline Terminals. The proposed emission standards adequately control
emissions during these startup and shutdown periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, the
EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the
type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations
of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels EPA to
consider such events in setting section 111 standards of performance.
The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances
(setting ``achievable'' standards under section 112) has been upheld as
reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of gasoline
distribution facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-
annual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action.
    The proposed rules require that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \9\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of CEMS measuring relative accuracy test audit
pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must
be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and
other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semi-annual reports, the proposed rules require that owner and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports are included in the docket for this action.\10\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Gasoline Distribution Semiannual Reporting Template,
available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These
circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The EPA is providing these potential extensions in NSPS subpart XXa to
protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of their control. In both circumstances, the decision
to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the
discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as
possible. These potential extensions are not necessary to add to NESHAP
subpart R and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, because they were recently added
to the part 63, subpart A, General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.9(k).
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in these proposed
rulemakings will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \11\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \12\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\13\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \12\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \13\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    We are proposing several technical amendments and definition
revisions to improve the clarity and enforceability of the provision of
the gasoline distribution facility standards. These additional proposed
revisions and our rationale for the proposed revisions are described in
this section.

a. Applicability Equations in NESHAP Subpart R
    The current major source rule includes applicability equations that
can be used to exempt facilities from the major source requirements.
The equations exclude all bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout
stations with an emissions screening factor (Et or
Ep, respectively) of less than one. Upon reviewing the
applicability equations, we determined the equations can potentially
exempt facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions.
Specifically, it is possible for gasoline storage tanks to be larger
and have higher emissions than the model tanks used to derive the
applicability equation. Additionally, the terms used in the different
equations, particularly the fixed roof tank term, are different. A
combination of tanks that exceeds 1 (indicating major source facility)
using the equation in paragraph 40 CFR 63.420(b) for pipeline breakout
stations can be below 1 (suggesting an area source facility) using the
equation in paragraph 40 CFR 63.420(a) for bulk gasoline terminals.
Thus, it appears some true major source facilities may only need to
comply with major equipment counts associated with these applicability
equations and not have ongoing requirements to ensure, for example,
their floating roof seals are intact. Additionally, facilities that
used these equations to become exempt from the major source rule are
not covered by the area source rule if they are truly major sources of
HAP emissions. In meeting with industry representatives, none of the
industry representatives indicated that they used these equations to
determine applicability with the rule. Therefore, we are proposing to
remove the applicability equations in the major source rule to ensure
that all major sources are subject to the emission limitations in
NESHAP subpart R.
b. Definitions of Bulk Gasoline Terminal, Pipeline Breakout Station,
and Pipeline Pumping Station
    The major source rule applies to bulk gasoline terminals and to
pipeline breakout stations. These terms are defined, but there appears
to be significant potential overlap in these definitions. Based on the
applicability equations and the fact that the loading rack requirements
apply only to bulk gasoline terminals, the key difference between a
bulk gasoline terminal and a pipeline breakout station is the presence
(or absence) of gasoline loading racks. Application of subpart R
requirements to ``pipeline breakout station'' facilities that have
loading racks is inconsistent. We identified a title V permit that
considers these separate affected facilities, with one portion of the
facility regulated as a pipeline breakout station and the loading racks
(and perhaps associated tanks and equipment) regulated as a bulk
gasoline terminal. We also identified a title V permit where the
loading racks at a pipeline breakout station were listed as having no
applicable Federal requirements. To ensure consistent application of
the rule and to clarify that all loading racks at major source
facilities are to comply with the loading rack requirements in 40 CFR
63.422, we are proposing to clarify the definitions of ``bulk gasoline
terminal'' to clearly delineate that these facilities load gasoline
into cargo tanks (i.e., have gasoline loading racks). Similarly, we are
proposing to clarify the definitions of ``pipeline breakout stations''
to clearly delineate that these facilities do not have gasoline loading
racks and that if a facility loads gasoline into cargo tanks, that
facility is a bulk gasoline terminal. Since the requirements for
storage vessels and equipment leak are the same for these facility
types, the only difference the proposed revisions make is to clarify
that loading racks at facilities that primarily transport gasoline via
pipeline are still required to be meet the emission limitations for
gasoline loading racks.
    We are also proposing similar definitions for area source standards
(NESHAP subpart BBBBBB) and for NSPS subpart XXa. At 40 CFR 63.11088 of
the area source NESHAP, the header includes bulk gasoline terminals,
pipeline breakout stations and pipeline pumping stations. However,
Table 2 to subpart BBBBBB only specifies loading rack control
requirements for ``bulk gasoline terminal loading rack(s).'' The
proposed revisions to bulk gasoline terminals, pipeline breakout
stations and pipeline pumping stations clarify that pipeline breakout
stations and pipeline pumping stations do not contain loading racks. We
are also proposing to revise the header of 40 CFR 63.11088 to delete
reference to pipeline breakout stations or pipeline pumping stations.
For the NSPS subpart XXa, we are simply proposing the definition of
bulk gasoline terminals consistent with the definitions being proposed
in the major and area source NESHAP.
c. Definition of Gasoline
    We are also proposing to add a definition of gasoline to NESHAP
subpart R to clarify the definition of gasoline that applies to this
subpart. The proposed definition is based on the definition in NSPS
subpart XX and is consistent with the definition of gasoline in both
NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB.
d. Definition of Submerged Filling
    Because we are proposing in NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R
to require submerged filling when loading cargo tanks, we are also
proposing to add a definition of ``submerged filling'' similar to the
definition include in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB to clearly define this term
for use in complying with the proposed requirements for submerged
filling. Specifically, submerged filling is either the use of a pipe
whose discharge is no more than the 6 inches from the bottom of the
tank or the use of bottom filling. The proposed definitions of
``submerged filling'' in NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R do not
include references to stationary storage tanks that are included in the
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB definition of ``submerged filling'' because NSPS
subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R do not require submerged filling of
storage tanks (although the floating roof requirements essentially
demand use of submerged filling).
e. Definition of Flare and Thermal Oxidation System
    We are proposing to further clarify the distinction between a flare
and a thermal oxidation system. For the gasoline distribution rules,
the term flare refers to thermal combustion system using an open flame
(without enclosure), whereas a thermal oxidation system has an enclosed
combustion chamber. Some flares may have shrouds or other ``partial''
enclosures, which make it difficult to classify these devices based on
the current definitions. We are proposing to clarify the definition of
a flare to include shrouded flares or flares with partial enclosures
that are insufficient to capture the emitted pollutants and convey them
to the atmosphere in a conveyance that can be used to conduct a
performance test to determine the emissions. Thus, a performance test
cannot be performed on a flare. We are also proposing to clarify that
thermal oxidation systems are enclosed to the point that the pollutants
are emitted through a conveyance that affords quantification of
emissions through application of performance tests. This clarification
is consistent with the current requirements to conduct initial
performance tests for thermal oxidation systems but not for flares.

