Santa Barbara County APCD 6-1

Public Comments and Responses to Comments – Rules 102 & 316

ATTACHMENT 6

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment Submitted by 

Vandenberg Air Force Base,

March 10, 2008

[COMMENT 1]

[. . . ]

f. Rule 316 exemption for captured fleets with 

ORVR. VAFB requested the APCD consider a Rule 

202 exemption from the requirements to install 

enhanced vapor recovery Phase II on gas dispensing 

facilities fueling captured fleets with on board vapor 

recovery (ORVR) systems. Please refer to 

Attachment 2. Attachment 2 provides CARB 

guidance to local California Districts encouraging

them to revise vapor recovery rules requiring fleets. 

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1]

This request requires a revision to Rule 316, Storage 

and Transfer of Gasoline. It cannot be accomplished 

through a revision of Rule 202. We have received the 

request to revise the Rule 316 consistent with the 

ARB guidance and we are looking into it.

Comments Submitted by the

California Air Resources Board

October 15, 2008

[COMMENT 2]

1

Rule 101 Definitions

1. Gasoline: Air Resources Board’s (ARB) test 

method for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) found in 

Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 5, Article 4, section 

2297 should be listed to be consistent with ARB’s 

regulations. The test procedure found in section 

2297 is deemed equivalent to American Society 

for Testing Materials (ASTM) Test Method

D-323.

_____________________

1

For brevity, the District is handling all of these 

comments as one comment.

Rule 316_Storage and Transfer of Gasoline

2. Section F. Requirements – Gasoline Delivery 

Vessels: Cargo tanks, or delivery vessels, shall be 

certified (deemed vapor tight) using ARB Test 

Method 204.1 and shall meet the year round 

requirements of ARB Test Methods 204.2 and 

204.3

3. Section H. Test Methods: The test method 

required by ARB for the annual certification of 

cargo tanks is ARB Test Procedure 204.1. Cargo 

tanks operating in the State of California MUST 

meet the requirements of ARB Test Procedure 

204.1 in order to receive an annual ARB 

certification. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Method 27 is required by U.S. 

Department of Transportation to meet annual 

testing requirements found in Title 29 Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2]

The APCD incorporated the ARB suggestions into the 

rules. The two agencies worked together to: 

1) re-draft the Section F text,

2) confirm the correct CFR title and section for 

referencing the Department of Transportation 

cargo tank testing provisions, and

3) clarify federal cargo tank testing requirements 

(now found in proposed amended Rule 316, 

Section H.4).

The ARB indicated that cargo tank owners and 

operators are unable to comply with the federal 

cargo tank testing requirements by submitting the 

ARB Test Procedure 204.1 testing results. The 

federal provisions in EPA Method 27 require

1) repeated pressure tests, and 2) that the arithmetic 

average of the two results is within the allowable 

pressure change. However, the ARB Test Procedure 

204.1 requires only one pressure test. Thus, 

complying with the ARB testing requirements and 

standards does not satisfy the federal requirements.
Santa Barbara County APCD 6-2

Public Comments and Responses to Comments – Rules 102 & 316

Comment Submitted by the

California Air Resources Board

December 22, 2008

[COMMENT 3]

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

[. . .]

The following rules, which are scheduled for a public 

hearing to be held by your District Board on January 

15, 2009, were received by us on November 5, 2008, 

for our review:

Rule 102 Definitions

Rule 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline

The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rules 

and, based on the information available to us at this 

time, we have no comment. The rules were 

examined by the Monitoring and Laboratory 

Division, and by the Stationary Source Division.

[. . .]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3]

The District appreciates the input from the Air 

Resources Board.

