vacuum, pressure, or liquid test following the repair. These tests must
be conducted within 30 days of a repair.

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    Clarification of UST system components in the definition of
repair--EPA is proposing to add the following UST system components to
the definition of repair: Piping; spill prevention equipment; overfill
prevention equipment; corrosion protection equipment; and release
detection equipment. By adding these UST system components, EPA is
making it clear that these specific components are subject to the
repairs allowed section of the regulation. This means owners and
operators performing repairs on these UST system components must follow
the repairs allowed section (Sec.  280.33). The 1988 UST regulation
definition of repair uses the generic term UST system component and
provides less detail about what an UST system component is.
    Including repairs not associated with a confirmed release or
suspected release from the UST system--It is common practice for owners
and operators to fix UST components that have not caused a release or
suspected release of product from the UST system. However, the repair
definition in the 1988 UST regulation does not consider these non-
release fixes as repairs. EPA is proposing to modify the repair
definition to include the concept of repairing equipment that failed to
function properly, delinking a repair with a release from the UST
system. This proposed change will ensure repair activities not
associated with a release are conducted properly. For example, under
the 1988 UST regulation, fixing a cathodic protection system would not
be considered a repair because the UST component likely has not yet
caused a release of product from the UST system. In addition, EPA is
proposing to include a suspected release as part of the definition, so
repairs associated with suspected releases are covered under the repair
definition.
    By removing the link between repair and release, EPA is proposing
owners and operators meet the repairs allowed section (Sec.  280.33)
when fixing UST system components that have not caused a release of
product from the UST system. This means owners and operators will need
to have repairs performed in accordance with a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory and test the equipment after the repair is completed.
    Tests after repairs--To ensure equipment is operating as intended
after a repair, EPA is proposing to require tests within 30 days of
repairing spill, overfill, and secondary containment equipment. Except
for interstitial integrity tests in USTs with continuous interstitial
sensors, the tests after repairs proposal uses periodic tests described
in sections B-2, B-3, and B-4. For USTs with continuous interstitial
sensors, owners and operators must conduct vacuum, pressure, or liquid
tests to ensure the secondary containment area is operating as
intended. EPA is proposing to require tests because sensors alone
cannot immediately determine whether repairs were completed properly.
Vacuum, pressure, and liquid tests will be able to ensure the adequacy
of the repair by evaluating the interstitial area. Tests after repairs
will only apply to those UST components being repaired and not to all
components at the UST site.
    EPA is proposing that tests of spill, overfill, and interstitial
areas after a repair occur within 30 days of the repair. EPA chose 30
days to be consistent with the time frame for the tightness testing
requirement after repairing tanks and piping in Sec.  280.33.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Should EPA consider changing the time frame for conducting
an interstitial, spill, or overfill test from 30 days to before
returning the UST system to service?
    Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
6. Phase Out Vapor Monitoring and Groundwater Monitoring as Release
Detection Methods

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to phase out vapor monitoring and groundwater
monitoring as methods of release detection for tanks and piping in
Sec.  280.43.
    Owners and operators of UST systems installed before the effective
date of the final UST regulation will have five years to comply with
another release detection monitoring method in 40 CFR 280, subpart D.

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    Although EPA is proposing new and replaced tanks and piping use
interstitial monitoring (see section A-2), UST systems installed before
the effective date of the final UST regulation may continue to use
internal or interstitial release detection methods listed in subpart D
of the 1988 UST regulation. Automatic tank gauging and statistical
inventory reconciliation are internal monitoring methods and are
characterized by activities within the tank or piping to monitor any
discrepancies. Groundwater monitoring and vapor monitoring are external
monitoring methods and are characterized by monitoring external areas
(specifically groundwater or soil-vapor) that surround an UST system.
An interstitial method monitors the space between tank or piping walls
and detects a release before it reaches the environment.
    EPA is proposing to phase out the two external release detection
methods--vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring--because these
methods detect releases well after they enter the environment. In
addition, there are inherent problems with installing and confirming
proper use of these methods. As methods of release detection, they

are less protective of the environment than others. Regulators
inspecting UST systems report common problems they encounter when
inspecting UST systems using vapor or groundwater monitoring methods,
such as an insufficient number of wells or wells improperly located to
sufficiently monitor for potential releases.
    Vapor monitoring problems pertain to confirming whether certain
site conditions exist. In particular, surrounding soil should be
sufficiently porous to readily allow diffusion into the excavation
area; the ability to measure vapors should not be affected by
groundwater, rainfall, or soil moisture; and background contamination
should not interfere with monitoring methods.
    A commonly encountered groundwater monitoring problem is that
groundwater, at times, can be more than 20 feet from the ground
surface, due to seasonal water table variations. According to the 1988
UST regulation, groundwater must never be more than 20 feet from the
ground surface and well slotting must be designed to allow entry of
regulated substances on the water table into the well under both high
and low groundwater conditions. Unfortunately, many wells are not
installed appropriately resulting in the depth of groundwater
requirement not being met.
    Many UST facilities do not have site assessments that confirm
whether site conditions support use of vapor monitoring and groundwater
monitoring release detection. In instances when site assessments are
available, they are often not thorough enough to verify whether
regulatory requirements are met. Without site assessments, regulators
are unable to determine whether site conditions are met. Reassessing
sites to verify if site conditions support use of vapor monitoring or
groundwater monitoring is intrusive and costly. Some UST facilities
switch between vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring, depending
on seasonal variations. This practice further complicates using these
methods, such as whether groundwater rendered the vapor monitoring
inoperable or whether the wells are designed for both methods. Even if
optimal operating conditions are met in both of these external methods,
by the time a release is detected, contamination has already
significantly impacted the environment.
    In contrast, internal release detection methods have an advantage
over external monitoring methods. Internal methods provide an early
warning to owners and operators because they indicate unusual operating
conditions, such as water in the tank or incremental loss of product.
An early warning alerts owners and operators to take action and
minimize releases to the environment.
    EPA estimates approximately 5 percent of all active UST systems are
using vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring to comply with release
monitoring requirements.\67\ Because of the time it may take for owners
and operators to convert to another method of release detection, five
years will allow sufficient time for UST system owners and operators to
begin using another method of release detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Is five years for owners and operators using vapor
monitoring and groundwater monitoring to switch to another method too
short, too long, or an appropriate length?
     Are there circumstances at existing facilities that would
warrant a subset of UST systems to use vapor monitoring or groundwater
monitoring beyond the proposed period of five years. If so, what are
the circumstances?
     Is EPA's assumption of 5 percent accurate for the number
of active UST systems using vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring
to comply with release detection requirements?
    Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including Interstitial Alarms,
Under Subpart E

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing clarifications of UST owners' and operators'
responsibilities regarding interstitial monitoring results, including
alarms, under 40 CFR part 280, subpart E. Specifically, EPA is
proposing these changes:
     Section 280.50(b)--add interstitial spaces of secondarily
contained UST systems and provide examples of unusual operating
conditions.
     Section 280.50(c)--clarify that an alarm during release
detection monitoring is subject to the reporting requirement.
     Section 280.52(a)--require owners and operators of UST
systems with secondary containment using interstitial monitoring follow
integrity test requirements (proposed in section B-4) to confirm a
suspected release, and clarify actions UST owners and operators must
take if a test confirms a leak or indicates a release exists.

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    The 1988 UST regulation adequately covers interstitial monitoring.
Nonetheless, EPA is proposing these changes to reinforce that a leak
into an interstitial space of a secondarily contained UST system is
also a potential threat to the environment and must be investigated,
addressed, and as necessary, reported.
    In section A-2, EPA is proposing interstitial monitoring for all
new or replaced tanks and piping. As new systems are installed,
interstitial monitoring will become more widely used as a method of
release detection. With this in mind, EPA wants UST owners and
operators to clearly understand how interstitial monitoring results,
including interstitial alarms (and alarms associated with other types
of release detection monitoring if interstitial monitoring is not
used), must be handled.
    In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA intended that product or water in
the interstice, and alarms signifying the presence of those conditions,
are unusual operating conditions and must be investigated
appropriately. However, EPA did not indicate how UST owners and
operators were to address discrepancies with interstitial spaces. As a
result, some UST owners and operators were uncertain about how best to
respond to interstitial monitoring results and alarms associated with
interstitial monitoring that indicate a release may have occurred. This
section provides specific information to alleviate uncertainty for
owners and operators.
     Add interstitial spaces of secondarily contained UST
systems and provide examples of unusual operating conditions
    [cir] Two unusual operating condition examples--water in the
interstitial space (presumably from a breach in the secondary wall) and
product in the interstitial space (presumably from a breach in the
primary wall)--are important along with other suspected release
conditions listed in the 1988 UST regulation. Water or product in the
interstitial space indicates there is a problem with the UST system
that needs to be resolved. As a result, EPA is specifying these
conditions as unusual operating conditions and will

require UST owners and operators investigate and address them.
     Clarify that an alarm during release detection monitoring,
which indicates a potential release or compromise of the interstitial
space, is subject to the reporting requirement
    [cir] UST owners and operators must appropriately address release
detection monitoring alarms. For example, continuously monitored
systems will trigger an alarm indicating a potential release or that
the interstitial space has been compromised. UST owners and operators
must appropriately address all alarms in the same manner. EPA is adding
interstitial monitoring in subpart E to emphasize its importance
because the proposed secondary containment requirement for new and
replaced system discussed in section A-2 will increase the use of
interstitial monitoring. UST owners and operators will not be required
to report alarms from defective equipment or false alarms as suspected
releases. Also, UST owners and operators will not have to report leaks
that are contained in the interstitial space, but they must investigate
and repair the problems. However, as required in Sec.  280.43(g),
groundwater, soil moisture, or rainfall must not render the testing or
sampling method inoperative so that a release could go undetected for
more than 30 days. Finally, regulated substance in the interstitial
space poses safety concerns and can also affect testing and sampling
methods. For safety reasons, owners and operators must ensure the
method of interstitial monitoring continues to operate and should
always remove any regulated substance from the interstitial area.
     Require owners and operators of UST systems with secondary
containment using interstitial monitoring follow integrity test
requirements (proposed in section B-4) to confirm a suspected release
and clarify actions UST owners and operators must take if a test
confirms a leak or indicates a release exists
    [cir] Requiring UST owners and operators to follow integrity test
requirements of the interstitial area will ensure both inner and outer
walls are checked when investigating a suspected release. EPA also is
taking the position that it is important to clarify actions UST owners
and operators must take if a test confirms a leak or indicates a
release exists. If a leak is confirmed, UST owners and operators must
correct or address the problem. In addition to options listed in the
1988 UST regulation, EPA is proposing to include closure as another
option. Nothing in this proposal changes the requirement in subpart F
for UST owners and operators to take corrective action if a release
occurred.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

    EPA did not identify specific issues for comment.

