Comment submitted by Brad Rodgers, FMSM Engineers, Inc.

The exact definition of a loading rack has been elusive to the regulatory community for a long time and the newly proposed definition does not clarify the picture for me. I proposed that the EPA go back to the original question and ask themselves what was the original intent of differentiating between a loading area and a load rack. I think the presumption is that a loading rack represents a larger, more frequent or more complicated, transfer of oil from the bulk truck to tank or vice verse. Given these factors, the presumption was a greater likelihood of an oil release may be generated by these locations verse smaller transfer operations, and therefore, justified a greater level of care. The question I have is whether there is a body of data to support this position. My argument is not for proposing a lower level of care, rather, suggesting that the level of care be dictated by the potential release. With that in mind, I offer the following for consideration: Small tank transfers: If you are using a small transfer hose (e.g., a service station type dispenser) to fill a shop built tank (e.g., 2,000 diesel tank); this represents the potential for a small release (one which could be managed with absorbents) , which should be viewed as a loading area requiring compliance with 112.7(c). Larger Tank Transfer: If you are using a larger hose equipped with a hose coupler (e.g., camlock fitting) and are using the trucks internal pump to transfer product (these rate can reach 400 gpm); this represents the potential for a larger release (beyond the capability of managing with absorbents); which should be viewed as a loading rack requiring compliance with 112.7(h). Tank Transfer: If you are using a larger hose equipped with a hose coupler (e.g., camlock fitting) and are using a stationary pump to transfer product (at a rate greater than 50 gpm); this represents the potential for a larger release (beyond the capability of managing with absorbents); which should be viewed as a loading rack requiring compliance with 112.7(h). While I understand that these examples are not written in legalize, they are examples of performance based concerns, not static concerns as to whether a rack is or is not present. 112.7(h) should address areas where larger releases could occur, regardless of the definition of a rack.