Comments Submitted by

Southern California Gas Company

December 23, 2008

[COMMENT 4]

1

Southern California Gas Company Comments on

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 

District Proposed Amended Rule 316

Storage and Transfer of Gasoline, dated 

November 20, 2008

December 23, 2008

SCG is asking that SBCAPCD consider revising PAR 

Rule 316 I.7.(a) to require only 95% of the vehicles 

to have ORVR systems installed. The provision 

would then be similar to the recently proposed 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution 

_____________________

1

For brevity, the District is handling all of these 

comments as one comment.

Control District amendments, as well as the 

amendments already adopted by other California air 

districts (Monterey, San Diego, Bay Area). Such a 

revision would provide regulatory flexibility for nonretail fleet fueling when a designated percentage of 

the vehicles are equipped with ORVR. SCG believes 

this language is more in line with EPA and CARB 

understanding of Clean Air Act 202 a(6). 

Unlike many other organizations, SCG is a regulated 

by the California Public Utilities Commission 

(CPUC). As a CPUC regulated utility, SCG is subject 

to customer service requirements and emergency 

services requirements. Many of our crews and 

technicians must be able to respond in a timely 

fashion to service calls and respond to emergencies 

during natural or manmade disasters. As discussed, 

SCG cannot simply “lockout” non ORVR vehicles 

from our GDFs as suggested. The potential penalties 

and recriminations from the CPUC would not allow 

the locking out of non ORVR SCG vehicles. 

By adopting the 100% ORVR requirement, 

SBCAPCD might create an unintended consequence. 

Jurisdictions around SBCAPCD are adopting a 95% 

ORVR level. Since this is easily attainable, some 

organizations will transfer their older and non ORVR 

vehicles into SBCAPCD, and place the newer ORVR 

vehicles into the other jurisdictions in order to utilize 

the ORVR exemption. Since older vehicles pollute 

more, and SBCAPCD does not have regulatory 

control over motor vehicles, setting the ORVR level 

at 100% could create more air pollution in 

SBCAPCD. 

The adoption of the 100% ORVR requirement also 

makes it very unlikely that any organization would 

utilize the exemption. Very few organizations can 

make sure with 100% certainty that no non ORVR 

vehicles will use the exempt pumps. Unlike a 95% 

requirement, the 100% requirement places a huge 

compliance liability on GDF facilities utilizing the 

exemption. One mistake, and there is no mechanism 

for compliance other than reinstalling the vapor 

recovery equipment. This is a significant compliance 

liability for any organization to adopt. This virtually 

assures that very few organizations will seek the 

Phase II exemption. The 95% ORVR requirements 

will encourage many organizations to seek the 

exemption which can provide many advantages that 

Phase II system cannot achieve. Those advantages 

are: 

ORVR systems increase the emission reductions 

from 95% to approximately 97-98%. As cited in the 
Santa Barbara County APCD 6-3

Public Comments and Responses to Comments – Rules 102 & 316

CARB Legal memo dated January 9, 2002 authored 

by Diane Johnston, CARB determined that ORVR 

systems with 95% are the equivalent to Phase II 

systems at 97% or better (Attachment 2). Currently 

SCG vehicle mix will approximately yield a potential 

71% reduction in emissions from gasoline fueling. 

Phase II systems require numerous pieces of 

equipment in order to recovery gasoline vapors. 

These numerous pieces of equipment have a higher 

probability of failure than ORVR. ORVR systems do 

not have any human interaction which can lead to 

increased equipment failures. ORVR systems are 

warranted for 3 years and 50,000 miles as required by 

California state law Title 13 Division 3 Chapter 1 

Article 6. Most Phase II equipment is warranted for 

no more than 12 months as required by CARB 

regulations. 

ORVR systems increase fuel efficiency and mileage 

of vehicles with an EPA estimated 78 million gallons 

of gasoline reduction in fuel use between 1998 and 

2020 which will assist in meeting anticipated CARB 

greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. 

CARB will be enacting AB 32 regulations in the near 

future and fuel efficiency is a great tool for reducing 

greenhouse gases. 