E. General Updates

1. Incorporate Newer Technologies

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to include technologies developed since issuing
the 1988 UST regulation and clarify the use of those technologies. EPA
is proposing these changes:
     Tanks--revise steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic
composite in Sec.  280.20(a)(3) to steel tank clad or jacketed with a
non-corrodible material. UST owners and operators will be able to use
jacketed tanks to meet EPA's proposed requirement for secondary
containment and interstitial monitoring described in section A-2.
     Piping--revise fiberglass-reinforced plastic in Sec.
280.20(b)(1) to non-corrodible material. This will allow UST owners and
operators to install other piping, such as flexible plastic, that does
not corrode.
     Release detection--add two release detection options:
Continuous in-tank leak detection (CITLD) and statistical inventory
reconciliation (SIR). UST owners and operators will be able to use
these additional options to meet release detection requirements in
Sec.  280.40, as long as the methods meet the following:
    [cir] CITLD--automatic tank gauge operating on an uninterrupted
basis or operating within a process that allows the system to gather
incremental measurements to determine the leak status of the tank at
least once every 30 days.
    [cir] SIR--quantitative analysis with a calculated leak rate
capable of detecting a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate within 30 days
with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false
alarm of 0.05 is required, based on a threshold that does not exceed
one-half the minimum leak rate.
    EPA is proposing to list three additional continuous interstitial
monitoring methods in Sec.  280.43(g): Liquid-filled, pressure, and
vacuum interstitial monitoring. These methods must be capable of
detecting a breach in both the inner and outer walls of the tank and
piping.

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    Since EPA promulgated the 1988 UST regulation, newer tank, piping,
and release detection technologies have been developed and are being
used. EPA is proposing this change to acknowledge newer UST related
technologies and clarify the use of these technologies.
Clad and Jacketed Tanks
    The 1988 UST regulation allows these tank technologies: Coated and
cathodically protected steel; fiberglass reinforced plastic; steel-
fiberglass-reinforced-plastic composite; and metal without additional
corrosion protection, provided that a corrosion expert determines the
site is not corrosive enough to cause a release from corrosion during
the tank's life. The 1988 regulation also allows use of other tank
technologies that implementing agencies determine are no less
protective of human health and the environment than those listed above.
Additional non-corrodible materials are now used as claddings for steel
tanks, and they are as effective at preventing corrosion as
technologies in the 1988 regulation. EPA considers a cladding to be a
non-corrosive dielectric material, bonded to the steel tank with
sufficient durability to prevent corrosion during the tank's life. EPA
did not include jacketed tanks in the 1988 regulation, even though they
are no less protective of human health and the environment than
technologies listed in the regulation. EPA considers jacketed to be a
non-corrosive dielectric material that: Is constructed as secondary
containment (jacketed) around a steel tank; has sufficient durability
to prevent corrosion during the tank's life; and prevents a regulated
substance released from the primary steel tank wall from reaching the
environment. EPA estimates 10 percent of regulated tanks today are
jacketed with a non-corrodible material and 18 percent are clad with a
non-corrodible material.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Corrodible Piping
    The 1988 UST regulation allows fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping
as a non-corrodible piping option, as well as other piping technologies
that implementing agencies determine are no less protective of human
health and the environment than those in the

regulation. Non-corrodible piping not made of fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (in particular, flexible plastic piping) was installed
beginning in the 1990s and has evolved over the past 20 years. Flexible
plastic piping is made of various non-corrodible materials, such as
polyethylene and polyurethane. EPA estimates at least 13 percent of
regulated piping currently installed is made of non-corrodible
materials that are not fiberglass-reinforced plastic.\69\ Revising
fiberglass-reinforced piping to non-corrodible piping will allow UST
owners and operators to install other types of non-corrodible piping,
such as flexible plastic, without requiring implementing agencies to
make a determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release Detection Technologies
    The 1988 UST regulation allows UST owners and operators to use
other methods that meet release detection performance criteria listed
at Sec.  280.43(h). Although CITLD and SIR are allowed under Sec.
280.43(h), it is important to specify both by name.
CITLD
    The 1988 UST regulation allows ATG systems as a recognized method
of release detection. However, it is generally listed with performance
requirements consistent with the method being used to perform a static
test. ATG relies on system down time, absent product delivery or
dispensing activities. In static testing mode, the ATG system analyzes
product level and determines whether or not a leak is present during
that down time. Yet for years, UST owners and operators used ATG
systems as a means of continually monitoring tanks for potential
releases. Continuous in-tank leak detection has evolved as a reliable
means of providing release detection equivalent to other methods
specified in Sec.  280.41. Within this category of methods, EPA will
also allow continuous in-tank methods where the system incrementally
gathers measurements to determine the tank's leak status within the 30-
day monitoring period. Today's proposal formally recognizes CITLD as a
release detection method in Sec.  280.43(d). Per Sec.  280.41, a
conclusive pass or fail result must be obtained within the 30-day
monitoring period. All monitoring records must be maintained according
to Sec.  280.45. Another method of release detection is required in the
event of an inconclusive result. UST owners and operators may perform
an in-tank static test using the ATG system or another method in
subpart D.
SIR
    Today's proposal adds SIR by name to the final UST regulation and
clarifies its use. SIR must:
     Report a quantitative result with calculated leak rate;
     Be capable of detecting a leak rate of at least 0.2 gallon
per hour with a probability of detection of not less than 0.95 and a
probability of false alarm of no greater than 0.05; and
     Use a threshold that does not exceed one-half the minimum
detectable leak rate.
    A quantitative result with a calculated leak rate is necessary to
effectively perform release detection using SIR. Some SIR methods are
qualitative based methods that simply provide a result of pass or fail
without any additional information for UST owners and operators to
gauge the validity of the reported results. Based on information in
NWGLDE's list,\70\ approximately 15 percent of SIR methods listed are
qualitative-based methods. Many state UST implementing agencies already
only allow the use of quantitative methods. Today's proposal will no
longer allow qualitative SIR as an option for meeting the release
detection requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List Of Leak Detection Evaluations for Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with some of the release detection methods described in
Sec.  280.43(h), EPA maintained the performance standard of 0.2 gallon
per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of
false alarm of 0.05. However, we are not requiring the additional
standard of 150 gallons within a month per Sec.  280.43(h). EPA
included this additional standard in the 1988 UST regulation to
primarily address external methods. EPA added the standard because it
is more difficult to demonstrate that external methods meet a small
hourly leak rate than a larger, though equivalent, volume. SIR is an
in-tank monitoring method and the 0.2 gallon per hour standard with a
probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm
(Pfa) of 0.05 is the applicable standard to use.
    SIR must also meet EPA's established requirement for probability of
detection and probability of false alarm. In a normal probability
distribution, SIR data typically analyzed through the calculation of
the reportable values of minimum detectable leak rate (MDL) and the
leak declaration threshold (T) are related as follows:
     MDL is always greater than T
     Pd = (1-Pfa), then MDL = 2 times T (i.e., T = \1/2\ MDL).
    Any analysis of data indicating a threshold value greater than one-
half minimum detectable leak rate should be appropriately investigated
as a suspected release.
    In this proposal, EPA is addressing the following issues associated
with using SIR:
     SIR is not the same as inventory control
    [cir] For years, users, vendors, and regulators incorrectly linked
SIR to the inventory control method described in Sec.  280.43(a). SIR
is more sophisticated than inventory control and not subject to the
same requirement to combine it with tank tightness testing and limit
its use to 10 years. Note Sec.  280.50(c)(2) states, ``In the case of
inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm the initial
result.'' This language allowed owners and operators to use a second
month of inventory control data to confirm initial possible failure
results. However, this allowance does not apply to SIR.
     Results for release detection, including SIR, are required
within the 30-day monitoring period
    [cir] EPA considered including a requirement that UST owners and
operators obtain a record of SIR results within 30 days. However, we
believe this requirement is adequately covered in 40 CFR part 280,
subpart D of the 1988 UST regulation. As Sec.  280.41 states, ``Tanks *
* * must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days using one of
the methods listed in Sec.  280.43(d) through (h) * * *''. In today's
proposal, EPA is adding a subsection to formally recognize SIR. A
definitive result of pass or fail that identifies the tank's leak
status is required within the 30-day monitoring period for all release
detection methods, including SIR.
     Owners and operators must use another method of release
detection if SIR results are inconclusive results
    [cir] For years, implementing agencies have been concerned about
inconclusive results when using SIR for release detection. In 1993, EPA
issued a policy regarding inconclusive SIR results,\71\ which says all
methods used to meet release detection requirements in Sec.  280.41
must obtain a conclusive result of pass or fail within the 30-day

monitoring period. All monitoring records must be maintained according
to Sec.  280.45. For SIR, this means UST owners and operators must
obtain a report determining release status within the 30-day monitoring
period. Another method of release detection is required: when results
are inconclusive; prior to sufficient data being gathered to generate
an initial report at startup; or when a report is not available for any
month of monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ UST Technical compendium, question and answer number 21:
http://epa.gov/oust/compend/rd.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Initial SIR report at startup
    [cir] SIR methods need to gather data over a period of time in
order to determine whether the tank is leaking. In some cases,
regulatory agencies have addressed significant lag times between when
data is collected to when a tank status determination is available to
owners and operators. NWGLDE's list of third-party evaluated methods
indicates the data collection period required for SIR methods ranges
from 15 to 90 days. However, most methods require between 23 to 30 days
to gather sufficient measurements that provide an accurate result. Any
method that goes beyond a 30-day monitoring period is inconsistent with
the established requirement and does not protect human health and the
environment. It is imperative that UST owners and operators determine
the status of their tanks within the established monitoring period to
avoid increased risk of contamination.
    [cir] EPA recognizes that a rolling collection of data may be used
to analyze the leak status of the tank. For example, data from the
previous 30-day monitoring period may be added to measurements taken
within the current 30-day monitoring period to determine whether or not
the tank is leaking. However, the majority of data must come from the
current 30-day period and another method of release detection must be
used to monitor the tank during this startup period. Subsequent
monitoring continuously rolls data forward and provides sufficient data
in a timely manner to determine pass or fail.
Interstitial Monitoring
    EPA is proposing to add three methods of interstitial monitoring--
vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled methods--in Sec.  280.43(g)(4).
Although these interstitial methods are covered under the general
description provided in Sec.  280.43(g), These methods should be
included as distinct interstitial monitoring options. Each of these
methods must be capable of detecting breaches in both the inner and
outer walls of secondarily contained tanks and secondarily contained
piping.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Should EPA require specific performance standards for
vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled interstitial monitoring? If so,
what should the performance standards be and why?
     Are there performance standards for release detection
methods that should be added or removed?
    Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Updates to Codes of Practice Listed in the UST Regulation

What Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing to update the codes of practice (also called
standards or recommended practices) listed in the 1988 UST regulation
to reflect new codes, changes to code names, and new nationally
recognized associations and independent testing laboratories. EPA
proposes to update, add, or remove codes of practice to the following
specific areas of the 1988 UST regulation:
Section 280.11--Interim Prohibition for Deferred UST Systems
    Updated Codes:

--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
    Added Codes:

--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic
Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice
for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with
Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems
Section 280.20(a)(1)--Fiberglass Tanks
    Updated Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and
Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S615, Standard for Reinforced
Plastic Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids

    Removed Codes:

--American Society of Testing and Materials Standard D4021-86, Standard
Specification for Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Underground
Petroleum Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(2)--Steel Tanks With Cathodic Protection
    Updated Codes:

--Steel Tank Institute Specification sti-P3[supreg] Specification and
Manual for External Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage
Tanks
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603, Standard for Steel
Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603.1, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable
and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S631, Standard for Isolating
Bushings for Steel Underground Tanks Protected with External Corrosion
Protection Systems
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground
Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids

    Added Codes:

--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(3)--Clad or Jacketed Steel Tanks
    Updated Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks

    Added Codes:

--Steel Tank Institute Specification F894, ACT-100[supreg]
Specification for External Corrosion Protection of FRP Composite Steel
USTs
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F961, ACT-100-U[supreg]
Specification for External Corrosion Protection of Composite Steel
Underground Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute
Specification for Permatank[supreg]

    Removed Codes:

--Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100, Specification for the

Fabrication of FRP Clad Underground Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(6)--Secondary Containment Tanks (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section A-2)
    Added Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground
Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and
Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute
Specification for Permatank[supreg]
Section 280.20(b)(1)--Non-corrodible Piping
    Updated Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic
Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard S660, Standard for Non-
Metallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids

    Removed Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 567, Pipe Connectors for Flammable
and Combustible and LP Gas
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard CAN 4-S633-M81, Flexible
Underground Hose Connectors
Section 280.20(b)(2)--Steel Piping With Cathodic Protection
    Updated Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic
Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

    Added Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for
Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice
for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with
Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection

    Removed Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage Systems
Section 280.20(b)(3)--Metal Piping Without Additional Corrosion
Protection
    Removed Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69,
Control of External Corrosion on Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
Section 280.20(b)(5)--Secondary Containment Piping (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section A-2)
    Added Codes:

--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic
Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for
Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe
Section 280.20(d)--Installation
    Updated Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage System
--Petroleum Equipment Institute Publication RP100, Recommended
Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems

    Added Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30A, Code for Motor
Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages
    Removed Codes:

--American National Standards Institute Standard B31.3, Petroleum
Refinery Piping
--American National Standards Institute Standard B31.4, Liquid
Petroleum Transportation Piping System
Section 280.21--Lining Inspection Standards (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section E-3)
    Added Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
--Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended Practice, Recommended Practice for
Inspecting Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a Video Camera
Section 280.21(e)--Upgrade Requirements for Previously Deferred UST
Systems (New Addition to the Regulation--See Section C)
    Added Codes:

--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
--American Society for Testing and Materials Standard G158, Standard
Guide for Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks
Section 280.30--Spill and Overfill Control
    Updated Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 385, Standard for Tank
Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1621, Bulk Liquid
Stock Control at Retail Outlets

    Added Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1007, Loading and
Unloading of MC 306/DOT 406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles

    Removed Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
Section 280.31--Operation and Maintenance of Corrosion Protection
    Updated Codes:

--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection

    Added Codes:

--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--NACE International Test Method TM 0101, Measurement Techniques

Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Tank Systems
--NACE International Test Method TM0497, Measurement Techniques Related
to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Piping Systems
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R051, Cathodic Protection
Testing Procedures for sti-P3 USTs
Section 280.32--Compatibility
    Removed Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, Storing and Handling
Ethanol and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and
Service Stations
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, Storage and Handling
of Gasoline-Methanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution Terminals and
Service Stations
Section 280.33--Repairs
    Updated Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 2200, Repairing
Crude Oil, Liquified Petroleum Gas, and Product Pipelines
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks

    Added Codes:

--National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of
Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R972, Recommended Practice
for the Addition of Supplemental Anodes to sti-P3[supreg] Tanks
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
--Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Recommended Practice T-95-02,
Remanufacturing of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Underground
Storage Tanks
Section 280.36--Secondary Containment Testing (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section B-4)
    Added Codes:

--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R012, Recommended Practice
for Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing Underground Double Wall
Steel Tanks
--Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Protocol, Field Test Protocol for
Testing the Annular Space of Installed Underground Fiberglass Double
and Triple-Wall Tanks with Dry Annular Space
Section 280.37--Walkthrough Inspections (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section B-1)
    Added Codes:

--Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice RP 900,
Recommended Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems
Section 280.43(a)--Inventory Control
    Updated Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1621, Bulk
Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets
Section 280.43(g)--Interstitial Monitoring
    Removed Codes:

--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks (moved to new section 280.20(a)(6))
Section 280.71--Permanent Closure
    Updated Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1604, Closure of
Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication
80-106, Criteria for a Recommended Standard * * * Working in Confined
Space

    Added Codes:

--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 2016, Guidelines
and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum Storage Tanks
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of
Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    EPA is proposing this change to update the codes of practice
associated with regulated UST systems. The 1988 UST regulation relies
heavily on codes of practice developed by nationally recognized
associations or independent testing laboratories.
    EPA reviewed information on more than 200 codes of practice from
more than 25 code-making groups that have been developed or revised
since the 1988 regulation.\72\ As a result of this review, EPA proposes
to add 18 codes of practice not previously listed in the 1988
regulation, remove or move 12, and update all codes of practice in the
1988 UST regulation (see the specific additions, updates, and removals
listed above). EPA is proposing to add the 18 codes of practice that
were previously not listed because they are applicable to the UST
regulation and did not exist when EPA originally promulgated the 1988
UST regulation. EPA is proposing to remove or move the 12 codes of
practice in the 1988 UST regulation for one of the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical and Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The code of practice is out of date, no longer available,
was withdrawn, or rescinded;
     The code of practice did not provide any information
appropriate to the section of the regulation where it was referenced;
     The information in the code of practice did not adequately
address the part of the regulation where it was referenced; or
     The code of practice is no longer needed.
    For example, the Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100 tank
standard was listed in Sec.  280.20(a)(3) as a code of practice for
meeting the clad tank requirement. EPA is removing this code of
practice because both the association and code of practice no longer
exist.
    In several cases, EPA is proposing to move a code of practice from
one section of the 1988 UST regulation to another section. For example,
EPA is proposing to move Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard
for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks from Sec.  280.43(g)--
interstitial monitoring to Sec.  280.20(a)(6)--secondary containment
tanks. EPA is proposing this because we are adding secondary
containment requirements to the performance standards for new UST
systems portion of this proposed UST regulation.

    Note: EPA is aware of at least one code of practice (Petroleum
Equipment Institute standard for testing of spill, overfill,
interstitial areas, and release detection)

currently being developed that could be potentially relevant to this
proposed UST regulation. Other standards may be developed before EPA
publishes a final UST regulation. If so, EPA will consider including
them in the final UST regulation.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Should other codes of practice be added to or removed from
the UST regulation? If so, please provide EPA with information about
the code and the specific location in the UST regulation where the code
should be included or removed.
     The regulations at Sec.  280.20(d) require that all tanks
and piping be properly installed in accordance with a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Since
the installation codes of practice also address other UST system
components such as spill and overfill, should EPA consider revising
Sec.  280.20(d) such that all portions of the UST system must be
installed according to a code of practice and according to
manufacturer's instructions?
    Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
3. Updates to Remove Old Upgrade and Implementation Deadlines

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to revise the UST regulation to remove references
to the 1998 deadline and old phase-in schedules, while continuing to
allow testing of corrosion protection and release detection. For those
deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, we are proposing
those systems be allowed to upgrade with spill, overfill, and corrosion
protection. EPA is proposing the following specific revisions:
    Revise upgrading of existing UST systems in the 1988 UST regulation
(Sec.  280.21).
     Remove the 1998 upgrade deadline references, but continue
to allow:
    [cir] Testing of internally-lined USTs;
    [cir] Tanks and piping with cathodic protection; and
    [cir] Upgrades of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to
regulate, including wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant
systems, UST systems with field-constructed tanks, and UST systems that
store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators. See section C
for additional information on deferred UST systems.
     Require UST systems not upgraded with corrosion
protection, spill, or overfill prevention be permanently closed
according to subpart G, unless the implementing agency determines an
upgrade is appropriate or the UST system was deferred in the 1988 UST
regulation.
    Revise release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation.
     Section 280.40
    [cir] Remove phase-in schedule for release detection probabilities;
    [cir] Remove phase-in schedule for release detection monitoring;
    [cir] Remove references to upgrade deadlines;
    [cir] Remove references to existing USTs; and
    [cir] Address deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate,
add language about implementing release detection monitoring for these
systems in Sec.  280.40(c).
     Section 280.41
    [cir] Remove inventory control and annual tightness testing as a
regulatory option;
    [cir] Remove reference to upgrade deadlines; and
    [cir] Make the inventory control and five year tightness testing
language historical by putting language in this section in the past
tense.
     Section 280.42
    [cir] Remove 1998 references and upgrade language for existing
hazardous substance UST systems.
    EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in schedule in Sec.  280.91 of
subpart H to acknowledge that financial responsibility implementation
deadlines are passed and remove references to Sec.  280.91 and the
deadlines in Sec.  280.90. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise
Sec.  280.91 to reference the phase-in schedule for deferred UST
systems EPA is proposing to regulate at Sec.  280.10.