f. Additional Part 63 General Provision Revisions
    We are proposing to correct a typographical error in the General
Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40 CFR ``63.1(a)(6)(8)'' to
delete ``(8)''. We expect that this was meant to reference paragraphs
``(a)(6)-(8)'' but paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) are reserved. Therefore,
we are proposing to delete the ``(8)'' from this entry and add
reference to paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) with the existing reference to
40 CFR 63.1(a)(9) so the entry reads ``63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9). We are
proposing to revise the comment in column 3 to note these sections
(plural) are reserved.
    We are proposing to correct a typographical error in the General
Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40 CFR ``63.1(a)(12))-(14)'' to
delete ``)-(14)''. Paragraph (a)(12) is the last paragraph in 40 CFR
63.1(a) and the added ``)'' is a typographical error.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.1(b)(3) to change the ``no'' in column 2 to
``yes'' and revise the comment in column 3. Paragraph (b)(3) requires
records be kept for stationary sources within the source category, but
not subject to the relevant standard. The comment explaining the ``no''
indicated that ``Subpart R specifies reporting and recordkeeping for
some large area sources in Sec.  63.428.'' As noted in section
III.B.3.a, we are proposing to remove the applicability equations and
related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing that the General Provisions requirements in 40 CFR 63.1(b)(3)
apply and revising the comment to note ``Except that subpart R
specifies additional reporting and recordkeeping for some large area
sources in Sec.  63.428. These additional requirements only apply prior
to the date the applicability equations are no longer applicable.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to add a row for 40
CFR 63.7(a)(4) and indicating a ``yes'' in the appropriate column. This
is a recently added paragraph in the NESHAP General Provisions that
describes procedures for requesting an extension in the case a force
majeure event delays required performance testing. This paragraph did
not exist in the NESHAP General Provisions when the major source and
area source standards were developed, so no reference to this paragraph
was included. We consider these provisions reasonable and should be
available for Gasoline Distribution facilities in the unlikely event
performance testing is delayed due to a force majeure event.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR
63.7(g) and 63.8(e) to add that subparts R and BBBBBB specify how and
when the performance test and performance evaluation results are
reported. We are revising these comments to note that there are
specific performance test and performance evaluation results reporting
requirements in the major source and area source rules.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R rows for 40 CFR 63.1(c)(4), 63.5(b)(5), and 63.9(b)(3) from ``yes''
in column 2 to ``no'' because these paragraphs are reserved. We are
proposing to indicate these paragraphs are reserved in column 3. We are
also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart R row
for 40 CFR ``63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)'' to ``63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)'' because 40
CFR 63.4(a)(3) is reserved and no longer applies. We are also proposing
to revise the General Provisions table to subpart R row for 40 CFR
``63.4(a)(4)'' to ``63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)'' to add reference to paragraph
(a)(3) which we are proposing to remove from the previous table entry
and to add reference to paragraph (a)(5) and delete the entry for 40
CFR 63.4(a)(5). Paragraph (a)(5) is also reserved and no longer
applies. We are proposing to revise the comment in column 3 for
``63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)'' to note these sections (plural) are reserved.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2) from ``no'' in column 2 to ``yes'' and
revising the comment to, ``Except 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.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
BBBBBB to add a row for 40 CFR 63.9(b)(3) and indicating that this
paragraph is reserved. This follows the manner in which reserved
sections are included elsewhere in the General Provisions table to
subpart R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB (rather than
being omitted).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1) through (3) to add that subpart R
specifies how to submit the Notification of Compliance Status. We are
revising this comment to note that there are specific submittal
requirements in the major source rule.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
BBBBBB entry for 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1)-(6) to provide separate entry
``63.9(h)(4)'' from ``63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6)'' and including
``[Reserved]'' in column 2 of the new 40 CFR 63.9(h)(4) entry because
this General Provision paragraph is reserved. We are also proposing to
revise the note for the revised entry 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6) to
read ``Yes, except as specified in Sec.  63.11095(c)'' rather than
``Yes, except as specified in Sec.  63.11095(a)(4); also, there are no
opacity standards'' because we proposed revisions to reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11095 and proposed visible emission
requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R and the General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR
63.9(k) to delete, ``only as specified in Sec.  63.9(j).''
    We are also proposing to clarify the General Provisions table to
subpart BBBBBB entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c) to include ``Subpart BBBBBB
specifies CMS records.'' As described in section III.B.1 of this
preamble, we are also proposing revisions to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB
recordkeeping requirements that detail the CMS records that must be
kept, and we are proposing to include this additional note to clarify
that these recordkeeping requirements apply rather than those outlined
in the General Provisions.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR
63.10(d)(2) from ``yes'' to ``no'' because the subparts specify how and
when the performance test results are reported. We are revising these
comments to note that there are specific performance test and
performance evaluation results reporting requirements in the major
source and area source rules.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(3) from ``yes'' to ``no'' because subpart R
specifies reporting requirements for visible emissions observations for
flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R to provide separate entries for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2) through
(4) and by changing the entries for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(2) through (4) from
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' We are also proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to revise the entries for 40
CFR 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii), (iv)-(v), (vi)-(viii), and (e)(4) from
``yes'' in column 4 to a