EPA plans on removing the requirement for Phase II 

systems sometime after 2010. Detailed in the 

December 12, 2006 memo from Stephen Page and 

Margo Oge (Attachment 3), section 202 (a)(6) 

requires EPA to make a widespread use 

determination and the requirement for Phase II or 

Stage II as described by EPA can be suspended. The 

memo details that widespread use is determined by 

95% of vehicles fueled to be ORVR compliant. 

Southern California Gas has two facilities with 

gasoline dispensers that are located in the SBCAPCD 

jurisdiction. The motor vehicles range from light duty 

autos to heavy duty trucks greater than 10,000 lbs 

GVWR. Since vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR are 

not federally mandated to be equipped with ORVR, 

we believe following the 95% ORVR standard is 

appropriate. Setting the percent ORVR penetration at 

95 percent would allow both operating and 

compliance flexibility for our fleet while increasing 

emission reductions in the SBCAPCD. 

ORVR systems are actively challenged by the 

onboard emissions diagnostic systems. ISD is a 

passive system and does not actively challenge vapor 

recovery systems. No external system vapor recovery 

system can be monitored and tested as an ORVR 

systems can. 

A GDF operating without a Phase II vapor recovery 

system and relying on ORVR systems to capture can 

lead to reduce pressure on GDFs. The July 24, 2008 

by Frances Cameron of CARB (Attachment 4) 

clearly states that if left undisturbed by unusual 

“vehicle venting”, the ORVR GDF will not 

pressurize create emissions to the atmosphere. 

Current Phase II systems require EVR systems to 

control vapor growth in the vapor space of USTs. 

ORVR GDFs do not have the problem.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4]

The District considered making the requirement “no 

less than 95% of the vehicle being refueled with 

gasoline at nonretail gasoline dispensing facilities 

shall be equipped with ORVR.” We decided to 

require that 100% of these vehicles be equipped with 

ORVR because: 

1. We do not want any emission increases from 

allowing vehicle refueling without controls, and

2. Determination of compliance with a less than 

100% ORVR-equipped vehicle fueling provision 

would be more difficult and take additional 

resources.

The District understands that the SCG requires 

flexibility to fuel all types of vehicles and cannot limit 

the vehicles to only those equipped ORVR. We also 

understand that the Gas Company is installing the 

enhanced vapor recovery equipment on the Phase II 

vapor recovery systems at the two stations located in 

Santa Barbara County. In this way, SCG will comply 

with the requirements of the Air Pollution Control 

District and the California Public Utilities

Commission.

Comments Submitted by the

Environmental Protection Agency

December 23, 2008

[COMMENT 5]

1

We are providing comments based on our 

preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. 

Please direct any questions about our comments to 

________________________________

1

For brevity, the District is handling all of these 

comments as one comment.
Santa Barbara County APCD 6-4

Public Comments and Responses to Comments – Rules 102 & 316

me at (415) 947-4115 or to Alfred Petersen at (415) 

947-4118. 

316.B.4, 5 & 14: We believe the new definitions for 

E85, flexible fuel vehicles and onboard refueling 

vapor recovery (ORVR) are approvable.

316.I.5: This subsection on exemptions for gasoline 

bulk plants appeared to have expired on January 1, 

1992 and should be removed. 

316.I.7: We believe the new exemptions from Phase 

II vapor controls for fleets (100% ORVR) and from 

Phase II vapor controls for E85 facilities are 

approvable. 

316.J: This subsection on compliance schedules 

appears to have partially expired by 1992 and should 

be removed or revised and justified. 

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5]

The District is aware of outdated provisions in the 

Rule 316 Sections I.5 and J. The intent of the current 

rulemaking effort is to limit the revisions to the 

addition of the Rule 316, Section I.7.a and b 

exemptions. We plan to revisit Rule 316 when we 

perform general administrative-type rule revisions 

sometime in the near future.

Thank you for your input on our new definitions and 

exemptions.