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    EPA is proposing these changes to acknowledge that the 1998
deadline for upgrading UST systems with release prevention and the
1990s release detection and financial responsibility deadlines passed
more than a decade ago. Owners and operators had more than two decades
to upgrade their UST systems and meet the 1988 UST regulation. In
addition, all UST facilities have been inspected at least once and are
required to meet release detection, release prevention, and financial
responsibility requirements. EPA is proposing owners and operators of
upgraded UST systems continue conducting cathodic protection and
internal lining testing consistent with how they previously performed
these tests.
    For release detection, EPA is proposing to eliminate the phase-in
for both release detection probabilities and release detection
monitoring. EPA is proposing to eliminate these two phase-in parts
because the deadlines for implementing these requirements have passed.
Owners and operators have been implementing these requirements for more
than two decades. The last phase-in period applied to systems installed
between 1980 and 1988, giving owners and operators until 1993 to meet
the subpart D requirements. Any new UST installed after 1993 had to
meet release detection requirements when installed.
    To meet the release detection requirement, Sec.  280.41 allows
owners and operators of USTs less than 10 years old to use a
combination of monthly inventory control with tank tightness testing
every five years, until the UST has been installed for 10 years. When
the UST is 10 years old, owners and operators must use another release
detection method listed in subpart D. For new and replaced UST systems
installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation,
interstitial monitoring will be required. The new interstitial
monitoring requirement will make inventory control and tank tightness
testing obsolete as a release detection method 10 years after the UST
regulation is finalized.
    For hazardous substance UST systems release detection, EPA is
proposing to remove 1998 deadline and upgrade references. The 1988 UST
regulation in Sec.  280.41 required existing UST systems meet the
requirements for petroleum UST systems until 1998. After 1998, all new
and existing hazardous substance UST systems must meet requirements for
new hazardous substance UST systems. Since the 1998 deadline has
passed, these changes will clarify the hazardous substance UST system
requirements.
    For financial responsibility, EPA is proposing to remove the phase-
in dates in Sec.  280.91. These phase-in dates passed more than a
decade ago and are no longer needed. In addition, Sec.  280.90(b) and
(e) contain references to Sec.  280.91 and compliance dates that need
to be removed.
    UST systems with field constructed tanks, airport hydrant systems,
and wastewater treatment tank systems may be upgraded according to
Sec.  280.21. However, EPA is proposing to no longer allow UST systems
regulated under the 1988 UST regulation to be upgraded if they have
never met the upgrade requirements. Unless the implementing

agency determines that an UST system is acceptable to upgrade, non-
upgraded UST systems must be permanently closed according to the
closure requirements in subpart G. UST systems that have not been
upgraded are older and have been in the ground for more than two
decades. In addition, metal USTs and piping without corrosion
protection pose a significant risk to human health and the environment
because the metal in contact with soil corrodes. EPA is proposing that
implementing agencies make case-by-case determinations on when to allow
upgrades. EPA does not expect implementing agencies to allow continued
use of USTs or piping not upgraded with corrosion protection. However,
some implementing agencies may decide to allow owners and operators of
UST systems with corrosion protection, but without spill or overfill
prevention, to add spill or overfill prevention instead of requiring
permanent closure.
    The proposed requirements in Sec.  280.21 will allow UST systems
EPA is proposing to no longer defer to be upgraded. See section C for
additional information on upgrading these UST systems.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Does removing the deadlines and making upgrades historical
cause any unintended regulatory consequences?
     Should EPA consider not allowing the implementing agency
the flexibility of making a determination to allow an upgrade?
    Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
4. Editorial and Technical Corrections

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing these editorial corrections to the 1988 UST
regulation:
     Where ``industry codes'' and ``codes and standards'' are
used, replace with ``codes of practice''
     Revise to appropriately use the terms: part, subpart,
section, and paragraph
     Section 280.10(c)(3)--change ``10 CFR part 50 Appendix A''
to ``10 CFR part 50''
     Section 280.20(a)(2), paragraph (C) in the note--change
``G03.1'' to ``603.1''
     Section 280.21(b)(2)(iii)--change ``by conducting two (2)
tightness tests that meet the requirements of Sec.  280.43(c). The
first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic
protection system. The second tightness test must be conducted between
three (3) and six (6) months following the first operation of the
cathodic protection system; or'' to ``by conducting two tightness tests
that meet the requirements of Sec.  280.43(c). The first tightness test
must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic protection system.
The second tightness test must be conducted between three and six
months following the first operation of the cathodic protection system;
or''
     Section 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C)--change ``operator'' to
``transfer operator''
     Section 280.22(a)--change ``Any owner who brings an
underground storage tank system into use after May 8, 1986, must within
30 days of bringing such tank into use, submit, in the form prescribed
in Appendix I of this part, a notice of existence of such tank system
to the state or local agency or department designated in Appendix II of
this part to receive such notice.'' to ``After May 8, 1986, an owner
must submit notice of a tank system's existence to the implementing
agency within 30 days of bringing the underground storage tank system
into use. Owners must use the form in Appendix I of this part.''
     Section 280.22(g)--change ``The form provided in Appendix
III of this part may be used to comply with this requirement.'' to
``The statement provided in Appendix III of this part, when used on
shipping tickets and invoices, may be used to comply with this
requirement.''
     Section 280.31--change ``for as long as the UST system is
used to store regulated substances'' to ``until the UST system is
permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to Sec.
280.71.''
     Section 280.31--change ``steel'' to ``metal''
     Section 280.33(c)--change ``fiberglass pipes'' to ``non-
corrodible pipes''
     Section 280.33(g)--change ``for the remaining operating
life of the UST system'' to ``until the UST system is permanently
closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to Sec.  280.71.''
     Section 280.34--change ``Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act'' to ``Solid Waste Disposal Act''
     Section 280.34(b)(2)--change cite from ``280.31'' to
``280.31(d)''
     Section 280.40(a)(3)--change ``probability of detection
(Pd) of 0.95 and probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05.'' to
``probability of detection of 0.95 and probability of false alarm of
0.05.''
     Section 280.41(b)(2)--change ``conduct'' to ``conducted''
     Section 280.42(a)(1)(ii)--change ``released from the tank
system'' to ``leaked from the primary containment''
     Section 280.42(d)--delete ``jacketing of'' from ``* * *
jacketing of double-walled pipe)* * *''
     Section 280.43(b)(4)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
     Section 280.43(b)(5)--delete ``manual'' from ``manual
inventory control''
     Section 280.52(a)(1)--change ``repair, replace, or upgrade
the UST system'' to ``repair, replace, upgrade, or close the UST
system''
     Section 280.52(a)(1)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
     Section 280.52(a)(2)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
     Section 280.52(a)(3)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
     Section 280.92--definition for provider of financial
assurance--change ``Sec. Sec.  280.95-280.103'' to ``Sec. Sec.  280.95-
280.107''
     Section 280.92, Sec.  280.95(b)(1)(iii), Sec.
280.95(c)(5), and Sec.  280.95(d)--change ``Rural Electrification
Administration'' to ``Rural Utilities Service''
     Section 280.94(a)(1)--change ``Sec. Sec.  280.95-280.103''
to ``Sec. Sec.  280.95-280.107''
     Section 280.95(b)(1)(ii)--change ``165.145'' to ``Sec.
265.145''
     Section 280.95(c)(5)(i)--change ``form'' to ``from''
     Section 280.95(d)--change ``[insert: ``suddent accidential
releases'' and/or ``nonsudden accidential releases]'' to ``[insert:
``sudden accidental releases'' or ``nonsudden accidental releases'' or
``accidental releases'']''
     Section 280.95(d)--change ``Liabilitly'' to ``Liability''
under Letter From Chief Financial Officer
     Section 280.95(d)--change ``lastest'' to ``latest'' under
Letter From Chief Financial Officer, Alternative I, Number 11
     Section 280.95(d)--remove ``$'' symbol for Number 8 under
Alternative II of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer
     Section 280.95(d)--add ``$'' symbol for Numbers 13 and 14
under Alternative II of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer
     Section 280.96(b)--change ``Sec.  280.110(c)'' to ``Sec.
280.114(e)''
     Section 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3)--change three
``40 CFR 280.108'' citations to ``40 CFR Sec.  280.112''
     Section 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3)--change
``accidential'' to ``accidental''
     Section 280.96(d)--change ``280.108'' to ``Sec.  280.112''
     Section 280.97(a)--change ``Sec.  290.93'' to ``Sec.
280.93''

     Section 280.98(b)--change ``Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)'' to Solid Waste Disposal Act''
     Section 280.98(b), Performance Bond, paragraph 4,--change
``[* * * either ``sudden'' or ``nonsudden'' or ``sudden and
nonsudden''] accidental releases arising from'' to ``either ``sudden
accidental releases'' or ``nonsudden accidental releases'' or
``accidental releases''] arising from * * *''
     Section 280.98(b)--change two ``40 CFR 280.108'' citations
to ``40 CFR 280.112''
     Section 280.98(b)--add end brackets to ``State of
Incorporation'' and ``Liability Limit''
     Section 280.98(d)--change ``40 CFR 280.108'' citation to
``40 CFR 280.112''
     Section 280.99(b)--change ``Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976'' to Solid Waste Disposal Act''
     Section 280.99(b)--change ``persuant'' to ``pursuant''
     Section 280.99(b)--change ``curent'' to ``current''
     Section 280.99(c)--change ``40 CFR 280.108'' citation to
``40 CFR 280.112''
     Section 280.101(d)--change ``280.107(b)(5)'' to ``Sec.
280.111(b)(8)''
     Section 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, paragraph 2--
change ``standpoint'' to ``[insert ``standby'' where trust agreement is
standby trust agreement]''
     Section 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4--add
opening quotation mark for ``Third-Party Liability Claims''
     Section 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4--add
opening quotation mark for ``compensating third parties for bodily
injury and property damage caused by''
     Section 280.104(b)--change ``Moody's rating of Aaa, A, A''
to ``Moody's rating of Aaa, Aa, A''
     Section 280.104(b)--change ``refunded issues and'' to
``refunded issues, and''
     Section 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer--
change ``[insert: ``sudden accidental releases'' and/or ``nonsudden
accidental releases'']'' to ``[insert: ``sudden accidental releases''
or ``nonsudden accidental releases'' or ``accidental releases'']''.
Note that this change occurs in two places in the letter.
     Section 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer,
last paragraph--change ``not backed by third-party credit enhancement
or are insured by a municipal bond insurance company.'' to ``not backed
by third-party credit enhancement or insured by a municipal bond
insurance company.''
     Section 280.105(c)--change ``[insert: ``sudden accidental
releases'' and/or ``nonsudden accidental releases'']'' to ``[insert:
``sudden accidental releases'' or ``nonsudden accidental releases'' or
``accidental releases'']''
     Section 280.105(c)--change 10(a) and 11(a) under Worksheet
for Municipal Financial Test, Part II from ``Debt Service (from 4d)''
to ``Debt Service (from 4c)''
     Section 280.106(a)(1)--change ``Sec.  280.104(c)'' to
``Sec.  280.104(d) and Sec.  280.104(e)''
     Section 280.106(b)--change ``Sec.  280.114(c)'' to ``Sec.
280.114(e)''
     Section 280.106(d), under Local Government Guarantee With
Standby Trust Made by a State, recital 7d--change ``loaded'' to
``loaned''
     Section 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee
Without Standby Trust Made by a State, recital 7d--change ``loaded'' to
``loaned''
     Section 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee
Without Standby Trust Made by a Local Government, recital 8d--change
``loaded'' to ``loaned''
     Section 280.107(d)--change ``[insert: ``sudden accidental
releases'' and/or ``nonsudden accidental releases'']'' to ``[insert:
``sudden accidental releases'' or ``nonsudden accidental releases'' or
``accidental releases'']''
     Section 280.107(d), third paragraph under Letter From
Chief Financial Officer--change ``ten'' to ``five''
     Section 280.109(b)(3)--change ``Sec.  280.107(b)'' to
``Sec.  280.111(b)''
     Section 280.111(b)(9)(ii)--change ``Sec.  280.107(a)(3)''
to ``Sec.  280.107(c)''
     Section 280.111(b)(9)(iii)--change ``Sec.  280.107(a)(3)''
to ``Sec.  280.107(c)''
     Section 280.111(b)(9)(iii)--change ``Sec.
280.107(a)(3)(i)'' to ``Sec.  280.107(c)(1)''
     Section 280.111(b)(9)(iii)--change ``Sec.
280.107(a)(3)(ii)'' to ``Sec.  280.107(c)(2)''
     Section 280.113--change ``properly'' to ``permanently''