``no.'' Given the transition to electronic reporting as described in
section III.B.2 of this preamble, we are also proposing to include
electronic reporting for CEMS performance evaluations in the major and
area source rules so the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10(e)(2)
are no longer applicable. Also, as described in section III.B.1 of this
preamble, we are proposing all relevant CEMS deviation reporting
requirements directly in 40 CFR 63.428(l) and similar reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11095(e), rather than relying on cross-
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). These edits are not expected to alter
the reporting burden; however, the direct inclusion of the 40 CFR
63.10(e)(3) reporting requirements into 40 CFR 63.428(l) and 40 CFR
63.11095(e) will provide clarity of the reporting requirements to
gasoline distribution owners and operators.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R entry for 40 CFR 63.11(a)-(b) to add the comment, ``Except these
provisions no longer apply upon compliance with the provisions in Sec.
63.425(a)(2) for flares to meet the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec.  60.502a(c)(3) and 60.504a(c) of this chapter.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
BBBBBB to include missing entries for 40 CFR 63.11(a) and 63.11(c)-(e).
40 CFR 63.11(a) specifies the applicability of Sec.  63.11 and we are
proposing to include ``yes'' in column 4 to clarify that this paragraph
applies. 40 CFR 63.11(c)-(e) describe alternative work practice
standards for using optical gas imaging as an alternative to EPA Method
21 for monitoring equipment for leaks. We are proposing to include
``no'' in column 4 because the proposed leak monitoring provisions
specifically allow the use of optical gas imaging for leak detection.
    We are also proposing for revise the comment in column 4 of the
entry for 40 CFR 63.11(b) to read, ``Yes, until compliance with the
flare provisions in Item 2.b of Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB.'' As
described in Section III.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing more
detailed provisions for operating and monitoring flares to ensure the
performance of flares used as control devices. After compliance with
these flare provisions in Item 2.b of Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB, the
provisions in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB apply rather than those specified
in for 40 CFR 63.11(b).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R to revise the entries for 40 CFR 63.12(a)-(c) from ``63.12(a)-(c)''
to ``63.12'', for 40 CFR 63.13(a)-(c) from ``63.13(a)-(c)'' to
``63.13'', for 40 CFR 63.14(a)-(b) from ``63.14(a)-(b)'' to ``63.14'',
and for 40 CFR 63.15(a)-(b) from ``63.15(a)-(b)'' to ``63.15''.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
R and the General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to add a row for
40 CFR 63.16 and indicating a ``yes'' in the appropriate column. This
paragraph in the NESHAP General Provisions, which describes special
reporting provision for Performance Track member facilities procedures,
was missing from the major source and area source General Provisions
tables and adding it provides clarity regarding the applicability of
these special provisions.
g. Editorial Corrections
    The EPA is proposing an additional change that addresses technical
and editorial corrections for 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB as
follows.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.11100, definition of ``vapor-tight
gasoline cargo tank'' to update cross-reference to annual certification
test requirements from in Sec.  63.11092(f) to Sec.  63.11092(g) based
on location of this provision in the proposed amendments.

