September 27, 2004

# DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Thomas A. Driscoll

Senior Environmental Scientist

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Issues Paper

September 20, 2004 Public Meeting

Dear Mr. Driscoll:

We are pleased to represent the Florida Petroleum Marketers and
Convenience Store Association ("FPMA"), whose approximately 200 marketer
members own and operate petroleum storage system facilities throughout
Florida. These comments are intended to summarize the comments we made
at the September 20, 2004 Public Meeting.

As we advised, the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection ("DEP') has a rule (Chapter 62-252, Florida Administrative
Code), requiring Stage II Vapor Recovery in three Southeast Florida
counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. These three counties were
previously designated as moderate non-attainment areas for ozone. The
counties have been re-designated as attainment areas. Each of these
counties implements Stage II requirements by local ordinance. The State
Implementation Plan is clear that EPA did not require Stage II in these
counties.

##  FPMA notes that the Stage II Vapor Recovery Issues Paper may be primarily geared towards determining, for purposes of Section 182 (b)(3) of the Clean Air Act, when EPA will revise or waive Stage II requirements for "serious" or worse ozone nonattainment areas after a determination that On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery ("ORVR") canisters are in "widespread use."

Our concern is that if EPA does not distinguish between areas formerly
designated as "moderate" nonattainment and areas that are "serious"
nonattainment or worse, regulators responsible for the previously
"moderate" areas will apply the same "widespread use" criteria as EPA
will apply to the "serious" or worse areas. It is our position that
Stage II regulations in areas where Stage II was not required under the
Clean Air Act ought to be repealed before Stage II is revised or waived
in "serious" or worse nonattainment areas.

We note that by Memorandum dated March 9, 1993, John Seitz, Director of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, provided advice to the
Regional Offices on the Impact of the On-Board Canister Decision on
Stage II Requirements in Moderate Nonattainment Areas. The Memorandum
states "when on-board rules are promulgated, a state may withdraw its
Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP. Further guidance on
Stage II requirements for moderate nonattainment areas seeking
re-designation will be forthcoming." By Memorandum dated June 23, 1993,
Mr. Seitz addressed sanctions due to the time conflicts between Stage II
plan requirements under the CAA and promulgation of the ORVR canister
rule. However, no further guidance has been provided with respect to the
considerations that should be made in attainment or "moderate"
nonattainment areas that required Stage II with respect to phasing out
Stage II.

Second, regardless of when EPA decides that ORVR canisters are in
"widespread use," there really are two regulatory considerations. Stage
II is already a redundant technology and the equipment has a limited
useful life. Therefore, EPA needs to make two determinations: 1) the
date after which Stage II will no longer be required for new
construction; and 2) the date after which Stage II will not be required
to be maintained at existing facilities.

Finally, as we discussed, FPMA's overriding objective is an immediate
end to requiring Stage II for new construction in Southeast Florida.
Nonetheless, we believe we should comment on EPA's proposed methodology
for determining "widespread use." We note that under Section 182 (b)(3)
of the CAA, EPA must determine when ORVR canisters are in "widespread
use" throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Options (a) and (b) clearly
meet this criterion, as the options contemplate either a count of
vehicles or a count of vehicle mileage. Option (d), which requires a
calculation of the percentage of gasoline sold to ORVR canister-equipped
vehicles may at least arguably meet the criteria, but seems to include a
calculation that has nothing to do with whether ORVR is in "widespread
use." However, option (c), which requires a calculation of emissions
from ORVR-equipped vehicles and Stage II programs goes far beyond the
question of whether ORVR is in widespread use and enters into the realm
of the relative effectiveness of ORVR and Stage II. Accordingly, option
(c) does not appear to meet the plain meaning of the statutory
criterion, and further, would also appear to be the most difficult
calculation to make.

We appreciate the opportunity you have given FPMA to be part of these
proceedings and look forward to working with you further.

Sincerely,

FRANK & GRAMLING

/s/

Robert D. Fingar

cc: Jim Smith, President and CEO

FPMA