EPA is proposing these technical corrections to the 1988 UST
regulation:
     Section 280.12--revise exclusion (d) of the definition of
UST to incorporate a revision in section 9001 of the SWDA as shown
below
    ``(d) Pipeline facility (including gathering lines):
    (1) Which is regulated under chapter 601 of Title 49, or
    (2) Which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under state
laws as provided in chapter 601 of Title 49,

and which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
connected to a pipeline or to be operated or intended to be capable of
operating at pipeline pressure or as an integral part of a pipeline;''
     Section 280.43(b)(1)--replace ``a period of at least 36
hours'' with ``the minimum duration of test in the table below''; this
updates current UST capacity allowances when using manual tank gauging
as a method of release detection
    [cir] Section 280.43(b)(4)--replace existing table with the one
below; this ensures information in the table is consistent with the
change in Sec.  280.43(b)(1)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Minimum duration of    Weekly standard (one   Monthly standard (four test
       Nominal tank capacity                  test                    test)                    average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
550 gallons or less................  36 hours..............  10 gallons............  5 gallons.
551-1,000 gallons (when tank         44 hours..............  9 gallons.............  4 gallons.
 diameter is 64'').
551-1,000 gallons (when tank         58 hours..............  12 gallons............  6 gallons.
 diameter is 48'').
551-1,000 gallons (also requires     36 hours..............  13 gallons............  7 gallons.
 periodic tank tightness testing).
1,001-2,000 gallons (also requires   36 hours..............  26 gallons............  13 gallons.
 periodic tank tightness testing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Section 280.41(a)(2)--modify tank sizes in text so it is
consistent with the table above. ``Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons
or less and tanks with a capacity of 551 to 1000 gallons that meet the
tank diameter criteria in Sec.  280.43(b) may use manual tank gauging
(conducted in accordance with Sec.  280.43(b))''; and

    [cir] Section 280.43(b)(5)--modify tank sizes in text so it is
consistent with the table above. ``Tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal
capacity and tanks with a nominal capacity of 551 to 1000 gallons that
meet the tank diameter criteria in the table in (b)(4) may use this as
the sole method of release detection. All other tanks with a nominal
capacity of 551 to 2,000 gallons may use the method in place of manual
inventory control in Sec.  280.43(a). Tanks of greater than 2,000
gallons nominal capacity may not use this method to meet the
requirements of this subpart.''
     Section 280.43--remove the requirement for inventory
control in the automatic tank gauging release detection method
     Section 280.92--change the definition of accidental
release from ``release of petroleum from an underground storage tank''
to ``release of petroleum arising from operating an underground storage
tank''
     Section 280.104(h)--add this subsection: ``(h) If the
local government owner or operator fails to obtain alternate assurance
within 150 days of finding that it no longer meets the requirements of
the bond rating test or within 30 days of notification by the Director
of the implementing agency that it no longer meets the requirements of
the bond rating test, the owner or operator must notify the Director of
such failure within 10 days.''
     Revise Appendix III to read: ``Note. A federal law (the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, requires owners of certain
underground storage tanks to notify implementing agencies of the
existence of their tanks. Notifications must be made within 30 days of
bringing the tank into use. Consult EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 280.22
to determine if you are affected by this law.''

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    EPA is proposing to make editorial and technical corrections to the
1988 UST regulation. Proposed editorial corrections include: correcting
misspellings; capitalizing words; removing unused acronyms; using
conventional number formatting; and appropriately referring to parts,
subparts, sections, and paragraphs. In addition, EPA is proposing
technical corrections which include updating the regulation to
incorporate statutory changes that occurred since the 1988 regulation
was promulgated and clarifying long-standing Agency policies.
    The editorial change to Sec.  280.10(c)(3) makes the citation to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation more general, in the event
requirements for emergency generator UST systems at nuclear power
facilities are moved from Appendix A to some other part of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission regulation.
    The editorial change to Sec.  280.22(a) makes the language easier
to understand and consistent with the proposed new paragraphs of Sec.
280.22(b) and Sec.  280.22(h).
    The editorial change to Sec.  280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C) clarifies that
the transfer operator needs to be alerted. This change makes the
language consistent with Sec.  280.20(c)(1)(ii)(B). The editorial
change to Sec.  280.22(g) clarifies the content of and how to use
Appendix III of the 1988 UST regulation to meet the notification
requirement.
    The editorial changes to Sec.  280.31 will eliminate any potential
confusion with the temporary closure requirement and ensure all metal
components comply with this section. Temporary closure requires owners
and operators operate and maintain corrosion protection even when the
UST system is emptied. The operation and maintenance of corrosion
section indicates that releases due to corrosion must be prevented as
long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances. While EPA
has interpreted that the UST system is used to store regulated
substances even if it is empty during temporary closure, this proposed
change will clarify this position. In addition, UST systems have metal
components, other than steel, protected from corrosion. Changing the
word steel to metal at the beginning of this section will make it clear
that the operation and maintenance requirements for corrosion
protection apply to all metal components.
    The editorial change to Sec.  280.33(g) will clarify when the
operating life of an UST system ends. EPA does not define an operating
life; rather, we describe permanent closure and change-in-service. With
this change, EPA is proposing the operating life of an UST system ends
when an owner or operator permanently closes the UST system or the UST
system undergoes a change-in-service from regulated to unregulated.
    EPA is proposing a technical correction to revise the definition of
UST as it relates to pipeline facilities. This revision directly
incorporates a change made to Section 9001 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act after the 1988 UST regulation was promulgated.
    EPA is proposing a technical correction to clarify that hazardous
substance USTs must be able to contain regulated substances released
from the UST system until the substances are detected and removed.
Based on the 1988 UST regulation definition of release, the statement
implies that a regulated substance has reached the environment. Because
a regulated substance should be contained in the UST system's secondary
containment, EPA is proposing to change the term released to leaked,
indicating a leak occurred from the primary containment but did not
reach the environment. Therefore, secondary containment would then
contain the leak. The editorial change to Sec.  280.42(d) removes
confusion about whether piping that is already double-walled also needs
to be jacketed.
    EPA is proposing technical corrections to Sec.  280.43(d) which
will codify long-standing Agency policies for using manual tank gauging
and automatic tank gauging. These changes update UST capacity
allowances when using manual tank gauging and remove the requirement
for USTs using automatic tank gauging to conduct additional inventory
control. Since 1990 and 1989, EPA allowed these deviations from the
1988 UST regulation through policy for manual tank gauging and
automatic tank gauging, respectively. EPA also stated these allowances
in our publications: Manual Tank Gauging For Small Underground Storage
Tanks; Musts For USTs: A Summary of Federal Regulations For Underground
Storage Tank Systems; and Straight Talk On Tanks: Leak Detection
Methods For Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks And Piping. With regard
to manual tank gauging, note the expanded coverage of larger tanks is
limited in some respects by the diameter of the tank as noted in the
revised table.
    EPA is proposing to add closure as an option at Sec.  280.52(a)(1)
to provide owners and operators additional flexibility when suspected
and confirmed releases occur.
    EPA is proposing an editorial correction of ``leak'' to ``release''
in Sec.  280.43(b)(4) and Sec.  280.52(a)(1), (2), and (3) because
release is defined as regulated substance reaching the environment in
the 1988 UST regulation.
    EPA is updating references of ``Rural Electrification
Administration'' (REA) to ``Rural Utilities Services'' (RUS). Under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, REA reorganized to RUS.
    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of ``accidental release''
under Sec.  280.92 so it matches the definition stated in the original
preamble for the financial responsibility requirements

(53 FR 43334). EPA intended the definition in the preamble to be
included in the 1988 UST regulation, but two important words were
inadvertently omitted. By changing this, EPA is clarifying that owners
and operators are required to have financial responsibility for
releases arising from operating USTs (including releases due to filling
USTs and releases occurring at dispensers).
    The editorial change to Sec.  280.103(b)(1) will correct a
typographical error [i.e., ``standpoint''] and clarify the trust fund
language.
    The editorial change to the last paragraph of the Letter to the
Chief Financial Officer under Sec.  280.104(e) clarifies that no credit
enhancement of any type is permitted for revenue bonds, consistent with
the preamble to the 1988 UST regulation (58 FR 9033).
    The editorial addition of Sec.  280.104(h) will make requirements
for the local government bond rating test under Sec.  280.104
consistent with requirements of the financial test under Sec.
280.95(g). EPA included this requirement for private owners and
operators in the 1988 UST regulation but inadvertently omitted it for
local government owners and operators.
    The editorial change to the third paragraph of the Letter From
Chief Financial Officer under Sec.  280.107(d) will make the wording of
the letter consistent with the amount of coverage required in Sec.
280.107(b).
    EPA defines and discusses permanent closure, not proper closure, in
the 1988 UST regulation. This clarified that in Sec.  280.113,
financial responsibility is required during temporary closure.
    The update to Appendix III removes old dates and clarifies the
language in the statement for shipping tickets and invoices.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

     Are there other editorial corrections (such as
typographical errors or inaccurate references) EPA should make?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.

F. Alternative Options EPA Considered

What options did EPA consider?

    In developing today's proposed regulatory changes (hereafter the
Preferred Option), EPA considered and evaluated variations of a subset
of the proposed regulatory requirements using two alternative options
(hereafter Option 1 and Option 2). The table below highlights
differences between our Preferred Option and Options 1 and 2. Some of
the proposed regulatory requirements do not vary across the options
(for example, notification of ownership changes is required in all
three). As a result, proposed regulatory changes discussed earlier in
the preamble, but not listed here, mean those changes are in effect in
all three options. Overall, Options 1 and 2 consist of regulatory
changes that are more and less stringent, respectively, than proposed
changes in the Preferred Option. After reviewing comments, EPA may use
one or more of these options in whole or in part to establish the final
UST regulation.