C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The EPA is not proposing to revise the primary loading rack
emission limits for the major source NESHAP subpart R; however, we are
proposing to revise the format of the standard and certain testing and
monitoring provisions. We are proposing to maintain the current
compliance options until the time that a new performance test or
performance evaluation is conducted. We are proposing that performance
tests for loading racks with thermal oxidation systems be required at
least once every 60 months. We are proposing that owners or operators
must conduct a performance test within three years of the promulgation
of the proposed standards if the thermal oxidation system has not been
tested by that time in the past 60 months. Because we are proposing to
revise the ongoing performance requirements in some cases, we consider
three years is as expedient as can be required for facilities that may
have to purchase and install new monitoring systems. For vapor recovery
systems, we are proposing to revise the format of the standard and
require a CEMS to demonstrate continuous compliance. While we expect
most vapor recovery systems have continuous TOC monitors, some owners
or operators may need to upgrade their monitoring system to comply with
the proposed CEMS requirements. We consider 3 years is as expedient as
can be required considering the potential need to upgrade or replace
TOC monitoring systems. For facilities using flares, we are proposing
to require the more detailed requirements in the Refinery MACT Rule (40
CFR part 63, subpart CC). For these provisions, we allow up to 3 years
to meet the new operating and monitoring requirements, consistent with
the timeframe we provided for petroleum refineries when first proposing
those requirements. The new requirements may require substantial
upgrades to monitoring systems and 3 years is as expedient as can be
required considering the number of monitoring systems to be upgraded.
    We are proposing revisions to the cargo tank vapor tightness
requirements apply no later than 3 years after the promulgation date of
the proposed standards. Facilities that conduct the cargo tank
certifications will need time to review and implement the new vapor
tightness requirements and it will take at least one year after they
implement the new vapor tightness requirements before the fleet of
cargo tanks can be certified at the new vapor tightness levels.
    We are proposing revisions to the storage vessel requirements for
both internal and external floating roofs. For external floating roofs,
we are proposing to require fitting controls, which will require the
degassing of the storage vessel. We are proposing that these controls
be installed at the first degassing of the storage vessel after 3 years
from the promulgation date of the proposed standards, but in no case
more than 10 years from the promulgation date of the proposed
standards. We are allowing 3 years to identify storage vessels that
need to be upgraded and identify appropriate fitting control systems
that need to be installed. We are allowing up to 10 years in order to
align the installation of the controls with a planned degassing event,
to the extent practicable, to minimize the offsetting emissions that
occur due to a degassing event solely to install the fitting controls.
For internal floating roofs, we are proposing to add LEL monitoring
requirements. Compliance with this requirement may require significant
upgrades of the internal floating roof. For example, internal floating
roofs are typically installed in pieces, with the pieces either welded
or riveted together. Welded roofs do not have ``seam'' emissions
whereas riveted roofs have emission losses from these seams. While

