Comment submitted by David Newsad, Hoefler Consulting Group

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0471 Subject: Comments on June 30, 2009 Federal Register (FR) notice for the Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement; Request For Public Comment; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers v. EPA, NO. 08-1109 (DC Cir.) Hoefler Consulting Group (HCG) is submitting the following comment on the above referenced FR notice for consideration: First, HCG would like to state we are generally supportive of the proposed settlement agreement with regard to clarifying questions over redundancy and/or overlap of requirements between Subpart BBBBBB and Subpart CCCCCC. We share some of the same questions raised in the petition. Nonetheless, with regard to the proposed definition change for “gasoline dispensing facility” (Attachment A, Item IV.), we believe the proposed settlement goes beyond what is needed to resolve the petition and we urge EPA to revise the final settlement. Specifically, as we interpret the proposal, the revised definition will expand applicability of Subpart CCCCCC to numerous facilities that were previously not subject to the standard. This is triggered by elimination of the fueling for ”motor vehicles” as a criteria for applicability of Subpart CCCCCC and the replacement (via the added proposed language) with the virtual universe of tanks storing gasoline in the United States. We believe this change would trigger applicability of Subpart CCCCCC to tens of thousands of additional operations including small businesses most of which have no idea what a MACT standard is, many of which have never even read a Federal Register Notice, let alone will maintain the records to demonstrate their monthly throughput if subjected to the rule. Most importantly to change the definition as proposed to cover tens of thousands of additional operations and businesses has an indiscernible environmental benefit while creating a new load of additional paperwork for newly regulated operations and large notification and education issues for various trade groups as well as EPA (assuming EPA would assist in small business outreach for compliance education). It is imprudent to propose such a change without an analysis completed (we could find none performed for this in the existing rule docket) for practical implications (such as time and costs notifying and educating the tens of thousands of new small businesses subject to the standard), recordkeeping compliance costs, and an assessment of the cost-benefit. If the AAM and EPA has agreed to the GDF definition change, than the language should be revised in the final settlement to only expand applicability of the gasoline dispensing facility definition to those relatively few facilities (industrial sector) that have agreed to this change and the additional costs incurred by AAM members with the change. We recommend revising the language to specify the expanded language for Gasoline Dispensing Facility only applies to Auto Assembly plants and/or Auto Research and Development Operations. Perhaps even cross-referencing NAICS codes for clarity on applicability of the expanded definition.. Once the applicability and cost-benefit analyses have been completed and evaluated than EPA should decide whether proposing to expand the applicability (beyond AAM members) as part of future rulemaking process is warranted. Thank you for the consideration of our comments and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to let me know. David Newsad, Hoefler Consulting Group