                               Comparison of Preferred Option and Options 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Options
        Proposed requirement         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Preferred                    1                         2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walkthrough inspections.............  Monthly................  Monthly................  Quarterly.
Overfill prevention equipment tests.  3 year.................  1 year.................  3 year.
Spill prevention equipment tests....  1 year.................  Require replacement      1 year.
                                                                every 3 years (no
                                                                testing).
Secondary containment tests.........  3 year.................  1 year.................  Not required.
Elimination of flow restrictors in    Required...............  Required...............  No change.
 vent lines for all new tanks and
 when overfill devices are replaced.
Operability tests for release         1 year.................  1 year.................  3 year.
 detection methods.
Change leak rate probabilities from   Not required...........  Required...............  Not required.
 95/5 to 99/1 (Pd/Pfa).
Eliminate groundwater and vapor       5-year phase-out.......  Immediately............  No change.
 monitoring as release detection
 methods.
Remove deferrals for airport hydrant  Regulate under           Require them to meet     Maintain deferrals.
 fuel distribution systems and UST     alternative release      same release detection
 systems with field-constructed        detection requirements.  requirements as
 tanks.                                                         conventional USTs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below we explain Options 1 and 2, as well as our rationale for
each. (Note that EPA conducted a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for
all three options. The results are discussed in the RIA document titled
Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The
Proposed Revisions To EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations which
is available in the docket for this proposed regulation.)

What is EPA's rationale for Option 1?

    In Option 1, EPA considered requiring annual tests of overfill
prevention equipment and interstitial areas. EPA assessed the costs of
conducting annual tests for these components and decided instead to
propose overfill prevention equipment testing and interstitial
integrity testing every three years. This will reduce the overall
compliance cost burden on owners and operators without significantly
compromising benefits of these tests. When compared to other components
such as spill prevention equipment, both interstitial areas and
overfill prevention equipment are less likely to fail or be damaged.
Overfill prevention equipment is in the tank; interstitial areas for
tanks and piping are typically buried several feet underground. Spill
prevention equipment encounters frequent human and climate interaction,
making it prone to frequent damage and failure. Secondary containment
reduces the likelihood that a release into the environment will occur
because a leak is contained if a breach of the inner wall occurs. As a
result, less frequent periodic tests of overfill prevention equipment
and interstitial areas would adequately ensure the integrity and
functionality of equipment. In addition, a three year test requirement
for these two components will match the inspection cycle, allowing
inspectors to ensure tests are completed. Therefore,

testing overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas every
three years is sufficient.
    In Option 1, EPA considered mandatory replacement of spill
prevention equipment every three years, regardless of the spill
prevention equipment's condition. As discussed earlier in the preamble,
various sources indicated spill prevention equipment is a major source
of confirmed releases and typically has a short lifespan. After EPA
evaluated the cost of requiring spill prevention equipment replacement
every three years, we determined the cost burden of this requirement on
owners and operators would be significant. While developing today's
proposal, EPA made a conscious effort to limit removing or replacing
existing UST system equipment (for example, eliminating the use of ball
floats as a form of overfill prevention in new tanks instead of
requiring removal in existing tanks) to minimize impacts on owners and
operators, both in terms of reducing compliance costs and interrupting
daily operations. As a result, EPA instead is proposing annual tests of
spill prevention equipment. This balances the benefits of properly
functioning spill prevention equipment with the potential costs imposed
on owners and operators.
    When considering changes to existing release detection
requirements, EPA evaluated the possibility of modifying the leak
probability of detection (Pd) from 95 percent to 99 percent and the
leak probability of false alarm (Pfa) from 5 percent to 1 percent. EPA
initially believed increasing the Pd rate for release detection
equipment performance would be a relatively low cost action that would
significantly increase identifying potential releases to the
environment. EPA also believed that decreasing the Pfa rate would be a
relatively low cost means of reducing the number of nuisance alarms
owners and operators experience. Because they would have a higher
confidence that alarms identify real problems, owners and operators
would be more likely to respond. Even though most equipment in use
today is capable of meeting more stringent probability rates, almost
all release detection devices would require some modification to
achieve these results. Even a relatively minor software upgrade could
be a significant cost to owners and operators. In addition, release
detection vendors would need to perform significant testing and
verification to determine whether their equipment would meet the new
Pd/Pfa rates. After considering the potential cost impacts, other
proposed requirements, such as training owners and operators and
requiring periodic walkthrough inspections, are sound alternatives for
environmental protection. Therefore, EPA instead is proposing periodic
operation and maintenance for existing release detection equipment to
ensure its proper operation.
    EPA is proposing to eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring as
permissible methods of release detection. In Option 1, EPA considered
an immediate ban of these two options as release detection methods
because inspectors told us these methods are unsuitable and should be
removed as soon as possible. Approximately 5 percent of UST systems use
groundwater or vapor monitoring for release detection, which means the
affected population of users is relatively small. Yet EPA recognizes
this would require retrofitting or replacing existing equipment. To
accommodate owners and operators and provide them with sufficient lead
time to meet this requirement, EPA today is proposing a five year phase
out for owners and operators to select, install, and begin using
another method of release detection.
    In evaluating release detection methods suitable for UST systems
with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution
systems, EPA considered requiring these tanks and systems comply with
the same release detection requirements conventional UST systems meet
under 40 CFR part 280, subpart D. After assessing costs, technical
feasibility, and potential impacts to facility operations, EPA decided
to propose a release detection regulatory structure specific to field-
constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution piping, per
Sec.  280.46 and Sec.  280.47, respectively. It is sometimes impossible
for very large tanks and piping volumes to achieve thresholds for
current release detection methods. When a threshold is achievable, the
time needed to reach it is often very long and impractical. The RIA
indicates the total annual costs to meet conventional release detection
requirements are $153 million, while total annual costs under the
proposed alternative release detection requirements are $23 million. As
a result, it is appropriate to propose release detection methods
specific to these systems. This will effectively protect the
environment by quickly detecting releases from these tanks and piping.

What is EPA's rationale for Option 2?

    In comparing costs with benefits of potential proposed changes, EPA
weighed different frequencies for walkthrough inspections and periodic
equipment testing. In Option 2, EPA assessed quarterly walkthrough
inspections and not requiring interstitial integrity testing as ways to
reduce potential cost impacts on owners and operators. While quarterly
walkthrough inspections would reduce costs to owners and operators, EPA
is taking the position that a period less frequent than monthly
walkthrough inspections would considerably reduce benefits. High
operator turnover, frequency of small leaks at dispensers and
submersible turbine sumps, and frequency of deliveries all contribute
to the need for monthly walkthrough inspections. With that in mind, EPA
today is proposing monthly walkthrough inspections so owners and
operators can consistently and routinely verify proper UST system
component performance. This will ensure problems are detected before a
release occurs or contaminates the environment.
    The 1988 UST regulation does not require owners and operators to
ensure the integrity of secondarily contained areas, and EPA considered
not requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing. Because of the
Energy Policy Act secondary containment requirement for nearly all new
and replaced tanks and piping, all UST systems will eventually be
secondarily contained (including interstitial monitoring for release
detection) and we should require periodic interstitial integrity
testing to ensure leaks into secondary containment areas will be
properly detected and contained. As described in Option 1, EPA
considered annual interstitial integrity testing, but decided to
propose a three year testing requirement, which will lower cost impacts
of this requirement on owners and operators while retaining the
environmental benefit of testing.
    To reduce total compliance costs of today's proposal for owners and
operators, EPA considered allowing continued use of flow restrictors in
vent lines (that is, ball float valves) as an acceptable form of
overfill prevention equipment. After considering stakeholders'
concerns, EPA is taking the position that vent line flow restrictors
present problems for operability and safety reasons. As described
previously, EPA is proposing to eliminate ball float valves as overfill
prevention for all new tanks and when overfill prevention is replaced
in existing tanks.
    EPA considered maintaining groundwater and vapor monitoring as
acceptable forms of release detection in Option 2. All tanks and piping
will

eventually use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring as
their release detection method, and as a result, groundwater and vapor
monitoring will eventually not be used. Stakeholders raised concerns
about these two release detection methods, more than other methods. For
both groundwater and vapor monitoring, releases travel through the
environment to sampling points before releases are discovered. Other
release detection methods provide more immediate detection of releases.
In addition, numerous concerns were raised about frequent
misapplications and improper designs of monitoring wells for these two
methods. Consequently, EPA today is proposing to phase out groundwater
and vapor monitoring as release detection methods. This will address
stakeholders' concerns that UST systems using these two methods
represent an unacceptable risk to the environment.

V. Updates to State Program Approval Requirements

What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing these substantive changes to the 1988 state
program approval (SPA) regulation (40 CFR part 281) to make it
consistent with certain Energy Policy Act requirements and certain
proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical regulation (40 CFR part
280).
     Section 281.30(a), Sec.  281.33(c)(2), and Sec.
281.33(d)(3)--require secondary containment for new or replaced tanks
and piping and under-dispenser containment for new motor fuel dispenser
systems for UST systems located within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking
water well or community water system, unless a state requires
manufacturer and installer financial responsibility according to Sec.
9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
     Section 281.30(b)--eliminate flow restrictors for new or
replaced overfill prevention.
     Section 281.30(c)--add notification for ownership changes.
     Section 281.31 and Sec.  281.33(b) and (c)--delete
upgrading requirements and eliminate phase-in schedule; add phase-in
schedule for previously deferred UST systems.
     Section 281.32(e) and (f) and Sec.  281.33(a)(3)--add
periodic testing of spill and overfill prevention equipment, secondary
containment areas, and mechanical and electronic components; and
operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as
maintaining associated records.
     Section 281.33(c)--limit use of monthly inventory control
in combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years
for the first 10 years after the tank is installed or upgraded, if the
tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA.
     Section 281.33(e)--require hazardous substance USTs to
only use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring.
     Section 281.34(a)(1)--add ``interstitial space may have
been compromised'' to suspected releases.
     Section 281.37--eliminate phase-in requirement for
financial responsibility.
     Section 281.39--require operator training according to
Sec.  9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
     Section 281.41(a)--require states to have delivery
prohibition in accordance with Sec.  9012 of the SWDA.
     Section 281.60--add requirement for the Administrator to
initiate proceedings to withdraw program approval when an approved
program fails to submit a revised application within three years of 40
CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision, which will follow
the proceedings procedures from the 1988 SPA regulation.
    EPA is not proposing to add the proposed compatibility requirement
changes (see Sec.  280.32) to 40 CFR part 281.
    EPA is also proposing these technical changes to the SPA
regulation.
     Section 281.10--change ``subpart'' to ``part''.
     Section 281.11(c), Sec.  281.12(b)(2), Sec.  281.20(d),
Sec.  281.21(a)(2), Sec.  281.23, Sec.  281.50(a), and formerly Sec.
281.51--eliminate interim approval.
     Section 281.12(a)(2)--change ``Indian lands'' to ``Indian
country''.
     Formerly Sec.  281.32(e)--eliminate requirement to
maintain upgrade records.
     Formerly Sec.  281.38--eliminate reserved section for
financial responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances.
     Move Sec.  281.39 to Sec.  281.38--Lender Liability.
     Section 281.51, formerly Sec.  281.52--add requirement for
approved states to submit a revised application within three years of
40 CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision.
     Section 281.61--move Sec.  281.60(b) to Sec.
281.61(b)(2).

Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?

    The 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR part 281 sets criteria state UST
programs must meet to receive EPA's approval to operate in lieu of the
federal UST program. The 1988 SPA regulation sets performance criteria
states must meet to be considered no less stringent than the 1988 UST
regulation (hereafter 40 CFR part 280) and provides requirements for
states to have adequate enforcement. It also details the components of
a SPA application.
    EPA is proposing certain changes to the 1988 SPA regulation to make
it consistent with today's proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical
regulation. By doing so, EPA will require states to adopt UST technical
regulation changes when final, in order to obtain or retain SPA. EPA is
proposing to keep the general format of the 1988 SPA regulation. We are
not proposing to make the SPA regulation as explicit or prescriptive as
the UST technical regulation. Finally, EPA is proposing technical
corrections and adding a deadline for state program revisions whenever
EPA makes substantive changes to the SPA regulation.
Addressing Energy Policy Act Requirements and Proposed 40 CFR Part 280
Changes
How SPA Works
    EPA's proposed UST technical regulation changes and Energy Policy
Act requirements primarily impact the 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR
part 281, Subpart C--Criteria for No Less Stringent. Thirty-six states,
plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have state program
approval and run their own underground storage tank programs in lieu of
the federal program. To ensure these jurisdictions, and any other
states or territories obtaining SPA, adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes
when final, EPA must update Subpart C. To continue providing states
with flexibility and not disrupt current state programs, EPA is
proposing to revise the SPA regulation to make it consistent with, but
not identical to, the 40 CFR part 280 changes. Instead, EPA is
proposing changes to the SPA regulation in a less prescriptive manner
than in the changes in 40 CFR part 280. EPA decided to continue this
successful approach to implement the UST SPA program.
    The 1988 SPA regulation developed no less stringent criteria in the
form of objectives.\73\ EPA is continuing this format so that, taken as
a whole, state programs will be no less stringent than the federal
requirements, even though they may deviate slightly from what is
explicitly required in 40 CFR part 280.

For example, Sec.  281.30 covers the no less stringent requirement for
new UST system design, construction, and installation; it corresponds
to Sec.  280.20 of the UST technical regulation, but is much less
explicit about requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 185, September 23, 1988,
page 37216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Sec.  281.30 and to receive SPA, a state must require
all new UST systems ``* * * [b]e designed, constructed, and installed
in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life due to
manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion * * *''. In
contrast, Sec.  280.20 is much more explicit about how tank owners and
operators ensure their tanks and piping prevent releases. It states
what is required to prevent releases and provides codes of practice to
comply. Although Sec.  281.30 is less explicit, it nonetheless ensures
owners and operators in approved states install UST systems that
prevent releases and provides states flexibility in achieving that
goal.
Proposed Goal Oriented Changes
    EPA is proposing these goal oriented changes to Subpart C--Criteria
for No Less Stringent. By the term ``goal oriented changes,'' EPA means
changes in which states have some flexibility as to how they will meet
the goals of the particular SPA regulation section. They reflect
certain 40 CFR part 280 proposed changes.
     Sec.  281.30(c)--add notification for ownership changes.
     Sec.  281.31 and Sec.  281.33(b)--add a phase-in schedule
for upgrading previously deferred UST systems.
     Sec.  281.32(e) and (f) and Sec.  281.33(a)(3)--add
periodic testing of spill and overfill prevention equipment, secondary
containment areas, and mechanical and electronic components; and
operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as
maintaining associated records.

EPA's proposed ownership change notification requires anyone who
assumes ownership of an UST system to notify the implementing agency
within 30 days of assuming ownership and specifies what notification
must include. Our proposed SPA regulation change in Sec.  281.30(c) is
much less prescriptive and indicates states require owners and
operators to ``* * * adequately notify the implementing state agency
within a reasonable timeframe when assuming ownership of an UST system
using a form designated by the state agency.'' This provides states
some flexibility in complying, including allowing them to continue
relying on an annual tank registration program to meet this
requirement. This is a reasonable way to ensure states know who owns
USTs in their jurisdiction. EPA does not have an annual registration
program, so we specify a timeframe in Sec.  280.22 because we want to
know who owns tanks in jurisdictions where we are the implementing
agency.
    In Sec.  280.21, EPA is proposing that previously deferred
wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant fuel distribution
systems, and UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet specific
upgrade requirements. This is one way of achieving the goal states need
to meet in Sec.  281.31. In Sec.  281.31, states will be required to
ensure tanks are upgraded to prevent releases due to corrosion, spills,
and overfills or be permanently closed. These more general requirements
are sufficient for a state program to protect human health and the
environment because they require UST systems to ``* * * prevent
releases for their operating life * * *''. EPA finds it is also
adequate to upgrade previously deferred systems to this standard.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing previously deferred UST systems be
upgraded within three years of a state submitting its SPA application
for approval or revision. In the past, EPA experienced problems with
requiring states to have a particular requirement by a certain date in
order to receive SPA. States applying for SPA after a deadline passed
often have difficulty implementing or obtaining a retroactive
requirement. A retroactive or deadline leads to complications with
little added benefit.
    In today's proposal, EPA is adding various operation and
maintenance requirements. In 40 CFR part 280, EPA is proposing specific
frequencies and procedures for testing spill and overfill prevention
equipment, secondary containment integrity testing, release detection
equipment testing, and operation and maintenance walkthrough
inspections. In Sec.  281.32, EPA is proposing states require these
tests in a manner and frequency that ensures proper functionality of
equipment, includes proper operation and maintenance of the UST system,
and prevents releases for the life of the equipment and UST system.
This approach allows states who have these requirements, despite
different frequencies or manners, to receive SPA, as long as their
requirements sufficiently ensure properly functioning non-releasing UST
systems. EPA is also proposing to update Sec.  281.32(g) by adding
these tests to the recordkeeping requirements of SPA.
Proposed Energy Policy Act Changes
    In today's SPA regulation proposal, EPA is addressing Energy Policy
Act requirements more generally than in today's UST technical
regulation proposal, yet they are slightly different than the goal
oriented approach above. The Energy Policy Act amends the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and requires states that receive federal Subtitle I money
to adopt operator training requirements, delivery prohibition, and
additional measures to protect groundwater from contamination. In the
additional measures to protect groundwater provision, states must meet
either secondary containment and interstitial monitoring for new or
replaced tanks and piping within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water
well or community water system, or manufacturer and installer financial
responsibility and installer certification. The secondary containment
requirement includes under-dispenser containment on any new motor fuel
dispenser system within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water well or
community water system.
    EPA developed guidelines for states to implement Energy Policy Act
requirements; many states and territories implemented the Energy Policy
Act requirements according to these guidelines. In order to establish
similar requirements in Indian country and in states and territories
that do not adopt Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA is adding
secondary containment and operator training to today's 40 CFR part 280
proposal. In proposing those requirements, EPA does not want to
supersede programs states developed to meet Energy Policy Act
requirements. Requiring states to alter newly implemented provisions
would be a disservice to them, as well as UST owners and operators.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to address in today's SPA regulation
proposal the secondary containment, manufacturer and installer
financial responsibility and installer certification, delivery
prohibition, and operator training requirements that appear in the
Energy Policy Act. So, states already meeting these Energy Policy Act
requirements need not change their programs to receive SPA.
    EPA is proposing additional measures to protect groundwater and
operator training requirements in Subpart C (Sec.  281.22(d)(3), Sec.
281.30(a), Sec.  281.33(c)(2), and Sec.  281.39). Delivery prohibition
is in Subpart D--Adequate Enforcement of Compliance (Sec.  281.41(a)).
Because delivery prohibition is an enforcement tool, EPA is proposing
to require states have authority to prohibit deliveries

according to Energy Policy Act, rather than make this a no less
stringent requirement.
    EPA is not proposing to add delivery prohibition to 40 CFR part 280
because delivery prohibition is primarily an enforcement tool for
implementing agencies; it is not a requirement for owners and
operators. Because the Energy Policy Act gives EPA clear delivery
prohibition enforcement authority, we do not need to add delivery
prohibition to the UST technical regulation. However, the only way to
ensure states have that same authority is to require states to have
authority to implement delivery prohibition as a prerequisite for SPA,
as proposed in Sec.  281.41(a).
Proposed Specific Changes
    EPA is proposing specific changes below to Subpart C--Criteria for
No Less Stringent. They reflect proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes. This
specific approach is the only way for states to adopt this group of
proposed changes. The goal of these proposed sections remains intact,
yet the specific changes ensure states adopt the 40 CFR part 280
changes when final, and are able to receive SPA.
     Sec.  281.30(b)--eliminate flow restrictors for new or
replaced overfill prevention
     Sec.  281.31--delete upgrading requirements
     Sec.  281.33(c)--limit use of monthly inventory control in
combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years for
the first 10 years after the tank is installed or upgraded, if the tank
was installed prior to a state receiving SPA
     Sec.  281.33(e)--require hazardous substance USTs to only
use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring
     Sec.  281.34(a)(1)--add ``* * * interstitial space may
have been compromised * * *'' to suspected releases
     Sec.  281.37--eliminate phase-in requirement for financial
responsibility