the current rule requirements do not prohibit the use of riveted seams
for the internal floating roof, poor rivet closures along the seams
could result in excess emissions wherein the LEL limit may be exceeded.
In these cases, it is likely a new roof would need to be installed, or
at minimum, the seams repaired or welded. Because the LEL emissions
limitation may require full replacement of existing internal floating
roofs, we are proposing to provide up to 3 years to comply with these
new requirements.
    We are proposing new requirements to conduct instrument monitoring
to identify equipment leaks. This requirement will require owners or
operators to identify all affected equipment components, implement
training on the new requirements, and identify contractors to conduct
the instrument monitoring. Therefore, we are proposing to provide up to
3 years to comply with these new requirements.
    We are proposing to phase out the applicability equations. While we
expect very few facilities may be using these equations while otherwise
being a major source, facilities that may be using these equations
could require significant upgrades to their existing control systems.
As such, we determined that three years be provided for the phase out
of these applicability equations.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions applicability
table to remove references to vacated provisions. As these provisions
have been vacated for several years, we are proposing that these
revisions be applicable upon promulgation. We do not expect any of the
proposed revisions will increase burden to any facility and can be
implemented without delay.
    We are proposing to require electronic reporting. We are providing
up to 3 years to comply with these new provisions. Because we are
proposing to allow owners or operators to comply with existing
requirements and electronic reporting forms will not be available for
the existing reporting requirements, it is expedient to harmonize the
timing of the proposed revisions to the electronic reporting
requirements with the revisions to the requirements.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The EPA is proposing to revise the primary loading rack emission
limits for the large bulk gasoline terminals and bulk plants at area
source gasoline distribution facilities subject to NESHAP subpart
BBBBBB. We are also proposing to revise the format of the standard and
certain testing and monitoring provisions. We are proposing up to 3
years to meet the new emission limits and operating and monitoring
requirements. These revisions may require significant control system
upgrades and monitoring system installations. We determined that 3
years is as expedient as can be required considering the number of
control systems and monitoring systems to be upgraded.
    We are proposing revisions to the cargo tank vapor tightness
requirements apply no later than 3 years after the promulgation date of
the proposed standards. Facilities that conduct the cargo tank
certifications will need time to review and implement the new vapor
tightness requirements and it will take at least one year after they
implement the new vapor tightness requirements before the fleet of
cargo tanks can be certified at the new vapor tightness levels.
    We are proposing revisions to the storage vessel requirements for
both internal and external floating roofs. For external floating roofs,
we are proposing to require fitting controls, which will require the
degassing of the storage vessel. We are proposing that these controls
be installed at the first degassing of the storage vessel after 3 years
from the promulgation date of the proposed standards, but in no case
more than 10 years from the promulgation date of the proposed
standards. We are allowing 3 years to identify storage vessels that
need to be upgraded and identify appropriate fitting control systems
that need to be installed. We are allowing up to 10 years in order to
align the installation of the controls with a planned degassing event,
to the extent practicable, to minimize the offsetting emissions that
occur due to a degassing event solely to install the fitting controls.
For internal floating roofs, we are proposing to add LEL monitoring
requirements. Compliance with these requirements may require
significant upgrades of the internal floating roof. Therefore, we are
proposing to provide up to 3 years to comply with these new
requirements.
    We are proposing new requirements to conduct instrument monitoring
to identify equipment leaks. This requirement will require owners/
operators to identify all affected equipment components, implement
training on the new requirements, and identify contractors to conduct
the instrument monitoring. Therefore, we are proposing to provide up to
3 years to comply with these new requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions applicability
table to remove references to vacated provisions. As these provisions
have been vacated for several years, we are proposing that these
revisions be applicable upon promulgation. We do not expect any of the
proposed revisions will increase burden to any facility and can be
implemented without delay.
    We are proposing to require electronic reporting. We are providing
up to 3 years to comply with these new provisions. Because we are
proposing to allow owners or operators to comply with existing
requirements and electronic reporting forms will not be available for
the existing reporting requirements, it is expedient to harmonize the
timing of the proposed revisions to the electronic reporting
requirements with the revisions to the requirements.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    We are proposing that all bulk gasoline terminal sources that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after
June 10, 2022, would need to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXa upon startup of the new, reconstructed or modified facility
or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. This
proposed compliance schedule is consistent with the requirements in
Section 111(e) of the CAA.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are approximately 9,500 facilities subject to the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP and the Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS. An estimated
210 facilities are classified as major sources and more than 9,250 are
area sources. We estimated there would be 5 new facilities and 15
modified/reconstructed subject to the NSPS in the next 5 years.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    This proposed action would reduce HAP and VOC emissions from the
Gasoline Distribution NESHAP and the Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS
sources. In comparison to baseline emissions of 6,110 tpy HAP and
121,000 tpy VOC, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission reductions of
approximately 2,220 and 45,400 tpy, respectively, based on our analysis
of the proposed action described in sections III.A and B in this
preamble. Emission reductions and secondary impacts (e.g., emission
increases associated with supplemental fuel or additional electricity)
by subpart are listed below.

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    For the major source rule, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission
reductions of approximately 134 and 2,160 tpy, respectively, compared
to baseline HAP and VOC emissions of 845 and 18,200 tpy. The EPA
estimates that the proposed action would not have any secondary
pollutant impacts. More information about the estimated emission
reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for the major
source rule can be found in the document, ``Major Source Technology
Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals
and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP.''
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    For the area source rule, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission
reductions of approximately 2,090 and 40,300 tpy, respectively,
compared to baseline HAP and VOC emissions of 5,260 and 99,400 tpy. The
EPA estimates that the proposed action would result in additional
emissions of 32,400 tpy of carbon dioxide, 19 tpy of nitrogen oxides,
and 86 tpy of carbon monoxide. More information about the estimated
emission reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for
the area source rule can be found in the document, ``Area Source
Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk
Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP.''
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    For the NSPS, the EPA estimates VOC emission reductions of
approximately 2,950 tpy compared to baseline emissions of 3,890 tpy.
The EPA estimates that the proposed action would result in additional
emissions of 2,229 tpy of carbon dioxide, 2 tpy of nitrogen oxides, and
1 tpy of sulfur dioxide. More information about the estimated emission
reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for the NSPS
can be found in the document, ``New Source Performance Standards Review
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals.''