EPA is proposing in Sec.  281.30(b) states wishing to receive SPA not
allow installation of flow restrictors (commonly referred to as ball
floats) in vent lines for overfill protection. The existing goal of
Sec.  281.30(b) is for states to require that UST systems have spill
and overfill prevention equipment. In the proposed language, EPA
maintains the overall goal to prevent spills and overfills; however,
owners and operators can no longer install ball floats to achieve that
goal.
    The deadlines for upgrades and for owners and operators to obtain
financial responsibility have passed. As a result, EPA is proposing to
eliminate these UST technical regulation deadlines in the SPA
regulation. In Sec.  281.31 and Sec.  281.33(b), EPA is removing UST
upgrades, except for previously deferred USTs. In Sec.  281.37, we are
eliminating the financial responsibility phase-in schedule. Please note
EPA is proposing states allow upgrades prior to submitting their
approval or revision applications for SPA, rather than only until
December 22, 1998. EPA is taking this action due to states' previous
problems with implementing a retroactive requirement when applying for
SPA after the upgrade deadline.
    In Sec.  281.33(c), EPA is proposing monthly inventory control in
combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years for
the first 10 years after a tank is installed or upgraded, only if a
tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA. This reflects a
proposed change in 40 CFR part 280 and avoids another problem in the
1988 SPA regulation. First, EPA is proposing to eliminate this method.
Second, EPA is proposing to tie the date for eliminating this method to
a state's submission of its SPA application for approval or revision.
As discussed earlier, EPA is taking the position that it is better to
tie deadlines in the SPA regulation to states' submission of SPA
applications, rather than specific dates.
    In today's notice, EPA is proposing states wishing to receive SPA
will no longer be able to allow installation of non-secondarily
contained hazardous substance UST systems. This is consistent with
EPA's proposed change in Sec.  280.42(e); an equivalent and specific
proposed change to the SPA regulation is the only way to ensure states
adopt it. For consistency with proposed changes in the UST technical
regulation and to ensure states wishing to receive SPA adopt this
change, in Sec.  281.34(a)(1), EPA is proposing to add ``* * *
interstitial space may have been compromised * * *'' to suspected
releases conditions.
Proposed UST Technical Regulation Changes Not Addressed in Proposed SPA
Regulation
    EPA is not proposing to address in the proposed SPA regulation
(Sec.  281.32) the methods for determining compatibility. Today's
proposed compatibility proposal in Sec.  281.32 allows owners and
operators to use any method for determining compatibility approved by
an implementing agency, as long as the method is no less protective of
human health and the environment. It is unnecessary to change the SPA
regulation because the proposed UST technical regulation in Sec.
281.32 will provide states with discretion to ensure compatibility.
Also, the proposed UST technical regulation change delineates how
owners and operators can demonstrate they are storing substances in UST
systems made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the
substances stored. This is more prescriptive than the general format of
the SPA regulation, and thus is not appropriate for the SPA regulation.
Addressing SPA Revision Process
    EPA is proposing to add a requirement for approved states to submit
a revised application within three years of SPA regulation changes that
require a program revision under Sec.  281.51. Approved states are
required to revise their programs and submit revised applications
whenever the federal program changes or EPA's Administrator requests a
revised application based on changes to a state's program. Given
today's proposed significant changes, it is necessary to develop a
timeframe which will ensure approved states meet SPA regulation changes
in a reasonable time.
    After discussions with states and reviews of other EPA programs,
EPA is taking the position that three years is a reasonable time for
approved states to submit revised applications resulting from SPA
regulation changes. Also, EPA will work with states to ensure they meet
this three-year deadline. EPA's proposed language in Sec.  281.51 is
intended only to require a state program revision within three years if
EPA makes changes that necessitate state program changes. For instance,
EPA changes to Subpart C--Criteria for No Less Stringent would likely
require a state program revision, unless EPA is only making minor
editorial changes.
    While most states will be able to meet the three-year deadline for
program revision, EPA is aware that some states may need additional
time. EPA will notify states that have not revised their program within
three years. EPA will ask those states to demonstrate their level of
effort, show progress to date, and provide dates when they will achieve
major milestones for revising their programs and submitting a revised
application. EPA will consider these factors before initiating program
approval withdrawal.
Additional Proposed Changes to SPA Regulation
    EPA is proposing these additional SPA regulation changes; they are
not a direct result of proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes. Rather, the
majority are corrections to the 1988 SPA regulation.

     Sec.  281.10--change ``subpart'' to ``part''
     Sec.  281.11(c), Sec.  281.12(b)(2), Sec.  281.23, and
formerly Sec.  281.51--eliminate interim approval
     Sec.  281.12(a)(2)--change ``Indian lands'' to ``Indian
country''
     Sec.  281.32(e)--eliminate requirement to maintain upgrade
records
     Formerly Sec.  281.38--eliminate reserved section for
financial responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances
     Move Sec.  281.39 to Sec.  281.38--Lender Liability
     Sec.  281.61--move Sec.  281.60(b) to Sec.  281.61(b)(2)
    The SPA regulation incorrectly uses the term subpart in Sec.
281.10, and therefore EPA is proposing to correctly change this to
part. EPA has been using the term Indian country instead of Indian
lands for years. We are proposing to incorporate this term, which does
not alter the meaning, in the SPA regulation. EPA is proposing to
remove the reserved financial responsibility for USTs containing
hazardous substances section (formerly Sec.  281.38); move the lender
liability section from Sec.  281.39 to Sec.  281.38; and include the
new operator training section in Sec.  281.39. Because operator
training needs to be in subpart C, which has no remaining section
numbers, this eliminates the need to renumber subpart D. Also, the
reserved financial responsibility for hazardous substances section is
unnecessary since there is no corresponding requirement in 40 CFR part
280.
    EPA is proposing to delete the interim SPA approval language (in
Sec.  281.11(c) and Sec.  281.51). In more than 20 years of the UST
program, no state has sought interim approval; it is more beneficial to
receive full approval all at once, rather than in steps. Also, because
36 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have SPA,
interim SPA approval is unnecessary at this time.
    EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain upgrade
records for the operational life of an UST facility. This requirement
in Sec.  281.32(e) of the 1988 SPA regulation does not exist in 40 CFR
part 280. In addition, EPA is proposing to no longer allow upgrades.
    EPA is also proposing to move Sec.  281.60(b) to Sec.  281.61(b).
This paragraph explains the procedure EPA will follow to withdraw
approval. This paragraph is better suited for Sec.  281.61, which
explains the procedures for withdrawing approval, as opposed to Sec.
281.60, which explains the criteria for withdrawal.

What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?

EPA requests comments on:
     Is three years an appropriate timeframe for requiring a
SPA state to submit a revised application? Please provide
justification.
     Should EPA address the proposed procedures for determining
compatibility of Sec.  280.32 into the SPA regulation?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.

VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits

    EPA prepared an analysis of the potential incremental costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) document titled Assessment of the
Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions
to EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, which is available in
the docket for this proposal. RIA estimated regulatory implementation
and compliance costs, and benefits for three regulatory options as
described above in section V, subsection F. On an annualized basis, the
estimated regulatory compliance costs for the three options in today's
proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520 million
(Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2). Separately, this analysis
assessed the potential benefits of the proposed regulation. As
discussed in the RIA, a substantial portion of the beneficial impacts
associated with the proposed regulation are avoided cleanup costs as a
result of preventing releases and reducing the severity of releases.
Today's action is expected to have annual cost savings related to
avoided costs of $300-$740 million per year under the Preferred Option,
$310-$770 million per year under Option 1, and $110-$590 million per
year under Option 2.
    We recognize that the estimated number of avoided releases and
releases reduced in severity is based on expert judgment. Moreover, the
cost savings estimates reflect cost data from only a small number of
state programs (e.g., such as New Hampshire). We solicit public input
on the accuracy of the expected reduction in releases due to the
proposed requirements provided by the experts, as well as remediation
cost data for releases of different sizes and types. Please provide
relevant data and studies on this topic. EPA solicits comment on the
methodology and results from the RIA, as well as any data that the
public feels would be useful in a revised analysis including
specifically cost estimates for remediation and EPA's methods for
estimating prevented releases under the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket
for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1360.11.
    Today's proposed regulation contains mandatory information
collection requirements. The labor burden and associated costs for
these requirements are estimated in the ICR supporting statement for
today's proposed action. The supporting statement identifies and
estimates the burden for each of the changes to the regulations that
include recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Proposed changes
include: Adding secondary containment requirements for new and replaced
tanks and piping; adding operator training requirements; adding
periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems;
removing certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection
technologies; and updating state program approval requirements to
incorporate these new changes.
    Based on the same data and cost calculations applied in the
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for today's action, but using the
burden estimations for ICRs, the ICR supporting statement estimates an
average annual labor hour burden of 2.3 million hours and $135 million
for the proposed regulation. One

time capital and hourly costs are included in these estimates based on
a three year annualization period. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b). The total universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised
of 223,558 facilities and 56 states and territories.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-UST-
2011-0301. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after November 18, 2011, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by December 19, 2011. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
regulation on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule
are small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. We have
determined that at most 1 percent of potentially affected small firms
in the retail motor fuel sector (NAICS 447) will experience an impact
over 1 percent of revenues but less than 3 percent of revenues. No
small firms have impacts above 3 percent of revenues. In addition, we
estimate that no small governmental jurisdictions would be impacted at
1 percent or 3 percent of revenues. This certification is based on the
small entities analysis contained in the RIA for today's proposal.
    Although this proposed regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA
nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this regulation on the
regulated community in general, which is primarily comprised of small
businesses. EPA conducted extensive outreach in order to determine
which changes to make to the 1988 regulations. EPA worked with
representatives of owners and operators and reached out specifically to
small businesses. In addition, EPA considered the impacts of each
potential regulatory change and worked to limit changes that required
retrofits, since changes requiring retrofits would place a high
financial burden on small businesses. Finally, EPA maintained numerous
options for compliance in order to provide small entities with as much
flexibility as possible.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule
contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for the private sector in any one year. Accordingly,
EPA prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement (an
appendix to the RIA), which is summarized below.
    As estimated in the RIA, on an annualized basis, the total
estimated regulatory compliance costs for the three options in today's
proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520 million
(Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2). Of this amount, annualized
costs to state/local governments total $9 million under the Preferred
Option, $19 million under Option 1, and $6 million under Option 2.
These costs consist of estimated regulatory compliance costs for state/
local governments that currently own or operate UST systems and
annualized costs of $120,000 for states to implement the proposed rule.
EPA estimates total annualized costs to owners and operators of
tribally owned UST systems are $0.7 million under the Preferred Option.
The estimated annualized cost to the private sector range is
approximately $180 million under the Preferred Option, $350 million
under Option 1, and $120 million under Option 2. While the proposed
regulation may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector, thereby triggering section 202 of the UMRA, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of section 204 of UMRA because EPA
does not believe state, local, and tribal governments will incur
aggregate costs of over $100 million per year.
    Consistent with section 205, EPA identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Today's proposed
regulation identifies a number of regulatory options, and the RIA
estimates the annual cost across the three considered options may range
between $130 million and $520 million. Section 205 of the UMRA requires
federal agencies to select the least costly or most cost-effective
regulatory alternative unless the Agency publishes with the final rule
an explanation of why such alternative was not adopted. As discussed
earlier in the preamble, as part of EPA's deliberative process for
today's proposed rule, EPA considered and evaluated variations of a
subset of the proposed requirements using two alternative options
(Options 1 and 2). The preferred option provides the greatest
difference between beneficial impact and costs of any of the options.
The requirements proposed under the Preferred Option provide for
greater protection of human health and the environment and better
addresses stakeholder concerns, compared to the lower cost and proposed
requirements of Option 2.
    This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in EO 13132. Under the proposed rule, total costs to all