C. What are the cost impacts?

    This proposed action would cost (in 2019 dollars) approximately
$66.8 million in total capital costs and total annualized cost savings
of $3.42 million per year (including product recovery), based on our
analysis of the proposed action described in sections III.A and B of
this preamble. Costs by rule are listed below.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    For the major source rule, the EPA estimates this proposed action
would cost approximately $2.07 million in total capital costs and $2.11
million per year in total annualized costs (including product
recovery). More information about the estimated cost of this proposed
action for the major source rule can be found in the document, ``Major
Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk
Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP.''
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    For the area source rule, the EPA estimates this proposed action
would cost approximately $57.6 million in total capital costs and have
cost savings of $5.91 million per year in total annualized costs
(including product recovery). More information about the estimated cost
of this proposed action for the area source rule can be found in the
document, ``Area Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution
Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP.''
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    For the NSPS, the EPA estimates this proposed action would cost
approximately $7.20 million in total capital costs and $387,000 per
year in total annualized costs (including product recovery). More
information about the estimated cost of this proposed action for the
NSPS can be found in the document, ``New Source Performance Standards
Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals.''

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for this
action. The economic impact analyses contain two parts. The economic
impacts of the proposal on small entities are calculated as the
percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate
parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the
direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of Gasoline
Distribution facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We
estimate the average small entity impacted by the proposal will incur
total annualized costs of 0.42 percent of their revenue, with none
exceeding 6.75 percent. We estimate fewer than 10 percent of impacted
small entities will incur total annualized costs greater than 1 percent
of their revenue, and fewer than 5 percent will incur total annualized
costs greater than 3 percent of their revenue. This is based on a
conservative estimate of costs imposed on ultimate parent companies,
where total annualized costs are imposed on a facility are at the upper
bound of what is possible under the rule and do not include product
recovery as a credit. More explanation of these economic impacts can be
found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) later in this preamble
and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this proposed
rulemaking.
    The EPA also prepared a model of the U.S. gasoline market in order
to project changes caused by the rulemaking to the price and quantity
of gasoline sold from 2026 to 2040. Using this model, the price of
gasoline is projected to rise by less than .003 percent in all years
from 2026 to 2040, whereas the quantity of gasoline consumed is
projected to fall by less than .001 percent in all years from 2026 to
2040. These projections consider the costs imposed by amendments to
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, NESHAP subpart R, and amendments to NSPS subpart
XX (as proposed in subpart XXa).
    Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the
industries impacted by this proposed rulemaking, and there will not be
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of
the proposal are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms. The RIA for this proposed rulemaking includes more
details and discussion of these projected impacts.

E. What are the benefits?

    The emission controls installed to comply with these proposed rules
are expected to reduce VOC emissions which, in conjunction with
nitrogen oxides and in the presence of sunlight, form ground-level
ozone (O3). This section reports the estimated ozone-related
benefits of reducing VOC emissions in terms of the number and value of
avoided ozone-attributable deaths and illnesses.
    As a first step in quantifying O3-related human health
impacts, the EPA consults the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone
(Ozone ISA) \14\ as summarized in the Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross

State Air Pollution Rule Update.\15\ This document synthesizes the
toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological evidence to determine
whether each pollutant is causally related to an array of adverse human
health outcomes associated with either acute (i.e., hours or days-long)
or chronic (i.e., years-long) exposure. For each outcome, the Ozone ISA
reports this relationship to be causal, likely to be causal, suggestive
of a causal relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, or
not likely to be a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. EPA (2020). Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/
R-20/012. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants.
    \15\ U.S. EPA. 2021. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone Season NAAQS Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-attributable_health_benefits_tsd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In brief, the Ozone ISA found short-term (less than one month)
exposures to ozone to be causally related to respiratory effects, a
``likely to be causal'' relationship with metabolic effects and a
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
for central nervous system effects, cardiovascular effects, and total
mortality. The Ozone ISA reported that long-term exposures (one month
or longer) to ozone are ``likely to be causal'' for respiratory effects
including respiratory mortality, and a ``suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' for cardiovascular
effects, reproductive effects, central nervous system effects,
metabolic effects, and total mortality.
    For all estimates, we summarized the monetized ozone-related health
benefits using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent for both
short-term and long-term effects for the 15-year analysis period of
these rules discounted back to 2022 rounded to 2 significant figures.
For the full set of underlying calculations see the Gasoline
Distribution Benefits workbook (docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371). In
addition, we include the monetized disbenefits from additional CO2
emissions using a 3 percent rate, which occur with NESHAP subpart
BBBBBB and NSPS XXa, but not NESHAP subpart R since there are no
additional CO2 emissions as a result of this proposed rule.
Monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences
requires several important inputs, including central estimates of
cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates
of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). Due to
methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the
health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. A qualitative
discussion of the health effects associated with HAP emitted from
sources subject to control under the proposed action is included in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed action.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The PV of the benefits for the proposed amendments for NESHAP
subpart R are $9.9 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $5.6
million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $81
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $48 million at the 7 percent
discount rate for long-term effects. The EAV of the benefits for the
proposed amendments for NESHAP subpart R are $0.83 million at the 3
percent discount rate to $0.65 million at the 7 percent discount rate
for short-term effects and $6.8 million at the 3 percent discount rate
to $5.3 million at the 7 percent discount rate for long-term effects.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The PV of the net benefits (monetized health benefits minus
monetized climate disbenefits) for the proposed amendments for NESHAP
BBBBBB are $160 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $83 million
at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $1,500
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $870 million at the 7 percent
discount rate for long-term. The EAV of the benefits for the proposed
amendments for NESHAP BBBBBB are $13 million at the 3 percent discount
rate to $9.7 million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term
effects and $120 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $97 million
at the 7 percent discount rate for long-term effects.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    Because the estimated emissions reductions due to this rule are
small and because we cannot be confident of the location of new
facilities under the NSPS, the EPA elected to use the benefit per-ton
(BPT) approach. BPT estimates provide the total monetized human health
benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of
reducing one ton of the VOC precursor for ozone from a specified
source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates
from the ``Gasoline Distribution'' sector by the corresponding emission
reductions.
    The PV of the net benefits (monetized health benefits minus
monetized climate disbenefits) for the proposed NSPS subpart XXa are
$25 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $12 million at the 7
percent discount rate for short-term effects and $240 million at the 3
percent discount rate to $130 million at the 7 percent discount rate
for long-term effects. The EAV of the benefits for the proposed NSPS
subpart XXa are $2.0 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $1.4
million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $20
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $15 million at the 7 percent
discount rate for long-term effects.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns.
    Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through federal government
actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' \16\ The EPA further defines fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies''. In recognizing that minority and low-income populations
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposal, the EPA examined the potential for Gasoline
Distribution facilities to pose potential concerns to EJ communities by
analyzing the distribution of demographic groups living in close
proximity to these facilities in the baseline. Specifically, the EPA
conducted a demographic screening analysis that shows that the
proportion of the population of people of color living in proximity to
these facilities is significantly higher than the

national average. The EPA expects that the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Review
and Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review will
reduce VOC and HAP emissions by 45,400 and 2,200 tpy, respectively. The
EPA is proposing to require stricter cargo tank vapor tightness
standards, improved storage vessel fittings, equipment leak instrument
monitoring, lower emission limits for loading operations at large area
source bulk gasoline terminals and NSPS subpart XXa affected
facilities, and vapor balancing at bulk gasoline plants. These proposed
changes to control requirements for affected facilities are anticipated
to improve human health exposures for most populations, including for
surrounding communities with EJ concerns.
    Based on these analyses of potentially exposed populations and
actions taken to reduce adverse human health impacts, the EPA
anticipates that this action is not likely to result in
disproportionate impacts on minority populations and/or low-income
populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 20, 2021). EPA remains committed to engaging with communities
and stakeholders throughout the development of air pollution
regulations. Following is a more detailed description of how the agency
considers EJ in the context of regulatory development, and specific
actions taken to address EJ concerns for this action.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    As a starting point, to examine the potential for any EJ issues
that might be associated with Gasoline Distribution facilities, we
performed a baseline demographic analysis, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the
data from this analysis to the national average for each of the
demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 18 of this
document) indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the 117 major
source Gasoline Distribution facilities,\17\ the percent minority
population (being the total population minus the white population) is
larger than the national average (59 percent versus 40 percent). This
difference is largely driven by the percent Hispanic or Latino
population that is significantly higher than the national average (33
percent versus 19 percent). The percent of the population that is
African American (15 percent) and Other and Multiracial (10 percent)
are slightly above the national averages (12 percent and 8 percent,
respectively). The percent of people living below the poverty level (17
percent) and those over 25 without a high school diploma (18 percent)
are higher than the national averages (13 percent and 12 percent,
respectively). The percent of people living in linguistic isolation was
higher than the national average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The EPA estimates there are approximately 210 major source
Gasoline Distribution facilities; however, we had location
information for only 117 of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 117
major source Gasoline Distribution facilities was similar to the 5 km
analysis for minorities, with higher total minorities being driven by a
larger Hispanic or Latino population. However, the percent of the
population living below the poverty level and the percent of the
population over 25 without a high school diploma were similar to the
national averages. The percent of people living in linguistic isolation
was still higher than the national average (8 percent versus 5
percent).
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the
major source Gasoline Distribution Facilities is included as Table 18.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Gasoline Distribution Facilities, available in
this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).

      Table 18--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population
                                                                                within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide        of 117      within 5 km of
                                                                                facilities    117 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242     114,588,509       5,884,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             50%             41%
Minority........................................................             40%             50%             59%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             15%             15%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.3%            0.4%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             24%             33%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%             11%             10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             17%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             13%             18%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             87%             82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              8%              9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    As noted above, the EPA determined that the standards should be
revised to reflect cost-effective developments in practices, process,
or controls. Typically, the EPA would seek to estimate the impact of
the proposed changes by either estimating the emissions changes likely
to result from the adoption of new controls by specific sources or
groups of sources, or (where data is more limited, as is typically the
case) by analyzing a model plant scenario. In this case, we evaluated
the impact of these standards by applying the revised standards to a
set of model plants. Because we based the analysis of the impacts and
emission reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain
specifically how the potential benefits will be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we anticipate the
proposed changes to NESHAP subpart R will generally improve human
health exposures for populations in surrounding communities, including
those communities with higher percentages of people of color. The
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution
facilities and will provide additional health protection for most
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution,
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    As a starting point, to examine the potential for any EJ issues
that might be associated with Gasoline Distribution facilities, we
performed a baseline demographic analysis, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 19 of this
document) indicate that, for populations within 5 km of 1,229 area
source Gasoline Distribution facilities,\18\ the percent minority
population (being the total population minus the white population) is
larger than the national average (54 percent versus 40 percent). This
difference is largely driven by the Hispanic or Latino (26 percent) and
African American (18 percent) populations that are significantly larger
than the national averages (19 percent and 12 percent, respectively).
The percent of the population that is Other and Multiracial (10
percent) is slightly above the national average (8 percent). The
percent of people living below the poverty level (18 percent) and those
over 25 without a high school diploma (16 percent) were higher than the
national averages (13 percent and 12 percent, respectively). The
percent of people living in linguistic isolation was higher than the
national average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA estimates there are approximately 9,260 area source
Gasoline Distribution facilities; however, we had location
information for only 1,229 of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the
1,229 area source Gasoline Distribution facilities were similar to the
national averages for all demographics. This is due to the fact that
the large number of facilities (1,229) and larger study area (50 km)
captured approximately 75% of the national population.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the
area source Gasoline Distribution facilities is included as Table 19.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Gasoline Distribution Facilities, available in
this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).

       Table 19--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population      Population
                                                                                within 50 km   within 5 km of
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide       of 1,229          1,229
                                                                                facilities      facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242     252,008,837      35,679,430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             58%             46%
Minority........................................................             40%             42%             54%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             13%             18%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.5%            0.5%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             20%             26%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%              9%             10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             18%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             12%             16%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             88%             84%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              6%              9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    As noted above, the EPA determined that the standards should be
revised to reflect cost-effective developments in practices, process,
or controls. Typically, the EPA would seek to estimate the impact of
the proposed changes by either estimating the emissions changes likely
to result from the adoption of new controls by specific sources or
groups of sources, or (where data is more limited, as is typically the
case) by analyzing a model plant scenario. In this case, we evaluated
the impact of these standards by applying the revised standards to a
set of model plants. Because we based the analysis of the impacts and
emission reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain
specifically how the potential benefits will be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we anticipate the
proposed changes to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB will generally improve human
health exposures for populations in surrounding communities, including
those communities with higher percentages of people of color. The
proposed changes will provide additional health protection for all
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution,
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities. The
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution
facilities that are area sources and will provide additional health
protection for most populations, including communities already
overburdened by pollution, which are often minority, low-income, and
indigenous communities.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The locations of any new Bulk Gasoline Terminals that would be
subject to NSPS subpart XXa are not known. In addition, it is not known
which existing Bulk Gasoline Terminals may be modified or reconstructed
and subject to NSPS subpart XXa. Thus, we are limited in our ability to
estimate the potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we
anticipate the proposed changes to NSPS XXa will generally improve
human health exposures for populations in surrounding communities,
including those communities with higher percentages of people of color.
See Subsections 2 and 3 of this section for a summary of the
demographic analysis results for major and area sources.
    The proposed changes to NSPS subpart XXa will improve human health
exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The EPA
determined that the standards should be revised to reflect BSER. The
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution
facilities with new, modified or reconstructed sources and will provide
additional health protection for most populations, including
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often
minority, low-income, and indigenous communities.

V. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In this proposal, EPA
has noted multiple times where we are concerned that this source
category impacts large populations of people that have the potential to
be overburdened by air pollution from multiple sources. In reviewing
standards for this source category, we have identified more stringent
standards that could further reduce HAP emissions exposure in
communities but impose higher capital and annualized costs. The cost
per ton of HAP of these options is greater than what we have considered
cost-effective for these type of HAP in previous rulemakings. EPA seeks
comment on whether these more protective standards, although less cost
effective for these type of HAP emissions controls than we would
typically find acceptable, are nevertheless appropriate given the
reductions in HAPs that would occur in potentially over-burdened
communities surrounding these sources. EPA also requests information on
the costs, efficacy, and feasibility of control options for major and
area source gasoline distribution facilities, and the contributions of
these sources to overall pollution burdens in surrounding communities,
to inform our consideration of whether more protective standards are
warranted.
    In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are
also interested in additional data that may improve the analyses. We
are specifically interested in receiving any information regarding
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
reduce emissions. We are also interested in receiving information on
costs, emissions, and product recovery. Finally, the EPA attempted to
ensure that the SSM provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption and are specifically seeking comment on whether we have
successfully done so.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews