Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 135 July 15, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 

Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations—Revisions to Existing 

Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and 

Operator Training; Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 

[EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301; FRL 9913–64– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG46 

Revising Underground Storage Tank 

Regulations—Revisions to Existing 

Requirements and New Requirements 

for Secondary Containment and 

Operator Training 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is making 

certain revisions to the 1988 

underground storage tank (UST) 

regulation and to the 1988 state program 

approval (SPA) regulation. These 

changes establish Federal requirements 

that are similar to key portions of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct); they 

also update the 1988 UST and SPA 

regulations. Changes to the regulations 

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; 

addressing UST systems deferred in the 

1988 UST regulation; adding new 

release prevention and detection 

technologies; updating codes of 

practice; making editorial corrections 

and technical amendments; and 

updating state program approval 

requirements to incorporate these new 

changes. EPA thinks these changes will 

protect human health and the 

environment by reducing the number of 

releases to the environment and quickly 

detecting releases, if they occur. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 13, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in paper copy at 

the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the 

telephone number for the OSWER 

Docket is 202–566–0270. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth McDermott, OSWER/OUST 

(5401P), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 703–603–7175; email: 

mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

II. Authority 

III. Background 

A. Changes to the UST Regulations 

B. History of the UST Laws and 

Regulations 

C. Potential Impact of This Regulation 

D. EPA’s Process in Deciding Which 

Changes To Incorporate in the 

Regulations 

E. Implementation Timeframe 

IV. Revisions to the Requirements for Owners 

and Operators of Underground Storage 

Tank Systems 

A. Establishing Federal Requirements for 

Operator Training and Secondary 

Containment 

1. Operator Training 

2. Secondary Containment 

B. Additional Requirements for Operation 

and Maintenance 

1. Walkthrough Inspections 

2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests 

3. Overfill Prevention Equipment 

Inspections 

4. Secondary Containment Tests 

5. Release Detection Equipment Tests 

C. Addressing Deferrals 

1. UST Systems Storing Fuel Solely for Use 

by Emergency Power Generators— 

Require Release Detection 

2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution 

Systems and UST Systems With FieldConstructed Tanks 

3. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems 

That Are Not Part of a Wastewater 

Treatment Facility Regulated Under 

Sections 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water 

Act 

4. USTs Containing Radioactive Material 

and Emergency Generator UST Systems 

at Nuclear Power Generation Facilities 

Regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

D. Other Changes 

1. Changes to Overfill Prevention 

Equipment Requirements 

2. Internal Linings That Fail the Periodic 

Lining Inspection and Cannot Be 

Repaired 

3. Notification 

4. Compatibility 

5. Improving Repairs 

6. Vapor Monitoring and Groundwater 

Monitoring 

7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including 

Interstitial Alarms, Under Subpart E 

E. General Updates 

1. Incorporate Newer Technologies 

2. Updates to Codes of Practice Listed in 

the UST Regulation 

3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade and 

Implementation Deadlines 

4. Editorial Corrections and Technical 

Amendments 

F. Alternative Options EPA Considered 

V. Updates to State Program Approval 

Requirements 

VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Overview and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

In the table below, EPA is providing 

a list of potentially affected entities 

using North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes. 

However, this final action may affect 

other entities not listed below. The 

Agency’s goal with this section is to 

provide a guide for readers to consider 

regarding entities that potentially could 

be affected by this action. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41567 

1 2006 Tribal Strategy, http://epa.gov/oust/ 

fedlaws/tribalst.htm. 

2Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance 

Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2013, http://epa.gov/ 

oust/cat/camarchv.htm. 

INDUSTRY SECTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE FINAL REGULATION

Industry sector NAICS code 

Retail Motor Fuel Sales ............................................................................................................................................ 447. 

Commercial (wholesale trade, retail trade, accommodation, and food services) .................................................... 42, 44–45, 72 (excluding 447). 

Institutional (hospitals only) ...................................................................................................................................... 622. 

Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................................... 31–33. 

Transportation (air, water, truck, transit, pipeline, and airport operations) .............................................................. 481, 483–486, 48811. 

Communications And Utilities (wired telecommunications carriers; and electric power generation, transmission, 

and distribution).

5171, 2211. 

Agriculture (crop and animal production) ................................................................................................................. 111, 112. 

II. Authority 

EPA is revising these regulations 

under the authority of sections 2002, 

9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 

9007, 9010, and 9012 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1965, as 

amended (commonly known as the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA)) [42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 

6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 

6991(e), 6991(f), 6991(i), and 6991(k)]. 

III. Background 

A. Changes to the UST Regulations 

After reviewing and incorporating 

comments received during the five 

month public comment period, EPA is 

finalizing certain changes to the 1988 

UST regulation in 40 CFR part 280. EPA 

is also revising its SPA regulation in 40 

CFR part 281 to incorporate the changes 

in 40 CFR part 280. 

These revisions strengthen the 1988 

UST regulation by increasing the 

emphasis on properly operating and 

maintaining equipment. The 1988 UST 

regulation required owners and 

operators to have spill, overfill, and 

release detection equipment in place for 

their UST systems, but did not require 

proper operation and maintenance for 

some of that equipment. For example, 

EPA required spill prevention 

equipment to capture drips and spills 

when the delivery hose is disconnected 

from the fill pipe, but did not require 

periodic testing of that equipment. 

These revisions require that UST 

equipment is operated and maintained 

properly, which will improve 

environmental protection. These 

revisions also acknowledge 

improvements in technology over the 

last 26 years, including the ability to 

detect releases from UST systems 

deferred in the 1988 UST regulation. 

EPA is revising the 1988 UST 

regulation to: 

• Establish federal requirements that 

are similar to certain key provisions of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

• Ensure owners and operators 

properly operate and maintain their 

UST systems; 

• Address UST systems deferred in 

the 1988 UST regulation; 

• Include updates to current 

technology and codes of practices; 

• Make technical and editorial 

corrections; and 

• Update the SPA regulation to 

address the changes listed above. 

In 1988, EPA first promulgated the 

UST regulation (40 CFR part 280) to 

prevent, detect, and clean up petroleum 

releases into the environment. The 1988 

UST regulation required new UST 

systems to be designed, constructed, 

and installed to prevent releases; 

existing UST systems had to be 

upgraded to prevent releases. In 

addition, owners and operators were 

required to perform release detection, 

demonstrate financial responsibility, 

and clean up releases. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

amended Subtitle I of SWDA, the statute 

that authorized the UST program. Key 

Energy Policy Act provisions (such as 

secondary containment and operator 

training) apply to all states and United 

States’ territories, hereafter referred to as 

states, receiving federal Subtitle I money 

under SWDA, regardless of their state 

program approval status, but do not 

apply in Indian country. The United 

States has a unique legal relationship 

with federally recognized Indian tribes. 

This government to government 

relationship includes recognizing the 

rights of tribes as sovereign governments 

with the right to self-determination and 

acknowledging the federal government’s 

trust responsibility to tribes. As a result, 

EPA directly implements the UST 

program in Indian country. 

In order to establish federal UST 

requirements that are similar to the UST 

secondary containment and operator 

training requirements of the Energy 

Policy Act, EPA decided to revise the 

1988 UST regulation. These revisions 

also fulfill objectives in EPA’s August 

2006 UST Tribal Strategy,1 where both 

EPA and tribes recognized the 

importance of requirements that ensure 

parity in program implementation 

among states and in Indian country. 

Secondary containment will reduce 

releases to the environment by 

containing them within a secondary 

area and detecting them before they 

reach the environment. Operator 

training will educate UST system 

operators and help them prevent 

releases by complying with the 

regulation and performing better 

operation and maintenance of their UST 

systems. 

Since the beginning of the UST 

program, preventing petroleum and 

hazardous substance releases from UST 

systems into the environment has been 

one of the primary goals of the program. 

Although EPA and our partners have 

made significant progress in reducing 

the number of new releases, 

approximately 6,000 releases are 

discovered each year as of FY 2013.2

Lack of proper operation and 

maintenance of UST systems is the main 

cause of new releases. Information on 

sources and causes of releases shows 

that releases from tanks are less 

common than they once were. However, 

releases from piping and spills and 

overfills associated with deliveries have 

emerged as more common problems. In 

addition, releases at the dispenser are 

one of the leading sources of releases. 

Finally, data show that release detection 

equipment is only detecting 

approximately 50 percent of releases it 

is designed to detect. These problems 

are partly due to improper operation 

and maintenance. See section IV.B, 

Additional Requirements for Operation 

and Maintenance for a more detailed 

discussion of problems. 

EPA relied on two draft causes of 

releases studies to help support this 

final UST regulation. Petroleum 

Releases at Underground Storage Tank 

Facilities in Florida contains release 

data on 512 releases from new and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 4Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

5Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

And Regulatory Review,’’ Section 3, see http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011- 

1385.pdf. 

6EPA Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 4, see 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

2B686066C751F34A852579A4007023C2/$File/

FY2013_BIB.pdf. 

7EPA guidelines for the Energy Policy Act can be 

found at: http://epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm. 

upgraded tanks in Florida.3 The second 

draft study, Evaluation of Releases from 

New and Upgraded Underground 

Storage Tank Systems, contains release 

data on 580 releases from new and 

upgraded tanks in 23 states across the 

Northeast, South, and Central parts of 

the United States.4 Taken together, these 

draft studies provide information on 

1,092 releases in 24 of 50 states. The 

data in the two studies generally 

provide a representative sampling of 

releases across the United States, 

because nearly half of the states 

contributed to the studies. Both drafts 

were peer reviewed but never finalized 

because passage of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 required a reallocation of 

personnel and resources. Even though 

these studies were never finalized, the 

underlying data and calculations can be 

used to support this final UST 

regulation because that information did 

not change as a result of the peer review 

process. These studies are available in 

the docket for this final action. 

Many USTs currently in the ground 

were upgraded to meet the spill, 

overfill, corrosion protection, and 

release detection requirements in the 

1988 UST regulation. As these USTs 

continue to age, it is vital that we ensure 

they are still working as intended. These 

revisions to the 1988 UST regulation 

focus on ensuring equipment is 

working, rather than requiring UST 

owners and operators to replace or 

upgrade equipment already in place. 

The 1988 UST regulation requires 

owners and operators to use equipment 

that could help prevent releases. These 

revisions highlight the importance of 

operating and maintaining UST 

equipment so releases to the 

environment are prevented or quickly 

detected. 

This final UST regulation addresses 

UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST 

regulation by removing the deferral and 

regulating UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks, airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems that meet the UST 

definition, and UST systems storing fuel 

solely for use by emergency power 

generators. Note that aboveground 

storage tanks associated with UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems that meet the UST definition 

are partially excluded in this final UST 

regulation. EPA is partially excluding 

wastewater treatment tank systems that 

are not part of a wastewater treatment 

facility regulated under sections 402 or 

307(b) of the Clean Water Act, USTs 

containing radioactive material, and 

emergency generator UST systems at 

nuclear power generation facilities 

regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. See section IV.C, 

Addressing Deferrals, for more 

information. 

EPA is revising the 1988 SPA 

regulation (40 CFR part 281) to address 

the changes to 40 CFR part 280. By 

doing so, states will generally need to 

adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes 

finalized today in order to obtain or 

retain SPA. 

Please note that, although not a part 

of this final UST regulation, owners and 

operators may also be subject to other 

requirements related to underground 

storage tank systems. For example, 

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants for various 

source categories, including gasoline 

dispensing facilities (see 40 CFR part 

63). These standards include some 

testing for UST systems, depending on 

the monthly throughput of the facility. 

Finally, EPA allows owners and 

operators the flexibility to maintain 

either paper or electronic records to 

demonstrate compliance with this final 

UST regulation. EPA encourages owners 

and operators to maintain records 

electronically, which promotes 

innovation 5 and simplifies compliance 

by using 21st century technology tools.6

B. History of the UST Laws and 

Regulations 

In 1984, Congress responded to the 

increasing threat to groundwater posed 

from leaking USTs by adding Subtitle I 

to SWDA, commonly referred to as 

RCRA. Subtitle I of SWDA required EPA 

to develop a comprehensive regulatory 

program for USTs storing petroleum or 

certain hazardous substances, ensuring 

that the environment and human health 

are protected from UST releases. In 

1986, Congress amended Subtitle I of 

SWDA and created the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 

to implement a cleanup program and 

pay for cleanups at sites where the 

owner or operator is unknown, 

unwilling, or unable to respond, or 

which require emergency action. 

In 1988, EPA promulgated the UST 

regulation (40 CFR part 280), which set 

minimum standards for new UST 

systems and required owners and 

operators of existing UST systems to 

upgrade, replace, or close them. In 

addition, after 1988 owners and 

operators were required to report and 

clean up releases from their USTs. The 

1988 UST regulation set deadlines for 

owners and operators to meet those 

requirements by December 22, 1998. 

Owners and operators who chose to 

upgrade or replace had to ensure their 

UST systems included spill and overfill 

prevention equipment and were 

protected from corrosion. In addition, 

owners and operators were required to 

monitor their UST systems for releases 

using release detection (phased in 

through 1993, depending on when their 

UST systems were installed). Finally, 

owners and operators were required to 

demonstrate financial responsibility 

(phased in through 1998), which 

ensured they have financial resources to 

pay for cleaning up releases. EPA has 

not significantly changed the UST 

regulation since 1988. 

In 1988, EPA also promulgated a 

regulation for state program approval 

(40 CFR part 281). Since states are the 

primary implementers of the UST 

program, EPA established a process 

where state programs could operate in 

lieu of the federal program, if states met 

certain requirements and obtained state 

program approval from EPA. The state 

program approval regulation describes 

minimum requirements states must 

meet so their programs can be approved 

and operate in lieu of the federal 

program. 

In 2005, the Energy Policy Act further 

amended Subtitle I of SWDA. The 

Energy Policy Act required states 

receiving Subtitle I money from EPA to 

meet certain requirements. EPA 

developed grant guidelines for states 

regarding: Operator training; 

inspections; delivery prohibition; 

secondary containment; financial 

responsibility for manufacturers and 

installers; public record; and state 

compliance reports on government 

USTs.7 The operator training and 

secondary containment requirements 

are two major pieces of the Energy 

Policy Act that did not apply in Indian 

country, but will now apply with 

publication of this final UST regulation. 

C. Potential Impact of This Regulation 

This final UST regulation will 

improve parity in program 

implementation among states and in 

Indian country. This regulation is 

adding to the federal UST regulation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41569 

8Proposed Rule Revising the Underground 

Storage Tanks Regulation. Federal Register. 

November 18, 2011. https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/18/2011- 

29293/revising-underground-storage-tankregulations-revisions-to-existing-requirements-andnew. 

certain requirements, which will apply 

in Indian country. These requirements 

are similar to the Energy Policy Act’s 

operator training and secondary 

containment requirements, which apply 

in states receiving federal Subtitle I 

money from EPA. This action will also 

further strengthen protection of human 

health and the environment from UST 

releases by increasing the emphasis on 

proper operation and maintenance of 

release prevention and release detection 

equipment. These revisions also reflect 

improvements in technology that allow 

for the ability to prevent and quickly 

detect releases for many tank systems 

currently deferred from regulation 

under Subtitle I. 

The regulatory changes finalized 

today impose costs to owners and 

operators of existing regulated UST 

systems and owners and operators of 

USTs deferred in the 1988 UST 

regulation, as well as costs associated 

with state review of the changes. 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) titled Assessment 

of The Potential Costs, Benefits, and 

Other Impacts of the Final Revisions to 

EPA’s Underground Storage Tank 

Regulations, which is available in the 

docket for this action. Numerous 

commenters submitted input relaying 

their concerns about the costs and 

feasibility of specific requirements in 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation. EPA 

considered these comments and 

adjusted this final UST regulation to 

alleviate some of the burden on owners 

and operators. For example, EPA is 

requiring testing of spill prevention 

equipment every three years instead of 

annually. EPA also adjusted some of the 

assumptions underlying the RIA to 

reflect information received from 

commenters. For example, several 

commenters provided water disposal 

costs associated with spill bucket 

testing. While the RIA for the 2011 

proposed UST regulation assumed these 

costs were part of the spill prevention 

testing cost, EPA adjusted this 

assumption to reflect that, in some 

cases, owners and operators will incur 

additional costs to dispose of the water. 

A summary of these impacts is provided 

in section VI, Overview of Estimated 

Costs and Benefits, and in the table 

below. Note that due to data and 

resource constraints, EPA was unable to 

quantify or monetize some of this final 

UST regulation’s benefits, including 

avoidance of human health risks, 

groundwater protection, ecological 

benefits, and mitigation of acute 

exposure events and large-scale releases 

(e.g., releases from airport hydrant 

distribution systems and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks). 

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE UST REGULATION

[2012$ Millions] * 

7% discount rate 3% discount rate 

Total Annual Social Costs .................................................... $160 ..................................................................................... $160. 

Total Annual Avoided Costs ................................................. $310 .....................................................................................

Range: ($120–$530) ............................................................

$360. 

Range: ($130–$610). 

Net Cost (Savings) To Society ............................................. ($160) ...................................................................................

Range: $40–($370) ..............................................................

($200). 

Range: $25–($450). 

* Totals may not add up due to rounding 

EPA also prepared a risk assessment 

for the 2011 proposed UST regulation 

titled Risk Analysis to Support Potential 

Revisions to Underground Storage Tank 

(UST) Regulations. The risk assessment 

examined potential impacts to 

groundwater and subsequent chemical 

transport, exposure, and risk. EPA 

decided not to spend resources to 

finalize the risk assessment through a 

formal peer review process, because the 

results from the risk assessment did not 

materially impact the RIA. Changes 

brought about by this final UST 

regulation are not expected to 

significantly alter these outcomes. The 

risk assessment developed for the 2011 

proposed UST regulation is available for 

review in the docket. 

D. EPA’s Process in Deciding Which 

Changes To Incorporate in the 

Regulations 

After the Energy Policy Act became 

law, EPA recognized a need to revise the 

1988 UST regulation. The Energy Policy 

Act required additional measures to 

protect groundwater (either with 

secondary containment or financial 

responsibility for manufacturers and 

installers) and operator training 

requirements in states receiving federal 

Subtitle I money from EPA. However, 

no similar requirements would apply in 

Indian country until EPA promulgates a 

regulation. Both EPA and tribes are 

committed to ensuring program parity 

between states and in Indian country, 

and this final UST regulation achieves 

this parity. 

For the past 26 years, the 1988 UST 

regulation worked well to provide 

environmental protection. However, 

over two decades of experience 

implementing the UST program have 

shown there are a number of areas 

where EPA can improve the UST 

program and increase environmental 

protection. For example, updating the 

UST regulation to reflect current 

technologies and ensuring release 

prevention and release detection 

equipment are properly operated and 

maintained have surfaced as areas 

needing improvement and are included 

as part of this final UST regulation. 

Throughout the regulatory 

development process, EPA embraced an 

open, inclusive, and transparent process 

so all UST stakeholders had an 

opportunity to share their ideas and 

concerns. EPA recognizes concerns 

about costs to owners and operators and 

the importance of limiting requirements 

for retrofits. In developing this action, 

EPA reached out to stakeholders 

involved in all aspects of the tank 

program, provided multiple 

opportunities for sharing ideas, and kept 

stakeholders informed of progress. 

As a result of the information 

collected during our extensive outreach 

to stakeholders, EPA published 

proposed regulations in the November 

2011 Federal Register.8 In order to 

ensure all stakeholders had an 

opportunity to comment, EPA provided 

a five month public comment period on 

the proposed UST and SPA regulations. 

A number of commenters provided 

general input on EPA’s 2011 proposal to 

update the UST and SPA regulations. 

Many commenters appreciated the 

extensive stakeholder outreach EPA 

conducted prior to drafting the 

proposed changes to the UST and SPA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9Note that EPA is requiring owners and operators 

to also submit a one-time notification of existence 

for these UST systems within 3 years of the 

effective date of this final UST regulation. Owners 

and operators must demonstrate financial 

responsibility when they submit the one-time 

notification form 

regulations. A few commenters believed 

EPA’s outreach was not adequate. EPA 

conducted extensive stakeholder 

outreach before publishing the proposal; 

we held more than 100 meetings with 

stakeholders during the two years prior 

to issuing the 2011 proposed UST and 

SPA regulations. To further understand 

comments and concerns, EPA continued 

to meet with all interested stakeholders 

during and after the five month public 

comment period. 

Most commenters expressed support 

for the general revisions to the 1988 

UST and SPA regulations. They 

supported updating the regulations 

because technology has changed a great 

deal since the 1980s. Many commenters 

provided specific concerns on particular 

topics in the 2011 proposed UST and 

SPA regulations. We discuss these 

comments throughout the preamble for 

this action. Several commenters 

opposed the changes to the regulations 

due to concerns about potential costs on 

owners, especially small businesses. A 

few commenters requested EPA 

withdraw the entire proposal and 

conduct a small business advocacy 

review panel under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. EPA carefully 

considered the potential impacts of the 

proposal on small businesses and 

determined that a small business panel 

was not required. EPA also considered 

all of the comments submitted during 

the public comment period, including 

those concerns regarding the potential 

costs on small businesses, and worked 

to minimize those costs by making 

certain changes to the final regulations. 

EPA did not change this final UST and 

SPA regulations when comments were 

beyond the scope of the regulations or 

beyond EPA’s statutory authority. 

E. Implementation Timeframe 

This final UST regulation aligns the 

implementation time frames for the new 

operator training, operation and 

maintenance, and previously deferred 

UST system requirements. The table 

below provides the implementation 

time frames for each of the new 

requirements. 

IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAMES FOR NEW REQUIREMENTS

New requirement Implementation time frame 

Flow restrictors in vent lines may no longer be used to meet the overfill prevention requirement at new installations and when an existing flow restrictor is replaced.

Testing following a repair ...................................................................................................................................

Owners and operators must begin 

meeting these requirements on 

the effective date of this final 

UST regulation. 

Closure of internally lined tanks that fail the internal lining inspection and cannot be repaired according to a 

code of practice. 

Notification of ownership changes. 

Demonstrating compatibility. 

For airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and UST systems with field-constructed tanks: 

• Notification and financial responsibility.9

• Release reporting. 

• Closure.

Operator training ................................................................................................................................................

For previously deferred UST systems: 

• Subpart D for UST systems that store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators ........................

Owners and operators must begin 

meeting these requirements 

three years after the effective 

date of this final UST regulation. 

• Subpart K (except notification, financial responsibility, release reporting, and closure) for airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and UST systems with field-constructed tanks. 

Spill prevention equipment testing .....................................................................................................................

Overfill prevention equipment inspections .........................................................................................................

Containment sump testing for sumps used for piping interstitial monitoring ....................................................

Owners and operators must conduct the first test or inspection 

within three years after the effective date of this final UST regulation. 

Release detection equipment testing. 

Walkthrough inspections. 

EPA proposed different 

implementation time frames for the 

various requirements, and for several 

requirements, a phased in approach 

based on tank age. Based on commenter 

input, EPA is not using the phased in 

approach and instead is requiring 

owners and operators to meet the 

requirements as described in the 

implementation table above. In 

addition, with one exception EPA is 

aligning implementation of the 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation to begin on the effective date 

of the UST regulation or three years 

after the effective date of the UST 

regulation. The requirements 

implemented on the effective date of the 

final UST regulation are those that 

either do not require significant 

education and outreach or apply to new 

installations, repairs, or releases. EPA is 

allowing up to three years for owners 

and operators to implement the 

requirements that require significant 

outreach, equipment to be upgraded or 

installed (such as for previously 

deferred UST systems), or scheduling 

and testing. Three years allows ample 

time for implementing agencies to 

educate owners and operators about this 

new requirements and allows owners 

and operators to schedule testing. The 

exception to implementing the 

requirements immediately or in three 

years is that EPA is implementing the 

secondary containment requirement 180 

days after the effective date of the UST 

regulation. The 180 day time frame 

allows flexibility for those owners and 

operators who have concrete plans but 

have not yet applied for or obtained 

approvals or permits for a new UST 

system installation. 

IV. Revisions to the Requirements for 

Owners and Operators of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems 

The following sections describe this 

final UST regulation, starting with 

establishing new requirements for 

operator training and secondary 

containment. The next four sections 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41571 

10 Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing 

The Operator Training Provision Of The Energy 

Policy Act Of 2005: www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/ 

optraing.htm. 

address changes to the 1988 UST 

regulation, organized by topic: 

Additional requirements for operation 

and maintenance; addressing UST 

systems deferred in the 1988 UST 

regulation; other changes to improve 

release prevention and release 

detection; and general updates to the 

1988 UST regulation. Finally, there is a 

section describing alternative options 

considered. 

A. Establishing Federal Requirements 

for Operator Training and Secondary 

Containment 

1. Operator Training 

This final UST regulation adds a new 

subpart J, which contains operator 

training requirements to ensure properly 

trained individuals operate all regulated 

UST systems. The operator training 

provision of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 requires implementing agencies, as 

a condition of receiving federal Subtitle 

I money, develop state-specific training 

requirements for three classes of UST 

system operators. EPA issued grant 

guidelines that provide minimum 

requirements state operator training 

programs must include in order for 

states to continue receiving federal 

Subtitle I money.10 All states are 

implementing or plan to implement 

operator training. The EPAct did not 

specifically require operator training in 

Indian country. To bring UST systems 

in Indian country to the same level of 

protection as UST systems in states, this 

final UST regulation implements 

operator training requirements. 

This final UST regulation closes the 

gap in coverage and ensures all 

operators designated as Class A, B, or C 

operators are trained according to their 

level of responsibility. Sufficiently 

training designated UST operators will 

increase compliance with regulatory 

requirements. In addition, operator 

training should decrease UST system 

releases by educating Class A, B, and C 

operators about their UST system 

requirements and result in greater 

protection of human health and the 

environment. 

The operator training requirements in 

this final UST regulation are consistent 

with the requirements in EPA’s operator 

training grant guidelines for states. In 

both, EPA establishes minimum 

operator training requirements, yet 

allows flexibility to tailor training 

programs for specific needs. This means 

that although there may be variations 

among operator training programs, all 

Class A, B, and C operators will have a 

minimum level of knowledge about 

their UST system requirements. 

Definitions 

EPA is adding definitions for the three 

operator classes requiring training to 

distinguish them from the term operator 

originally defined in the 1988 UST 

regulation and maintained in this final 

UST regulation. Only if Class A, B, or 

C operators meet the definition of 

operator will they be subject to the same 

responsibilities and liabilities as an 

operator. EPA’s definitions of Class A, 

B, and C operators do not relieve UST 

system owners and operators from legal 

responsibility for complying with the 

UST regulation. EPA based the three 

operator class definitions on duties each 

typically perform at UST facilities. 

Commenters on the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation indicated this final UST 

regulation should further differentiate 

Class A, B, and C operators from EPA’s 

definition of operator. EPA agrees with 

commenters and is changing the title of 

§ 280.241 to Designation of Class A, B, 

and C operators in the final UST 

regulation. This change correctly 

identifies the individuals who must be 

designated. 

With the exception of the definition 

for the Class C operator, the operator 

class definitions remain unchanged 

from the 2011 proposed UST regulation. 

Several commenters pointed out that 

UST system owners and operators were, 

at the time of the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, using contractors to perform 

Class C operator functions. Some 

commenters believed EPA was 

restricting the use of a contractor as a 

Class C operator since the proposal 

required a Class C operator to be an 

employee. EPA agrees; we are removing 

the restriction. EPA does not intend for 

the operator training requirements to 

restrict UST system owners and 

operators who are using contractors to 

operate their UST systems. 

EPA added a definition for training 

program in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation; we are modifying it in this 

final UST regulation. It is important that 

training programs for Class A, B, and C 

operators include both sharing 

information and evaluating knowledge. 

Several commenters requested 

clarification on how EPA expected 

knowledge to be verified. To address 

these requests, EPA changed the 

definition of training program by adding 

the phrase ‘‘through testing, practical 

demonstration, or another approach 

acceptable to the implementing 

agency.’’ This addition clarifies the 

definition and makes it consistent with 

how the term is used in this final UST 

regulation. 

How Operators Are Designated 

This final UST regulation indicates 

how UST owners and operators are to 

designate the three operator classes for 

their facilities. UST owners and 

operators must designate at least one 

Class A and B operator at each facility. 

Class A and B operators may provide 

training to Class C operators, which 

should help UST owners and operators 

comply with this requirement. The UST 

owner and operator must ensure Class C 

operator training is documented. 

Because Class C operators’ duties 

typically require them to provide initial 

responses to emergencies, individuals 

who meet the Class C operator 

definition must be designated as such 

and trained in UST system emergency 

response—for example response to 

release detection alarms, spills, or 

releases. EPA received several 

comments on the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation requesting we require only 

one Class C operator be designated. The 

final UST regulation requires all 

individuals who meet the definition of 

Class C operator be trained. EPA 

maintains that the initial response to 

emergencies provided by this operator 

class is important to environmental 

protection. Requiring training for all 

individuals who meet the Class C 

operator definition will increase the 

likelihood UST system emergencies are 

quickly and appropriately addressed. 

This does not mean all workers need to 

be trained. For example, numerous 

workers at convenience stores do not 

control or monitor dispensing or sale of 

petroleum products, nor are they 

responsible for initial alarms. As a 

result, it is unnecessary to designate and 

train these individuals to meet Class C 

operator training requirements. 

In addition, EPA acknowledges some 

readers might misinterpret that control 

of the dispensing operation described in 

the definition of the Class C operator 

applies to anyone fueling a vehicle. The 

level of UST system control and 

responsibility of individuals who must 

be trained excludes customers who are 

pumping product into their vehicles. 

For example, police officers using an 

unmanned facility would not have to 

meet Class C operator training 

requirements unless they are 

responsible, as specifically tasked by 

UST system owners and operators, to 

respond to emergencies and alarms 

caused by spills or releases from the 

UST system. 

In the preamble to the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation, EPA acknowledged that 

many UST owners and operators might 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41572 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

want to designate one person at an UST 

facility to fulfill more than one class of 

operator. This final UST regulation 

allows one person to serve in multiple 

operator classes; however, that person 

must be trained for each class 

designated. 

EPA is aware owners and operators 

rely on contractors to perform various 

UST system tasks, including those of 

Class A, B, and C operators. Because of 

the current use of contractors, EPA is 

allowing UST owners and operators to 

designate contractors as their Class A, B, 

and C operators, as long as they are 

trained in all areas for the class of 

operator designated. UST owners and 

operators must maintain documentation 

containing individual names (not just 

company names) of Class A, B, and C 

operators. This will allow implementing 

agencies to use individual names, rather 

than company names, when verifying 

training, retraining, and refresher 

training. 

Who Must Be Trained 

This final UST regulation requires 

training for designated Class A, B, and 

C operators at UST systems regulated 

under Subtitle I. This includes UST 

systems at attended and unattended 

facilities. An unattended UST facility 

means a Class A, B, or C operator might 

not be present when a facility is 

operating. Nonetheless, even for 

unattended UST facilities, owners and 

operators must designate and train Class 

A, B, and C operators. 

Requirements for Operator Training 

In the operator training grant 

guidelines for states, EPA based the 

three operator classes on duties each 

typically perform at UST facilities. 

Building on that, this final UST 

regulation requires each person 

designated in an operator class to 

participate in a specific training 

program or pass an examination 

comparable to the training program. 

• For Class A operators, the training 

program must teach and evaluate their 

knowledge to make informed decisions 

regarding compliance and determine 

whether appropriate people are 

performing the operation, maintenance, 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

UST systems. 

• For Class B operators, the training 

program must teach and evaluate their 

knowledge and skills to implement UST 

regulatory requirements on typical UST 

system components or site-specific 

equipment at UST facilities. 

• For Class C operators, the training 

program must teach and evaluate their 

knowledge to take appropriate action, 

including notifying appropriate 

authorities, in response to emergencies 

or alarms caused by spills or releases 

from UST systems. 

• For all operator classes, the test is 

based on the training program and 

evaluates the minimum knowledge 

required for the operator class. 

EPA received several comments on 

the description of Class C operator 

training requirements. One commenter 

suggested EPA should clarify the scope 

of emergencies a Class C operator is 

trained on. This final UST regulation 

requires Class C operators receive 

training on emergencies or alarms 

caused by spills or releases from 

operating UST systems. EPA also agrees 

with the comment regarding Class C 

operator training avoiding triggering the 

Hazardous Waste Operations and 

Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) 

standard. HAZWOPER is the United 

States’ recognized standard of safety 

requirements employers and their 

subcontractors or public sector 

responders must meet in order to 

conduct cleanups or emergency 

response operations. The level of 

training in this standard is beyond that 

which EPA intends for Class C 

operators. This final UST regulation 

modifies the training requirements for 

Class C operators and clarifies that 

appropriate actions Class C operators 

can take include notifying appropriate 

authorities. 

For each class of operator, EPA 

considered developing specific training 

curricula prescribing length of training, 

topic areas, and trainer qualifications. 

Instead, this final UST regulation 

provides general criteria and 

requirements, because they provide 

flexibility while ensuring each class of 

operator is trained in a way that is 

comparable to EPA’s operator training 

grant guidelines for states. EPA also 

modified the lists of training 

requirements for Class A and B 

operators from those identified in the 

2011 proposal. The modifications made 

it clearer that new operation and 

maintenance inspection and testing, and 

compatibility demonstration 

requirements must be covered by 

operator training programs and 

comparable examinations. 

EPA received several comments 

regarding restrictions on who may 

develop and administer the evaluation 

component of training, as well as 

restrictions on who may train Class A 

and B operators. This final UST 

regulation removes those restrictions 

because they could prohibit in-house 

and other potentially viable training. 

EPA supports a variety of operator 

training approaches. However, for 

retraining, EPA is revising language in 

§ 280.244 to address conflicts of interest. 

This final UST regulation requires the 

training program or comparable 

examination to be developed or 

administered by an independent 

organization, the implementing agency, 

or a recognized authority. These 

retraining restrictions will help address 

any ineffective training approaches. 

This final UST regulation allows a 

variety of ways to train operators, 

including classroom, computer based, 

hands on, and any combination of these. 

In lieu of completing a training program, 

Class A, B, or C operators can pass a 

comparable examination—such as 

classroom, Internet, or computer 

based—that meets the requirements for 

operator training described in this final 

UST regulation. 

When Designated Operators Must 

Complete Operator Training 

This final UST regulation requires 

UST owners and operators ensure all 

Class A, B, and C operators successfully 

complete a training program or a 

comparable examination within three 

years of the effective date of this final 

UST regulation. EPA proposed a phased 

in approach over three years, based on 

UST installation dates because older 

USTs potentially pose a greater risk to 

the environment and Class A, B, and C 

operators of those systems should be 

trained first. EPA received comments 

strongly indicating EPA should not 

phase in the operator training 

requirements. EPA agrees with 

commenters that it is less confusing to 

establish a single compliance date for 

this requirement. EPA is aligning 

implementation of operator training 

with the three year inspection 

requirement, which will make it easier 

for UST system owners and operators to 

comply. 

Consistent with EPA’s operator 

training grant guidelines, new operators 

designated after the three year 

implementation period must be trained 

as follows: 

• Class A and B operators must be 

trained within 30 days of assuming 

duties 

• Class C operators must be trained 

before they assume their duties because 

they must be able to immediately 

respond to emergencies 

Retraining 

Class A and B operators are 

responsible for ensuring their UST 

systems are compliant. Generally, Class 

A and B operators need to be retrained 

if the UST systems they are responsible 

for are determined to be out of 

compliance. At a minimum, retraining 

must cover those areas the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41573 

11Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 

12Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

13Title XV, Subtitle B, Section 1530 of Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58, August 8, 

2005. 

14E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

implementing agency determines are 

out of compliance. Retraining must be 

completed within 30 days of the 

implementing agency’s final 

determination of noncompliance. This 

final UST regulation allows designated 

operators to take annual refresher 

training in lieu of retraining, as long as 

all training areas required by regulation 

are covered. Designated operators must 

be subject to the annual refresher 

training in place at the time of the 

violation. 

This final UST regulation also allows 

implementing agencies to waive the 

retraining requirement. Unless waived, 

Class A and B operators must complete 

retraining according to § 280.244. EPA 

recommends the waiver be in writing. In 

waiving the requirement, EPA expects 

the implementing agency to consider 

factors such as the severity and areas of 

noncompliance. For example, retraining 

should not be required for equipment 

found inoperative during an inspection 

if one of the following apply: The owner 

and operator was unaware of the 

problem and operation and maintenance 

records indicate the equipment was 

operating during the most recent test or 

inspection; or the owner or operator is 

aware of the problem and has scheduled 

a timely repair. In those instances where 

UST system noncompliance violations 

do not warrant retraining, EPA 

encourages implementing agencies to 

provide information about the 

compliance issue to Class A and B 

operators so they are able to return their 

facilities to compliance. This provides 

greater flexibility for UST owners and 

operators to meet the retraining 

requirement. This final UST regulation 

is consistent with EPA’s retraining 

requirement for noncompliance with 

significant operational compliance 

requirements and an annual refresher 

training allowance in our operator 

training grant guidelines for states. 

This final UST regulation addresses 

comments about the terms independent 

trainer and independent organization in 

the retraining requirement at § 280.244. 

In this section, EPA is requiring that a 

training program or comparable 

examination be developed, 

administered, or both by an 

independent organization, the 

implementing agency, or recognized 

authority. A recognized authority 

includes, but is not limited to, tribes 

recognized by the U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 

development, administration, or both by 

an independent organization applies to 

all training approaches (classroom, 

Internet based, testing, etc.) and 

provides sufficient control for the 

implementing agency to address conflict 

of interest and other concerns during 

retraining. 

EPA considered requiring retraining 

when UST facilities change equipment, 

but decided this would be a significant 

burden on both the regulated 

community and implementing agencies. 

However, if an UST system is out of 

compliance because of an equipment 

change, EPA is requiring that UST 

owners and operators ensure Class A 

and B operators are retrained as 

discussed above. 

Documentation 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators maintain records 

on currently designated Class A, B, and 

C operators, rather than records on all 

Class A, B, and C operators for the 

previous three years, as proposed. EPA 

is requiring owners and operators 

maintain basic information to document 

Class A, B, and C operators and confirm 

they are appropriately trained. For 

example, classroom training records 

must be signed by the trainer and 

include information about the training 

company; computer based training 

records do not require a signature, but 

must indicate the name of the training 

program and the Web address, if 

Internet based. This final UST 

regulation also modifies § 280.245(b)(1) 

by clarifying that the requirement for a 

record of training is also applicable 

when Class A or B operators train Class 

C operators. UST owners and operators 

must document verification of training 

or retraining for each class of operator. 

Owners and operators must maintain 

records verifying training or retraining 

as long as Class A, B, and C operators 

are designated at the facility. 

2. Secondary Containment 

This final UST regulation adds new 

requirements for secondary containment 

and interstitial monitoring of new and 

replaced tanks and piping along with 

under-dispenser containment (UDC) of 

new dispenser systems. Data from 

release sites show a higher number of 

releases from single walled tanks and 

piping when compared to secondarily 

contained systems.11 12 These new 

requirements will prevent regulated 

substances from reaching the 

environment and ensure a consistent 

level of environmental protection for 

regulated UST systems across the 

United States. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

requires implementing agencies, as a 

condition of receiving federal Subtitle I 

money, implement additional measures 

to protect groundwater. Under EPAct, 

implementing agencies’ choices to 

protect groundwater are: Secondary 

containment (including UDC); or 

financial responsibility for 

manufacturers and installers (and 

installer certification). All states are 

implementing or plan to implement 

secondary containment. The EPAct did 

not specifically require additional 

measures to protect groundwater in 

Indian country. To bring UST systems 

in Indian country to the same level of 

environmental protection as UST 

systems in states, this final UST 

regulation implements secondary 

containment requirements for new and 

replaced tanks and piping along with 

UDC underneath all new dispenser 

systems. 

The EPAct requires states that receive 

federal Subtitle I money (and choose the 

secondary containment option) to have 

secondary containment and UDC for 

tanks, piping, and dispensers only if 

they are installed or replaced within 

1,000 feet of an existing community 

water system or potable drinking water 

well.13 However, EPA is requiring all 

new and replaced tanks and piping to 

install secondary containment and new 

dispenser systems to install UDC for 

these reasons: 

• Nearly all new and replaced tanks 

and piping are installed within 1,000 

feet of an existing community water 

system (CWS) or potable drinking water 

well (PDWW). An UST listed with a 

commercial ownership type (i.e., gas 

station) is typically located within 1,000 

feet of an on-site well or public water 

line because nearly all commerciallyowned facilities with USTs require 

water utilities in order to operate. In 

addition, privately owned facilities (i.e., 

fleet fueling for non-marketers) are 

generally in close proximity to some 

type of water supply, given that these 

sites are typically combined with other 

functional operations (office, 

maintenance, manufacturing, etc.) and 

require water for restrooms, water 

fountains, shops, etc.; 14

• Some implementing agencies that 

require secondary containment only 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41574 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

15Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 

16Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

17 Frequency And Extent Of Dispenser Releases 

At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In South 

Carolina (EPA–510–R–04–004, September 2004). 

http://epa.gov/oust/pubs/dispenser.htm. 

18Preamble to 40 CFR part 280, 53 FR 37154, 

September 23, 1988. 

19 Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the 

Secondary Containment Provision of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005: http://epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/

secondco.htm. 

within 1,000 feet of a CWS or PDWW 

informed EPA that installations of single 

walled tanks or piping are not 

occurring; and 

• Secondary containment for all new 

and replaced tanks and piping along 

with UDC for new dispenser systems 

will help protect other sensitive areas, 

such as designated source water 

protection areas, natural springs, and 

surface waters. 

The EPAct requires under-dispenser 

containment underneath new motor fuel 

dispenser systems at UST systems 

regulated under 40 CFR part 280. 

However, EPA is aware of a small 

number of dispenser systems, such as 

kerosene dispensers, that do not 

dispense motor fuel. Small releases can 

occur at these dispensers in the same 

manner as they occur at motor fuel 

dispensers.15 16 17 Therefore, this final 

UST regulation requires owners and 

operators install UDC underneath new 

dispenser systems at UST systems 

regulated under 40 CFR part 280, 

irrespective of whether they dispense 

motor fuel. 

The secondary containment 

requirement applies to new or replaced 

underground tanks and piping regulated 

under Subtitle I, except those excluded 

by regulation in § 280.10(b) and those 

partially excluded by regulation in 

§ 280.10(c). Petroleum and hazardous 

substance USTs must meet the 

secondary containment requirement 

with the corresponding use of 

interstitial monitoring for release 

detection. The 1988 UST regulation 

allowed variances to the use of 

interstitial monitoring as the method of 

release detection for hazardous 

substance USTs. Since these variances 

are no longer an option, EPA is 

removing the language allowing 

variances for new installations from this 

final UST regulation. 

EPA is requiring owners and 

operators install tank and piping 

secondary containment that: Will 

contain regulated substances leaked 

from the primary containment until they 

are detected and removed; will prevent 

the release of regulated substances to 

the environment at any time during the 

operational life of the UST system; and 

is monitored for a leak at least once 

every 30 days using interstitial 

monitoring. These requirements are 

consistent with the requirements for 

secondarily contained hazardous 

substance tanks in § 280.42 and are 

necessary to help prevent releases to the 

environment. 

EPA is not requiring secondary 

containment for piping that meets the 

requirements of § 280.41(b)(2)(i) through 

(v), sometimes called safe suction 

piping, because such piping is currently 

not required to meet release detection 

requirements. Safe suction piping uses a 

suction pump to deliver regulated 

substances from the UST to the 

dispenser. Safe suction piping operates 

at less than atmospheric pressure, 

slopes towards the UST so regulated 

substances drain to the UST if suction 

is lost, and has only one check valve 

located close to the suction pump. As 

discussed in the 1988 UST regulation 

preamble, these characteristics ensure 

that little, if any, regulated substances 

will be released if a break occurs in the 

line.18 Similarly, EPA considers piping 

that manifolds two tanks together, 

which has characteristics that allow 

product to drain to the manifolded tanks 

if the piping loses suction, the same as 

safe suction piping. In addition, this 

final UST regulation does not require 

secondary containment for new and 

replaced piping associated with fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons in capacity and airport hydrant 

fuel distribution systems. See section C– 

2 for additional information about these 

types of UST systems. 

EPA is not requiring secondary 

containment and UDC for UST systems 

where installation began on or before 

180 days after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation. 180 days allows 

owners and operators who have 

concrete plans for a new UST system or 

dispenser installation to move forward 

with their plans before the secondary 

containment and UDC requirement 

takes effect. Similar to the definition of 

existing tank system in the 1988 UST 

regulation, EPA considers an 

installation to have begun after the 

owner or operator applied for or 

obtained all federal, state, and local 

approvals or permits and: 

• Physical construction or installation 

began; or 

• The owner or operator entered into 

a contractual agreement that cannot be 

cancelled or modified without 

substantial loss and physical 

construction or installation will 

commence within a reasonable time 

frame. 

Requiring retrofits of major 

components would be a significant 

financial burden for owners and 

operators. EPA anticipates owners and 

operators will replace single walled 

UST systems as they age. When owners 

and operators replace single walled UST 

systems after the effective date of the 

final UST regulation, tanks and piping 

must be secondarily contained and new 

dispensers must have UDC. 

To implement secondary containment 

and UDC, EPA is adding new 

definitions to this final UST regulation. 

EPA is defining these terms so they are 

consistent with the definitions 

contained in EPA’s secondary 

containment grant guidelines to 

implementing agencies.19 New 

definitions in the final UST regulation 

are: 

• Dispenser—This means equipment 

located aboveground that dispenses 

regulated substances from the UST 

system. The 2011 proposed UST 

regulation defined dispenser system. 

However, based on comments received, 

EPA decided to also add the definition 

of dispenser to the final UST regulation. 

• Dispenser system—This means the 

dispenser and the equipment necessary 

to connect the dispenser to the UST 

system. As described above, EPA 

decided to add dispenser to the list of 

definitions in the final UST regulation 

for clarity. As a result, EPA shortened 

the definition of dispenser system in the 

final UST regulation to account for the 

new definition of dispenser. 

• Replaced—For a tank, this means to 

remove a tank and install another tank. 

For piping, it means to remove 50 

percent or more of piping and install 

other piping, excluding connectors, 

connected to a single tank. For tanks 

with multiple piping runs, this 

definition applies independently to 

each piping run. Commenters suggested 

adding a definition of replaced as it 

applies to a dispenser system. However, 

since EPA is only applying the UDC 

requirement to new dispenser systems, 

we are not defining the term replaced as 

it relates to dispenser systems. 

• Secondary containment or 

secondarily contained—This means a 

release prevention and release detection 

system for a tank or piping. This system 

has an inner and outer barrier with an 

interstitial space that is monitored for 

leaks. This term includes containment 

sumps when used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping. The EPAct defines 

secondary containment as a release 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41575 

20E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

21 Industrial Economics Incorporated, Work 

Assignment #1–19, Methodology and Calculator for 

Secondary Containment for Piping, October 3, 2008. 

22Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 

23Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

detection and prevention system that 

meets the interstitial monitoring 

requirement in § 280.43(g). Based on 

this definition, this final UST regulation 

includes interstitial monitoring as part 

of the secondary containment 

definition. Consistent with the 1988 

UST regulation release detection 

requirements, EPA is requiring 

interstitial monitoring of new and 

replaced secondarily contained tanks 

and piping to occur at least once every 

30 days. Some commenters expressed 

concern about whether secondary 

containment included containment 

sumps. To clarify the definition, EPA is 

adding language about containment 

sumps to the secondary containment 

definition. In addition, EPA is defining 

containment sump in this final UST 

regulation. See section B–4, Secondary 

Containment Tests, for details about this 

new definition. Several commenters 

suggested EPA add to the definition of 

secondary containment a 360 degree 

containment requirement for tanks. EPA 

relies on codes of practice developed by 

nationally recognized associations or 

independent testing laboratories to 

determine the degree of containment 

necessary to be considered secondarily 

contained. This final UST regulation 

continues to rely on these codes of 

practice for determining when the tanks 

and piping are considered secondarily 

contained. 

• Under-dispenser containment— 

This means containment underneath a 

dispenser system designed to prevent 

leaks from the dispenser and piping 

within or above the UDC from reaching 

soil or groundwater. Based on 

comments received and to provide 

clarification, EPA is adding piping in 

the containment sump to the definition. 

EPA’s secondary containment grant 

guidelines provide states with 

significant flexibility to define replaced 

as it applies to piping. The guidelines 

require that states, at a minimum, 

consider replacing piping when 100 

percent of piping, excluding connectors, 

connected to a single UST is removed 

and other piping is installed. When 

deciding how to best define replaced as 

it applies to piping, EPA analyzed state 

UST regulations for approximately 40 

states that currently require secondary 

containment and interstitial 

monitoring.20 About 75 percent of these 

states have requirements as stringent as, 

or more stringent than, the 50 percent 

threshold in this final UST regulation. 

In addition, EPA performed a 

screening analysis using limited, readily 

available data to determine when repair 

cost approached replacement cost (and 

at what point owners and operators 

were most likely to replace the entire 

piping run rather than repair it).21 The 

screening analysis suggested 

replacement cost of an entire piping run 

became equal to repair cost when about 

60 percent of a piping run is repaired. 

Since 60 percent was an approximate 

screening number, EPA in this final 

UST regulation is requiring owners and 

operators to secondarily contain the 

entire piping run when 50 percent or 

more of a piping run is replaced. Fifty 

percent represents half of a piping run, 

is consistent with most implementing 

agency decisions, and provides 

flexibility for allowing repairs while 

continuing to protect the environment. 

Fifty percent also prevents owners and 

operators from leaving small pipe 

sections in the ground to avoid this 

secondary containment requirement. If 

an UST has multiple piping runs, the 

secondary containment requirement 

applies independently to each piping 

run where 50 percent or more of piping 

is replaced. Currently installed piping 

runs, and piping runs where less than 

50 percent of the piping is repaired, do 

not require secondary containment. 

For pressurized piping, EPA considers 

a piping run to be the piping that 

connects the submersible turbine pump 

(STP) to all of the dispensers fed by that 

pump. For example, if a tank has two 

STPs, EPA considers the piping 

associated with each STP to be separate 

piping runs. For suction piping, a 

piping run is the piping that runs 

between the tank and the suction pump. 

Consistent with EPA’s current policy, 

if an owner or operator chooses to 

reinstall a secondarily contained tank or 

piping that was previously installed, 

that tank or piping must meet new tank 

and piping standards in § 280.20 at the 

time of installation. 

EPA is requiring owners and 

operators install UDC underneath new 

dispenser systems at UST systems 

regulated by 40 CFR part 280. Data from 

release sites show dispensers are one of 

the leading release sources.22 23 UDC is 

located underground and prevents some 

releases by containing small leaks that 

occur inside and underneath the 

dispenser. EPA considers a dispenser 

system new when owners and operators 

install both the dispenser and 

equipment needed to connect the 

dispenser to an UST system. EPA 

includes check valves, shear valves, 

unburied risers or flexible connectors, 

and other transitional components as 

equipment that connects a dispenser to 

an UST system. This equipment is 

located underneath the dispenser and 

typically connects underground piping 

to a dispenser. If an owner or operator 

replaces a dispenser but uses existing 

equipment to connect a dispenser to the 

UST system, then UDC is not required. 

To contain small releases from the 

dispenser, piping, and other equipment, 

UDC must be liquid tight. This final 

UST regulation requires UDC be liquid 

tight on its sides, bottom, and at any 

penetrations through the containment. 

EPA is requiring periodic testing of UDC 

in section B–4, Secondary Containment 

Tests, if the UDC is used for piping 

interstitial monitoring. In addition, EPA 

is requiring annual inspections of 

containment sumps in section B–1, 

Walkthrough Inspections, including 

UDC. Finally, an owner or operator 

must be able to access and visually 

inspect the containment. If visual 

inspection and access are not possible, 

then owners and operators must 

periodically monitor UDC (i.e., by 

electronic monitoring) to ensure it is 

intact and free of liquids. EPA proposed 

continuous UDC monitoring if visual 

inspection and access of the UDC are 

not possible. However, in guidance to 

state UST programs about meeting the 

secondary containment provision of the 

EPAct, EPA did not require continuous 

monitoring. Therefore, to provide 

owners and operators additional 

flexibility and be consistent with 

guidance provided to states, this final 

UST regulation requires periodic 

monitoring of UDC if access to and 

visual inspection of the UDC are not 

possible. 

B. Additional Requirements for 

Operation and Maintenance 

The 1988 UST regulation required 

owners and operators install improved 

UST system equipment to detect and 

prevent releases; however, it did not 

require operation and maintenance for 

all of that equipment. Owners and 

operators need to properly operate and 

maintain their UST system equipment 

in order to prevent and quickly detect 

releases. Therefore, this final UST 

regulation adds requirements for 

periodic walkthrough inspections, spill 

prevention equipment testing, overfill 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41576 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

24Work Order No. 1004, Task 2, Subtask a—State 

Walkthrough Underground Storage Tank 

Inspections, SKEO, 1/31/2013 

prevention equipment inspections, 

containment sump testing, and release 

detection equipment testing. 

When a test or inspection occurs, 

owners and operators may find 

problems with the UST system. When a 

test or inspection indicates a problem, 

owners and operators must repair the 

problem to remain in compliance with 

this final UST regulation. Section 

280.33 of this final UST regulation 

describes repair requirements for UST 

systems. 

1. Walkthrough Inspections 

To help EPA determine whether 

walkthrough inspections will be 

effective, EPA asked nine states with 

requirements for periodic walkthrough 

inspections whether their requirements 

are effective.24 Seven states believe their 

programs are effective. Two states did 

not provide input because they had not 

been implementing their walkthrough 

inspection programs long enough to 

evaluate effectiveness. States providing 

input indicated their walkthrough 

inspections: Identify and resolve 

problems more quickly; decrease the 

chance of a potential spill or release; 

and increase understanding and 

compliance with the UST regulation. 

Based on this information and input 

received from comments on the 2011 

proposed UST regulation, EPA thinks 

walkthrough inspections will be 

effective in helping prevent and detect 

releases. 

Based on comments EPA received, 

this final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators conduct 

walkthrough inspections as follows: 

• Every 30 days: 

Æ Visually check spill prevention 

equipment for damage and remove 

liquid or debris; check for and remove 

obstructions in the fill pipe; check the 

fill cap to ensure it is securely on the 

fill pipe; and, for double walled spill 

prevention equipment with interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the 

interstitial area (exception: Owners and 

operators of spill prevention equipment 

at UST systems receiving deliveries at 

intervals greater than 30 days may check 

that equipment prior to each delivery) 

Æ Check release detection equipment 

to ensure it is operating with no alarms 

or unusual operating conditions present 

and ensure release detection records are 

reviewed and current 

• Annually: 

Æ Visually check containment sumps 

for damage and leaks to the containment 

area or releases to the environment; 

remove liquid (in contained sumps) or 

debris; and, for double walled 

containment sumps with interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the 

interstitial area 

Æ Check hand held release detection 

equipment, such as groundwater bailers 

and tank gauge sticks, for operability 

and serviceability 

In addition, this final UST regulation 

allows owners and operators to conduct 

operation and maintenance walkthrough 

inspections according to a standard 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory or 

according to requirements developed by 

the implementing agency. The 

inspections must check equipment in a 

manner comparable to the walkthrough 

inspection requirements described 

above. 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators maintain 

walkthrough inspection records for one 

year. Most commenters supported a one 

year recordkeeping requirement for 

walkthrough inspections. In addition, 

the one year recordkeeping time frame 

is consistent with the recordkeeping 

requirement for 30 day release detection 

monitoring. The walkthrough inspection 

record must include a list of each area 

checked, whether each area checked 

was acceptable or needed action taken, 

a description of actions taken to correct 

an issue, and delivery records if owners 

and operators check spill prevention 

equipment less frequently than every 30 

days. 

In 2011, EPA proposed to implement 

the walkthrough inspection requirement 

on the effective date of the final UST 

regulation. However, based on 

comments received and to align 

implementation of all operation and 

maintenance requirements, owners and 

operators must begin conducting 

walkthrough inspections not later than 

three years after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation. This change will 

make compliance easier and allow 

owners and operators ample time to 

understand their walkthrough 

inspection responsibilities. 

In 2011, EPA proposed requiring 

owners and operators inspect 

containment sumps once every 30 days. 

Many commenters were concerned 

about inspecting containment sumps 

every 30 days because of the physical 

burdens of lifting heavy lids, the 

potential to ruin seals that prevent water 

from entering the sump, and the safety 

of the people performing the inspection 

in high traffic areas. While EPA thinks 

frequent containment sump inspections 

are a valuable part of UST system 

operation and maintenance, EPA 

recognizes the concerns raised by 

commenters and is moving the 

requirement to conduct containment 

sump inspections from once every 30 

days to annual, which coincides with 

when owners and operators must open 

containment sumps to test release 

detection equipment. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA required that hand held release 

detection equipment be inspected once 

every 30 days. Based on commenter 

input, this final UST regulation requires 

annual inspections of hand held release 

detection equipment to coincide with 

other release detection equipment 

operation and maintenance 

requirements. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA required 30 day cathodic 

protection inspections as part of the 

walkthrough inspection. Several 

commenters indicated this frequency 

conflicted with the 60 day requirement 

already in the 1988 UST regulation. 

Based on this input, this final UST 

regulation keeps cathodic protection 

inspections at the 60 day interval as 

required in the 1988 UST regulation. 

Therefore, owners and operators must 

continue to perform the 60 day 

impressed current cathodic protection 

inspections to ensure equipment is 

running properly and keep the most 

recent three records of those 

inspections. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

required checking monitoring and 

observation wells every 30 days to make 

sure they are secure. A few commenters 

questioned the need to perform these 

inspections because owners and 

operators seldom access these wells 

unless they are used for release 

detection or cleanup. EPA agrees with 

these commenters and also thinks that 

owners and operators will secure 

monitoring wells following each 30 day 

release detection monitoring event or 

during cleanups as part of their normal 

compliance activities. Therefore, EPA is 

not including monitoring and 

observation wells as part of the periodic 

walkthrough inspection requirement in 

this final UST regulation. 

EPA received several comments on 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation 

recommending treating nonretail UST 

systems differently than traditional 

commercial UST facilities because some 

nonretail UST systems receive 

infrequent deliveries. Based on the 

comments, this final UST regulation 

allows additional flexibility for 

inspecting spill prevention equipment 

at UST systems where filling occurs 

infrequently. In cases where filling 

activities occur less often than 30 days, 

owners and operators may inspect spill 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41577 

25This document is available for purchase at 

www.pei.org. 

26Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

27Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 

28Spill Bucket Performance Presentation by Dale 

Stoudemire, 2005 UST National Conference, March 

14–15 2005, Seattle, WA. 

29Spill Buckets: Mistaken Expectations?, 

LUSTLine Bulletin 48, Dale W. Stoudemire, 

November 2004. 

prevention equipment prior to each 

delivery, instead of at least once every 

30 days. This exception to the spill 

prevention equipment check for the 30 

day walkthrough inspection 

requirement will still provide 

appropriate environmental protection 

because the purpose of this equipment 

is to catch drips and spills that may 

occur when the delivery hose is 

disconnected from the fill pipe. For UST 

systems receiving infrequent deliveries, 

inspecting spill prevention equipment 

before each delivery is adequate. 

This final UST regulation retains 30 

day inspections of release detection 

equipment and spill prevention 

equipment. EPA thinks these 

inspections are needed at least once 

every 30 days for release detection to 

ensure the equipment is operating, 

check release detection records, and 

determine whether the tank or piping is 

leaking. Owners and operators who 

monitor their release detection system 

remotely may check the release 

detection equipment and records 

remotely as long as the release detection 

system at the UST system location is 

determined to be in communication 

with the remote monitoring equipment. 

In addition, 30 day inspections (or 

before each delivery) of spill prevention 

equipment will ensure these devices 

contain small drips and spills that occur 

when the delivery hose is disconnected 

from the fill pipe. Based on commenter 

input, EPA is adding the requirement to 

check for and remove obstructions in 

the fill pipe as part of the walkthrough 

inspection because obstructions in the 

fill pipe will cause a shutoff device to 

operate improperly. 

EPA is including Petroleum 

Equipment Institute’s Recommended 

Practice 900, Recommended Practices 

for the Inspection and Maintenance of 

UST Systems, as a code of practice that 

may be used to meet the walkthrough 

inspection requirement in this final UST 

regulation.25 This recommended 

practice includes daily, monthly, and 

annual inspections for properly 

maintaining underground storage tank 

systems. Owners and operators who use 

the code of practice option for meeting 

UST requirements must use the entire 

code of practice. For example, owners 

and operators would not meet the 

walkthrough inspection requirement if 

they chose to follow only some of the 

walkthrough inspection areas in the 

code of practice while ignoring others. 

This final UST regulation allows 

flexibility for owners and operators to 

conduct walkthrough inspections 

themselves or hire a third party to 

conduct walkthrough inspections. 

Although EPA does not require training 

for owners and operators who conduct 

these inspections, operators trained in 

the Class A or B training requirements 

(see section A–1) should already have 

adequate knowledge to perform periodic 

walkthrough inspections. 

EPA received multiple comments 

suggesting we revise the 30 day 

inspection requirement to be a monthly 

requirement. After careful 

consideration, EPA is keeping the 30 

day inspection requirement. Thirty days 

provides owners and operators with 

clarity about the inspection time frame 

by specifying the maximum number of 

days between walkthrough inspections. 

EPA is not moving to monthly 

inspections because owners and 

operators could misinterpret monthly 

and go 60 or more days without 

conducting a walkthrough inspection. 

For example, an owner or operator 

could perform a monthly inspection on 

January 31, then again on February 1, 

and then not inspect again until March 

31. If an owner or operator continued 

this practice, six inspections would 

occur one day apart and six inspections 

would occur about 60 days apart. While 

this could be considered inspecting 

monthly, it is not inspecting 

consistently on or about the same time 

each month. EPA wants to ensure the 

walkthrough inspection frequency is 

consistent, rather than allow the more 

inconsistent monthly option in this 

example. Since 30 days is the average 

length of a month, EPA’s intent with 

requiring 30 days is to ensure owners 

and operators conduct walkthrough 

inspections on or about the same time 

each month. 

Some commenters raised concern 

about disposing of liquids owners and 

operators discover during the 

inspection. For spill prevention 

equipment and containment sumps to 

operate as intended, those areas must be 

free of liquids. In the past, when owners 

and operators found liquids in those 

areas, they needed to remove the liquids 

so the equipment would operate 

properly (and meet the 1988 UST 

regulation). This final UST regulation is 

requiring those areas be inspected 

periodically; as a result, owners and 

operators may discover the liquid 

sooner, but the responsibility to remove 

the liquid remains the same. EPA 

expects owners and operators to 

remove, manage, and dispose of the 

liquid properly (according to federal, 

state, and local requirements) as soon as 

practicable after discovery. 

2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests 

In this final UST regulation, EPA is 

adding a three year testing requirement 

for spill prevention equipment. This 

action helps ensure spill prevention 

equipment will contain small drips and 

spills when the delivery transfer hose is 

disconnected from the fill pipe. Owners 

and operators need to properly operate 

and maintain their spill prevention 

equipment in order to prevent releases 

to the environment. If a small release 

occurs at the fill port and the spill 

prevention equipment is not liquid 

tight, then the release can exit the spill 

prevention equipment and reach the 

environment. EPA is aware of various 

problems with spill prevention 

equipment. Data show that UST spills 

account for about 15 percent of releases 

from UST systems.26 27 Examples of 

problems with spill prevention 

equipment include damage due to: 

Vehicles driving over the spill 

prevention equipment; ground 

movement or freeze and thaw cycles; 

inadequate installation practices; and 

normal wear and tear. In addition, the 

typical life of spill prevention 

equipment is relatively short—five to 

eight years according to a South 

Carolina study.28 29 The life span for 

spill prevention equipment can be even 

shorter when exposed to more severe 

weather conditions such as freeze and 

thaw cycles and plowing following 

snow events. Because of these factors, 

periodic spill prevention equipment 

testing is needed to minimize problems 

and ensure spill prevention equipment 

will contain small releases from the 

delivery hose when disconnected from 

the fill pipe. 

This final UST regulation does not 

require periodic testing of double 

walled spill prevention equipment if the 

integrity of both walls is periodically 

monitored. Because the integrity of both 

walls is periodically monitored, this 

type of spill prevention equipment is 

periodically checked for tightness. In 

2011, EPA proposed to exclude from the 

periodic testing requirement only 

double walled spill prevention 

equipment with continuous interstitial 

monitoring. Several commenters 

suggested that monitoring of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41578 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

30This document is available for purchase at 

www.pei.org. 

31Spill, Overfill, and Secondary Containment 

testing Questions and Answers from Three Vendors 

(11/8/12). 

interstitial area be used in lieu of 

periodic spill prevention equipment 

testing. EPA agrees with commenters 

that double walled spill prevention 

equipment, where the integrity of both 

walls is periodically monitored, should 

not have to undergo testing—as long as 

owners and operators conduct periodic 

monitoring of the equipment at a 

frequency consistent with, or more 

frequent than, the walkthrough 

inspection frequency (see section B–1). 

For example, owners and operators who 

check vacuum, pressure, or liquid 

interstitial integrity indicators on 

double walled spill containment devices 

as part of their 30 day walkthrough 

inspections are considered to be 

periodically monitoring the integrity of 

both walls. 

For spill prevention equipment that 

must be tested once every three years, 

this final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators to conduct testing 

using vacuum, pressure, or liquid 

methods. In addition, the test must be 

conducted in accordance with 

manufacturer’s requirements or a code 

of practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory. The manufacturer’s 

requirement is an option only when the 

manufacturer has developed 

requirements for testing the tightness of 

their spill prevention equipment. As of 

the publication date of this final UST 

regulation, EPA is aware of one code of 

practice that contains procedures for 

testing spill prevention equipment: 

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) 

Recommended Practice (RP) 1200, 

Recommended Practices for the Testing 

and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak 

Detection and Secondary Containment 

Equipment at UST Facilities.30 EPA is 

adding this code of practice to this final 

UST regulation. In addition, EPA is 

providing implementing agencies 

flexibility to allow other methods they 

determine to be as protective of human 

health and the environment as the 

manufacturer’s requirements or a code 

of practice. This option allows 

alternatives in case codes of practice 

and manufacturer’s requirements are not 

available for testing spill prevention 

equipment. Several commenters 

expressed concern that EPA did not 

establish specific pass or fail 

performance criteria for spill prevention 

equipment testing. EPA thinks the 

manufacturer, code of practice, or 

implementing agency are better suited 

to establish test method criteria because 

spill prevention devices are 

manufactured in different shapes and 

sizes. Therefore, EPA is relying on the 

test method to establish specific pass or 

fail performance criteria. 

In 2011, EPA proposed a one year 

implementation time frame for owners 

and operators to begin conducting spill 

prevention equipment testing. However, 

based on commenter input suggesting 

implementation be consistent with other 

testing requirements, EPA is requiring 

owners and operators of spill 

containment equipment in use as of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation conduct the first test no later 

than three years after the effective date 

of this final UST regulation. EPA thinks 

aligning implementation dates for the 

different operation and maintenance 

testing requirements to the extent 

possible will provide clarity about the 

requirements owners and operators 

must meet. After the first spill 

prevention equipment test, owners and 

operators must test spill prevention 

equipment at least once every three 

years. 

For UST systems brought into use 

after the effective date of this final UST 

regulation, the spill prevention 

equipment testing requirement applies 

at installation. However, owners and 

operators must also follow the 

installation requirements in § 280.20(d) 

which require manufacturer’s 

instructions and installation standards 

be followed. These instructions and 

standards currently address liquid 

tightness of spill prevention equipment 

at installation. As long as the spill 

prevention equipment is tested and 

liquid tight at installation, the first 

periodic spill prevention equipment test 

does not have to be conducted until 

three years after installation. 

In 2011, EPA proposed that owners 

and operators test spill prevention 

equipment at least annually. However, 

based on comments received, EPA is 

requiring owners and operators test spill 

prevention equipment at least once 

every three years. Commenters 

suggested that all operation and 

maintenance testing should be aligned 

so that all tests can be conducted at the 

same time. EPA agrees. To make it 

easier for owners and operators to 

comply, this final UST regulation aligns 

periodic spill, overfill, and secondary 

containment testing to the extent 

possible. Since spill prevention 

equipment has a relatively short 

lifespan, EPA thinks a three year testing 

frequency, when combined with 

periodic visual checks via the 

walkthrough inspection (see section B– 

1), is adequate to ensure spill 

prevention equipment will contain any 

drips or spills when the delivery hose 

is disconnected from the fill pipe. 

EPA received significant support for 

requiring owners and operators to keep 

records of the spill prevention 

equipment test for three years. This final 

UST regulation requires owners and 

operators maintain records of spill 

prevention equipment testing for three 

years for each spill prevention device at 

the facility. A three year period aligns 

with the maximum time between on-site 

UST facility compliance inspections. 

These records will demonstrate to 

implementing agencies that the spill 

prevention equipment was tested and 

tight at the time of the test. 

Owners and operators of UST systems 

with double walled spill prevention 

equipment, where the integrity of both 

walls is periodically monitored and who 

choose not to conduct spill prevention 

equipment testing at least once every 

three years, must maintain 

documentation showing that spill 

prevention equipment has two walls 

and the integrity of both walls is 

periodically monitored. Owners and 

operators must maintain this 

documentation for as long as the 

equipment is periodically monitored. 

Owners and operators who discontinue 

periodic monitoring of their double 

walled spill prevention equipment must 

conduct a test within 30 days of 

discontinuing the periodic monitoring. 

EPA considers this necessary because 

discontinuing periodic monitoring of 

the interstitial area may mean some 

portion of that area of the spill 

prevention equipment may no longer 

have integrity. Owners and operators 

need to ensure the primary containment 

of the spill prevention equipment is 

tight. Alternatively, owners and 

operators may choose to test double 

walled spill prevention equipment once 

every three years, and maintain the test 

record, in lieu of periodically 

monitoring this equipment and 

maintaining these monitoring records. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about disposal of the spill prevention 

equipment test liquid following the test. 

EPA considered test liquid disposal in 

this final UST regulation and contacted 

several vendors to determine whether 

disposal of the test liquid was included 

as part of spill prevention equipment 

testing.31 Some vendors include 

handling of the test liquid as part of the 

test; they carry the test liquid with them 

and reuse it several times before 

disposal. Others charge a separate cost 

to dispose of the test liquid or make sure 

the owner or operator has drums on site 

to dispose of the test liquid. In addition, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41579 

32Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 

33Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

34This document is available for purchase at 

www.pei.org. 

vendors sometimes use vacuum testing 

for spill prevention equipment testing, 

which eliminates the liquid from the 

test. 

A few commenters raised concerns 

about facility down time and 

replacement costs for spill prevention 

equipment as a result of testing. EPA 

acknowledges that, in instances where 

access to the spill prevention equipment 

is in the line of traffic, there could be 

a small amount of facility down time as 

a result of testing; however EPA thinks 

the benefit to the environment far 

outweighs the cost of potential down 

time. To minimize the effects of down 

time, owners and operators can also 

schedule the testing during low traffic 

times at the facility or when other 

routine maintenance occurs. EPA 

expects owners and operators to have 

properly functioning spill prevention 

equipment at all times and fix problems 

when they are discovered. The spill 

prevention equipment test may uncover 

a problem earlier, resulting in repair or 

replacement (and better protection from 

spills) sooner rather than later, and 

more quickly detect or prevent releases 

of regulated substances to the 

environment. 

3. Overfill Prevention Equipment 

Inspections 

In this final UST regulation, EPA is 

adding periodic operation and 

maintenance requirements for overfill 

prevention equipment to help ensure 

the equipment is operating properly and 

will activate before an UST is overfilled. 

Owners and operators need to properly 

operate and maintain their overfill 

prevention equipment in order to 

prevent releases to the environment. If 

overfill prevention equipment is not 

working properly, an UST can be 

overfilled and release product to the 

environment. EPA is aware that USTs 

are being overfilled and there are 

problems with overfill prevention 

equipment. Data show that tank overfills 

account for about 15 percent of releases 

from UST systems.32 33 Examples of 

problems with overfill prevention 

equipment include: Tampering, 

improper use, and normal wear and 

tear. Overfill prevention equipment 

inspections will minimize problems and 

ensure overfill prevention equipment is 

operating properly. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

used the term testing for overfill 

prevention equipment when describing 

the periodic functionality checks. 

However, based on input from 

commenters about potentially 

overfilling the tank during testing, EPA 

is using the term inspections—rather 

than testing—in this final UST 

regulation. The procedure to determine 

whether overfill prevention equipment 

is operating properly should not overfill 

the tank. Rather, the equipment must be 

inspected to determine whether it will 

operate or activate properly according to 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation. For example, the inspection 

to determine whether an automatic 

shutoff device in the fill pipe will 

activate at the correct height might 

involve removing and inspecting the 

device to ensure it operates as well as 

measuring the position of the device in 

the tank to ensure it activates at the 

appropriate level in the tank. 

For overfill prevention equipment 

inspections, owners and operators must 

use manufacturer’s requirements or a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory. 

Manufacturer’s requirements are an 

option only when manufacturers have 

developed inspection requirements for 

their overfill prevention equipment that 

determines the device is set to activate 

at the appropriate level in the tank and 

will activate when the regulated 

substance reaches that level. As of this 

final UST regulation, EPA is aware of 

one code of practice that contains 

procedures for inspecting overfill 

prevention equipment: PEI RP 1200, 

Recommended Practices for the Testing 

and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak 

Detection and Secondary Containment 

Equipment at UST Facilities.34 EPA 

added this code of practice in this final 

UST regulation. In addition, EPA is 

providing implementing agencies 

flexibility to allow other methods they 

determine to be as protective of human 

health and the environment as the 

manufacturer’s requirements or a code 

of practice. This option allows 

alternatives in case a code of practice 

and manufacturer’s requirements are not 

available for inspecting overfill 

prevention equipment. 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators conduct overfill 

prevention equipment inspections at 

least once every three years. 

Commenters generally supported a three 

year or more frequent inspection cycle. 

EPA chose the three year time frame 

because it aligns with three year 

compliance inspections and is 

consistent with other operation and 

maintenance requirements, such as 

containment sump testing and spill 

prevention equipment testing. 

In 2011, EPA proposed to stagger 

implementation for overfill prevention 

equipment inspections over a three year 

period based on the installation date of 

the oldest UST at the facility. However, 

EPA received significant input from 

commenters opposing the phased in 

approach and advocating a single 

implementation date. EPA agrees with 

the merits of a more simplified 

approach. Therefore, for overfill 

prevention equipment installed as of 

this final UST regulation, owners and 

operators must conduct the first 

inspection within three years of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation. After the first overfill 

prevention equipment inspection, 

owners and operators must inspect 

overfill prevention equipment at least 

once every three years. 

For UST systems brought into use 

after the effective date of this final UST 

regulation, the overfill prevention 

equipment inspection requirement 

applies at installation. However, owners 

and operators must also follow the 

installation requirements in § 280.20(d) 

which require following manufacturer’s 

instructions and installation standards. 

These instructions and standards 

currently address the operability of the 

overfill equipment at installation. As 

long as the overfill prevention 

equipment is inspected for operability at 

installation, the first periodic overfill 

prevention equipment inspection does 

not have to be conducted until three 

years after installation. 

EPA received significant support for 

requiring owners and operators to keep 

records of overfill prevention equipment 

inspections for three years. The three 

year period aligns with the maximum 

time between on-site UST facility 

compliance inspections. Therefore, this 

final UST regulation requires owners 

and operators maintain for three years 

overfill prevention equipment 

inspection records for each overfill 

device at the facility. These records will 

demonstrate to implementing agencies 

that the overfill prevention equipment 

has been inspected, is set at the 

appropriate height in the tank, and will 

activate when regulated substances 

reach that height. 

Several commenters were concerned 

about potential damage to overfill 

prevention equipment during removal 

for inspection. EPA asked several 

vendors who perform overfill 

prevention equipment inspections about 

the potential for damage during periodic 

overfill prevention equipment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41580 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

35Spill, Overfill, and Secondary Containment 

testing Questions and Answers from Three Vendors 

(11/8/12). 

36Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA/OUST, March 2005. 37Evaluation Of Releases From New And 

Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer 

Review Draft, US EPA/OUST, August 2004. 

inspections.35 The vendors indicated 

that seals may need to be replaced when 

removing the equipment, but that 

overfill prevention equipment itself 

would not easily be damaged during 

removal or reinstallation. The vendors 

also indicated that replacing these seals 

will result in little or no additional cost 

to the owner and operator. 

A few commenters raised concerns 

about facility down time and 

replacement costs for overfill prevention 

equipment as a result of periodic 

inspections. EPA acknowledges that, in 

instances where access to overfill 

prevention equipment is in the line of 

traffic, there could be a small amount of 

facility down time as a result of 

inspecting; however EPA thinks the 

benefit to the environment far 

outweighs the cost of potential down 

time. To minimize the effects of down 

time, owners and operators can also 

schedule the inspection during low 

traffic times at the facility or when other 

routine maintenance occurs. EPA 

expects owners and operators to have 

properly functioning overfill prevention 

equipment at all times and fix problems 

when they are discovered. The overfill 

prevention equipment inspection may 

uncover a problem earlier, resulting in 

repair or replacement (and better 

protection from overfills) sooner rather 

than later. 

4. Secondary Containment Tests 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

included periodic secondary 

containment testing requirements for 

secondary containment areas of tanks 

and piping and for containment sumps 

used for monitoring the secondary 

containment areas of piping. However, 

based on the significant opposition 

commenters provided, this final UST 

regulation is not requiring periodic 

secondary containment testing of 

secondarily contained tanks and piping. 

EPA agrees with commenters who 

indicated secondarily contained UST 

systems using interstitial monitoring are 

more protective of the environment than 

single walled UST systems. In addition, 

EPA understands that some secondarily 

contained UST systems installed before 

this final UST regulation may not have 

been designed to have the interstitial 

areas periodically tested. Finally, EPA 

does not want to create a disincentive 

for owners and operators to replace 

older single walled UST systems with 

secondarily contained systems or 

penalize early installers of secondarily 

contained UST systems. However, this 

final UST regulation does require testing 

of these areas following a repair or, as 

appropriate, in response to a suspected 

release if they are used for interstitial 

monitoring. Interstitial areas where 

interstitial monitoring is used need to be 

tight following a repair so that the 

interstitial monitoring will detect a 

release before it reaches the 

environment. Likewise, interstitial areas 

need to be tested in response to a 

suspected release to determine whether 

a leak has reached the environment. 

EPA disagrees with commenters who 

suggested periodic testing for 

containment sumps used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping is unnecessary. 

These areas function similar to spill 

containment equipment, containing 

leaks from piping and other components 

in the sump. Containment sumps can 

degrade over time, resulting in releases 

to the environment. Information about 

source and cause of release shows that 

a significant number of releases occur in 

containment sump areas.36 37

Containment sumps have piping and 

other components that penetrate 

through the containment sump walls, 

increasing the likelihood that these 

areas are not liquid tight. Containment 

sumps used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping need to be liquid tight so they 

will contain regulated substances 

released from the primary wall of the 

piping. Therefore, this final UST 

regulation includes a three year testing 

requirement for containment sumps 

used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping. 

This final UST regulation does not 

require periodic testing of double 

walled containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping if the 

integrity of both walls of the 

containment sump is periodically 

monitored. Because the integrity of both 

walls is periodically monitored, this 

type of containment sump is 

periodically checked for tightness. EPA 

proposed to exclude from the periodic 

testing requirement only containment 

sumps with continuous interstitial 

monitoring. Several commenters 

suggested that periodic monitoring 

(rather than continuous monitoring) of 

the interstitial area of the double walled 

containment sump would be adequate 

in lieu of performing the periodic 

containment sump testing. EPA agrees 

with commenters that double walled 

containment sumps, where the integrity 

of both walls is periodically monitored, 

should not have to undergo testing—as 

long as owners and operators conduct 

periodic monitoring of the equipment at 

a frequency consistent with, or more 

frequent than, the walkthrough 

inspection frequency (see section B–1). 

For example, owners and operators who 

check vacuum, pressure, or liquid 

interstitial integrity indicators on 

double walled containment sumps as 

part of their annual walkthrough 

inspections are considered to be 

periodically monitoring the integrity of 

both walls. 

This final UST regulation does not 

require periodic testing of containment 

sumps used for reasons other than 

interstitial monitoring of piping. Testing 

of these areas is not necessary to ensure 

the release detection will detect a leak 

because owners and operators are not 

using the containment sumps for 

interstitial monitoring. In these cases, 

owners and operators use another 

method of release detection and 

previously installed containment sumps 

as part of good business practice. 

Some commenters suggested EPA add 

definitions for continuous monitoring 

and interstitial monitoring. Since this 

final UST regulation uses the concept of 

periodic monitoring rather than 

continuous monitoring, EPA is not 

defining continuous monitoring. The 

concept of interstitial monitoring was 

used in the 1988 UST regulation and 

remains the same in this final UST 

regulation (see § 280.43(g)). In addition, 

this final UST regulation describes 

interstitial monitoring in detail in 

subpart D. Therefore, EPA is not further 

defining interstitial monitoring. Based 

on commenter input, EPA is adding to 

this final UST regulation a definition of 

containment sump, which addresses 

comments about what constitutes a 

containment sump. EPA considers a 

containment sump to be a liquid tight 

container that protects the environment 

by containing leaks and spills of 

regulated substances from piping, 

dispensers, pumps, and related 

components in the containment area. 

Containment sumps may be single 

walled or secondarily contained and 

located at the top of tank (tank top or 

submersible turbine pump sump), 

underneath the dispenser (underdispenser containment sump), or at 

other points in the piping run 

(transition or intermediate sump). 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators conduct testing of 

containment sumps used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping at least once every 

three years. Commenters generally 

supported a three year or more frequent 

inspection cycle. EPA is choosing the 

three year time frame to: Make 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41581 

38This document is available for purchase at 

www.pei.org. 

39Spill, Overfill, and Secondary Containment 

testing Questions and Answers from Three Vendors 

(11/8/12). 

compliance easier for owners and 

operators; align with three year 

compliance inspections; and be 

consistent with other operation and 

maintenance requirements, such as 

overfill prevention equipment 

inspections and spill prevention 

equipment testing. 

For containment sumps that require 

testing at least once every three years, 

this final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators conduct testing by 

using vacuum, pressure, or liquid 

methods. In addition, the test must be 

conducted in accordance with 

manufacturer’s requirements or a code 

of practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory. The manufacturer’s 

requirement is an option only when the 

manufacturer has developed testing 

requirements for their containment 

sumps that ensure their containment 

sump is tight. As of this final UST 

regulation, EPA is aware of one code of 

practice that contains procedures for 

testing containment sumps: PEI RP 

1200, Recommended Practices for the 

Testing and Verification of Spill, 

Overfill, Leak Detection and Secondary 

Containment Equipment at UST 

Facilities, and is adding this code of 

practice to the final UST regulation.38 In 

addition, EPA is providing 

implementing agencies flexibility to 

allow other methods they determine to 

be as protective of human health and 

the environment as the manufacturer’s 

requirements or a code of practice. This 

option allows alternatives in the event 

that a code of practice and 

manufacturer’s requirements are not 

available for testing containment sumps. 

Several commenters expressed concern 

that EPA did not establish specific pass 

or fail performance criteria for 

containment sump testing. However, 

EPA thinks the test method established 

by the manufacturer, code of practice, or 

implementing agency are better suited 

to establish criteria because 

containment sumps are made in 

different shapes and sizes. Therefore, 

EPA is relying on the test method to 

establish specific pass or fail 

performance criteria. 

In 2011, EPA proposed to stagger 

secondary containment testing 

implementation over a three year 

period, based on the installation date of 

the oldest UST at a facility. However, 

EPA received significant input from 

commenters opposing a phased in 

approach and advocating a single 

implementation date. EPA agrees with 

the merits of a more simplified 

approach. Therefore, containment 

sumps used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping installed as of the effective date 

of this final UST regulation must be 

tested within three years of the effective 

date of this final UST regulation. After 

the first test, owners and operators must 

conduct periodic testing at least once 

every three years. 

For UST systems brought into use 

after the effective date of this final UST 

regulation, the containment sump 

testing requirement applies at 

installation. However, owners and 

operators must also follow the 

installation requirements in § 280.20(d) 

which require following manufacturer’s 

instructions and installation standards. 

These instructions and standards 

currently address liquid tightness of 

containment sumps at installation. As 

long as the containment sump is tested 

and liquid tight at installation, the first 

periodic containment sump test does 

not have to be conducted until three 

years after installation. 

EPA received significant support for 

the three year recordkeeping time frame 

for secondary containment testing 

because the three year time period 

aligns with the maximum time between 

on-site UST facility compliance 

inspections. Therefore, this final UST 

regulation requires owners and 

operators maintain for three years 

containment sump testing records for 

each containment sump used for 

interstitial monitoring at a facility. 

These records will demonstrate to 

implementing agencies that 

containment sumps were tested and 

tight at the time of the test. 

Owners and operators who have 

double walled containment sumps 

where the integrity of both walls is 

periodically monitored and choose not 

to conduct containment sump testing at 

least once every three years must 

maintain documentation showing their 

containment sumps have two walls and 

the integrity of both walls is 

periodically monitored. Owners and 

operators must maintain this 

documentation for as long as the 

integrity of the two walls of the 

containment sump is periodically 

monitored. Owners and operators who 

discontinue periodic monitoring of their 

double walled containment sumps must 

conduct a test within 30 days of 

discontinuing the periodic monitoring. 

EPA considers this necessary because 

discontinuing periodic monitoring of 

the interstitial area may mean some 

portion of that area of the containment 

may no longer have integrity. Therefore, 

owners and operators need to ensure the 

primary containment of the containment 

sump is tight. Alternatively, owners and 

operators may choose to test double 

walled containment sumps (and 

maintain testing records) once every 

three years in lieu of maintaining these 

records. 

Several commenters raised concern 

about disposing of containment sump 

test liquid following the test. EPA 

considered test liquid disposal in this 

final UST regulation and contacted 

several vendors to determine whether 

they included disposal of test liquid as 

part of containment sump testing.39

Some vendors include handling of the 

test liquid as part of the test; they carry 

the test liquid with them and reuse it 

several times before disposal. Others 

charge a separate cost to dispose of the 

test liquid or make sure the owner or 

operator has drums on site to dispose of 

the test liquid. In addition, vendors 

could use vacuum testing for 

containment sump testing, which 

eliminates the liquid from the test. 

A few commenters raised concerns 

about facility down time and 

replacement costs for containment 

sumps as a result of testing. EPA 

acknowledges that, in instances where 

access to the containment sump is in the 

line of traffic, there could be a small 

amount of facility down time as a result 

of testing; however EPA thinks the 

benefit to the environment far 

outweighs the cost of potential down 

time. To minimize the effects of down 

time, owners and operators can also 

schedule the testing during low traffic 

times at the facility or when other 

routine maintenance occurs that 

requires opening containment sumps. 

EPA expects owners and operators to 

have properly functioning containment 

sumps at all times when those 

containment sumps are used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping and fix 

problems when they are discovered. The 

containment sump test may uncover a 

problem earlier than if a test was never 

conducted, resulting in repair or 

replacements of the containment sump 

(and better protection from releases) 

sooner rather than later. 

5. Release Detection Equipment Tests 

This final UST regulation requires 

UST owners and operators perform 

annual operation and maintenance tests 

on electronic and mechanical 

components of their release detection 

equipment to ensure the equipment is 

operating properly. Owners and 

operators are required, at a minimum, to 

check this equipment: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41582 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

40Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage 

Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, US 

EPA–OUST, March 2005. 

41California’s Field Evaluation Of Underground 

Storage Tank System Leak Detection Sensors, 

August 2002. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

water_issues/programs/ust/leak_prevention/

sensors/index.shtml. 

42National Work Group On Leak Detection 

Evaluations’ List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems. http://www.nwglde.org/. 

43This document is available for purchase at 

www.pei.org. 

• Automatic tank gauge (ATG) systems 

and other controllers 

Æ Test alarm 

Æ Verify system configuration 

Æ Test battery back-up 

• Probes and sensors 

Æ Inspect for residual build-up 

Æ Ensure floats move freely 

Æ Ensure shaft is not damaged 

Æ Ensure cables are free of kinks and 

breaks 

Æ Test alarm operability and 

communication with controller 

• Automatic line leak detector (ALLD) 

Æ Simulate leak which determines 

capability to detect a leak 

• Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges 

Æ Ensure proper communication with 

sensors and controller 

• Handheld electronic sampling 

equipment associated with vapor 

and groundwater monitoring 

Æ Ensure proper operation 

This final UST regulation changes 

some requirements discussed in the 

2011 proposed operation and 

maintenance for release detection 

equipment requirements. Changes 

include: 

• Noting that PEI RP 1200 may be used 

to meet the testing requirements 

• Increasing from one year to three 

years the time allowed for UST 

system owners and operators to 

implement the requirements 

• Using the term automatic line leak 

detector instead of line leak detector 

• Removing the leak sensing O-ring 

from the list of components tested 

• Adding handheld electronic 

equipment associated with vapor and 

groundwater monitoring 

EPA is concerned about the 

performance of release detection 

equipment. Inspectors routinely find 

release detection equipment installed on 

UST systems, but often that equipment 

is not properly operated or maintained. 

In addition, information from an 

analysis in Florida indicates that leak 

detection successfully detected 26 

percent of all releases. Conversely, leak 

detection was specifically identified as 

failing to detect 23 percent of releases.40

To increase the effectiveness of release 

detection, this final UST regulation 

targets operation and maintenance. 

This final UST regulation requires 

that release detection is operated and 

maintained in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions, a code of 

practice, or requirements developed by 

the implementing agency. To achieve 

optimal performance from equipment 

and to meet release detection 

requirements, it is important for UST 

system owners and operators to both 

install the equipment properly and 

properly operate and maintain it. In the 

1988 UST regulation, EPA did not 

provide specifics on the minimum 

requirements to ensure adequate 

operation and maintenance of release 

detection equipment. As a result, 

manufacturer operation and 

maintenance requirements vary greatly, 

even among similar types of equipment. 

Some manufacturer’s requirements do 

not adequately address operation and 

maintenance. For example, some 

manufacturers only recommend 

operation and maintenance testing; but 

EPA is taking the position that testing 

should be mandatory instead of 

optional. In addition, similar release 

detection components should be tested 

in a similar manner, which will increase 

the likelihood all release detection 

equipment will function at optimal 

levels for as long as possible. 

California’s in field analysis of sensors 

used for release detection supports 

EPA’s position.41

This final UST regulation improves 

and standardizes operation and 

maintenance for all release detection 

equipment; it provides owners and 

operators with required equipment tests, 

which will help ensure equipment is 

properly operated and maintained. EPA 

is requiring a set of minimum operation 

and maintenance criteria that owners 

and operators must follow for electronic 

and mechanical based release detection 

equipment. 

The operation and maintenance 

minimum requirements for release 

detection established in This final UST 

regulation are based on common 

requirements and recommendations by 

various equipment manufacturers of 

similar equipment. EPA used the 

National Work Group On Leak Detection 

Evaluations’ (NWGLDE) list of leak 

detection equipment to identify 

commonly used equipment.42 In 

addition, EPA’s publication, Operating 

And Maintaining Underground Storage 

Tanks Systems: Practical Help And 

Checklists and PEI’s Recommended 

Practices for the Inspection and 

Maintenance of UST Systems (RP 900) 

also helped establish proper operation 

and maintenance activities. 

Owners and operators must meet the 

release detection operation and 

maintenance requirements according to 

one of the following: Manufacturer’s 

instructions; a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory; or requirements determined 

by the implementing agency to be no 

less protective of human health and the 

environment than the two options listed 

above. These requirements are 

consistent with options for other 

operation and maintenance activities in 

this final UST regulation. As an 

example, see section B–2, Spill 

Prevention Equipment Tests. 

At the time of the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, PEI was developing a code of 

practice, which EPA anticipated would 

address operability testing of release 

detection equipment. PEI issued the 

final recommended practice in 2012. 

EPA reviewed PEI’s final Recommended 

Practices for the Testing and 

Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak 

Detection and Secondary Containment 

Equipment at UST Facilities (RP 1200) 

and is including it in this final 

regulation as an option for meeting the 

annual release detection equipment 

testing requirements.43

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators maintain records 

of the annual operation tests for three 

years. At a minimum, records must: List 

each component tested; indicate 

whether each component meets the 

criteria listed or needed to have action 

taken; and describe any action taken to 

correct an issue. The requirement to 

maintain records for three years is 

consistent with the three year 

compliance inspection cycle; 

maintaining records will allow owners 

and operators to demonstrate 

compliance with this operation and 

maintenance requirement. 

Based on comments received and 

EPA’s goal to align all implementation 

dates for consistency and easier 

compliance, this final UST regulation 

requires owners and operators meet 

operation and maintenance for release 

detection requirements no later than 

three years after the effective date of the 

final UST regulation. This is a change 

from the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

which required that owners and 

operators meet this requirement no later 

than one year after the effective date of 

the final UST regulation. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

used the term line leak detector as a 

component that must be tested. Based 

on comments received, this final UST 

regulation uses the term automatic line 

leak detector. This is consistent with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41583 

how EPA has historically referenced 

line leak detectors in the 1988 UST 

regulation. These devices can be 

electronic or mechanical and are 

described in § 280.44(a). Commenters 

also asked EPA to add the performance 

criteria of 3 gallons per hour at 10 

pounds per square inch line pressure to 

the simulated ALLD test required for the 

line leak detector. This is unnecessary 

since the 2011 proposed UST regulation 

required this performance standard for 

the simulated test by referencing 

§ 280.44(a). This final UST regulation 

maintains that ALLDs, whether 

electronic or mechanical, must meet the 

annual simulated leak test of 3 gallons 

per hour at 10 pounds per square inch 

line pressure within 1 hour. 

One commenter noted his experience 

with testing release detection 

equipment, which verified electrical 

circuitry, but during operation the 

connected device still did not function 

to its intended precision. This 

commenter recommended EPA change 

the term test to functionality test. EPA 

thinks this change is unnecessary. The 

operation and maintenance 

requirements for release detection 

feature minimum performance criteria 

for testing. Each method used to meet 

the requirement (manufacturer’s 

instructions, a code of practice, or 

requirements developed by the 

implementing agency) must, at a 

minimum, cover each listed component 

and the stated performance criteria. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

who said EPA should allow selfdiagnostic equipment. Similar to the 

commenter in the previous paragraph, 

EPA is concerned that self-diagnostic 

equipment might verify electrical 

circuitry or communication, but not 

actually test equipment functionality. 

EPA requires testing to be performed in 

a manner that verifies equipment 

operation according to performance 

standards provided for each piece of 

release detection equipment. For 

example, testing ALLDs must involve 

simulating a system leak not greater 

than 3 gallons per hour at 10 pounds per 

square inch line pressure within 1 hour, 

or equivalent. ALLDs connected to ATG 

systems or other controllers may 

themselves be used to test electronic 

communication, but unless capable of 

simulating an appropriate leak in the 

system, do not meet the performance 

standard and, therefore, cannot be used 

to meet this requirement. 

In this final UST regulation, EPA is 

deleting language from the 2011 

proposed UST regulation about 

inspecting and testing the leak sensing 

O-ring. Commenters requested EPA 

clarify what a leak sensing O-ring is. 

This O-ring is specific to the functional 

element of mechanical line leak 

detectors and is, therefore, only present 

on certain types of ALLDs. In addition, 

all functional elements will be tested as 

part of the simulated leak test 

conducted at 3 gallons per hour at 10 

psi or equivalent for all ALLDs. 

This final UST regulation allows use 

of groundwater and vapor monitoring as 

methods of release detection, but with 

some restrictions (see section D–6). For 

owners and operators choosing 

groundwater or vapor monitoring as 

their method of release detection, this 

final UST regulation requires that hand 

held electronic devices such as 

photoionization devices meet the 

operation and maintenance 

requirements for release detection 

equipment. Non electronic hand held 

devices, such as measuring sticks and 

groundwater bailers, are covered in 

section B–1, Walkthrough Inspections. 

C. Addressing Deferrals 

This final UST regulation addresses 

airport hydrant fuel distribution systems 

and USTs with field-constructed tanks. 

In addition, this final UST regulation 

removes the release detection deferral 

for UST systems that store fuel solely for 

use by emergency power generators. As 

a result, these UST systems may no 

longer be subject to Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

requirements. Finally, this final UST 

regulation partially excludes from Part 

280 requirements wastewater treatment 

tank systems, UST systems containing 

radioactive material regulated under the 

Atomic Energy Act, and UST systems 

that are part of an emergency generator 

system at nuclear power generation 

facilities regulated by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR 

part 50. To the extent these systems 

were regulated by the SPCC 

requirements, they will continue to be 

regulated by those requirements. 

In this final UST regulation, EPA 

partially excludes from part 280 

requirements the aboveground storage 

tanks associated with airport hydrant 

fuel distribution systems and USTs with 

field-constructed tanks. These 

aboveground storage tanks are part of 

the UST system, but are excluded from 

most of this final UST regulation 

because they are not underground. At 

the time of the 1988 UST regulation, 

facilities with an aggregate completely 

buried storage capacity greater than 

42,000 gallons and located near 

navigable waters of the United States or 

adjoining shorelines were subject to 

both UST regulations and SPCC 

regulations. Since then, the SPCC 

regulation has been amended and 

exempts completely buried storage 

tanks, as well as connected 

underground piping, underground 

ancillary equipment, and containment 

systems when fully subject to the 

technical requirements of 40 CFR part 

280. Partially excluded aboveground 

storage tanks which are part of the UST 

system may be subject to SPCC 

requirements. 

1. UST Systems Storing Fuel Solely for 

Use by Emergency Power Generators— 

Require Release Detection 

This final UST regulation eliminates 

the deferral for UST systems storing fuel 

solely for use by emergency power 

generators (also referred to as emergency 

generator tanks). This means emergency 

generator tanks are no longer deferred 

from release detection requirements in 

40 CFR part 280, subpart D and are 

subject to all UST requirements. 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators of UST systems 

storing fuel solely for use by emergency 

power generators begin meeting these 

requirements: 

• For systems installed after the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation, at the time of installation 

• For systems installed on or before 

the effective date of this final UST 

regulation, within three years of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation 

EPA is regulating UST systems storing 

fuel solely for use by emergency power 

generators because the rationale in the 

1988 UST regulation for deferring 

release detection no longer applies. To 

allow time for developing workable 

release detection requirements, EPA in 

the 1988 UST regulation deferred 

release detection requirements for UST 

systems storing fuel solely for use by 

emergency power generators. The 1988 

UST regulation preamble indicated that 

monthly monitoring requirements were 

unworkable because these tanks often 

were located at unmanned stations in 

remote areas and visited infrequently. 

EPA always intended for these 

systems to meet release detection 

requirements when appropriate release 

detection methods became available. 

Since the 1988 UST regulation, release 

detection technologies have matured 

greatly. In addition, technology is now 

available to perform release detection at 

remote sites. Emergency generator tanks 

can now be monitored for releases by 

the majority of methods listed in 

subpart D. EPA estimates about 30 

percent of emergency generator tanks 

already have release detection. 

Effective remote monitoring methods 

for release detection are now available 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and currently used to monitor 

unmanned UST systems storing fuel 

solely for emergency generator tanks. 

Numerous companies perform remote 

monitoring for releases at these 

unmanned sites. When there is a 

suspected release, a remote monitor 

transmits a visual or audible alarm to a 

receiving console at a manned location. 

This provides owners and operators 

with real-time release detection data so 

owners and operators can quickly 

respond to suspected releases at sites 

with unmanned emergency generator 

tanks. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

that release detection methods may not 

properly operate on some emergency 

generator tanks and suggested changes 

to the release detection requirement. 

Commenters reported these issues: 

• Looped piping systems, which is 

piping configured to run continuously 

with integrated supply and return 

lines, cannot be properly isolated or 

does not have a sufficient quiet period 

to perform a precision test when using 

automatic tank gauging 

• Emergency generator tanks with 

copper piping may pose issues with 

meeting the release detection 

requirement due to system 

configurations 

• Most emergency generator tanks are 

single walled and are limited to 

automatic tank gauging as the form of 

release detection 

• Emergency generator tanks with day 

tanks and aboveground piping may 

need anti-siphon valves 

Other commenters suggested EPA 

limit the type of release detection, such 

as statistical inventory reconciliation 

(SIR), owners and operators may use on 

emergency generator tanks and that EPA 

should require owners and operators 

install electronic line leak detectors, 

which have a positive system shutdown 

of any product flow in the event of a 

leak. Other commenters recommended 

EPA clarify that automatic line leak 

detectors can go to alarm mode only and 

not shut down or restrict product flow 

when a leak is suspected in emergency 

generator tanks used during a crisis. 

EPA agrees that not all release 

detection methods may be suitable for 

all configurations of emergency 

generator tanks. EPA discussed the 

applicability of SIR on emergency 

generator tanks in general with several 

SIR vendors and received conflicting 

responses. A challenge to performing 

release detection is establishing a usage 

rate of product based on the run time of 

the system during operation. Although 

EPA thinks it is difficult to achieve 

accurate results, we do not have enough 

information at this time to determine 

that SIR or other methods that rely on 

metered data are unacceptable for use 

on emergency generator tanks. Owners 

and operators must carefully consider 

whether these methods meet the release 

detection requirement for their UST 

systems. To meet the release detection 

requirement, some systems may require 

reconfiguration and addition of 

components such as anti-siphon valves 

to separate sections of the system. Some 

emergency generator tanks use safe 

suction piping, in which case release 

detection for piping is not required. 

However, release detection technologies 

have advanced since EPA issued the 

1988 UST regulation and there are now 

various options available to meet this 

requirement. EPA understands some 

commenters want to require owners and 

operators to install automatic line leak 

detectors, which only shut off at the 

STP or allowing only certain release 

detection methods for these systems. 

However, to provide flexibility to 

owners and operators while continuing 

to protect human health and the 

environment, this final UST regulation 

allows owners and operators to choose 

the most appropriate release detection 

methods, including automatic line leak 

detectors that trigger an alarm only and 

not necessarily shut down the pump, for 

their systems. For an unmanned facility, 

the alarm must be transmitted to a 

monitoring center where someone can 

hear or see the alarm and quickly 

respond to a suspected release. 

One commenter suggested EPA define 

what is mission critical as it relates to 

emergency generator tanks. While EPA 

acknowledges the need for operating 

emergency generator tanks during an 

emergency, we think it is unnecessary to 

define the term mission critical or make 

exceptions for the release detection 

requirement for these tanks. The 

concern is that owners and operators of 

these systems should not have to shut 

down their systems during an 

emergency if they encounter a suspected 

release. EPA understands this concern 

but thinks owners and operators can 

perform release detection and respond 

to suspected releases while continuing 

to operate the UST system. 

Emergency generator tanks are located 

throughout the country. EPA’s review of 

several state databases revealed these 

systems are located at hospitals, 

universities, communication utilities, 

military installations, and other 

locations relying on backup power 

sources. Based on information from 

these databases, EPA estimates UST 

systems storing fuel solely for use by 

emergency power generators represent 

approximately 3 percent of the active 

tank population. 

Additionally, about 20 states 

currently require release detection for 

emergency generator tanks. Automatic 

tank gauging and secondary 

containment with interstitial monitoring 

are the most common release detection 

methods used for emergency generator 

tanks. Line tightness testing, automatic 

line leak detectors, or secondary 

containment with interstitial monitoring 

are the most common release detection 

methods used for piping. With 

technology now available to detect 

releases from emergency generator tanks 

and because they pose a risk to human 

health and the environment, this final 

UST regulation removes the deferral 

from release detection. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

required owners and operators meet the 

release detection requirement within 

one year of the effective date of the final 

UST regulation. Several commenters 

raised concerns that a one-year time 

frame to meet this requirement is 

insufficient for owners and operators to 

assess, budget, and install release 

detection. Commenters also wanted EPA 

to establish a single implementation 

date, which is consistent with effective 

dates for release detection on other 

previously deferred tanks. EPA agrees 

that extending the time frame will allow 

owners and operators sufficient time for 

planning and installing necessary 

equipment to meet the release detection 

requirement; but we disagree with 

commenters who suggested a five to ten 

year implementation date. EPA also 

agrees that establishing a single effective 

date, which is consistent with other 

effective dates for the release detection 

requirement, decreases the tracking 

burden on implementing agencies as 

well as owners and operators. Based on 

support for increasing the final 

implementation date for release 

detection from one year and EPA’s goal 

of aligning regulatory implementation 

dates to make compliance easier for 

owners and operators, EPA is requiring 

owners and operators of emergency 

generator tanks installed on or before 

the effective date of this final UST 

regulation to meet the release detection 

requirement within three years of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation. Emergency generator tanks 

installed after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation must meet the 

release detection requirements when 

installed. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

required that no later than 30 days after 

the effective date of the final UST 

regulation, owners of UST systems 

storing fuel solely for use by emergency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41585 

power generators notify implementing 

agencies that their systems exist. 

Commenters stated that this 

requirement is unnecessary because the 

1988 UST regulation excluded 

emergency generator tanks from only 

the release detection requirement. EPA 

agrees with commenters. This final UST 

regulation does not include this onetime notification requirement for 

emergency generator tanks. 

2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution 

Systems and UST Systems With FieldConstructed Tanks 

This final UST regulation removes the 

1988 deferral and requires owners and 

operators of airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems (referred to as 

airport hydrant systems) comply with 

applicable requirements. However, EPA 

is tailoring the requirements to the 

unique nature of airport hydrant 

systems. Airport hydrant systems 

function and are designed differently 

than conventional USTs. Unlike 

conventional USTs, airport hydrant 

systems consist of networks of large 

diameter underground piping operating 

at high pressures to deliver fuel to 

aircraft. In addition, operation and 

maintenance requirements for airport 

hydrant systems may differ from those 

for conventional UST systems. 

This final UST regulation removes the 

1988 deferral and requires owners and 

operators of UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks comply with 

applicable requirements. Similar to 

airport hydrant systems, EPA is tailoring 

the requirements to the unique nature of 

field-constructed tanks. UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks (referred to 

as field-constructed tanks) range from 

conventional sizes to very large 

capacities greater than 2 million gallons. 

A few commenters suggested EPA 

write regulations specifically for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks, since they are distinctly different 

from conventional USTs. EPA agrees 

that airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks are different from 

conventional USTs. Additionally, EPA 

thinks it would help owners and 

operators if the requirements for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks are in a separate subpart of the 

final UST regulation. In order to help 

owners and operators of these systems 

comply, this final UST regulation adds 

subpart K (UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant 

Fuel Distribution Systems) and places 

most regulatory requirements for both 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks in one location. Since 

1988, owners and operators of these 

systems have been required to comply 

with the requirements for subparts A 

(Program Scope and Interim 

Prohibition) and F (Release Response 

and Corrective Action for UST Systems 

Containing Petroleum or Hazardous 

Substances). 

This final UST regulation requires 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks installed on or before 

the effective date of the final UST 

regulation begin meeting the 

requirements of subpart K according to 

the schedule below. Airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

installed after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation must meet the 

requirements at the time of installation. 

Requirement Effective date 

Upgrading UST systems, general operating requirements, and operator 

training.

Three years after the effective date of this final UST regulation. 

Release detection ..................................................................................... Three years after the effective date of this final UST regulation. 

Release reporting, response, and investigation; closure; financial responsibility and notification, except as provided in § 280.251(2)(b).On the effective date of this final UST regulation. 

This final UST regulation modifies 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation by 

revising the definition of airport hydrant 

fuel distribution system and defining a 

field-constructed tank. 

An airport hydrant fuel distribution 

system (also called airport hydrant 

system) is defined as an UST system 

which fuels aircraft and operates under 

high pressure with large diameter 

piping that typically terminates into one 

or more hydrants (fill stands). The 

airport hydrant system begins where 

fuel enters one or more tanks from an 

external source, such as a pipeline, 

barge, rail car, or other motor fuel 

carrier. 

A field-constructed tank is defined as 

a tank constructed in the field. For 

example, a tank constructed of concrete 

that is poured in the field, or a steel or 

fiberglass tank primarily fabricated in 

the field is considered field-constructed. 

Overview of Actions 

Release Detection—Tanks 

This final UST regulation requires 

airport hydrant system tanks and fieldconstructed tanks meet these 

requirements: 

• These tanks must be monitored 

using release detection methods 

specified in subpart D: 

Æ Shop fabricated tanks and 

Æ Field-constructed tanks with a 

capacity less than or equal to 50,000 

gallons 

• Field-constructed tanks with a 

capacity greater than 50,000 gallons 

must either be monitored using release 

detection methods specified in subpart 

D (except tanks using groundwater and 

vapor monitoring must combine that 

method with inventory control as 

described in the alternatives below) or 

use one of the alternatives below 

Æ Conduct an annual tank tightness 

test that can detect a 0.5 gallon per 

hour (gph) leak rate 

Æ At least once every 30 days, use an 

automatic tank gauging system to 

perform release detection, which 

can detect a leak rate of 1 gallon per 

hour or less; and at least once every 

three years, use a tank tightness test 

that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour 

leak rate 

Æ At least once every 30 days, use an 

automatic tank gauging system to 

perform release detection, which 

can detect a leak rate of 2 gallons 

per hour or less; and at least every 

two years, use a tank tightness test 

that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour 

leak rate 

Æ At least every two years, perform 

vapor monitoring (conducted 

according to § 280.43(e) for a tracer 

compound placed in the tank 

system) capable of detecting a 0.1 

gallon per hour leak rate 

Æ At least every 30 days, perform 

inventory control, conducted 

according to Department of Defense 

(DoD) Directive 4140.25; Air 

Transport Association (ATA) 

Airport Fuel Facility Operations 

and Maintenance Guidance Manual; 

or equivalent procedures that can 

detect a leak equal to or less than 

0.5 percent of flow through and 

either 

D At least every two years, perform a 

tank tightness test that can detect a 

0.5 gallon per hour leak rate or 

D At least every 30 days, perform 

vapor monitoring or groundwater 

monitoring (conducted according to 

§ 280.43(e) or (f), respectively, for 

the stored regulated substance) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

The implementing agency may 

approve another method of release 

detection if the owner or operator can 

demonstrate the method can detect a 

release as effectively as any of methods 

listed above. In comparing methods, the 

implementing agency shall consider the 

size of release the method can detect 

and frequency and reliability of 

detection. 

Release Detection—Piping 

Underground piping associated with 

field-constructed tanks less than or 

equal to 50,000 gallons must meet the 

release detection requirements in 

subpart D of the final UST regulation. 

Underground piping associated with 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons must meet these requirements: 

• Piping must be monitored using 

release detection methods specified in 

subpart D, except that piping using 

groundwater and vapor monitoring must 

combine that method with inventory 

control as described in the alternatives 

below, or 

• Use one of these alternatives 

Æ Perform a semiannual or annual 

line tightness test at or above 

operating pressure according to the 

table below 

MAXIMUM LEAK DETECTION RATE PER TEST SECTION VOLUME

Test section volume 

(gallons) 

Semiannual 

test—leak 

detection 

rate not 

to exceed 

(gallons per 

hour) 

Annual test— 

leak detection 

rate not to 

exceed 

(gallons per 

hour) 

<50,000 .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.0 0 .5 

≥50,000 to <75,000 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0 .75 

≥75,000 to <100,000 ............................................................................................................................................. 2.0 1 .0 

≥100,000 ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.0 1 .5 

Piping segment volumes greater than 

or equal to 100,000 gallons, which are 

not capable of meeting the 3 gallons per 

hour leak rate for semiannual testing, 

may be tested at a leak rate up to 6 

gallons per hour according to this 

schedule: 

PHASE IN FOR PIPING SEGMENTS ≥100,000 GALLONS IN VOLUME

First test ................................................... Not later than three years after the effective date of this final UST regulation (may use up to 6 gph 

leak rate). 

Second test .............................................. Between three and six years after the effective date of this final UST regulation (may use up to 6 gph 

leak rate). 

Third test .................................................. Between six and seven years after the effective date of this final UST regulation (must use 3 gph 

leak rate). 

Subsequent tests ..................................... Beginning seven years after the effective date of this final UST regulation, use semiannual or annual 

line testing according to the Maximum Leak Detection Rate Per Test Section Volume table above. 

Æ At least every two years, perform 

vapor monitoring according to 

§ 280.43(e) for a tracer compound 

placed in the tank system capable of 

detecting a 0.1 gallon per hour leak 

rate 

Æ At least every 30 days, perform 

inventory control, conducted 

according to DoD Directive 4140.25, 

ATA Airport Fuel Facility 

Operations and Maintenance 

Guidance Manual, or equivalent 

procedures, that can detect a leak 

equal to or less than 0.5 percent of 

flow through and either 

D At least every two years, perform a 

line tightness test using the leak 

detection rate for the semiannual 

test in § 280.252(d)(2(i) or 

D At least every 30 days, perform 

vapor monitoring or groundwater 

monitoring (conducted according to 

§ 280.43(e) or (f), respectively, for 

the stored regulated substance) or 

• The implementing agency may 

approve another method of release 

detection if the owner or operator can 

demonstrate that the method can detect 

a release as effectively as any of the 

methods listed above; in comparing 

methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release the method 

can detect and the frequency and 

reliability of detection. 

Release Prevention 

This final UST regulation requires 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks meet corrosion 

protection, spill, overfill, and 

walkthrough inspection requirements. 

Corrosion protection installed on airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks must meet either: 

• New tank and piping standards 

described in § 280.20, except that new 

and replaced hydrant piping and 

piping associated with fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons need not be secondarily 

contained or 

• Airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks installed on or 

before the effective date of the final 

UST regulation must either meet the 

corrosion protection upgrade 

requirements in § 280.252(b)(1) or the 

new tank and piping standards 

described above 

Airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks installed on or before 

the effective date of the final UST 

regulation that are not upgraded 

according to § 280.252(b) within three 

years of the effective date of the final 

UST regulation must be permanently 

closed according to subpart G. The 

presence of an internal lining does not 

meet the corrosion protection upgrade 

requirement. 

Owners and operators of airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks must install spill and overfill 

prevention equipment and meet the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41587 

44Corrective Action Plan—Part B: HartsfieldJackson International Airport, Concourse Pit. 

Number 19 Fuel Spill. 45http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/aboutmpca/mpca-news/current-news-releases/newsrelease-archive-2005/airport-agrees-to-pay- 

$540000-for-environmental-violations.html?nav=0. 46http://www.tftptf.com/New_ATSDR3/RR_

DRAFT_RAO.pdf. 47Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3 

http://epa.gov/tio/download/frtr/abstractsvol3.pdf. 

periodic spill testing and overfill 

inspection requirements of § 280.35. 

Owners and operators must install the 

equipment and conduct the first spill 

test and overfill inspection no later than 

three years after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation and every three 

years thereafter. For airport hydrant 

systems brought into use after the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation, spill and overfill prevention 

equipment requirements must be met at 

installation. 

Owners and operators must conduct 

walkthrough inspections that meet the 

requirements of § 280.252(c). Owners 

and operators must conduct the first 

inspection within three years after the 

effective date of the final UST 

regulation. In addition to the items 

inspected as part of the walkthrough 

inspection for other regulated UST 

systems, owners and operators of airport 

hydrant systems must inspect hydrant 

pits and hydrant piping vaults every 30 

days for areas that do not require 

confined space entry according to the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and annually 

for areas that do require confined space 

entry. Owners and operators must keep 

documentation of the inspection 

according to § 280.36(b). 

Notification 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators of regulated 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks meet these 

notification requirements: 

• For airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks currently installed, 

owners and operators must submit no 

later than 3 years after the effective 

date of this final UST regulation a 

one-time notification to their 

implementing agency that their 

systems exist 

• For airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks installed after the 

effective date of the final UST 

regulation, owners and operators must 

provide their implementing agency a 

notification of each newly installed 

system within 30 days of bringing 

each system into use 

• Owners must provide their 

implementing agency a notification of 

ownership change for each newly 

acquired airport hydrant system or 

field-constructed tank within 30 days 

of the date on which the new owner 

assumes ownership 

Financial Responsibility 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks that 

have not been permanently closed meet 

the financial responsibility 

requirements in subpart H at the time 

the one-time notification of existence is 

submitted to the implementing agency. 

Owners and operators who install these 

systems after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation must meet the 

financial responsibility requirements at 

installation. This requirement does not 

apply to state or federal owners of 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks. 

Partially Excluded Components 

This final UST regulation excludes 

aboveground storage tanks associated 

with airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks from the requirements 

of subparts B, C, D, E, G, J, and K. 

Owners and operators are still required 

to comply with subparts A (Program 

Scope and Installation Requirements for 

Partially Excluded UST Systems); and F 

(Release Response and Corrective 

Action for UST Systems Containing 

Petroleum or Hazardous Substances) for 

these tanks. 

Operator Training 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

meet the operator training requirements 

in subpart J. 

Closure Requirements for Previously 

Closed Tanks 

When directed by the implementing 

agency, owners and operators of airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks permanently closed before the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation must assess the excavation 

zone and close the UST system 

according to subpart G if releases from 

the UST may, in the judgment of the 

implementing agency, pose a current or 

potential threat to human health and the 

environment. 

Background 

Tanks and piping associated with 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks can store millions of 

gallons of fuel and handle large volumes 

of regulated substances on a daily basis. 

Leaks from these systems can 

contaminate subsurface soil beneath the 

airport apron and runways, 

groundwater, and nearby surface water 

systems, posing a significant risk to 

human health and the environment. As 

a result, EPA is removing the deferral. 

Some commenters indicated EPA 

needed to justify that airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks are 

leaking in order to regulate them. The 

1988 UST regulation required owners 

and operators report only confirmed 

releases from these tanks to 

implementing agencies. Owners and 

operators were not required to report 

suspected releases to implementing 

agencies, which sometimes resulted in 

gaps for ensuring proper site 

investigations or transmission of 

sufficient release information. As a 

result, implementing agencies have little 

to no available historical records 

regarding releases of regulated 

substances from airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA provided details on several releases 

that previously occurred at airport 

hydrant systems. Since that time, EPA 

identified additional information on 

releases from both DoD and commercial 

airport hydrant systems. For example, at 

Hartsfield Jackson International Airport 

in Georgia, active remediation and free 

product recovery is ongoing (as of 2014) 

due to a 1988 release of an estimated 

14,000 gallons of jet fuel.44 In 2003, an 

estimated 100,000 gallons of jet fuel 

leaked from the valves and flanges of an 

airport hydrant system at MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport in 

Minnesota. Some of the jet fuel was 

released into the sanitary sewer and 

nearby waterway. During the 

investigation of the jet fuel release, 

personnel discovered a second jet fuel 

leak at a different concourse; this leak 

impacted the stormwater system and 

produced oily sheens in the Minnesota 

River. Responsible parties agreed to pay 

civil penalties and complete 

environmental projects, including 

continued site remediation and fuel 

recovery.45 In 1983 at Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina, investigators discovered 

multiple feet of free product while using 

a hand auger to investigate the cause of 

a fuel inventory discrepancy.46 In 

addition, from the 1960s to the 1980s, 

thousands of gallons of jet fuel leaked 

from a former airport hydrant system at 

Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. At 

one time, it was noted that as much as 

75,000 gallons of free product was 

floating on top of the groundwater 

because of these releases. As of 2014, 

the site is undergoing remediation.47 In 

addition, at Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point, North Carolina there have 

been multiple releases from the airport 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

48Tank Farm A http://dec.alaska.gov/

Applications/SPAR/CCReports/Site_

Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=686. 49http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northwest/adak/

pdf/ADAK_DARPEA_FINAL_Draft%20PDF.pdf. 

50 January 28, 2012, March 29, 2012, and October 

19, 2012 meetings with representatives from 

Airlines for America. 

51February 28, 2013 and March 18, 2013 

meetings with DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency 

Energy. 

52Airport Hydrant Systems Scenarios Revised, 

dated February 28, 2012. 

hydrant system underground piping. 

The station was cited twice in the 1990s 

for contaminating soil and groundwater 

under this fuel facility due to leaking 

tanks or fuel spills. An extensive 

environmental remediation effort is 

underway in 2014 to clean this site. 

Contamination from many of the 

releases combined and migrated to form 

a single plume. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA also provided details on several 

previous releases that occurred from 

field-constructed tanks. Since that time, 

EPA identified additional anecdotal 

information on releases from fieldconstructed tanks. At Adak Island, 

Alaska’s Tank Farm A, records show 

fuel was released at various times from 

21,000 to 420,000 gallon fieldconstructed tanks and piping. As of 

2014, all tanks have been removed, but 

the former fuel farm is still undergoing 

remediation through long term 

monitoring and monitored natural 

attenuation.48 Also at Adak Island, an 

overfill during a fuel transfer caused 

142,800 gallons of diesel fuel to leak 

from a 4.8 million gallon underground 

field-constructed tank into the 

immediate and surrounding 

environment, causing harm to native 

wildlife.49

Releases can have a major impact on 

human health and the environment. 

Release prevention equipment, regular 

release detection tests, operator training, 

periodic walkthrough inspections, and 

proper operation and maintenance are 

keys to preventing and quickly 

identifying releases before they 

contaminate the surrounding 

environment. This final UST regulation 

adds these requirements for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks in order to help prevent and 

quickly detect leaks from these systems 

into the environment. 

Definition of an Airport Hydrant System 

The 1988 UST regulation did not 

provide a definition for airport hydrant 

system. In the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA provided a definition of 

an airport hydrant system to clarify 

what components would be regulated. 

However, that definition was based on 

an airport hydrant system that received 

fuel at a single delivery point, designed 

with all components operating in 

tandem, and included only the 

immediate piping and tank directly 

feeding the airport hydrant piping. To 

clarify for owners and operators, EPA 

presented scenarios of typical airport 

hydrant systems in a guidance 

document provided during the public 

comment period. 

After publishing the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation, EPA met with 

stakeholders to gather more information 

on airport hydrant system design and 

operation.50 51 EPA also provided 

another iteration of the schematics that 

contained better defined airport hydrant 

system scenarios. However, some 

commenters still were confused about 

which specific components of an airport 

hydrant system would be regulated.52

Many commenters requested that EPA 

provide guidance on how to perform the 

calculations to determine whether the 

airport hydrant system meets the 

definition of an underground storage 

tank and requested clarification of 

system components. In response to 

these comments, EPA is providing 

guidance below. 

In order for an airport hydrant system 

to be subject to the final UST regulation, 

it must first meet the definition of an 

underground storage tank. Airport 

hydrant systems are not regulated UST 

systems under 40 CFR part 280, unless 

10 percent or more of the total capacity 

of the system is beneath the surface of 

the ground. When performing the 

calculation, include all tanks and 

underground piping that are part of the 

airport hydrant system. An airport 

hydrant system may have one or more 

of the following connected together: 

Aboveground tanks, underground tanks, 

field-constructed tanks, or factory 

constructed tanks. Below are two 

examples. Note that aboveground piping 

is not included when calculating the 

total volume. 

Example 1: A 1 million gallon 

aboveground storage tank (AST) 

connected to underground piping with 

a capacity of 100,000 gallons does not 

meet the definition of an UST, as 

explained below: 

1 million gallons (AST) + 100,000 

gallons (underground pipe) = 1.1 

million gallons total volume 

1.1 million gallons × 10% = 110,000 

gallons 

The volume of the underground 

piping (100,000 gallons) is less than 10 

percent of the total volume of the tanks 

and underground piping (110,000 

gallons). 

Example 2: A 2 million gallon AST 

feeds two 100,000 gallon fieldconstructed underground storage tanks 

and two 50,000 gallon underground 

tanks constructed in the factory which 

feed 100,000 gallons of underground 

hydrant piping. Calculating these values 

yields a total system capacity of 

2,400,000 gallons with 400,000 gallons 

underground. More than 16% of this 

airport hydrant system is underground 

making it an UST. 

In response to comments on the 

proposed definition, EPA is clarifying 

the definition of an airport hydrant 

system in this final UST regulation. EPA 

determined that multiple tanks grouped 

or interconnected together can function 

as one system to fuel an airport hydrant 

system. EPA agrees with commenters 

that it would not be feasible to separate 

these tanks to define an airport hydrant 

system. EPA also found that other tanks 

not directly connected to the 

underground airport hydrant piping also 

could feed the airport hydrant system. 

The Agency is concluding that an 

airport hydrant system may consist of 

interconnected aboveground and 

underground storage tanks (that could 

be constructed in the factory or fieldconstructed) and piping that function as 

integral and interchangeable 

components of the fueling system. 

Field-constructed tanks that are part of 

the airport hydrant system are treated as 

part of the airport hydrant system and 

not independent UST systems that are 

field-constructed. The airport hydrant 

system begins when regulated substance 

enters from an external source such as 

a pipeline, barge, rail car, or other motor 

vehicle carrier, but does not include the 

external source. Airport hydrant 

systems use large diameter piping and 

operate at pressures higher than those of 

a conventional UST. This final 

definition alleviates stakeholder 

uncertainty on which components of an 

airport hydrant system must meet the 

UST regulation by including all integral 

components that form an airport 

hydrant system and deliver fuel to the 

aircraft. These systems include 

underground piping and ASTs or USTs 

that hold aircraft fuel (for example, 

settling tanks or product recovery 

tanks). They do not include tanks or 

underground piping not storing aircraft 

fuel (for example, additive tanks) or 

tanks and underground piping not 

connected to the airport hydrant system 

(for example, a system that fuels an 

emergency power generator for a pump 

house). In addition, EPA is aware there 

may be instances where an airport 

hydrant system might include 

permanently installed dispensing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41589 

53 Discussions With Commercial Airports That 

May Be Affected By The Final UST Regulation 

dated February 6, 2013. 

54Note that EPA did not meet with personnel 

from Indianapolis International Airport however, 

A4A and vendors stated that the airport hydrant 

system is equipped with the necessary equipment 

to meet requirements in the final UST regulation. 

55 January 28, 2013 and March 29, 2012 meetings 

with A4A. 

56February 28, 2013 and March 18, 2013 

meetings with DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency 

Energy. 

57 June 20, 2012 and May 19, 2013 meeting with 

Hansa Consult of North America, LLC. 

58 June 20, 2012 meeting with VISTA Precision 

Solutions. 

59August 15, 2012 meeting with Ken Wilcox and 

Associates. 

60On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued 

Executive Order 13563, which directed federal 

agencies to develop a preliminary plan which 

outlined the agency’s approach for periodically 

reviewing regulations to determine whether any 

rules ‘‘should be modified, streamlined, expanded, 

or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory 

program more effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 

61 January 5, 2012 request from A4A for a 60-day 

extension for more time to review and query its 

membership and potentially affected airports for a 

more complete understanding of the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation and potential costs. 

equipment at the end of the hydrant 

piping instead of a fill stand. However, 

since these systems still operate under 

high pressure and contain large 

diameter piping, we consider them to be 

airport hydrant systems. 

Definition of a Field-Constructed Tank 

The preamble to the 1988 UST 

regulation described a field-constructed 

tank as a tank usually constructed of 

steel or concrete and shaped like flat 

vertical cylinders, with a capacity of 

greater than 50,000 gallons. Tanks that 

are primarily factory built, but 

assembled in the field, are considered 

factory built tanks. For example, 

welding two halves of a factory 

constructed tank together in the field 

does not qualify the tank as a fieldconstructed tank. Several commenters 

requested EPA define field-constructed 

tank in the final UST regulation in order 

for implementing agencies and owners 

and operators to know which tanks are 

applicable. While EPA thinks this term 

is self-evident, this final UST regulation 

defines field-constructed tank as a tank 

constructed in the field. For example, a 

tank constructed of concrete that is 

poured in the field, or a steel or 

fiberglass tank primarily fabricated in 

the field is considered field-constructed. 

Please note this definition excludes 

those tanks with components primarily 

manufactured in a factory with minimal 

assembly in the field. EPA considers 

those tanks are factory built tanks. 

Field-constructed tanks vary from sizes 

smaller than 50,000 gallons to sizes very 

large in capacity. Large capacity tanks 

may exceed size or shape limitations 

that prohibit transportation of the tank 

in whole to the UST site. Fieldconstructed tanks present an 

engineering, design, or transportation 

concern that cannot be addressed by 

fabrication in a factory or are more 

ideally addressed through in-field 

construction. This definition includes 

tanks that are mounded or partially 

buried, such as those defined in 40 CFR 

part 112, if 10 percent or more of the 

volume of the system is beneath the 

ground’s surface or otherwise covered 

with earthen material. EPA considers a 

field-constructed tank that is part of a 

wastewater treatment system to be 

partially excluded from the final UST 

regulation according to § 280.10(c). See 

section C–3 for additional information 

on the partial exclusion for wastewater 

treatment tank systems. 

Universe of Field-Constructed Tanks 

and Airport Hydrant Systems Affected 

UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks are generally very large and, in the 

event of a release, pose a substantial 

threat to human health and the 

environment. Typical tank sizes range 

from 20,000 gallons to greater than 2 

million gallons. EPA is aware of 

approximately 330 UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks owned by the 

Department of Defense and 12 fieldconstructed tanks owned by the 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

One commenter objected to EPA 

regulating airport hydrant systems 

because the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation addressed airport hydrant 

systems at military facilities and did not 

include systems at commercial airports. 

When issuing the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA thought the universe of 

these systems was mainly owned by 

DoD, based on information from DoD 

and commercial airport representatives. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation also 

assumed the universe included two 

commercial airports with airport 

hydrant systems. Airlines for America 

(A4A, formerly known as Air Transport 

Association of America, Inc.) provided 

additional information during the 

public comment period that suggested 

nine commercial airports would be 

affected by the final UST regulation. As 

a result of the comments received, EPA 

did extensive research to confirm which 

commercial airports might be affected 

by the final UST regulation. EPA met 

with personnel from DoD and from eight 

of the nine suggested commercial 

airport facilities to gather additional 

information and determine the universe 

of airport hydrant systems that would 

have to comply with the final UST 

regulation.53 54 55 56 Additionally, EPA 

listened to concerns and answered 

questions about the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation. EPA also met with release 

detection vendors to determine whether 

commercial airports and DoD facilities 

could achieve release detection 

compliance within the specified time 

frames.57 58 59 EPA concluded that of the 

nine airports A4A named, eight would 

possibly be affected by the final UST 

regulation. Based on these meetings, 

EPA found that most of the commercial 

airport hydrant systems have release 

prevention and detection equipment 

currently installed on them and airport 

personnel are already performing 

various activities that can be modified 

to meet the final UST regulation. 

Process for Obtaining Public Comment 

One commenter suggested that EPA: 

• Did not follow all requirements to 

allow stakeholder input prior to 

issuing the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation 

• Did not allow stakeholders adequate 

time to provide comments 

• Failed to follow the correct public 

notice procedures 

• Failed to inform stakeholders of two 

commercial airports that might be 

affected by the final UST regulation 

• May have led commercial airport 

stakeholders to doubt that any 

commercial airport hydrant systems 

would be affected by the final UST 

regulation 

The commenter also suggested EPA 

should withdraw the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation because the 

administrative record and resulting 

proposal conflicted with Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review).60

EPA disagrees with these comments. 

We performed extensive stakeholder 

outreach both prior to developing the 

2011 proposed UST regulation and 

during the public comment period. In 

addition, EPA followed procedures 

required by the Administrative 

Procedure Act for providing public 

notice and requesting public comment 

through the Federal Register. In order to 

allow additional time for airport 

authorities to perform a preliminary 

assessment and respond to the 2011 

proposed UST regulation, EPA extended 

the public comment period by two 

months as requested by commenters.61

EPA met with all interested 

stakeholders who requested meetings, 

including representatives of commercial 

airports. EPA carefully researched 

information provided during the public 

comment period; this included verifying 

methods of release detection currently 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

62 January 28, 2012 meeting with A4A. 

63Executive Order 13563 requires federal 

agencies to avoid implementing unnecessary 

redundant requirements and promulgate regulations 

that are less burdensome to the regulated 

community. 

64EPA performed an assessment of the following 

additional requirements that owners and operators 

follow: 40 CFR part 112 (SPCC); 14 CFR part 139 

(FAA); A4A 123; ATA 103; ATA O&M Guidance; 

UFC 3–460–1 [Proposed UST Requirements 

Compared To Existing Facility Requirements And 

Recommended Practices]. 

65New York allows owners and operators to 

perform a modified American Petroleum Institute 

Standard 653 inspection combined with monitoring 

well release detection for large field-constructed 

tanks. 

in use at commercial airports and DoD 

facilities, as well as what methods 

would be technically feasible at those 

facilities. When issuing the 2011 

proposed UST regulation, EPA thought 

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport 

and Denver International Airport were 

the only commercial airports that would 

be affected by the final UST regulation. 

EPA identified these airports in a 

meeting with Airlines for America. 

During that meeting, the Agency also 

received additional information on 

other airports possibly affected by the 

proposal.62 While EPA did not 

specifically identify the two commercial 

airports that would potentially be 

affected by the final UST regulation, the 

1988 UST regulation has been in effect 

for over two decades and portions of it 

have applied to airport hydrant systems 

since that time. Owners and operators of 

these systems have been required to 

comply with those applicable portions 

of the UST regulation since 1988, and it 

has been the responsibility of owners 

and operators to determine whether 

their airport hydrant systems are 

regulated since the effective date of the 

1988 UST regulation. Nonetheless, EPA 

stated in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation that airport hydrant systems 

are ‘‘. . . mainly owned by the 

Department of Defense (DoD) . . .,’’ not 

that DoD is the sole owner of all airport 

hydrant systems. This statement 

indicates there are non-DoD owned 

airport hydrant systems that could be 

affected by this final UST regulation. 

Impacts of Regulating Airport Hydrant 

Systems and Field-Constructed Tanks 

Commenters generally supported 

removing the deferral for these systems. 

However, there were some commenters 

who opposed regulating these systems. 

A few commenters were concerned 

about the costs for owners and operators 

to comply with the release detection 

requirements of the final UST 

regulation. EPA acknowledges that some 

release detection methods may result in 

additional costs to owners and 

operators. However, EPA carefully 

researched current release detection 

efforts at commercial airports and DoD 

facilities and used that information to 

estimate costs. See the RIA, which is 

available in the docket for this action, 

for additional information about how 

we estimated costs. 

Other Regulations That Affect Airport 

Hydrant Systems and Field-Constructed 

Tanks 

To avoid overlapping regulations, 

several commenters suggested EPA 

evaluate other requirements that owners 

and operators of airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks perform as 

part of fuel management programs. One 

commenter also asserted that this 

evaluation was necessary to comply 

with Executive Order No. 13563.63 After 

issuing the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA performed this 

evaluation by gathering information on 

fuel management programs (such as 

release prevention, repairs, operation 

and maintenance, inspections, and 

operator training) owners and operators 

at these facilities must perform in order 

to meet other federal, state, and industry 

regulations.64 For example, EPA found 

that requirements administered by the 

Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), such 

as 14 CFR part 139 (Certification of 

Airports), and directives, such as ATA 

103 and United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 

3–460–03, require owners and operators 

of airport hydrant systems inspect 

airport hydrant systems and connected 

components. EPA also found that 14 

CFR part 139 (Certification of Airports) 

emphasizes overall airport safety 

practices. 

One commenter asked whether EPA 

evaluated the SPCC requirements for 

regulating underground portions of 

airport hydrant systems. Another 

commenter suggested that EPA evaluate 

the effectiveness of existing state 

requirements for field-constructed 

tanks.65 EPA is aware that commercial 

airports and DoD facilities comply with 

SPCC requirements for their airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. However, UST and SPCC 

regulations are complementary. The 

SPCC regulation focuses on oil 

discharges that could impact navigable 

waters, while the UST regulation 

focuses mainly on day-to-day 

maintenance and operation to prevent 

releases to soil and groundwater. For 

example, the SPCC regulation requires a 

tank inspection, such as an American 

Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653 

inspection, which ensures aboveground 

storage tanks and piping are structurally 

sound. In addition, regulatory overlap is 

mitigated by the SPCC regulation, which 

allows UST release detection as a 

method to meet its tank inspection 

requirement. The SPCC regulation 

requires owners and operators conduct 

integrity and leak testing of buried 

piping at the time of installation, 

modification, construction, relocation, 

or replacement, but does not specify a 

method, frequency, or leak rate. The 

UST regulation is more specific and 

requires periodic release detection 

testing of underground piping. 

EPA thinks that other regulatory 

programs (such as SPCC and FAA) lack 

the necessary specificity or do not meet 

equivalency criteria we deem are 

necessary for these UST systems. 

Additionally, even though some A4A 

documents provide many recommended 

practices that owners and operators of 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks may follow for their 

fuel management programs, these 

practices are not regulatory 

requirements, and airports have the 

option of following them. Moreover, 

EPA developed a final UST regulation 

that is cost effective to the extent 

practical and is the least burdensome to 

owners and operators, yet still protects 

human health and the environment. 

This final UST regulation does not 

impose redundant requirements. Rather, 

it contains complementary requirements 

that will protect human health and the 

environment. 

Effect on Airport Operations 

One commenter suggested the 

requirements in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation were not legally or 

technically viable for commercial 

airports. That commenter said EPA 

should develop a separate regulation 

specific to commercial airport hydrant 

systems. In addition, a few commenters 

were concerned that removing the 

deferral for airport hydrant systems 

would cause service disruptions due to 

installing release prevention and 

detection equipment. Those 

commenters also said performing 

release prevention and detection would 

cause massive service delays, affect 

military missions, and threaten national 

security and the National Airspace 

System. 

Based on discussions with DoD prior 

to issuing the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation and talking to DoD and 

potentially affected airports after issuing 

it, EPA concluded that most facilities 

already have the necessary equipment to 

meet many of the requirements in the 

final UST regulation. EPA also 

concluded from those conversations that 

release detection is normally performed 

during service downtimes or when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41591 

66UFC 3–460–01—Petroleum Fuel Facilities is a 

military construction criteria that includes basic 

requirements for the design of fueling systems; the 

design of receiving, dispensing, and storage 

facilities; ballast treatment and sludge removal; 

corrosion and fire protection; and environmental 

requirements. 

operations are minimal. Some airport 

hydrant systems have the capability of 

transferring product flow to other 

sections of the airport hydrant system to 

avoid system downtime. DoD stated that 

leak testing is performed according to 

prescribed requirements in Florida and 

California and at least biennially in 

other states when funding allows. 

Where feasible, piping is normally 

tested in segments to meet testing leak 

rates; piping segments can be isolated to 

find leaks more efficiently. EPA learned 

that some airport hydrant systems are 

capable of bypassing areas when airport 

hydrant piping is being tested; this 

avoids total system shutdown and 

allows continued airport operation. In 

addition, many airport personnel 

perform daily operations and 

maintenance activities, such as hydrant 

pit inspections and leak monitoring, on 

airport hydrant system components to 

avoid product loss, ensure fuel quality, 

and ensure personnel safety. 

This final UST regulation 

incorporates many of those tasks that 

operators normally perform regularly to 

prevent and detect leaks from these 

systems. However, to meet the final UST 

regulation, owners and operators may 

need to make minor modifications to 

their current activities. Since many 

airports have mechanisms in place and 

are already performing release 

monitoring, meeting requirements in the 

final UST regulation will not severely 

affect airport operations or cause service 

delays severe enough to significantly 

affect the military mission or disrupt the 

National Airspace System. EPA 

concluded that the information we 

gathered since issuing the 2011 

proposed UST regulation supports 

regulating these systems as required in 

the final UST regulation. In addition, 

this final UST regulation includes 

changes to ensure compliance 

requirements are less disruptive and 

further mitigate concerns regarding 

service disruptions, such as adding 

options owners and operators may use 

to meet the release detection 

requirement. 

Implementation Time Frame 

EPA is aware that this final UST 

regulation adds new requirements for 

owners and operators, as well as 

implementing agencies which have not 

fully regulated airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks in the past. 

A few commenters voiced concerns that 

the proposed implementation time 

frames would not give owners and 

operators, or implementing agencies, 

adequate time to assess these systems 

and determine the proper course of 

action. EPA thinks providing a single 

effective date is important because it 

reduces the burden on implementing 

agencies, owners, and operators to track 

various compliance deadlines. EPA is 

also allowing owners and operators who 

use periodic tightness testing for certain 

piping to phase in release detection 

requirements up to seven years. 

Additionally, EPA thinks three years 

gives owners and operators sufficient 

time for planning and installing 

necessary equipment to meet the 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation. 

Other Comments 

Commenters generally supported 

changing the applicability date for 

previously closed systems of airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks, giving implementing agencies the 

flexibility to require a site assessment 

and proper closure of systems closed 

between the effective date of the 1988 

UST regulation and this final UST 

regulation. EPA agrees with 

commenters. As a result, this final UST 

regulation requires owners and 

operators of field-constructed tanks and 

airport hydrant systems, which were 

permanently closed before the effective 

date of this final UST regulation, to 

conduct a site assessment and close the 

UST system according to the closure 

requirements if directed to do so by the 

implementing agency. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA asked commenters if we should 

consider alternative options for closing 

very large UST systems in place. Most 

commenters recommended that large 

field-constructed tanks either be 

removed or filled with an inert solid 

material to prevent releases of residual 

contamination to the environment. 

Others suggested EPA allow some 

flexibility when closing these UST 

systems in place. EPA agrees with 

commenters that implementing agencies 

may need to have more flexibility in 

addressing these systems at closure. 

EPA is modifying the closure 

requirement in § 280.71(b) of the final 

UST regulation to allow closure in place 

in a manner approved by the 

implementing agency. This addition 

provides implementing agencies the 

option to determine that owners and 

operators may close the UST system in 

place without filling it with an inert 

solid material. 

One commenter recommended that 

EPA, in the final UST regulation, 

directly reference the military 

construction standard associated with 

field-constructed tank design and 

construction discussed in the preamble 

to the 2011 proposed UST regulation. 

EPA agrees with the commenter and is 

adding the military construction criteria 

UFC 3–460–01—Petroleum Fuel 

Facilities to this final UST regulation.66

Although design standards are now 

available for aboveground fieldconstructed tanks, EPA is not aware of 

standards written according to a 

national code of practice developed by 

a nationally recognized or independent 

testing laboratory for non-military fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant 

systems. If demand arises and a 

commercial standard is not developed 

to address the need, owners and 

operators may use the UFC, where 

applicable. 

Release Detection 

Background 

In the preamble to the 1988 UST 

regulation, EPA discussed the large 

volumes of product throughput, large 

capacities, and long lengths of large 

diameter piping for airport hydrant 

systems. At the time, EPA believed 

release detection was not feasible for 

airport hydrant systems. These systems 

were monitored for releases 

periodically, but no single leak test 

existed as an industry standard. 

Inventory control was often used, but its 

sensitivity was limited due to the large 

product volumes airport hydrant 

systems typically handle. To allow more 

time for gathering information, EPA in 

the 1988 UST regulation deferred 

regulating airport hydrant systems from 

release detection requirements in 

subpart D. EPA also deferred UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

from most requirements in the 1988 

UST regulation, due to a lack of 

appropriate release detection methods. 

At that time, EPA believed the majority 

of release detection methods applied to 

factory built tank systems and did not 

adequately work for UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks or airport 

hydrant systems. 

Challenges of Conventional Release 

Detection Methods 

Standard release detection methods 

can successfully test and detect releases 

on pressurized piping at commercial 

service stations, but that is not the case 

for airport hydrant systems and large 

diameter piping associated with fieldconstructed tanks. For a variety of 

reasons, the piping of most airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks cannot meet release detection 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

67National Work Group On Leak Detection 

Evaluation’s List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems. http://www.nwglde.org/. 

68 Defense Logistics Agency Energy was formerly 

known as Defense Energy Support Center. 

69Tasks 2–4, Work Assignment 1–25: Preliminary 

Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to 

Potential Revisions to the UST Regulations; 

Industrial Economics (IEc) Inc. identified 17 state 

UST programs that regulate airport hydrant 

systems. EPA’s Office of Underground Storage 

Tanks gathered additional information from seven 

of nine select state UST programs to identify the 

extent of the state’s release detection requirements 

and compare those requirements to the release 

detection requirements in EPA’s proposed 2011 

UST regulation. 

requirements in the 1988 UST 

regulation. High product throughput 

makes it difficult and expensive to 

achieve the same leak rate thresholds 

established for traditional UST systems 

within a reasonable time frame. Product 

temperature fluctuations present 

challenges for release detection testing 

of conventional underground piping. 

However, release detection for piping of 

airport hydrant systems and large 

diameter piping associated with fieldconstructed tanks poses greater 

challenges. As temperatures fluctuate, 

product expands or contracts, increasing 

or decreasing product volume and 

pressure. The magnitude of piping 

associated with these systems creates an 

even greater temperature fluctuation; 

there are varying temperature gradients 

throughout the length of piping. 

Fluctuating line pressure during a 

release detection test can mask an 

existing release or falsely indicate one 

occurred. In addition, the out of service 

period needed to test airport hydrant 

piping could range from one to several 

days after the last product transfer. 

Removing airport hydrant systems 

from service for extended periods will 

greatly impede their purpose of rapid 

and timely delivery of fuel to aircraft. 

When using pressure based testing 

methods to produce accurate leak test 

results, airport hydrant system piping 

needs to be isolated in appropriately 

sized segments. Some airport hydrant 

systems have numerous isolation points 

with connections for release detection 

equipment. Others have longer 

underground piping segments with 

isolation valves for testing located up to 

0.5 miles apart. The greater the volume 

of a segment, the more time it takes to 

obtain a valid result at a given leak rate. 

Although technology is available, it may 

be cost prohibitive and require 

significant facility down time for 

owners and operators to monitor airport 

hydrant systems for releases at the rates 

and frequencies required in the 1988 

UST regulation. 

EPA also recognizes that most release 

detection methods for factory built tanks 

are capable of monitoring UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks up to 

50,000 gallons. After evaluating current 

methods, EPA realized existing release 

detection options for tanks in subpart D 

of the 1988 UST regulation are generally 

not applicable to UST systems greater 

than 50,000 gallons because most 

methods are limited by tank capacity. 

EPA acknowledges the complexities in 

performing release detection on tanks 

significantly larger than 50,000 gallons. 

It is critical to allow sufficient time for 

a tank to reach a state of equilibrium 

prior to performing a test. As tank size 

increases, the time for a tank to reach an 

equilibrium increases significantly. 

Based on discussions with release 

detection vendors, many larger tanks 

require multiple inactive days to yield 

an accurate test result. 

DoD owns most UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks. Taking these 

tanks out of service for multiple days to 

meet the 1988 release detection 

requirement would, in some cases, 

impede DoD’s mission, be impractical to 

sustain, and result in significant costs. 

Release Detection Is Now Available 

While release detection used for 

conventional USTs may not work well 

for airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons, release detection methods 

specifically designed for these UST 

systems are now available. Over the last 

25 years, the petroleum services 

industry has developed release 

detection technologies for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. The NWGLDE lists Large 

Diameter Line Leak Detection Method (6 

Inches Diameter Or Above) and Bulk 

Underground Storage Tank Leak 

Detection Method (50,000 Gallons Or 

Greater), both of which identify 

methods capable of detecting releases 

from airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks.67 EPA contacted 

several vendors to determine the 

strengths and limitations of release 

detection methods for these UST 

systems. EPA also talked with DoD’s 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

Energy 68 about challenges in addressing 

release detection requirements in states, 

such as California, which do not defer 

airport hydrant systems from release 

detection. Because they perform release 

detection on airport hydrant systems in 

other states, DLA Energy has significant 

information about airport hydrant 

system release detection. As of this final 

UST regulation, some state UST 

programs require release detection for 

UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks and airport hydrant systems.69

Feasibility of Proposed Release 

Detection Options for Piping 

In order to allow owners and 

operators flexibility to meet the release 

detection requirement, EPA proposed 

these four alternatives for underground 

piping associated with airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

greater than 50,000 gallons: 

• Pressure based line testing methods 

• Continuous interstitial monitoring 

• Automatic line leak detector 

combined with interstitial monitoring 

and 

• Other methods approved by 

implementing agencies 

EPA requested comment or additional 

data on the proposed release detection 

requirements to determine their 

feasibility. Several commenters said the 

options in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation were insufficient and 

requested EPA provide options that 

offered owners and operators more 

choices. A4A provided EPA with the 

names of nine commercial airports that 

could be affected by the final UST 

regulation and the feasibility of 

applying the release detection methods 

discussed in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation to these airports. This 

information helped EPA further refine 

this final airport hydrant system 

requirements, including release 

detection. 

A4A stated that the only feasible 

choice EPA provided was pressure 

based methods and substantial retrofits 

would be required to meet the 

requirements at Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport (ORD), John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

and possibly other airports. However, 

EPA through our analysis and in depth 

discussions with those airports, thinks 

the airport hydrant system at JFK, as 

currently configured, may not meet the 

definition of an UST in this final UST 

regulation; this means the requirements 

would not apply. In addition, if planned 

capital upgrades are completed on one 

of ORD’s airport hydrant systems, that 

system may not meet the definition of 

an UST and would not be subject to this 

final UST regulation. If configurations 

for either of these airport hydrant 

systems change in the future, the owner 

and operator must re-evaluate the 

system to determine if it meets the 

definition of UST in this final UST 

regulation. Owners and operators are 

responsible for determining whether 

their airport hydrant systems meet the 

definition of an UST and, if necessary, 

comply with this final UST regulation. 

As a result of comments and while 

developing the final UST regulation, 

EPA met with DoD, A4A, personnel 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41593 

70 January 28, 2012 and March 29, 2012 meetings 

with representatives from Airlines for America. 

71February 28, 2013 and March 18, 2013 

meetings with DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency 

Energy. 

72 June 20, 2012 and May 19, 2013 meeting with 

Hansa Consult of North America, LLC. 

73 June 20, 2012 meeting with VISTA Precision 

Solutions. 

74August 15, 2012 meeting with Ken Wilcox and 

Associates. 

75 DoD’s Bulk Petroleum Management Policy— 

DoD 4140.25–M, Volume II—Petroleum 

Management, Chapter 10—Accountability (June 22, 

1994) is accessible on line at: http://www.dtic.mil/ 

whs/directives/corres/pdf/414025-m-vol2- 

chapter10.pdf. This standard recognizes that 

petroleum products are subject to losses and gains. 

The tolerance factor that represents the amount of 

fuel which might be lost or gained under normal 

conditions varies by product and status of fuel (i.e., 

storage or in transit). These values in the policy 

represent standard tolerances (i.e., system flowthrough) for various products in transit and storage: 

(1) Aviation and motor gas = 0.5 percent and 0.5 

percent; (2) JP4 = 0.5 percent and 0.3 percent; (3) 

Jet Fuel, Distillates, Residuals = 0.5 percent and 

0.25 percent; and (4) JP5, JP8, DF2, F76, etc. = 

varies by individual agreements with airports and 

0.5 percent. 

76EPA reviewed Airlines For America 

Guidance—ATA Airport Fuel Facility Operation 

and Maintenance Guidance Manual, Revision 

2004.1; and ATA Spec 123: Procedures for the 

Accounting of Jet Fuel Inventory 2011.2. The two 

documents provide guidance for operators to 

investigate, report, or explain any variances 

exceeding ±0.1 percent. 

representing potentially impacted 

commercial airports, and release 

detection vendors to develop release 

detection methods for the final UST 

regulation and determine how or if 

commercial airports and DoD facilities 

could achieve compliance within the 

specified time frames.70 71 72 73 74 From 

those discussions, EPA found that most, 

if not all, of the potentially affected 

commercial airports have or will have 

mechanisms in place to achieve 

compliance with the release detection 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation. In addition, owners and 

operators already implement release 

detection according to technical 

requirements in states where airport 

hydrant systems are not deferred. EPA 

found that many of these airport 

hydrant systems perform a type of 

inventory management and hydrostatic 

testing of the piping system to detect 

pressure changes in the UST system. 

EPA determined that although the 1988 

UST regulation did not require airport 

hydrant system owners and operators 

perform these tests, both DoD facilities 

and commercial airports have already 

been performing various fuel 

management methods to monitor and 

track fuel inventories. 

Release Detection Options for Piping in 

the Final UST Regulation 

Based on comments, EPA is providing 

flexibility for owners and operators of 

piping associated with airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

greater than 50,000 gallons to meet the 

release detection requirements. This 

final UST regulation modifies the piping 

release detection options in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation and 

incorporates some of the methods 

currently used at commercial airports 

and DoD facilities. Owners and 

operators of these systems may use 

existing piping release detection options 

provided in subpart D (except for 

passive groundwater and vapor 

monitoring, which must be combined 

with inventory control as described 

below), or they may use alternative 

piping release detection methods in 

§ 280.252(d)(2). EPA thinks these 

options are reasonable and represent an 

appropriate balance of practicality and 

protectiveness. Piping associated with 

field-constructed tanks 50,000 gallons or 

less in capacity must use the release 

detection options listed in subpart D. 

Pressure Based Testing 

The final UST regulation allows 

owners and operators to perform 

pressure based testing methods 

according to performance criteria 

dependent on volume of the line 

segment tested. These criteria provide 

specific performance thresholds for both 

semiannual and annual testing. Owners 

and operators may perform semiannual 

or annual line testing at or above 

operating pressure with a probability of 

detection of 0.95 and a probability of 

false alarm of 0.05. This method allows 

owners and operators to meet a variable 

leak rate based on piping test section 

volume. The leak rate ranges from 1 to 

3 gallons per hour, depending on piping 

volume for semiannual testing and from 

0.5 to 1.5 gallons per hour for annual 

testing. The final UST regulation 

establishes 3 gallons per hour as the 

maximum threshold because the 

majority of available testing methods are 

capable of meeting this leak rate. 

For the first six years (or two test 

periods), piping segments that cannot 

meet a 3 gallons per hour threshold are 

allowed to meet a higher threshold of up 

to 6 gallons per hour. Available methods 

are capable of testing segments to a leak 

rate of 6 gallons per hour. The higher 

threshold provides for use of existing 

test methods during the first six year 

period. Six years will provide owners 

and operators time to upgrade their 

piping systems to meet the up to 3 

gallons per hour threshold for 

semiannual testing. Between years six 

and seven, owners and operators must 

conduct one additional tightness test 

that, at a minimum, meets the 

semiannual testing threshold. In the 

seventh year, owners and operators 

must begin meeting the semiannual or 

annual line tightness testing 

requirements according to the 

requirements in § 280.252(d)(2)(i). EPA 

is providing a three year phase-in period 

for the remaining release detection 

options, because these methods will not 

require significant construction or 

upgrades for implementation. 

EPA asked commenters whether other 

release detection options should be 

considered for underground piping 

associated with airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks greater than 

50,000 gallons. Based on comments, 

EPA is adding inventory control, 

groundwater and vapor monitoring, and 

other methods for piping as release 

detection options in this final UST 

regulation. 

Inventory Control 

EPA reviewed performance standards 

for daily inventory control procedures 

used by DoD and the commercial 

airports identified by A4A.75 76 Based on 

performance standards for daily 

inventory control procedures performed 

by both DoD and A4A, EPA is allowing 

inventory control as part of a 

combination method of release 

detection. EPA chose 0.5 percent of flow 

through as the performance standard for 

inventory control because this value 

represents the maximum tolerance 

allowed under the performance 

standard for products typically stored or 

handled by airport hydrant systems. 

Owners and operators may conduct 

inventory control according to DoD 

Directive 4140.25, ATA’s Airport Fuel 

Facility Operations and Maintenance 

Guidance Manual, or equivalent 

procedures. EPA is allowing this 

method in combination with either a 

pressure based line tightness test using 

the leak rates from the semiannual test 

in § 280.252(d)(2)(i) at least once every 

two years, or passive groundwater or 

vapor monitoring once every 30 days as 

described below. 

Groundwater and Vapor Monitoring 

EPA proposed to phase out 

groundwater and vapor monitoring as 

release detection methods in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. However, this 

final UST regulation retains these 

methods with modifications. See section 

D–6 for more information. These 

methods are also allowed with some 

modifications in subpart K. EPA divided 

vapor monitoring into two categories: 

Active monitoring for chemical markers 

or tracers and passive monitoring for 

stored product in the tank system. 

Owners and operators of these systems 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

77Final Report—Validation of the Low-Range 

Differential Pressure (LRDP) Leak Detection System 

for Small Leaks in Bulk Fuel Tanks Environmental 

Security Technology Certification Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense. 

78 DoD 4140.25–M: Management of Bulk 

Petroleum Products, Storage, and Distribution 

Facilities, Volume V http://www.dtic.mil/whs/ 

directives/corres/html/414025m_vol1_3.html. 

may use active vapor monitoring 

methods characterized by testing or 

monitoring of chemical markers or a 

tracer compound placed in the tank 

system, according to § 280.43(e) to 

detect a release of at least 0.1 gallon per 

hour with probabilities of detection and 

false alarm of 0.95 and 0.05, 

respectively. Owners and operators 

choosing this option must conduct this 

test at least once every two years. This 

method may be used as a stand-alone 

method of release detection. 

Owners and operators may also 

combine passive vapor or groundwater 

monitoring with inventory control, 

described above, that can detect a 

release of at least 0.5 percent of flow 

through at least every 30 days. Passive 

vapor monitoring or groundwater 

monitoring must be conducted at least 

every 30 days according to § 280.43(e) or 

(f), respectively. 

Other Methods for Piping 

The final UST regulation maintains 

the option for owners and operators to 

use alternative methods of release 

detection for piping approved by the 

implementing agency, as discussed in 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation. This 

provides flexibility for owners and 

operators to comply by using methods 

or a combination of methods equivalent 

to the requirements in § 280.252(d)(2). 

EPA recognized that other methods not 

included in § 280.252(d)(2) could be 

acceptable, as long as they are as 

effective and are approved by 

implementing agencies. The 

performance criteria for piping release 

detection methods in § 280.252(d)(2) 

provide owners and operators with 

information about how to demonstrate 

the effectiveness of release detection 

methods that must be approved by the 

implementing agency. 

Proposed Release Detection Options for 

Piping Not Included in the Final UST 

Regulation 

Because piping segments associated 

with airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks can contain large 

volumes of regulated substances, EPA 

asked commenters if it was feasible to 

require ALLDs to detect a leak at 3 

gallons per hour at 10 pounds per 

square inch line pressure within one 

hour or equivalent. EPA anticipated 

receiving information on the 

appropriate leak rate for ALLDs on this 

piping. EPA did not receive any 

indication that current performance 

standards of ALLDs could be modified 

for these systems. Although some 

portions of existing systems may be able 

to use this option, EPA agrees it is not 

feasible to use an ALLD with interstitial 

monitoring on piping associated with 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks. 

This final UST regulation modifies 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation; 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems or piping associated with fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons are not provided specific 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation for using continuous 

interstitial monitoring and the 

combination of automatic line leak 

detectors with interstitial monitoring for 

piping. Many of these systems lack 

secondary containment and automatic 

line leak detectors cannot adapt to the 

operating pressures of these systems. In 

the 2011 proposed UST regulation, EPA 

asked if testing the piping for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks at operating pressure was 

sufficient. The 1988 UST regulation 

requires owners and operators test 

conventional systems at one and a half 

times operating pressure. EPA is aware 

that airport hydrant system piping 

operates at high pressures and agrees 

with commenters who stated that testing 

above operating pressure might be 

infeasible. This final UST regulation 

requires owners and operators to test 

these systems at least at operating 

pressure, because these large piping 

systems operate at pressures much 

higher than conventional gasoline 

stations. However, EPA is allowing 

testing at or above operating pressure, 

but is not providing a set value. 

Professional testers can decide the 

appropriate pressure to test these 

systems, as long as the pressure is at 

least the operating pressure of the 

system. 

Release Detection Requirements for 

Tanks Associated With Airport Hydrant 

Systems and Field-Constructed Tanks 

This final UST regulation establishes 

release detection requirements for tanks 

associated with airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks. Airport 

hydrant systems may consist of a series 

of large capacity shop fabricated tanks, 

although some airport hydrant systems 

use field-constructed tanks. Shop 

fabricated tanks and field-constructed 

tanks with a capacity less than or equal 

to 50,000 gallons must meet the 

requirements in subpart D. Fieldconstructed tanks with capacity greater 

than 50,000 gallons must either be 

monitored using release detection 

methods in subpart D (except for 

passive groundwater and vapor 

monitoring which must be combined 

with inventory control as described 

below) or use one of the alternative 

methods for tanks listed at 

§ 280.252(d)(1). 

Feasibility of Proposed Release 

Detection Options for Field-Constructed 

Tanks 

To allow owners and operators more 

flexibility in meeting the release 

detection requirement, EPA proposed 

these four alternatives for UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks greater than 

50,000 gallons: 

• Annual tank tightness test 

• Automatic tank gauging system that 

can detect a 1 gph leak combined with 

a tank tightness test every three years 

• Automatic tank gauging system that 

can detect a 2 gph leak combined with 

a tank tightness test every two years and 

• Other methods approved by the 

implementing agency 

EPA requested comment or additional 

data on the proposed release detection 

options to determine their feasibility. 

Most commenters thought the release 

detection options were appropriate and 

sufficient. One commenter thought EPA 

should include chemical marker or 

tracer testing. Another commenter 

thought EPA should expand the types of 

release detection methods specified in 

the final UST regulation to include use 

of sensors, probes, monthly visual 

inspections, or other methods approved 

by the implementing agency. 

EPA met with and obtained 

information from DoD and release 

detection vendors throughout the 

regulatory process. EPA researched 

suggested release detection options and 

standard practices conducted by DoD 

following the public comment period 

for the 2011 proposed UST regulation. 

EPA found that these facilities perform 

inventory management on their UST 

systems. EPA determined that although 

not performed as specified in the 1988 

UST regulation, some DoD facilities are 

performing fuel management methods to 

monitor and track fuel inventories for 

their field-constructed tanks.77 78

Release Detection Options for FieldConstructed Tanks in the Final UST 

Regulation 

Based on comments and additional 

information from DoD as well as 

commercial airports about their 

operations, EPA is including in this 

final UST regulation all release 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41595 

detection options discussed in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. EPA is also 

adding three other options to this final 

UST regulation. Owners and operators 

of field-constructed tanks less than or 

equal to 50,000 gallons must meet the 

release detection requirements in 

subpart D. Owners and operators of 

field-constructed tanks greater than 

50,000 gallons must use the alternative 

release detection methods described in 

subpart K or the release detection 

options in subpart D (except that 

groundwater and vapor monitoring must 

be used in combination with inventory 

control as described below). EPA thinks 

these options are reasonable and will 

quickly detect releases when they occur. 

Tank Tightness Testing 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA discussed the option of owners and 

operators performing annual tank 

tightness testing that can detect a 0.5 

gallon per hour leak rate. EPA proposed 

this performance standard based on 

information about leaks from several 

field-constructed tanks. The information 

indicated leak rates from the tanks 

ranged from 0.31 gph to 10 gph, with a 

median leak rate of 0.58 gph. EPA 

determined that most available methods 

were capable of meeting the proposed 

leak rate of 0.5 gph. EPA did not receive 

comments regarding the performance 

standard during the public comment 

period. The final UST regulation retains 

the option for owners and operators to 

perform annual underground tank 

tightness testing that can detect a 0.5 

gallon per hour leak rate. 

Automatic Tank Gauging Combinations 

with Tank Tightness Testing 

This final UST regulation allows 

owners and operators to combine an 

automatic tank gauging system with a 

tank tightness test that achieves 

different leak rates during different 

periods of performance. One 

combination uses an automatic tank 

gauging system performing release 

detection at least every 30 days that can 

detect a leak rate less than or equal to 

1 gallon per hour with a tank tightness 

test that can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour 

leak rate performed at least every three 

years. Another combination couples an 

automatic tank gauging system 

performing release detection at least 

every 30 days that can detect a leak rate 

less than or equal to 2 gallons per hour 

with a tank tightness test that can detect 

a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate 

performed at least every two years. This 

automatic tank gauging requirement is 

different from the release detection 

requirement in the 1988 UST regulation 

for factory built tanks. These leak rates 

and time frames for release detection 

testing are appropriate because they will 

detect releases within a reasonable time 

frame, given the large tank sizes and 

time needed to perform testing on these 

tanks. 

Inventory Control 

This final UST regulation allows 

inventory control combined with one of 

these methods: passive groundwater 

monitoring every 30 days, passive vapor 

monitoring every 30 days, or a 0.5 

gallon per hour tank tightness test 

performed at least once every two years. 

The inventory control option must meet 

the same requirements as inventory 

control for piping associated with 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks described in the 

Release Detection Options for Piping in 

the Final UST Regulation section above. 

Groundwater and Vapor Monitoring 

This final UST regulation allows 

active vapor monitoring for tanks using 

the same requirements as described in 

the Release Detection Options for Piping 

in the Final UST Regulation section 

above. In addition, owners and 

operators may also use a combination 

method incorporating inventory control 

and passive vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring using the 

requirements described in the Release 

Detection Options for Piping in the Final 

UST Regulation section above. 

Other Methods for Field-Constructed 

Tanks 

Implementing agencies may approve 

another method if the owner and 

operator demonstrate the method can 

detect a release as effectively as any of 

the other five methods described in the 

Release Detection Options for FieldConstructed Tanks section. In 

comparing methods, an implementing 

agency shall consider the size of release 

the method can detect and frequency 

and reliability of detection. Other 

methods are described in Other Methods 

for Piping. 

Release Detection Recordkeeping 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators maintain records 

of release detection for field-constructed 

tanks and airport hydrant systems in 

accordance with § 280.45. The results of 

any sampling, testing, or monitoring 

must be maintained for at least one year 

except as follows: Tank tightness 

testing; line tightness testing; and vapor 

monitoring using a tracer compound 

placed in the tank system must retain 

records until the next test is conducted. 

EPA is requiring owners and operators 

maintain these records until the next 

test is conducted because owners and 

operators can choose different time 

frames to conduct release detection 

testing. This additional flexibility 

results in some testing occurring at 

frequencies ranging from less than one 

year to up to three years. 

Release Prevention 

As with all other regulated UST 

systems, this final UST regulation 

requires airport hydrant systems and 

field-constructed tanks meet corrosion 

protection, spill, and overfill 

requirements, as well as walkthrough 

inspections. 

Corrosion Protection 

This final UST regulation requires all 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks that routinely contain 

regulated substances and are in contact 

with the ground to meet corrosion 

protection requirements in 

§ 280.252(b)(1). Metal tanks and piping 

which are encased or surrounded by 

concrete have no metal in contact with 

the ground and are not subject to the 

corrosion protection requirements. 

Because interim prohibition for deferred 

UST systems in the 1988 UST regulation 

has been in effect since May 1985, many 

of these systems are already equipped 

with corrosion protection (that is, 

constructed of: Non-corrodible material, 

coated and cathodically protected steel, 

fiberglass reinforced plastic, or steel 

tank clad with fiberglass reinforced 

plastic). In this final UST regulation, 

EPA renames § 280.11 to Installation 

requirements for partially excluded UST 

systems. For corrosion protection, 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks must meet the 

requirements in § 280.252(b)(1). Owners 

and operators must meet this 

requirement within three years of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation. 

This final UST regulation does not 

allow an internal lining as a method for 

meeting the corrosion protection 

upgrade requirement. EPA is not 

allowing an internal lining as corrosion 

protection because it does not protect 

steel in contact with the ground from 

corroding and causing a release to the 

environment. Field-constructed tanks 

and tanks associated with airport 

hydrant systems, which are not 

upgraded according to § 280.252(b), and 

are installed on or before the effective 

date of this final UST regulation must be 

permanently closed according to 

§ 280.70. 

Spill and Overfill Prevention 

EPA concludes that using properly 

functioning equipment, which is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operated according to manufacturer 

guidelines, is necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. 

After discussions with industry, DoD, 

and commercial airport personnel, EPA 

understands that existing airport 

hydrant systems are generally already 

equipped with spill and overfill 

prevention equipment to prevent spills 

and overfills. This final UST regulation 

requires owners and operators of airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks to have spill and overfill 

prevention equipment and conduct 

testing or inspections of the equipment. 

This will ensure the systems and tanks 

operate properly, contain releases, and 

decrease the likelihood of a leak into the 

environment. Owners and operators 

must install spill and overfill prevention 

equipment and conduct the first test or 

inspection within three years of the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation, then at least once every three 

years thereafter. For more information 

on spill prevention equipment testing 

and overfill prevention equipment 

inspections, see sections B–2 and B–3, 

respectively. 

Walkthrough Inspections 

Owners and operators need to 

properly operate and maintain their 

UST system equipment in order to 

prevent and quickly detect releases. 

Therefore, this final UST regulation 

adds requirements for owners and 

operators of airport hydrant systems and 

field-constructed tanks to perform 

periodic walkthrough inspections to 

prevent and quickly detect releases. 

EPA found that owners and operators 

of airport hydrant systems are required 

to ensure safety and fuel quality, and 

frequently inspect these systems as part 

of other requirements and 

recommendations to ensure system 

components are operating properly. In 

addition, EPA understands that airport 

hydrant systems and some fieldconstructed tank facilities are already 

performing operation and maintenance 

inspections that ensure their systems 

and associated spill and overfill 

equipment are operating properly. Thus, 

EPA found these requirements will 

impose little, if any, additional burden 

at these facilities. This final UST 

regulation requires owners and 

operators of airport hydrant systems and 

field-constructed tanks conduct 

walkthrough inspections according to 

§ 280.36. In addition, EPA is requiring 

owners and operators inspect hydrant 

pits and hydrant piping vaults. These 

areas are unique to airport hydrant 

systems. It is important to look at 

hydrant pits and hydrant piping vaults 

as part of periodic walkthrough 

inspections to ensure these areas are: 

Free of liquid and debris, not damaged, 

and free of leaks. Owners and operators 

must inspect these areas at least once 

every 30 days if OSHA confined space 

entry is not required or at least annually 

if OSHA confined space entry is 

required. See 29 CFR part 1910 for 

information about OSHA confined space 

entry. Some owners and operators 

already periodically check these areas 

using the ATA guidance manual, 

Airport Fuel Facility Operations and 

Maintenance Guidance Manual. Owners 

and operators must conduct the first 

inspection within three years of the 

effective date of the final UST 

regulation. For more information on 

walkthrough inspections, see section 

B–1. 

Secondary Containment 

This final UST regulation does not 

require secondary containment for new 

and replaced piping associated with 

field-constructed tanks greater than 

50,000 gallons in capacity or piping 

associated with airport hydrant systems. 

EPA understands this piping typically is 

larger diameter and runs for long 

distances, making it difficult to slope 

the piping to an interstitial monitoring 

area. In addition, EPA understands it is 

difficult to keep water out of the 

interstitial area of long piping runs. 

Since nearly all this piping is steel, 

corrosion can occur in the interstitial 

area when an electrolyte, such as water, 

is in the interstitial area. This corrosion 

can significantly shorten the piping’s 

operational life. Corrosion protection on 

the outside of the piping protects the 

part of the piping in contact with the 

ground from corrosion, but does not 

protect the inside part of piping from 

corrosion. To prevent corrosion caused 

by water in the interstitial area, owners 

and operators would need to add 

corrosion protection inside the 

interstitial area of piping, which EPA 

realizes would be difficult to do. Given 

these issues, EPA has determined that 

requiring secondary containment for 

these piping runs is not practical. 

However, EPA is requiring secondary 

containment for new and replaced 

piping associated with field-constructed 

tanks 50,000 gallons or less that do not 

feed airport hydrant system piping. EPA 

understands that new, smaller fieldconstructed tanks, such as those 

constructed within tanks following 

permanent closure of an existing UST, 

typically have piping similar to that 

installed at commercial gasoline 

stations. This piping can effectively 

meet the secondary containment 

requirements and better protect the 

environment. For more information, see 

section A–2, Secondary Containment. 

Notification 

The 1988 UST regulation did not 

require owners of airport hydrant 

systems or field-constructed tanks to 

comply with the notification 

requirements of § 280.22, which 

included certifying proper installation 

of airport hydrant systems. The 2011 

proposed UST regulation required 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

installed prior to the effective date of 

the final UST regulation provide 

notification of existence to 

implementing agencies within 30 days 

of the effective date of this final UST 

regulation. This final UST regulation 

modifies the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation by requiring owners and 

operators provide a one-time 

notification of existence to 

implementing agencies no later than 3 

years after the effective date of this final 

UST regulation. EPA agrees with 

commenters that airport hydrant system 

owners and operators need more than 

30 days to provide the one-time 

notification of existence. This change 

allows owners and operators, as well as 

implementing agencies, time to identify 

airport hydrant systems covered by the 

final UST regulation and gives 

implementing agencies time to include 

these systems in their inventories. The 

final UST regulation does not consider 

currently installed tanks, including 

airport hydrant systems, as new UST 

systems. Therefore, EPA is requiring 

owners and operators only certify 

proper installation for airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks 

installed on or after the effective date of 

the final UST regulation according to 

§ 280.22. In addition, EPA is requiring 

owners notify within 30 days of 

ownership change. See section D–3 for 

more information on notification 

requirements. 

Financial Responsibility 

Because EPA is eliminating the 

deferral for airport hydrant systems and 

field-constructed tanks, they are no 

longer be excluded from the financial 

responsibility requirements in subpart 

H. Owners and operators who install 

these UST systems after the effective 

date of this final UST regulation must 

comply with the financial responsibility 

requirements at installation. Owners 

and operators of airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks in use as of 

the effective date of this final UST 

regulation must have financial 

responsibility when they submit the 

one-time notification of existence for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41597 

79http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&

SID=b843807afdc641b203ffec44aa671d36&rgn=

div5&view=text&node=40:23.0.1.1.7&idno=40. 

80 40 CFR 112.2 defines completely buried as any 

container completely below grade and covered with 

earth, sand, gravel, asphalt, or other material. 

Containers in vaults, bunkered tanks, or partially 

buried tanks are considered aboveground storage 

containers for purposes of the part. 

these systems. However, subpart H 

exempts federal and state entities, 

which means that federal and state 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks do 

not have to meet the financial 

responsibility requirement. 

Operator Training 

EPA is aware that commercial airports 

are required to follow fuel facility 

training requirements of 14 CFR part 

139; however, those requirements do 

not cover specifics of the UST 

requirements. This final UST regulation 

requires owners and operators of airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks meet the operator training 

requirements of subpart J. Owners and 

operators of some airport hydrant 

systems that are considered 

underground storage tanks may have 

already complied with state operator 

training requirements. For example, 

personnel from General Mitchell Field 

in Wisconsin report that operators have 

received Wisconsin class A and B 

operator training certification. All 

owners and operators must begin 

meeting this requirement not later than 

three years after the effective date of this 

final UST regulation. For more 

information see section A–1, Operator 

Training. 

Partially Excluded Components 

EPA regulates UST systems, including 

tanks and underground piping, in 40 

CFR part 280 and aboveground tanks in 

40 CFR part 112 (Oil Pollution 

Prevention). Facilities with greater than 

1,320 gallons of aboveground oil storage 

capacity that could reasonably be 

expected to discharge oil into navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines are 

subject to the SPCC regulation under the 

authority of the Clean Water Act.79 The 

SPCC regulation includes requirements 

for oil spill prevention, preparedness, 

and response to prevent oil discharges 

into navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines. The SPCC regulation also 

requires regular inspections of 

aboveground valves, piping, and 

appurtenances along with integrity and 

leak testing of buried piping at the time 

of installation, modification, 

construction, relocation, or replacement. 

Facilities regulated by the SPCC 

regulation must also prepare and 

maintain a written SPCC plan that 

includes measures to prevent, prepare 

for, and respond to oil discharges that 

threaten navigable waters or adjoining 

shorelines. 

Aboveground storage tanks associated 

with airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks covered in this final 

UST regulation do not have to meet 

many of the requirements in the UST 

regulation because they are neither 

beneath the surface of the ground, nor 

in contact with the ground. For these 

reasons, the SPCC regulation is the most 

effective means of addressing the 

aboveground storage tanks associated 

with UST systems. Airport hydrant 

systems that do not meet the definition 

of UST system because the underground 

portion is less than 10 percent of the 

system capacity may be subject to the 

SPCC regulation for both the 

aboveground and underground portions 

of the system. Underground storage tank 

components such as hydrant pits and 

piping vaults are considered part of the 

UST system and subject to the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 280. 

Complementary Regulation of Partially 

Buried Tanks 

Partially buried (also called partially 

covered) field-constructed tanks may be 

regulated by both this final UST 

regulation and the SPCC regulation. The 

SPCC regulation exempts only 

completely buried storage tanks subject 

to all of 40 CFR part 280.80

Additionally, the SPCC regulation 

covers tanks situated on top of the 

ground’s surface or partially buried (for 

example, bunkered, also referred to as 

mounded tanks) and considers these to 

be aboveground storage tanks. If 10 

percent or more of the total capacity of 

the tank or tanks and underground 

piping is underground, the tank system 

meets the definition of an UST regulated 

by 40 CFR part 280 or state equivalent 

program approved under 40 CFR part 

281. Therefore, these containers or 

systems are covered by both SPCC and 

UST regulations. These regulations are 

complementary because the SPCC 

regulation focuses on oil discharges that 

could impact navigable waters or 

shorelines, while the UST regulation 

focuses primarily on day-to-day 

maintenance and operation to prevent 

releases that impact soil and 

groundwater. 

Change from Deferred to Partially 

Excluded 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

used the term deferred for aboveground 

storage tanks associated with airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks considered to be UST systems. 

The proposal indicated that although 

these aboveground storage tanks would 

be subject to some parts of the final UST 

regulation, EPA intended to continue 

evaluating whether to fully regulate 

them in the future. EPA reconsidered 

these aboveground storage tanks and is 

making the final determination that the 

SPCC requirements are the most 

effective means for addressing oil 

discharges from aboveground storage 

tanks. This final UST regulation 

excludes from subparts B, C, D, E, G, J, 

and K aboveground storage tanks 

associated with airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks. 

Aboveground storage tanks that are part 

of an UST system must continue to meet 

the requirements of subparts A and F. 

3. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems 

that Are Not Part of a Wastewater 

Treatment Facility Regulated Under 

Sections 402 or 307(b) of the Clean 

Water Act 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA removed the existing deferral in 

§ 280.10(c)(1) for wastewater treatment 

tank systems that are not part of a 

wastewater treatment facility regulated 

under sections 402 or 307(b) of the 

Clean Water Act. Since the 1988 UST 

regulation, owners and operators of 

these systems (hereafter referred to as 

wastewater treatment tanks) were 

deferred from complying with 40 CFR 

part 280, subparts B (UST Systems: 

Design, Construction, Installation and 

Notification); C (General Operating 

Requirements); D (Release Detection); E 

(Release Reporting, Investigation, and 

Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure); and H (Financial 

Responsibility). Owners and operators 

have been required to comply with 

requirements for interim prohibition 

and release response and corrective 

action (40 CFR part 280, subparts A and 

F) since the effective date of the 1988 

UST regulation. However, removing the 

deferral, as discussed in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation, would have 

required owners and operators comply 

with all subparts of 40 CFR part 280. 

Change from Deferred to Partially 

Excluded 

The 1988 UST regulation used the 

term deferred for wastewater treatment 

tanks. Although these tanks were 

subject to some parts of the UST 

regulation, EPA intended to continue 

evaluating whether or not to regulate 

these tanks at a future date. EPA 

reconsidered these tanks and is making 

a final determination. EPA is excluding 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

81http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/wwtts_2-29- 

12_final.pdf. 

82April 2012 telephone conversation with Tom 

Groves, New England Interstate Water Pollution 

Control Commission. 

83April 2012 telephone conversation with Ming 

Pan, Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

84April 2012 telephone conversation with Joe 

Cerutti, Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

85March 2012 telephone conversation with Kevin 

Brackney, Nez Perce Tribe. 

86April 2012 telephone conversation with Chris 

Wiesberg, Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources. 

87April 2012 telephone conversation with Mary 

Hansen, Washington State Department of Ecology. 

88May 2012 telephone conversation with 

Candace Cady, Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

89Contract No. GS–10F–0309N, EPA Work Order 

No. EP–G10S–00001, Work Order No. 1004, Task 2, 

Subtask c, Quick Turnaround Request No. 6, 

Release Response and Corrective Action. 

these tanks from most requirements in 

this final UST regulation; however, the 

regulatory requirements in subparts A 

and F for these systems remain the 

same. 

EPA deferred wastewater treatment 

tanks in the 1988 UST regulation due to 

uncertainty about the number of tanks 

that existed and the appropriateness of 

release detection for these systems. 

EPA’s intent in removing the deferral for 

these tanks in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation was to regulate them further, 

which would protect human health and 

the environment from discharges of 

regulated substances contained in these 

systems. EPA used the proposal to 

obtain additional information on these 

systems, and determine if there were 

appropriate release prevention and 

detection technologies available to fully 

regulate them according to the UST 

regulation. According to commenter 

responses, EPA determined that these 

tanks are often subject to other 

environmental regulations; it may not be 

technically feasible to install release 

prevention and detection equipment on 

these systems due to varying designs of 

these systems; and many of these 

systems contain mostly water and are 

not significant sources of 

contamination. 

Installation Requirements for Partially 

Excluded Tanks 

In the 1988 UST regulation, deferred 

wastewater treatment tanks were 

required to meet the interim prohibition 

requirements at § 280.11 (that is, 

corrosion protected, made of noncorrodible materials, or otherwise 

designed and constructed to prevent 

releases during the operating life of the 

facility due to corrosion or structural 

failure). Therefore, these tanks are 

already equipped with corrosion 

protection if they were installed after 

the effective date of the 1988 UST 

regulation. EPA thinks it is appropriate 

to maintain this requirement, which 

ensures these tanks are provided with 

some degree of corrosion protection to 

prevent releases into the environment. 

Because EPA is partially excluding 

these systems, the term interim 

prohibition no longer applies. 

Therefore, EPA is rewording the title of 

§ 280.11 to Installation requirements for 

partially excluded UST systems. In 

addition, EPA is changing § 280.11(a) to 

reflect that these requirements are 

installation requirements rather than 

prohibitions on installation. 

Many commenters did not support 

removing the deferral to regulate these 

UST systems and were unsure of the 

universe of wastewater treatment tanks. 

To address this concern, EPA developed 

a February 2012 document describing 

wastewater treatment tanks that would 

have been regulated under the final UST 

regulation.81 Several commenters also 

voiced concern that regulating these 

systems may result in unintended 

consequences (for example, 

impracticability of technical 

requirements and dual regulation) for 

owners and operators and implementing 

agencies. To help determine the 

feasibility of the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA asked several 

stakeholders about operating various 

types of wastewater treatment 

tanks.82 83 84 EPA also gathered 

information from commenters about 

implementing other regulations that 

apply to these systems.85 86 87 88 After 

considering commenters’ feedback, EPA 

concluded that the historic level of 

regulation for these tanks is appropriate 

and provides adequate controls to 

ensure environmental protection. 

This final UST regulation excludes 

owners and operators of wastewater 

treatment tanks from 40 CFR part 280, 

subparts B (UST Systems: Design, 

Construction, Installation and 

Notification); C (General Operating 

Requirements); D (Release Detection); E 

(Release Reporting, Investigation, and 

Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure); H (Financial 

Responsibility); J (Operator Training); 

and K (UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant 

Fuel Distribution Systems). EPA is 

basing this decision on maintaining the 

installation requirement (§ 280.11), 

other regulatory controls in place, and 

the additional information gathered. 

Owners and operators of wastewater 

treatment tank systems are still required 

to comply with subparts A (Program 

Scope and Installation Requirements for 

Partially Excluded UST Systems); and F 

(Release Response and Corrective 

Action for UST Systems Containing 

Petroleum or Hazardous Substances). 

4. USTs Containing Radioactive 

Material and Emergency Generator UST 

Systems at Nuclear Power Generation 

Facilities Regulated by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA maintained the existing deferral in 

§ 280.10(c)(2) and (3) for USTs 

containing radioactive material and for 

emergency generator UST systems at 

nuclear power generation facilities 

regulated by the United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since 

the 1988 UST regulation, owners and 

operators of these tanks were deferred 

from complying with 40 CFR part 280, 

subparts B (UST Systems: Design, 

Construction, Installation and 

Notification); C (General Operating 

Requirements); D (Release Detection); E 

(Release Reporting, Investigation, and 

Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure); and H (Financial 

Responsibility). Owners and operators 

have been required to comply with 

requirements for interim prohibition 

and release response and corrective 

action (40 CFR part 280, subparts A and 

F) since the effective date of the 1988 

UST regulation. 

After review of DOE Orders and NRC 

regulations,89 EPA determined these 

requirements are comparable to EPA 

requirements for new and existing USTs 

regarding spill and overfill control 

(§ 280.30); operation and maintenance 

of corrosion protection (§ 280.31); and 

release detection (40 CFR part 280, 

subpart D). DOE established standards 

for facility operations that: protect the 

public and environment from exposure 

to radiation from radioactive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41599 

90 DOE Order 435.1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste 

Management, ensures management of DOE 

radioactive waste (i.e. high-level, transuranic, lowlevel, and the radioactive component of mixed 

waste) is consistent with Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

responsibilities, in a manner that provides 

radiological protection from DOE operations. (see 

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directivesdocuments/400-series/0435.1-BOrder-chg1.) 

91 DOE M 435.1–1 Admin Chg 2, Radioactive 

Waste Management Manual, further describes the 

requirements and establishes specific 

responsibilities for implementing DOE O 435.1, 

Radioactive Waste Management. It prescribes the 

following requirements and specific responsibilities 

for new or modified existing systems: Secondary 

containment designed to detect and contain 

releases, and compatible with material stored 

(Chapter II P(2)(b)); spill/overfill control (Chapter 

II(P)(2)(i)); release detection for tanks (Chapter 

II(Q)(2)(a)(1)), and other storage components 

(Chapter II(Q)(2)(c)); release detection for failed 

containment and/or other abnormal conditions 

(Chapter II(P)(2)(j)); monitoring and/or leak 

detection for secondary containment (Chapter 

IIP(2)(j)); corrosion protection (Chapter 

II(Q)(2)(a)(2),(3)); monitoring and physical 

inspections (Chapter II(T)) and corrective action 

(Chapter I(2)(F)(20)). (see https://www.directives.

doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1- 

DManual-1-admchg2.) 

92 DOE O 458.1 Admin Chg 3, Radiation 

Protection of the Public and the Environment (see 

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directivesdocuments/400-series/0458.1-BOrder-AdmChg3). 

93 10 CFR part 835, Occupational Radiation 

Protection (see http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx

?SID=dc937acd7069e30635139ca1ee3a44a0&node=

pt10.4.835&rgn=div5). 

94 DOE O 440.1B Admin Chg 1, Worker Protection 

Program for DOE (Including the National Nuclear 

Security Administration) Federal Employees (see 

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directivesdocuments/400-series/0440.1-BOrder-b-admchg1). 

95 see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html. 

96 Ibid. 

97 Ibid. 

98February 1997 letter from EPA to the NRC 

expressing concerns over the NRC’s proposal for 

increasing dose limits and eliminating the 

requirement to protect groundwater that could be 

used as drinking water. 

99 December 1997 letter from EPA to DOE 

expressing concerns that DOE’s draft rule 10 CFR 

part 834 (Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment) needs to be consistent with CERCLA 

and that inconsistencies exist between the draft rule 

and CERCLA and NCP guidance. 

100October 2002 Memorandum of Understanding 

between EPA and NRC to identify the interactions 

for only the decommissioning and decontamination 

of NRC-licensed sites and ensure dual regulation 

does not occur regarding the cleanup and reuse of 

NRC-licensed sites. 

101Contract No. GS–10F–0309N, EPA Work Order 

No. EP–G10S–00001, Work Order No. 1004, Task 2, 

Subtask c, Quick Turnaround Request No. 6, 

Release Response and Corrective Action. 

102 Ibid. 

103 Ibid. 

materials; 90 91 92 protect workers; 93

provide industrial safety; 94 and ensure 

compliance with applicable federal, 

state, and local laws, as well as 

Executive Orders and other DOE 

directives. DOE uses orders to regulate 

radioactive materials at their facilities. 

NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 50 

require that construction permit 

applications include a design and safety 

analysis, health and safety risk 

assessment of facility operations, and 

determination of the adequacy of 

controls for accidental releases into the 

environment for the life of the operating 

unit. NRC regulations also require 

facilities meet minimum design, 

installation, testing, and performance 

criteria.95 Appendix B of 10 CFR part 50 

requires a quality assurance report that 

includes testing of facility structures, 

systems, and components.96 NRC also 

developed guidance documents to assist 

operators with licensing compliance.97

EPA was concerned with whether 

NRC and DOE cleanup standards for 

radionuclides adequately protect 

groundwater 98 99 100 and was unfamiliar 

with how NRC regulates releases of 

petroleum products or enforces cleanup 

of releases. 

The 1988 UST regulation contains 

prescriptive procedures UST owners 

and operators must follow in 

responding to releases into the 

environment. NRC regulations are 

performance-based actions; they 

identify performance measures that are 

designed to ensure an adequate safety 

margin and offer incentives for licensees 

to improve safety without formal 

regulatory intervention.101 Accordingly, 

DOE created orders to supplement EPA 

regulations for USTs at DOE facilities 

already subject to the 1988 UST 

regulation.102 NRC requires that 

facilities perform site remediation as 

part of the decommissioning process, 

but there are currently no NRC 

regulations that require remediation at 

active facilities, unless dose limits are 

exceeded.103

EPA concludes it is appropriate to 

continue requiring release response and 

corrective action for these tanks, if the 

need arises. Due to the sensitive nature 

of these facilities, implementing 

agencies have flexibility to establish 

appropriate response and remediation 

requirements for owners and operators 

at these facilities. 

Move from Deferred to Partially 

Excluded 

The 1988 UST regulation used the 

term deferred for USTs containing 

radioactive material and for emergency 

generator UST systems at nuclear power 

generation facilities regulated by the 

NRC. This indicated that although these 

tanks were subject to some parts of the 

UST regulation, EPA intended to 

continue evaluating the applicability of 

full regulation of these tanks at a future 

date. EPA reconsidered these tanks and 

is making a final determination. EPA is 

excluding these tanks from most 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation; however, the regulatory 

requirements in subparts A and F for 

these systems remain the same. 

Installation Requirements for Partially 

Excluded Tanks 

In the 1988 UST regulation, deferred 

USTs containing radioactive material 

and emergency generator UST systems 

at nuclear power generation facilities 

regulated by NRC were required to meet 

the interim prohibition requirements of 

§ 280.11 (that is, corrosion protected, 

made of non-corrodible materials, or 

otherwise designed and constructed to 

prevent releases during the operating 

life of the facility due to corrosion or 

structural failure). While NRC’s 

regulation addresses design and 

installation standards, interim 

prohibition requirements have been in 

effect since the 1988 UST regulation. 

Accordingly, owners and operators have 

had to follow this requirement since the 

effective date of the 1988 UST 

regulation. EPA has no information 

suggesting that maintaining this 

requirement has been an issue for 

owners and operators. After considering 

commenters’ feedback, EPA concluded 

that the historic level of regulation for 

these tanks is appropriate and provides 

adequate environmental controls to 

ensure environmental protection. 

Therefore, this final UST regulation 

continues to require that owners and 

operators of these tanks comply with the 

requirements of § 280.11. Because EPA 

is partially excluding these systems, the 

term interim prohibition no longer 

applies. Therefore, EPA is rewording the 

title of § 280.11 to Installation 

requirements for partially excluded UST 

systems. In addition, EPA is changing 

§ 280.11(a) to reflect that these 

requirements are installation 

requirements rather than prohibitions 

on installation. 

After considering comments and 

additional information, this final UST 

regulation excludes owners and 

operators of these tanks from 40 CFR 

part 280, subparts B (UST Systems: 

Design, Construction, Installation and 

Notification); C (General Operating 

Requirements); D (Release Detection); E 

(Release Reporting, Investigation, and 

Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure); H (Financial 

Responsibility); J (Operator Training); 

and K (UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant 

Fuel Distribution Systems). Owners and 

operators of these tank systems are still 

required to comply with subparts A 

(Program Scope and Installation 

Requirements for Partially Excluded 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

104E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

UST Systems) and F (Release Response 

and Corrective Action for UST Systems 

Containing Petroleum or Hazardous 

Substances). 

This final UST regulation also amends 

§ 280.10(c)(4) which refers to facilities 

licensed under 10 CFR part 50. This 

change is consistent with the regulatory 

citation listed in the Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure provision 

in 40 CFR part 112 and also applies to 

installation of these tanks at NRC 

facilities in the future. 

D. Other Changes 

1. Changes to Overfill Prevention 

Equipment Requirements 

Through extensive stakeholder 

outreach, EPA identified vent line flow 

restrictors (also called ball float valves) 

as a significant concern for operability 

and safety. As a result, this final UST 

regulation modifies the 1988 UST 

regulation by eliminating vent line flow 

restrictors as an option for meeting the 

overfill prevention equipment 

requirement for new tank installations 

and when overfill prevention equipment 

is replaced. EPA makes this change to: 

reduce the frequency of UST releases 

due to operability issues, address 

system safety concerns, and address 

personnel safety concerns. Below are 

the issues: 

• Operability—For a vent line flow 

restrictor to operate properly, the device 

must restrict the flow of regulated 

substance into the UST when the flow 

restrictor engages. If the tank top is not 

liquid or vapor tight, flow into the UST 

is not restricted because vapors 

continue to escape through non-tight 

areas. If vapors continue to escape from 

the UST, there is no pressure buildup in 

the vapor area of the tank, resulting in 

no reduced flow rate into the UST. 

Examples where non-tight tank tops 

may result in ineffective flow restrictors 

include: loose tank bungs or other tank 

top components; tanks with coaxial 

stage I vapor recovery installed; and 

tanks with both tank top and remote fill 

areas. 

• System safety—Vent line flow 

restrictors can create safety concerns 

when they activate. USTs can become 

over pressurized and be damaged during 

deliveries when product is pumped into 

the tank. PEI’s recommended practice 

for installation, RP 100, advises against 

using vent restriction devices because 

the vent line flow restrictor pressurizes 

the UST, creating a hazardous condition 

when the device operates as designed. 

• Personnel safety—Delivery 

personnel can be sprayed with regulated 

substances when they disconnect the 

delivery hose from the fill pipe because 

pressure can build up in the tank when 

the vent line flow restrictor activates. 

Owners and operators may continue 

to use flow restrictors not in vent lines 

(such as flow restrictors in fill pipes), 

automatic shutoff devices, and high 

level alarms to meet the overfill 

prevention requirement for their UST 

systems. 

Owners and operators using a vent 

line flow restrictor before the effective 

date of this final UST regulation may 

continue using it to meet the overfill 

prevention requirement, as long as it 

operates properly by restricting the flow 

of regulated substances into the UST 

when the device activates. Flow 

restrictors in vent lines must be 

periodically inspected for proper 

operation according to section B–3, 

Overfill Prevention Equipment 

Inspections. This means that the flow 

restrictor will need to be accessible to 

the person inspecting the overfill 

prevention device. In addition, owners 

and operators may continue to use flow 

restrictors in UST system vent lines for 

reasons other than meeting the overfill 

prevention requirement, as long as the 

flow restrictors do not interfere with 

operation of the overfill prevention 

equipment being used. 

Most commenters supported this 

change to the 1988 UST regulation. 

Several even suggested requiring 

retrofits of vent line flow restrictors 

with another type of overfill prevention 

equipment. Because EPA is concerned 

about imposing too many additional 

costs on owners and operators of 

existing UST systems, EPA is not 

requiring retrofits of existing vent line 

flow restriction devices, as long as they 

operate properly, alert delivery 

personnel, and prevent overfills. Some 

commenters suggested EPA continue to 

allow the use of vent line flow 

restrictors if they meet the criteria set 

forth in PEI’s RP 100. EPA reviewed the 

PEI recommended practice and noted 

that the code sets criteria for the 

allowed use of vent line flow restrictors. 

However, more importantly, the code 

advises against using vent line flow 

restrictors for overfill prevention under 

any circumstance because they 

pressurize the UST, creating a 

hazardous condition when the device 

operates as designed. Consistent with 

PEI’s RP 100 advisory, EPA is not 

allowing owners and operators to use 

vent line flow restrictors in new tanks 

or when overfill prevention equipment 

is replaced. Finally, several commenters 

suggested EPA continue to allow the use 

of vent line flow restrictors, as long as 

the flow restrictor can be shown to 

operate effectively. Because it is 

difficult to determine if flow restrictors 

in vent lines will effectively restrict 

flow when the tank is close to being full, 

EPA is not allowing their use in new 

UST system installations or when 

overfill prevention equipment is 

replaced. However, the final UST 

regulation allows continued use of vent 

line flow restrictors installed before the 

effective date of the final UST 

regulation, as long as they operate 

properly, alert delivery personnel, and 

prevent overfills. 

2. Internal Linings that Fail the Periodic 

Lining Inspection and Cannot Be 

Repaired 

About 3 percent of tanks rely on 

internal lining as the sole method of 

corrosion protection to meet the 1988 

UST regulation.104 Tanks that were 

internally lined to meet the 1988 UST 

regulation corrosion protection 

requirement at § 280.21 are typically 

older, bare steel tanks installed before 

1986. The 1988 UST regulation 

preamble says that internal lining, when 

used as the sole method for corrosion 

protection, is not regarded as a 

permanent upgrade. However, it is 

adequate if the lining continues to meet 

original design specifications. If the 

internal lining no longer meets original 

design specifications and cannot be 

repaired according to industry codes, 

then the lined tank is subject to 

unprotected tank requirements and 

must be replaced after 1998. However, 

this language, which was in the 1988 

UST regulation preamble, was 

inadvertently omitted from the 1988 

UST regulation. 

This final UST regulation modifies 

the 1988 UST regulation by requiring 

owners and operators to permanently 

close an UST that uses internal lining as 

the sole method of corrosion protection 

for the tank when the lining inspection 

determines the internal lining is no 

longer performing according to original 

design specifications and the internal 

lining cannot be repaired according to a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory. EPA 

understands that codes of practice for 

internal lining inspections in use as of 

publication of this final UST regulation 

contain pass or fail criteria for the 

internal lining and criteria for allowing 

repairs to an internal lining that fails the 

internal lining inspection. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41601 

105EPA UST Technical Compendium Question 

And Answer # 14: www.epa.gov/oust/compend/

nus.htm. 

Owners and operators using internal 

lining as the sole method of corrosion 

protection for the tank may continue 

using that method as long as the internal 

lining is periodically inspected 

according to § 280.21(b)(1)(ii) and the 

internal lining passes the inspection or 

is repaired so it meets original design 

specifications according to a code of 

practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory. 

Consistent with current EPA 

policy,105 tanks using the combination 

of cathodic protection and internal 

lining for corrosion protection are not 

required to be closed if the internal 

lining fails and cannot be repaired, as 

long as the cathodic protection is 

operated and maintained according to 

§ 280.31 and the tank was assessed and 

found to be structurally sound and free 

of corrosion holes when the cathodic 

protection was added to the tank. In 

addition, owners and operators may use 

internal linings for purposes other than 

meeting EPA’s corrosion protection 

upgrade requirement (for example, 

internal linings used for compatibility 

or secondary containment). 

Most commenters supported this 

change to the 1988 UST regulation. 

Some even suggested more restrictive 

requirements: either phasing out 

internal lining as a corrosion protection 

upgrade or permanently closing an UST 

if the lining inspection failed. EPA is 

not requiring these more restrictive 

approaches because we think internal 

lining repairs can be appropriate and 

protect the environment when 

conducted according to a code of 

practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory. In addition, requiring 

permanent closure under these more 

restrictive circumstances would place 

additional financial burdens on UST 

owners and operators. Several 

commenters offered adding cathodic 

protection and relining the tank as 

alternatives to permanent closure. EPA 

is not including these options in this 

final UST regulation because internally 

lined tanks that fail the lining 

inspection and cannot be repaired 

according to a code of practice are 

generally older and are nearing or past 

the end of their useful lives. 

3. Notification 

This final UST regulation adds a onetime notification of existence for UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and UST systems identified as airport 

hydrant fuel distribution systems. In 

addition, it adds a new notification 

requirement for ownership changes; 

provides a new form for making 

notification of ownership changes; and 

makes minor changes to the notification 

language and notification form. 

EPA agrees with commenters who 

opposed requiring one-time notification 

of existence for emergency power 

generator UST systems as was proposed. 

Commenters explained, and EPA agrees, 

that since the 1988 UST regulation 

deferred these systems only from the 

release detection requirements in 

subpart D, owners should have notified 

the appropriate implementing agency 

within 30 days of bringing an UST 

system into use in accordance with the 

notification requirements in subpart B. 

Therefore, in this final UST regulation, 

the requirement to submit a one-time 

notification of existence applies only to 

owners of UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant 

fuel distribution systems. (This one-time 

notification of existence does not apply 

to wastewater treatment tank systems, 

UST systems containing radioactive 

material that are regulated under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and UST 

systems that are part of an emergency 

generator system at nuclear power 

generation facilities regulated by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 

10 CFR part 50 previously deferred in 

the 1988 UST regulation and partially 

excluded in this final UST regulation.) 

Furthermore, EPA agrees with 

commenters’ requests to extend the time 

frame of 30 days in the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation for owners of UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems to submit their one-time 

notification of existence. To provide 

owners more time for identifying and 

gathering information about these 

previously deferred systems, EPA is 

allowing owners of existing UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems to submit a one-time 

notification of existence within 3 years 

of the effective date of this final UST 

regulation. EPA is requiring owners of 

UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks and airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems brought into use 

after the effective date of the final UST 

regulation to submit notification forms; 

this notification requirement has been 

in place since 1986 for all UST owners 

bringing new USTs into use. See subpart 

K for other requirements related to UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems. 

Several commenters requested EPA 

allow 60 days instead of 30 days to 

submit a notification of ownership 

change, noting that the 30-day 

requirement is too stringent. One 

commenter stated that the time frame 

should be relaxed to account for large 

organizations where paperwork could 

involve a significant amount of time to 

process. Another stated that 30 days 

would be too short and unduly 

burdensome on small businesses. While 

EPA fully considered these comments, 

EPA thinks it is important for the 

ownership change notification 

requirement to be consistent with the 

new tank notification requirement 

(within 30 days of bringing an UST into 

use) in place since 1988. In addition, the 

ownership change notification form is 

shorter and takes less time to complete 

than the new tank notification form. As 

a result, this final UST regulation 

requires owners to submit a notification 

of ownership change within 30 days of 

assuming ownership of regulated UST 

systems. 

In this final UST regulation, EPA 

provides a new notification form titled 

Notification of Ownership Change for 

Underground Storage Tanks under 

appendix II. This form supplants the 

List of Agencies Designated to Receive 

Notifications in appendix II of the 1988 

UST regulation. The list, published in 

1988, contained agency names, 

addresses, and phone numbers, many of 

which are no longer accurate. EPA 

considered updating the list, but given 

the frequency with which contact 

information changes, decided it is 

pointless to publish information in the 

final UST regulation since it will 

quickly become obsolete. Rather, 

owners can obtain current agency 

contact information on EPA’s Web site 

at www.epa.gov/oust. 

Two commenters indicated it was 

unclear who the implementing agency is 

and whether owners and operators need 

to notify both the state and EPA. In this 

final UST regulation, EPA is clarifying 

that owners must submit notification 

forms to the appropriate implementing 

agency. The term implementing agency 

is defined in the UST regulation and 

owners can obtain current contact and 

other information regarding their 

implementing agency on EPA’s Web site 

at www.epa.gov/oust. In practice, EPA 

expects most owners will submit 

notification forms only to their 

respective state as their implementing 

agency, except in instances where the 

implementing agency is EPA. For 

example, EPA is the implementing 

agency for USTs located in Indian 

country; thus, owners with USTs in 

Indian country will submit their 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

106 ‘‘40 CFR parts 280 and 281 USTs; Supplement 

to Proposed Rule,’’ 52 FR 48640 (December 23, 

1987). 

107Renewable Fuels Association, Building 

Bridges to a More Sustainable Future: 2011 Ethanol 

Industry Outlook. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/- 

/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20

Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1. 

108Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Intermediate 

Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials 

Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals, and 

Sealants (March 2011). 

109Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Underwriters 

Laboratories Research Program on Material 

Compatibility and Test Protocols for E85 Dispensing 

Equipment (December 2007). Available in the UST 

Docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–UST–2010– 

0651. 

110Westbrook, P.A., Compatibility and 

Permeability of Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in 

Underground Storage and Dispensing Equipment 

(January 1999). Available in the UST Docket under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–UST–2010–0651. 

notification forms to EPA. Owners 

should also be aware that individual 

states may have state versions of 

notification forms which owners should 

use instead when submitting to the 

implementing agency. EPA is revising 

the regulatory language in § 280.22(a) 

and (b) and including language in 

subpart K to reflect that state forms may 

be used if the state requires owners to 

use notification forms that differ from 

those in appendices I and II. 

Lastly, EPA is amending the 

notification form in appendix I and the 

ownership change form in appendix II 

to incorporate comments regarding 

specific items on these forms. For 

example, two commenters noted that 

owners of previously deferred UST 

systems would be unable to complete 

the Certification of Installation section 

of the Notification for Underground 

Storage Tanks form because they were 

not subject to this requirement when the 

UST system was brought into use. In 

addition, records of installation for 

these previously deferred UST systems 

are likely to be nonexistent given the 

passage of time since installation. EPA 

agrees with these commenters and is 

revising the notification form to indicate 

that only owners of UST systems with 

field-constructed tanks and airport 

hydrant fuel distribution systems 

brought into use after the effective date 

of this final UST regulation need to 

complete this section. 

4. Compatibility 

Regulated Substance and Motor Fuel 

Definitions 

This final UST regulation revises the 

regulated substance definition to clarify 

that UST systems containing petroleum 

derived from non-crude oil products are 

regulated. The preamble to the 

supplement of the proposed 1988 UST 

regulation indicates that petroleum 

products can be derived from other 

materials, such as biomass, plant 

material, organic waste, coal, and shale 

oil.106 Petroleum is comprised of a 

complex blend of hydrocarbons 

regardless of its source material. 

Many people applied the definition of 

regulated substance in the 1988 UST 

regulation to petroleum UST systems 

only if the petroleum was derived from 

crude oil. This final UST regulation 

clarifies that petroleum derived from 

non-crude oil based products, such as 

green gasoline, is a regulated substance 

under 40 CFR part 280. This 

clarification is consistent with the 

preamble to the 1988 UST regulation, 

which indicates petroleum is not 

limited to being derived from crude oil. 

This final UST regulation also 

modifies the definition of motor fuel to 

better accommodate new motor fuels 

that may be marketed and stored in the 

future. The definition in the 1988 UST 

regulation listed motor fuel products. 

This led to confusion as to whether new 

fuels, such as petroleum blended with 

ethanol or biodiesel, are motor fuels. 

This final UST regulation clarifies the 

definition of motor fuel and explains 

that it is any fuel typically used to 

operate a motor engine. In addition, 

EPA received comments to change the 

motor fuel definition from petroleum 

and petroleum-based substances to a 

complex blend of hydrocarbons. EPA 

agrees that using the phrase complex 

blend of hydrocarbons eliminates 

ambiguity; it provides a clearer 

definition of motor fuel by including 

complex blends of hydrocarbons that 

may not be petroleum or petroleumbased. EPA is making this change in this 

final UST regulation. 

Compatibility 

EPA understands that the chemical 

and physical properties of ethanol and 

biodiesel can be more degrading to 

certain UST system materials than 

petroleum alone. As the use of ethanoland biodiesel-blended fuels increases, 

EPA is concerned that not all UST 

system equipment or components are 

compatible with these fuel blends. For 

purposes of compatibility, EPA uses the 

term equipment to mean a group of 

components assembled together by the 

manufacturer. Compatibility can be 

determined for all components of a 

piece of equipment. Compatibility 

determinations for equipment are 

typically useful when an UST system is 

newly installed or when a complete 

piece of equipment is replaced. 

Examples of equipment include the 

piping system, STP assembly, and 

automatic shutoff device assembly. A 

component is considered an individual 

piece of an UST system and is typically 

a single piece of the equipment. 

Component compatibility is determined 

on a piece by piece basis. A component 

compatibility determination is typically 

needed when performing repairs on an 

UST system where only parts of a piece 

of equipment are replaced. Examples of 

components include gaskets, seals, and 

other individual pieces that form a piece 

of equipment. 

Gasoline containing 10 percent or less 

ethanol (E10) has been used in parts of 

the United States for many years. UST 

equipment and component 

manufacturers accommodated the E10 

market by producing compatible 

equipment and components. According 

to the Renewable Fuels Association, 

ethanol is blended into over 90 percent 

of all gasoline sold in the United 

States,107 predominantly as E10. 

Recently, the United States has been 

moving toward use of higher blends of 

ethanol, due in part to federal and state 

laws encouraging increased use of 

biofuels. While most UST system 

equipment and components are 

compatible with E10, fuel blends 

containing greater than 10 percent 

ethanol do not have a long history of 

storage and may not be compatible with 

certain materials in existing UST 

systems. According to a 2011 report 

published by the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory,108 some elastomeric 

materials are particularly affected by 

intermediate ethanol blends and certain 

sealants may not be suitable for any 

ethanol-blended fuels. A 2007 report 

from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 109

evaluated the effect of 85 percent 

ethanol and 25 percent ethanol blends 

on dispenser components. Results 

indicated some materials used in the 

manufacture of seals degraded more 

when exposed to 25 percent ethanol test 

fluid than when exposed to 85 percent 

ethanol test fluid. Other literature 

suggests ethanol fuel blends can be 

more aggressive toward certain 

materials than independent fuel 

constituents, with maximum polymer 

swelling observed at approximately 15 

percent ethanol by volume.110 Based on 

this information, this final UST 

regulation clarifies the compatibility 

requirements for owners and operators 

storing regulated substances containing 

greater than 10 percent ethanol. 

This final UST regulation also 

clarifies the compatibility requirements 

for owners and operators storing 

regulated substances containing greater 

than 20 percent biodiesel. Although the 

total use of biodiesel is significantly less 

than that of ethanol, biodiesel has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41603 

111National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition, 

(2009). Available in the UST Docket under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–UST–2010–0651. 

112ASTM Standard D975, 2010c, Standard 

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, DOI: 

10.1520/D0975–10C, www.astm.org. 

113National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition, 

(2009). Available in the UST Docket under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–UST–2010–0651. 

become increasingly available across the 

United States and may be incompatible 

with certain materials in UST systems. 

For example, pure biodiesel (B100) has 

known compatibility issues with certain 

materials. According to the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, 

Fourth Edition,111 ‘‘B100 will degrade, 

soften, or seep through some hoses, 

gaskets, seals, elastomers, glues, and 

plastics with prolonged exposure. . . . 

Nitrile rubber compounds, 

polypropylene, polyvinyl, and Tygon®

materials are particularly vulnerable to 

B100.’’ 

In contrast, the properties of very low 

blends of biodiesel, such as B5 or less, 

are so similar to those of petroleum 

diesel that the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

International considers conventional 

diesel that contains up to 5 percent 

biodiesel to meet its Standard 

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils.112 For 

biodiesel blends between 5 and 100 

percent, there is very little compatibility 

information; however, NREL’s handling 

and use guide concludes that biodiesel 

blends of B20 or less have less of an 

effect on materials and very low blends 

of biodiesel, such as B5 and B2, ‘‘. . . 

have no noticeable effect on materials 

compatibility.’’ 113 In addition, fleet 

service sites have stored B20 in UST 

systems for years, and EPA is not aware 

of compatibility-related releases 

associated with those UST systems 

storing B20. Therefore, this final UST 

regulation requires tank owners and 

operators who store greater than 20 

percent biodiesel in their UST systems 

demonstrate compatibility of UST 

equipment or components by one of the 

options listed in § 280.32. 

This final UST regulation retains the 

requirement for owners and operators to 

use UST systems made of or lined with 

materials that are compatible with the 

substance stored in the UST system. It 

does not change the compatibility 

requirement in the 1988 UST regulation, 

but does add several options for owners 

and operators to demonstrate that their 

UST systems are compatible with 

regulated substances containing greater 

than 10 percent ethanol, greater than 20 

percent biodiesel, or any other regulated 

substances identified by the 

implementing agency. Owners and 

operators of these UST systems must 

meet one of the following options: 

• Use equipment or components that 

are certified or listed by a nationally 

recognized, independent testing 

laboratory for use with the fuel stored 

• Use equipment or components 

approved by the manufacturer to be 

compatible with the fuel stored 

In addition, owners and operators 

may use another option determined by 

the implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the methods listed 

above. 

These options provide owners and 

operators flexibility in demonstrating 

compatibility while still protecting 

human health and the environment. In 

the past, owners and operators typically 

demonstrated compatibility by using 

equipment or components certified or 

listed by a nationally recognized, 

independent testing laboratory, such as 

UL. Many pieces of UST equipment and 

components in the ground today were 

manufactured before regulated 

substances containing ethanol or 

biodiesel existed and are not approved 

by nationally recognized, independent 

testing laboratories for use with these 

fuel blends. Currently, certain tanks and 

piping have been tested and are listed 

by UL for use with higher-level ethanol 

blends. However, many other pieces of 

equipment and components of UST 

systems, such as leak detection devices, 

sealants, and containment sumps, may 

not be listed by UL or another nationally 

recognized, independent testing 

laboratory for use with these blends. 

In addition, EPA is not aware of any 

nationally recognized, independent 

testing laboratory that has performed 

compatibility testing on UST system 

equipment or components with 

biodiesel-blended fuels. Absent 

certification or listing from a nationally 

recognized, independent testing 

laboratory or other verification that the 

equipment or component may be used 

with anything other than conventional 

fuels, the suitability of an UST system 

for use with biodiesel blends is 

questionable. As a result, EPA is 

providing several options for 

demonstrating compatibility to reduce 

the risk of releases due to material 

incompatibility. Owners and operators 

storing regulated substances blended 

with greater than 10 percent ethanol or 

greater than 20 percent biodiesel must 

meet the compatibility requirements 

before storing those regulated 

substances. 

For equipment and components tested 

and approved by a nationally 

recognized, independent testing 

laboratory, owners and operators may 

demonstrate compatibility solely by 

keeping records of the equipment and 

components. In this instance, the testing 

laboratory’s listing, labeling, or approval 

demonstrates the equipment or 

component’s suitability to be used with 

the regulated substance stored. This 

means owners and operators will be 

able to demonstrate compatibility by 

retaining equipment or component 

records. 

Owners and operators may also 

demonstrate compatibility by obtaining 

manufacturer’s approval of the 

equipment or component. The 

manufacturer’s approval must be in 

writing and include an affirmative 

statement that the equipment or 

component is compatible with the fuel 

blend stored. The manufacturer’s 

approval must also specify the range of 

fuel blends for which the equipment or 

component is compatible. The 

manufacturer’s approval must be issued 

from the equipment or component 

manufacturer, not another entity, such 

as the installer or distributor. A 

manufacturer’s approval enables owners 

and operators to demonstrate 

compatibility for equipment or 

components not approved for use by a 

nationally recognized, independent 

testing laboratory. It also provides 

implementing agencies with verification 

that the equipment or component is 

compatible with the fuel stored. 

Implementing agencies may approve 

other options for complying with the 

compatibility requirement for regulated 

substances containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol or greater than 20 

percent biodiesel if they are no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than manufacturer’s 

approval or a listing, labeling, or 

approval by a nationally recognized, 

independent testing laboratory. This 

provides implementing agencies with 

flexibility to consider other approaches 

they determine to be appropriate. For 

example, in lieu of an affirmative 

compatibility determination, 

implementing agencies may allow 

secondarily contained UST systems 

using interstitial monitoring to store 

regulated substances containing greater 

than 10 percent ethanol or 20 percent 

biodiesel. The rationale is that a leak 

from the primary containment will be 

contained by secondary containment 

and detected by interstitial monitoring 

equipment before regulated substances 

reach the environment. 

Although these options for 

demonstrating compatibility apply to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

UST systems storing regulated 

substances containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol and greater than 20 

percent biodiesel, this final UST 

regulation extends the compatibility 

demonstration requirement to other 

regulated substances identified by 

implementing agencies. This provides 

implementing agencies with the 

flexibility to require a demonstration of 

compatibility if there are concerns about 

other existing regulated substances and 

when new regulated substances, such as 

biobutanol, enter the fuel market. 

EPA received comments about the 

difficulty in determining whether some 

UST system equipment or components 

currently installed in the ground are 

compatible with ethanol and biodiesel 

blended fuels. In fact, EPA thinks there 

are many cases where some equipment 

or components of UST systems in the 

ground as of 2014 are not compatible 

with newer fuels. Unless owners and 

operators specifically requested all of 

the UST system be compatible with 

higher ethanol or biodiesel blends, 

installers probably installed lower cost 

options for certain UST system 

equipment, such as a STP assembly, 

which may not be compatible with some 

newer fuels. Non-compatible equipment 

or components, such as equipment in 

containment sumps, are usually easier 

to upgrade or replace than the tank or 

piping because they are typically 

located in areas not requiring 

excavation. In addition, EPA provides 

various options for meeting the 

compatibility requirement. To protect 

the environment from releases of 

ethanol blends greater than 10 percent, 

biodiesel blends greater than 20 percent, 

or any other regulated substance 

identified by the implementing agency, 

owners and operators must do one of 

the following: 

• Demonstrate the UST system is 

compatible through certification or 

listing by a nationally recognized, 

independent testing laboratory or 

manufacturer approval 

• Replace equipment or components 

not compatible or for which 

compatibility cannot be determined 

• Use another option determined by an 

implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment 

• Not store these regulated substances 

in the UST system 

These options provide owners and 

operators with adequate flexibility when 

demonstrating compatibility and 

determining whether certain regulated 

substances may be stored in the UST 

system. 

Some commenters suggested adding 

other options owners and operators 

could use for determining compatibility. 

One suggested addition was certification 

by a professional engineer (P.E.), who 

would perform an on-site UST system 

analysis to determine compatibility. In 

order to perform this analysis, a P.E. 

would need to know the manufacturer 

and model of all UST system equipment 

or components. Because this 

information cannot be entirely obtained 

through visual observation, a P.E. would 

need to obtain records of the equipment 

to make an assessment and then search 

for relevant equipment listings or 

manufacturer certifications. This means 

a P.E. certification is equivalent to the 

options in this final UST regulation. 

EPA does not object to a P.E. performing 

a records review; however, we think it 

is impractical for a P.E. to perform a 

visual assessment of an UST system and 

make a compatibility determination in 

the absence of equipment records and 

certifications. Therefore, EPA is not 

explicitly allowing a P.E. to make a 

compatibility determination in the 

absence of UST system information and 

compatibility certifications. 

Some commenters suggested EPA use 

a tiered approach to demonstrate 

compatibility for UST systems storing 

regulated substances containing greater 

than 10 percent ethanol and greater than 

20 percent biodiesel, and choose one 

method of determining compatibility. 

EPA interprets tiered approach to mean 

requiring the more stringent option first, 

which is listing by a nationally 

recognized, independent testing 

laboratory. If the more stringent option 

is not available, the second tier would 

allow manufacturer’s approval. This 

final UST regulation does not include a 

tiered approach because EPA thinks 

using this method for demonstrating 

compatibility makes the final UST 

regulation too complicated for 

implementing agencies as well as 

owners and operators. Even if the UST 

system equipment or components have 

a listing from a nationally recognized, 

independent testing laboratory, we do 

not always know whether compatibility 

testing was part of the listing. EPA 

thinks manufacturers will only issue 

written claims of compatibility if they 

have sufficient information to support 

such claims. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

required owners and operators retain 

these records: 

• For all new and replaced equipment 

or components—so it is easier to 

demonstrate whether or not the 

equipment or component is 

compatible with the regulated 

substance stored 

• For UST systems storing greater than 

10 percent ethanol, greater than 20 

percent biodiesel, or other regulated 

substance identified by the 

implementing agency—to 

demonstrate the UST system is 

compatible with these regulated 

substances or compliance with 

alternatives allowed by the 

implementing agency 

However, after careful consideration 

of comments, this final UST regulation 

does not require owners and operators 

maintain records for all new and 

replaced equipment. EPA decided it is 

too onerous for owners and operators to 

maintain this information, which may 

not transfer when facilities change 

ownership. 

To make it easier for UST owners and 

operators to comply with the 

compatibility requirement, this final 

UST regulation requires that owners and 

operators notify the implementing 

agency at least 30 days before switching 

to a regulated substance containing 

greater than 10 percent ethanol, greater 

than 20 percent biodiesel, or any other 

regulated substance identified by the 

implementing agency. This notification 

prior to switching fuels gives the 

implementing agency an opportunity to 

inquire about the compatibility of the 

UST system before owners and 

operators begin storing the new 

regulated substance. This notification 

requirement already exists in some 

states. For example, Colorado, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina require 

UST owners submit a completed 

compatibility checklist prior to storing 

some newer fuel blends. To notify, 

owners and operators may contact 

implementing agencies via EPA’s Web 

site at www.epa.gov/oust/. 

This final UST regulation requires 

owners and operators maintain records 

that demonstrate compliance with 

§ 280.32(b) for as long as the UST 

system stores greater than 10 percent 

ethanol, greater than 20 percent 

biodiesel, or other regulated substances 

identified by the implementing agency. 

Owners and operators must retain 

records for these regulated substances in 

order to meet this compatibility 

requirement. 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

preamble included an extensive list of 

UST system equipment and components 

that must be compatible but that list was 

not in the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation. Based on commenter input, 

this final UST regulation includes a list 

of UST system equipment and 

components that owners and operators 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41605 

must demonstrate to be compatible 

when using the manufacturer’s approval 

and certification or listing options. The 

UST system equipment or components 

that owners and operators must 

demonstrate to be compatible are those 

related to the tank, piping, containment 

sumps, pumping equipment, release 

detection equipment, spill prevention 

equipment, and overfill prevention 

equipment. These items are a subset of 

an UST system, as defined by § 280.12, 

which, if incompatible, could lead to a 

release. 

This changes protect human health 

and the environment from potential 

releases from incompatible UST 

systems. These changes are not overly 

burdensome, nor do they require costly 

retrofits. They give owners and 

operators flexibility, yet provide EPA 

with confidence that UST systems are 

compatible with new fuel blends when 

owners and operators use one or more 

of the options to determine 

compatibility. This final UST regulation 

provides owners and operators with 

certainty about which options are 

allowed for demonstrating UST system 

compatibility with the substances 

stored. 

Finally, EPA is removing from the 

compatibility section of the 1988 UST 

regulation API Recommended Practice 

1627, which is a code of practice related 

to methanol-blended fuels. EPA 

included this code of practice in the 

1988 UST regulation to help owners and 

operators demonstrate compliance with 

the compatibility requirement for 

methanol-blended fuels. However, 

EPA’s subsequent review of this code 

revealed no substantial information 

about determining compatibility of UST 

systems with methanol-blended fuels. In 

August 2010, API published an updated 

version of API Recommended Practice 

1626, which is a code of practice for 

storing and handling of ethanol-blended 

fuels. In the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA removed this code of 

practice because the proposed UST 

regulation provided specific 

requirements about how owners and 

operators may demonstrate 

compatibility for their UST systems. 

However, because commenters pointed 

out the code of practice includes 

requirements for demonstrating 

compatibility of UST systems with 

ethanol-blended fuels, EPA is including 

it as a code of practice that may be 

useful in complying with the 

compatibility section in this final UST 

regulation. 

5. Improving Repairs 

Changes to the Definition of Repair 

This final UST regulation adds these 

UST system components to the 

definition of repair: piping; spill 

prevention equipment; overfill 

prevention equipment; corrosion 

protection equipment; and release 

detection equipment. The 1988 UST 

regulation definition of repair used the 

generic term UST system component 

and provided no detail about what an 

UST system component is. By adding 

these UST system components, EPA is 

making it clear that these specific 

components are subject to the repairs 

allowed section of the final UST 

regulation. This means owners and 

operators performing repairs on these 

UST system components must follow 

the repairs allowed section (§ 280.33). 

Owners and operators commonly fix 

UST components that have not caused 

a release of regulated substance from the 

UST system. However, the repair 

definition in the 1988 UST regulation 

did not consider these types of fixes as 

repairs since they were not associated 

with releases. This final UST regulation 

removes the link that a repair is only 

associated with a release, requiring 

owners and operators meet the repairs 

allowed section (§ 280.33) when fixing 

UST system components that have 

failed to function properly, even if they 

have not caused a release of product 

from the UST system. This change 

means owners and operators must 

perform repairs in accordance with a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory and test 

or inspect the repaired equipment. This 

change ensures repair activities separate 

from a release are conducted properly. 

For example, under the 1988 UST 

regulation, fixing a cathodic protection 

system was not considered a repair. In 

this final UST regulation, this activity is 

considered a repair that must meet the 

repair requirements in § 280.33. 

EPA proposed adding a suspected 

release as part of the definition of repair, 

so repairs associated with suspected 

releases are covered under the repair 

definition. However, based on 

comments received, EPA is not 

including suspected release as part of 

the definition of repair in this final UST 

regulation because that circumstance is 

already covered under the ‘‘failed to 

function properly’’ language in the 

repair definition. EPA disagrees with 

commenters suggesting EPA remove the 

‘‘failed to function properly’’ language 

because EPA thinks repairs need to 

occur both when a release occurs and 

when UST system equipment fails to 

function properly. 

Finally, based on comments received, 

EPA is adding clarifying language to the 

repair definition to ensure UST system 

component repairs restore components 

to proper operating condition. 

Tests or Inspections After Repairs 

This final UST regulation adds new 

testing or inspection requirements for 

spill, overfill, and secondary 

containment equipment following a 

repair and allows owners and operators 

up to 30 days following the repair to test 

or inspect the repaired UST component. 

EPA acknowledges that some secondary 

containment can be tested through 

normal release detection if vacuum, 

pressure, or liquid-filled methods of 

interstitial monitoring are used as the 

method of release detection. In these 

cases, the secondary containment test 

occurs automatically, making it 

unnecessary to perform additional 

testing. 

EPA agrees with commenters about 

using the term inspecting rather than 

testing as it relates to the operability of 

overfill prevention equipment. 

Performing inspections will avoid 

potentially overfilling the tank while 

ensuring the overfill prevention 

equipment operates properly. EPA is 

revising the overfill prevention 

equipment test to be an overfill 

prevention equipment inspection. 

EPA agrees with commenters who 

indicated that testing or inspection 

following repair should only apply to 

the component or components repaired 

and not to the entire UST system. This 

final UST regulation requires testing or 

inspection, as appropriate, following a 

repair only for those UST system 

components repaired and not to all 

components at the UST site. In addition, 

EPA is requiring owners conduct a test 

of the secondary containment area 

(including containment sumps) only if 

the secondary containment area is 

repaired and that area is used for 

interstitial monitoring. Note that all 

secondary containment areas must use 

interstitial monitoring for tanks and 

piping installed 180 days after the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation (see section A–2, Secondary 

Containment for additional 

information). Repairs to the primary 

containment areas of a tank or piping 

may be tested using other options for 

tanks and piping listed in the repairs 

section. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that replacing UST system 

components that have not yet failed to 

function properly would trigger the 

repair requirements. If owners and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

114E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

operators choose to replace UST system 

components, those components must 

meet the installation requirements in 

§ 280.20(d). Therefore, replaced UST 

system components do not have to meet 

the repair requirements in § 280.33. 

EPA solicited comments about 

whether to consider requiring tests or 

inspections of spill, overfill, and 

secondary containment areas before 

returning the UST system to service, 

rather than within 30 days of the repair. 

Many commenters were supportive of 

requiring testing or inspection before 

bringing the UST system back into 

service. However, this final UST 

regulation allows owners and operators 

up to 30 days following the repair to 

conduct testing or inspections. EPA 

thinks owners and operators need to test 

or inspect the repaired component as 

soon as possible following the repair. 

However, EPA understands there are 

circumstances where testing or 

inspection before returning the UST 

system to service may be impractical 

(for example, weather conditions, 

remote locations, or the need to 

schedule a test). In these examples, the 

UST system would remain out of service 

until the test or inspection is completed, 

resulting in unnecessary UST system 

down time for owners and operators. 

Thirty days allows some flexibility for 

completing the test or inspection, while 

allowing the UST system to return to 

service. 

6. Vapor Monitoring and Groundwater 

Monitoring 

This final UST regulation retains 

vapor monitoring and groundwater 

monitoring as methods of release 

detection for tanks and piping installed 

before the effective date of this final 

regulation, as long as owners and 

operators demonstrate proper 

installation and performance through a 

site assessment. In addition, this final 

UST regulation revises the 

recordkeeping requirement in § 280.45, 

which means owners and operators 

must maintain site assessments 

according to § 280.43(e)(6) and (f)(7) for 

as long as these release detection 

methods are used. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA phased out vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring over a five year 

time frame. However, EPA received 

significant comments in support of 

retaining these release detection 

methods. Many commenters presented 

circumstances where EPA should allow 

owners and operators to use vapor 

monitoring and groundwater monitoring 

such as: Until the system is replaced 

and the secondary containment 

requirement is triggered; or when the 

UST implementing agency already has 

or will establish additional criteria for 

use. In addition, commenters suggested 

EPA continue allowing certain UST 

systems to use vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring, specifying 

emergency generator tanks, certain highthroughput UST systems, or specific 

low-throughput systems. EPA also 

received numerous requests to expand 

our proposed release detection options 

for airport hydrant fuel systems and 

field-constructed tanks to allow the use 

of vapor monitoring or groundwater 

monitoring. Under the 2011 proposed 

UST regulation, these options are not 

acceptable release detection options for 

owners and operators of airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks. 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

owners and operators of emergency 

generator tanks, certain high-throughput 

UST systems, and specific lowthroughput systems could benefit from 

continued use of vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring until owners 

and operators replace their UST systems 

to meet the secondary containment 

requirement necessitating interstitial 

monitoring. EPA thinks that requiring 

owners and operators to maintain the 

site assessment will increase 

environmental protection appreciably 

beyond the 1988 UST requirements. 

Implementing agencies have noted that 

site assessments often do not exist for 

vapor or groundwater monitoring. Thus, 

by requiring site assessment records, we 

will ensure vapor and groundwater 

monitoring wells are properly located 

and function as effective release 

detection. EPA also thinks that allowing 

these release detection options to be 

customized and used for airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks will 

make it easier for owners and operators 

to comply with the release detection 

requirement. 

Therefore, this final UST regulation 

continues to allow vapor and 

groundwater monitoring as long as 

owners and operators maintain a site 

assessment that demonstrates the 

release detection method meets the 

requirements in this final UST 

regulation. Owners and operators of 

airport hydrant systems and fieldconstructed tanks will have to meet the 

requirements for vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring described in 

subpart K (see section C–2 for additional 

information). 

The 1988 UST regulation defined 

criteria for the use of both release 

detection methods as explicitly as 

possible, given the large variation of 

site-specific conditions at UST sites 

across the country. EPA supports UST 

implementing agencies’ efforts to better 

define site assessment criteria specific 

to their local geology in addition to 

what is required in the UST regulation. 

EPA also acknowledges and supports 

several UST implementing agencies’ 

efforts in conducting construction 

certification and recertification 

inspections. However, EPA has not 

analyzed the economic burden 

construction certification and 

recertification inspections would place 

on UST implementing agencies and 

potentially UST system owners and 

operators. Therefore, this final UST 

regulation does not require installation 

inspections, certification, or 

recertification inspections of monitoring 

wells. EPA expects UST implementing 

agencies will continue reviewing and 

accepting site assessments according to 

their program policies. 

In the event of a confirmed release at 

an UST site, vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring are no longer 

acceptable options for release detection 

unless a new site assessment for the 

release detection method is conducted. 

If a release is confirmed, an owner and 

operator will have to remediate the site 

according to 40 CFR part 280, subpart F. 

Following site remediation, and as long 

as replacement of the UST system does 

not trigger the secondary containment 

requirement, an owner and operator 

must obtain a new site assessment to 

verify appropriate use of these methods, 

if the owner and operator chooses to 

continue using vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring as the primary 

release detection method. Otherwise, 

owners and operators must use another 

method of release detection according to 

subpart D or subpart K. 

At the time of the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA estimated 

approximately 5 percent of all active 

UST systems were using vapor 

monitoring or groundwater monitoring 

to comply with release monitoring 

requirements.114 Commenters 

confirmed that 5 percent of vapor 

monitoring and groundwater monitoring 

was accurate. EPA also confirmed that 

although the methods are used very 

infrequently in the majority of 

jurisdictions, there is considerably high 

use in certain states. Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Mississippi have a 

significant number of owners and 

operators using vapor monitoring, 

groundwater monitoring, or a 

combination of the two methods. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41607 

Estimated use of both methods in these 

states is 29 percent, 12 percent, and 65 

percent, respectively. Confirmation of 

high use in one particular geographic 

area of the country influenced EPA’s 

decision to continue allowing use of 

these methods. 

EPA agrees with comments about 

major benefits for UST system owners 

and operators to use backup release 

detection, whether it is vapor 

monitoring, groundwater monitoring, or 

another method. However, neither the 

1988 UST regulation nor this final UST 

regulation requires a secondary 30 day 

release detection method. 

EPA discussed several issues in the 

2011 proposed UST regulation that 

prompted our proposal to no longer 

allow vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring as primary 

methods of release detection. However, 

the requirement in this final UST 

regulation for owners and operators to 

maintain the record of a site assessment 

for as long as the method is used will 

address most of these issues. 

If the site assessment is available 

when inspecting USTs, UST 

implementing agencies can confirm 

proper installation and use of 

monitoring wells. For example, if 

inspectors find what they believe to be 

insufficient numbers of wells or wells 

improperly located to sufficiently 

monitor all portions of the tank or 

piping that routinely contain product, 

inspectors will be able to reference the 

site assessment to determine adequacy 

of the wells. 

The site assessment will also help 

UST implementing agencies determine 

whether certain conditions, which allow 

users to switch between vapor 

monitoring and groundwater monitoring 

due to seasonal variations, have been 

met. Monitoring wells must be properly 

constructed and installed to meet all 

criteria in § 280.43(e) and (f). Wells used 

for vapor monitoring must allow vapors 

to collect; wells used for groundwater 

monitoring must be screened to prevent 

clogging and intercept the water table at 

both high and low groundwater 

conditions while being sealed from the 

ground to the top of the filter pack. 

Information regarding acceptability of 

the same wells used for both methods of 

release detection must be documented 

in the site assessment. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA discussed issues that were specific 

to vapor monitoring. These issues will 

be addressed when owners and 

operators maintain the site assessment 

for as long as the method is used. The 

site assessment will contain information 

on site conditions, such as whether 

porosity of the surrounding soil is 

sufficient. The site assessment will 

confirm that vapors to be monitored will 

be unaffected by groundwater, rainfall, 

or soil moisture. Perhaps the most 

crucial information in the site 

assessment is the background 

contamination level at the site. This will 

allow owners, operators, and 

implementing agencies to determine 

whether that level interferes with 

monitoring methods. It also marks the 

threshold for determining a release has 

occurred when monitoring for 

petroleum hydrocarbons. 

Maintaining the site assessment also 

addresses specific groundwater 

monitoring issues EPA discussed. 

Groundwater at times can be more than 

20 feet from the ground surface, due to 

seasonal water table variations. This can 

result in the depth to groundwater 

requirement not being met. Unless an 

analysis is performed and valid 

documentation regarding use of the 

wells for vapor monitoring during low 

water table conditions is included in the 

site assessment, the wells will be 

restricted for groundwater monitoring 

use only. 

In cases where there is no site 

assessment or an assessment does not 

sufficiently ensure requirements in 

§ 280.43(e) or (f) are met, UST system 

owners and operators must reassess the 

site and maintain documentation 

required in § 280.43(e)(6) and (f)(7) in 

order to continue using groundwater or 

vapor monitoring as a method of release 

detection. At a minimum, a professional 

engineer or professional geologist, or 

equivalent licensed professional with 

experience in environmental 

engineering, hydrogeology, or other 

relevant technical discipline acceptable 

to the UST implementing agency must 

sign the new site assessment. 

EPA understands that in Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Mississippi, where the 

methods are commonly used and 

account for the majority of use in the 

country, most UST system owners and 

operators or the UST implementing 

agency have sufficient documentation of 

the site assessment. This means most 

owners and operators in those states 

will not need to conduct a new site 

assessment to comply with this final 

UST regulation. Owners and operators 

in other areas of the country may need 

to conduct a site assessment in order to 

continue using vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring. 

This final UST regulation also 

addresses another major aspect 

associated with vapor monitoring and 

groundwater monitoring methods. 

Equipment that is used as part of these 

release detection methods requires 

proper operation and maintenance in 

order to provide optimal monitoring 

results. Operation and maintenance 

requirements for electronic and nonelectronic equipment are addressed in 

the release detection equipment testing 

requirement discussed in section B–5 

and the walkthrough inspection 

requirement in section B–1, 

respectively. 

7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, 

Including Interstitial Alarms, Under 

Subpart E 

This final UST regulation clarifies 

UST owners’ and operators’ 

responsibilities regarding interstitial 

monitoring results, including alarms, 

under 40 CFR part 280, subpart E. 

Specifically, EPA is making these 

changes: 

• § 280.50(b)—adding liquid in 

interstitial spaces of secondarily 

contained UST systems as an example 

of an unusual operating condition and 

adding to the list of criteria for not 

being required to report a suspected 

release that any liquid in the 

interstitial space not used as part of 

the interstitial monitoring method 

must be removed 

• § 280.50(c)—clarifying that an alarm 

during release detection monitoring is 

subject to the reporting requirement 

and describing exceptions to the 

reporting requirement 

• § 280.52(a)—adding owners and 

operators as appropriate must conduct 

secondary containment testing, and 

clarifying actions UST owners and 

operators must take if a test confirms 

a leak into the interstitial space or 

indicates a release to the environment 

The 1988 UST regulation implicitly 

covered interstitial monitoring when 

reporting suspected releases because it 

was a method of release detection. This 

final UST regulation makes changes to 

explicitly cover interstitial monitoring 

and reinforce that a leak into an 

interstitial space of a secondarily 

contained UST system also indicates a 

potential threat to the environment; 

leaks must be investigated, addressed, 

and as necessary, reported. 

This final UST regulation requires 

interstitial monitoring for all new or 

replaced tanks and piping (see section 

A–2, Secondary Containment). 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, 

must be handled. 

In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA 

indicated that product or water in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. To alleviate 

uncertainty for owners and operators, 

EPA provides information below about 

interstitial monitoring and responses to 

alarms. 

This final UST regulation revises 

§ 280.50(b) by adding interstitial spaces 

of secondarily contained UST systems 

and clarifying the presence of liquid in 

this space as an unusual operating 

condition unless the liquid is used for 

interstitial monitoring or meets the 

requirements described in 

§ 280.43(g)(2)(iv). 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 the two typically 

encountered liquids discovered in the 

interstice. However, EPA is using the 

broader term liquid to cover water, 

product, or other substances in the 

liquid-phase in the interstitial space. 

Any liquid in this space not used for 

interstitial monitoring or not meeting 

the requirements described in 

§ 280.43(g)(2)(iv) indicates there is an 

UST system problem that needs to be 

resolved. As a result, EPA is specifying 

this as an unusual operating condition 

and is requiring UST owners and 

operators investigate and address it. 

Several commenters suggested 

changes to § 280.50(b) of the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. Suggestions 

included: Deleting that water or product 

in the interstice is reportable and 

clarifying the requirement that the 

unexplained presence of water or 

product is an unusual operating 

condition. Based on comments, EPA in 

§ 280.50(b) of this final UST regulation 

is using the term liquid, rather than 

water or product, to address any liquid 

in the interstitial space. To add clarity 

to this final UST regulation, EPA is also 

restructuring the section to provide 

subsections with separate examples of 

unusual operating conditions. This final 

UST regulation also allows owners and 

operators to not remove or report liquid 

under two conditions: Within secondary 

barriers described in § 280.43(g)(2)(iv), 

as long as interstitial monitoring is not 

rendered inoperative, or the liquid is 

used as part of the interstitial 

monitoring method. 

EPA is clarifying in § 280.50(c) that an 

alarm during release detection 

monitoring, which indicates a potential 

release or compromise of the interstitial 

space, is subject to the reporting 

requirement. UST owners and operators 

must appropriately address all release 

detection monitoring alarms. For 

example, some interstitial monitoring 

systems will trigger an alarm, which 

indicates a potential release or that the 

interstitial space has been 

compromised. In subpart E, EPA is 

adding interstitial monitoring to 

emphasize its importance because the 

secondary containment requirement for 

new and replaced systems in section A– 

2 will increase the use of interstitial 

monitoring. UST owners and operators 

are not required to report alarms from 

defective system equipment or 

components or alarms that are 

investigated and determined to be a 

non-release. Also, UST owners and 

operators do not have to report leaks, 

which are contained in the interstitial 

space; but owners and operators must 

investigate and repair problems. Except 

as provided in § 280.43(g)(2)(iv), any 

liquid in the interstitial space not used 

as part of the interstitial monitoring 

method, such as brine filled, must be 

removed. 

Several commenters misunderstood 

EPA’s discussion regarding reporting 

alarms. In the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation, EPA intended that owners 

and operators need to investigate all 

alarms, but only report confirmed 

releases and suspected releases that 

could not be ruled out by an 

investigation. Commenters suggested 

these changes to EPA’s 2011 proposed 

UST regulation at § 280.50(c): Deleting 

language pertaining to alarms; changing 

language regarding the time allowed to 

repair, recalibrate, or replace defective 

system equipment; and including an 

exception for reporting alarms that have 

been confirmed to be false alarms. Based 

on comments, EPA in § 280.50(c) of this 

final UST regulation is expanding and 

describing exceptions to reporting 

monitoring results, including 

investigation of an alarm from a release 

detection method that indicates a 

release may have occurred. 

EPA is adding secondary containment 

testing, as appropriate, to the release 

investigation and confirmation steps in 

§ 280.52(a) of the final UST regulation. 

EPA thinks it is important to clarify 

actions UST owners and operators must 

take if a test confirms a leak into the 

interstitial space or indicates a release 

has occurred. If a leak into the interstice 

is confirmed, an UST owner and 

operator must correct or address the 

problem. In addition to options listed in 

the 1988 UST regulation, this final UST 

regulation includes closure as an option 

when an owner and operator confirms a 

release. Nothing in this final UST 

regulation changes the requirement in 

subpart F for an UST owner and 

operator to take corrective action if a 

release occurred. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA suggested that UST owners and 

operators follow integrity test 

requirements, now referred to as 

secondary containment testing, of the 

interstitial area. Many commenters 

noted that tank tightness testing or line 

tightness testing may be more 

appropriate tests to confirm a suspected 

release under certain circumstances, 

and UST system owners and operators 

should be allowed the choice of 

determining which test to use. EPA 

agrees and is revising § 280.52(a) to 

indicate use of secondary containment 

testing as appropriate. 

EPA received several comments about 

the terms release and leak used 

throughout the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation and the 1988 UST regulation. 

Historically, EPA used these terms 

interchangeably. As a result of EPA’s 

new secondary containment and 

interstitial monitoring requirement (see 

section A–2, Secondary Containment), 

there is now a subtle but important 

distinction between the terms. The term 

release is defined in the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. EPA provides the same 

definition of release in the UST 

regulation at § 280.12. Release means 

any spilling, leaking, emitting, 

discharging, escaping, leaching or 

disposing from an UST into 

groundwater, surface water or 

subsurface soils. A release always 

reaches the environment. The term leak 

in this final UST regulation is a more 

general term that includes both cases of 

when a regulated substance enters into 

a contained area (such as secondary 

containment) but has not yet reached 

the environment and when a regulated 

substance reaches the environment (a 

release). Therefore, the term release is a 

subset of the more general term leak. 

Note that leaks and releases have 

investigation and reporting 

requirements in subpart E. 

As a result of distinguishing between 

a leak and a release, EPA is clarifying 

the definition of release detection. The 

1988 UST regulation defined release 

detection as determining whether a 

release of a regulated substance 

occurred from the UST system into the 

environment or into the interstitial 

space between the UST system and its 

secondary barrier or secondary 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41609 

115E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

116E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

containment around it. This final UST 

regulation revises the definition of 

release detection to clarify regulated 

substances entering into the interstitial 

space are leaks instead of releases. This 

final UST regulation defines release 

detection as determining whether a 

release of a regulated substance 

occurred from the UST system into the 

environment or a leak occurred into the 

interstitial space between the UST 

system and its secondary barrier or 

secondary containment around it. This 

change allows EPA to continue to use 

the term release detection as it applies 

to both leaks and releases. 

E. General Updates 

1. Incorporate Newer Technologies 

Since EPA promulgated the 1988 UST 

regulation, newer tank, piping, and 

release detection technologies have been 

developed and are being used. EPA is 

incorporating several of these newer 

technologies in this final UST 

regulation. In addition, because the 

1988 UST regulation closure 

requirements unintentionally restrict 

use of a newer tank within a tank 

technology, EPA is revising closure 

requirements to provide additional 

flexibility for implementing agencies to 

allow field-constructed tank 

technologies that construct a tank 

within an existing closed tank. 

However, EPA is not specifically 

including field-constructed tank within 

a tank technologies in the new tank 

standards section in § 280.20 of the final 

UST regulation, because the tank 

construction technologies currently 

covered in this section include both 

factory constructed and fieldconstructed technologies. Note that 

§ 280.20(d) requires new UST systems, 

including tank within a tank 

technologies, to be properly installed 

according to a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory and the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

Clad and Jacketed Tanks 

This final UST regulation adds steel 

tanks that are clad or jacketed with a 

non-corrodible material to the list of 

specific new tank design and 

construction options for UST systems. 

EPA estimates 10 percent of regulated 

tanks today are jacketed with a noncorrodible material and 18 percent are 

clad with a non-corrodible material.115

The 1988 UST regulation allowed a 

steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic 

composite tank (also called a fiberglass 

clad tank), but did not specifically 

include other non-corrodible claddings. 

In addition to fiberglass, manufacturers 

in 2014 are using other non-corrodible 

materials claddings for steel tanks, 

which are listed by UL standard 1746, 

External Corrosion Protection Systems 

for Steel Underground Storage Tanks. 

These tank technologies are effective at 

preventing corrosion of the portion of 

the steel tank shell in contact with the 

ground. EPA considers a cladding to be 

a non-corrosive dielectric material, 

bonded to a steel tank with sufficient 

durability to prevent external corrosion 

during the tank’s life. 

Because they were not commonly 

used at the time, EPA did not include 

jacketed tanks in the 1988 UST 

regulation. These tanks are now: More 

commonly used; UL 1746 listed for 

external corrosion protection; and 

effective in preventing corrosion of the 

steel tank shell. EPA considers the tank 

jacket to be a non-corrosive dielectric 

material that: is constructed as 

secondary containment or jacketed 

around a steel tank; has sufficient 

durability to prevent external corrosion 

of the steel tank shell during a tank’s 

life; and prevents a regulated substance 

released from the primary steel tank 

wall from reaching the environment. 

Non-Corrodible Piping 

The 1988 UST regulation allowed 

fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping, but 

did not specifically include other noncorrodible piping options such as 

flexible plastic piping. Both fiberglass 

and flexible plastic piping are listed 

under the UL 971 standard, Nonmetallic 

Underground Piping for Flammable 

Liquids. Non-corrodible piping not 

made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (in 

particular, flexible plastic piping) was 

installed at UST sites 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.116 This 

final UST regulation revises fiberglassreinforced piping to be non-corrodible 

piping and allows UST owners and 

operators to install other types of noncorrodible piping, such as flexible 

plastic, without requiring implementing 

agencies to make a determination on the 

suitability of those materials. 

Release Detection Technologies 

The 1988 UST regulation allowed 

UST owners and operators to use other 

methods that meet release detection 

performance criteria listed at 

§ 280.43(h). Although continuous intank leak detection (CITLD) and SIR 

were allowed under § 280.43(h), EPA is 

including both by name and providing 

specific performance criteria in this 

final UST regulation for the reasons 

described below. 

CITLD 

The 1988 UST regulation allowed 

ATG systems as a recognized method of 

release detection. However, ATG 

systems were generally listed with 

performance requirements consistent 

with performing a static test. ATG 

systems rely on system down time and 

the absence of product delivery or 

dispensing activities to perform release 

detection. In static testing mode, an 

ATG system analyzes product level and 

determines whether a leak is present 

during that down time. UST owners and 

operators also use ATG systems as a 

means of continually monitoring tanks 

for potential releases. CITLD has 

evolved as a reliable means of providing 

release detection equivalent to other 

methods specified in § 280.41. Within 

this category of methods, this final UST 

regulation allows continuous in-tank 

methods where the system 

incrementally gathers measurements to 

determine a tank’s leak status within the 

30-day monitoring period. 

One commenter asked EPA to further 

clarify the term CITLD. That commenter 

said EPA presented language in the 

2011 proposed UST regulation that 

confused CITLD, continuous statistical 

leak detection (CSLD), and SIR because 

each is a statistically based release 

detection method. EPA agrees with the 

commenter and is clarifying use of the 

term CITLD, which encompasses all 

statistically based methods where the 

system incrementally gathers 

measurements on an uninterrupted or 

nearly uninterrupted basis to determine 

a tank’s leak status. Currently, there are 

two major groups that fit into this 

category: CSLD (also referred to as 

continuous automatic tank gauging 

methods) and continual reconciliation. 

Both groups typically use sensors 

permanently installed in the tank to 

obtain inventory measurements. They 

are combined with a microprocessor in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

117National Work Group On Leak Detection 

Evaluations’ List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For 

Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/. 

118UST Technical Compendium, question and 

answer number 21:http://epa.gov/oust/compend/

rd.htm. 

the ATG system or other control console 

that processes the data. Continual 

reconciliation methods are further 

distinguished by their connection to 

dispensing meters that allow for 

automatic recording and use of 

dispensing data in analyzing tanks’ leak 

status. SIR, which we describe below, is 

not a continually operating method that 

fits into the CITLD category. 

This final UST regulation formally 

recognizes CITLD as a release detection 

method in § 280.43(d). Per § 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 § 280.45. 

Another method of release detection is 

required in the event of an inconclusive 

result. For example, in the event of an 

inconclusive result, UST owners and 

operators may perform an in-tank static 

test using an ATG system or use another 

method of release detection. 

SIR 

This final UST regulation adds SIR as 

a release detection method and provides 

performance criteria for its use. SIR 

must: 

• Report a quantitative result with a 

calculated leak rate; 

• Be capable of detecting a leak rate 

of at least 0.2 gallon per hour or a 

release of 150 gallons within a 30-day 

period 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 

reported results. Based on information 

in the NWGLDE list,117 approximately 

85 percent of SIR methods listed are 

quantitative-based methods. Many state 

UST implementing agencies already 

only allow quantitative methods. This 

final UST regulation only allows 

quantitative SIR as an option for 

meeting the release detection 

requirement. 

Consistent with the performance 

criteria described in the other methods 

option for release detection, this final 

UST regulation maintains the 

performance standards of a 0.2 gallon 

per hour release or a release of 150 

gallons within a 30-day period with a 

probability of detection of 0.95 and a 

probability of false alarm of 0.05. The 

2011 proposed UST regulation did not 

include the additional standard of 150 

gallons within a 30-day period for SIR. 

EPA agrees with the commenter who 

noted the importance of the 150 gallons 

criteria if SIR methods are used for 

monitoring piping for release detection; 

as a result, we are retaining this 

performance standard for SIR in the 

final UST regulation because EPA and 

some other implementing agencies 

allow UST system owners and operators 

to use SIR for piping release detection. 

Like other release detection methods, 

SIR must be capable of detecting a 

release of 0.2 gallon per hour or less 

with a probability of detection (Pd) of at 

least 0.95 and probability of false alarm 

(Pfa) of no more than 0.05. 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 

investigated as a suspected release. 

One commenter asked EPA to further 

clarify SIR. The commenter said EPA 

presented language in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation that confused 

statistically based release detection 

methods currently in use. EPA agrees 

and is modifying the description of SIR 

in this final UST regulation at 

§ 280.43(h) to narrow the focus of 

statistically based methods, which fit 

under this section. SIR encompasses 

only those statistically based methods 

where inventory data is gathered over a 

period and typically provided to a 

vendor who analyzes the data to 

determine the leak status of the tank. 

These methods do not include systems 

that incrementally gather measurements 

on an uninterrupted or nearly 

uninterrupted basis to determine the 

tank’s leak status described in 

§ 280.43(d) under continuous in tank 

leak detection. 

This final UST regulation addresses 

these issues associated with SIR: 

• SIR is not the same as inventory 

control 

Æ Historically, users, vendors, and 

regulators have incorrectly 

associated SIR with inventory 

control in § 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. Section 280.50(c)(3) 

allows 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. Therefore, any failed SIR result 

must be investigated as a suspected 

release. Also, in the event of an 

inconclusive result, UST owners 

and operators must use another 

method of release detection to 

determine the leak status of the 

tank. 

• Results for release detection, 

including SIR, are required within the 

30-day monitoring period 

Æ EPA considered including a 

requirement in the final UST 

regulation that UST owners and 

operators obtain a record of SIR 

results within 30 days. However, 

this requirement is already covered 

in the release detection 

requirements. As § 280.41(a)(1) 

states, ‘‘Tanks . . . must be 

monitored for releases at least every 

30 days using one of the methods 

listed in § 280.43(d) through (i) 

. . .’’ In this final UST regulation, 

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 

Æ 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,118 which 

says all methods used to meet 

release detection requirements in 

§ 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 § 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 gathered to generate an initial 

report at startup; or when a report 

is not available for any month of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41611 

119E2, 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 are located in the docket EPA– 

HQ–UST–2011–0301. 

monitoring. Owners and operators 

have not performed release 

detection until the release status of 

the UST system has been 

conclusively determined. 

• Initial SIR report at startup 

Æ SIR methods need to gather data 

over a period in order to determine 

whether the tank is leaking. In some 

cases, implementing agencies have 

addressed significant lag times 

between when data is collected and 

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 and 30 days to 

gather sufficient measurements that 

provide an accurate result. Any 

method that goes beyond a 30-day 

monitoring period is inconsistent 

with and does not meet the release 

detection requirement. It is 

imperative that UST owners and 

operators determine the status of 

their tanks within the established 

monitoring period to avoid 

increased risk of releases. 

Therefore, owners and operators 

must use another release detection 

method at least once every 30 days 

until a SIR result is obtained. After 

that, owners and operators must 

have a SIR result at least once every 

30 days. 

• Meeting the 30-day monitoring 

requirement 

Æ EPA received several comments 

regarding the lack of timeliness 

associated with determining 

whether a leak exists when using 

SIR. In many instances, monitoring 

results are not produced until the 

next monitoring period or well 

beyond. These commenters also 

provided several suggestions for 

EPA to address the lag time 

between UST owners and operators 

collecting leak detection data and 

receiving late reporting on the leak 

status of the tank. EPA reiterates its 

established regulatory requirement 

that tanks must be monitored for 

releases at least once every 30 days. 

Æ Commenters provided other 

options for how owners and 

operators can meet the release 

detection requirement. One possible 

option is for EPA to require owners 

and operators perform a SIR 

analysis every 15 days using the last 

30 days of data. This option results 

in a more frequent analysis of the 

UST system’s leak status. EPA 

agrees this option would allow 

owners and operators to meet the 

release detection requirement. 

Another option suggested was for 

EPA to add a requirement that SIR 

results must be returned to owners 

within seven days of the end of the 

data collection period; other 

commenters indicated various other 

times. EPA disagrees with this 

option because it would not meet 

the requirement to conduct release 

detection at least once every 30 

days. Providing additional time for 

one method to determine whether a 

leak has occurred would be both 

unfair to UST system owners and 

operators using other release 

detection methods, as well as result 

in decreased environmental 

protection. To meet the release 

detection requirement for SIR, 

owners and operators could 

conduct a more frequent analysis, 

as one commenter suggested, or 

send data more expeditiously by 

electronic means. EPA is retaining 

the 30-day release detection 

requirement, which allows owners 

and operators to use whatever 

method they choose, as long as the 

method meets performance 

standards. UST system owners and 

operators can discuss changing 

their methods or data collection 

procedures with their SIR vendors 

in order to meet EPA’s release 

detection requirement. 

Interstitial Monitoring 

The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

included three methods of continuous 

interstitial monitoring—vacuum, 

pressure, and liquid-filled methods—in 

§ 280.43(g). EPA proposed these 

methods in conjunction with the 

periodic secondary containment testing 

requirement. Based on comments, EPA 

removed references to continuous 

interstitial monitoring in this final UST 

regulation. Because continuous 

interstitial monitoring is not discussed 

in this final UST regulation, EPA does 

not include language pertaining to 

continuous vacuum, pressure, or liquidfilled methods of interstitial monitoring 

in § 280.43(g). This does not impact 

release detection methods allowed 

under § 280.43(g). 

2. Updates to Codes of Practice Listed in 

the UST Regulation 

This final UST regulation updates 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. The 

1988 UST regulation relied on codes of 

practice developed by nationally 

recognized associations or independent 

testing laboratories to implement many 

of the requirements. EPA will continue 

to rely on codes of practice in this final 

UST regulation. 

EPA reviewed information from more 

than 25 code making groups on more 

than 200 codes of practice, which have 

been developed or revised since the 

1988 UST regulation.119 As a result, 

EPA is: 

• Updating titles and designations of 

existing codes of practice; 

• Adding applicable codes of practice 

developed after the 1988 UST 

regulation was finalized; 

• Moving codes of practice that were 

misplaced in the 1988 UST 

regulation; and 

• Removing codes of practice that: 

Æ Are out of date, no longer available, 

withdrawn, or rescinded; 

Æ No longer provide any information 

appropriate to or relevant to the 

final UST regulation where it was 

referenced; or 

Æ Are no longer needed. 

For example, EPA listed the 

Association for Composite Tanks ACT– 

100 tank standard in § 280.20(a)(3) of 

the 1988 UST regulation as a code of 

practice for meeting the clad tank 

requirement. EPA is removing this code 

of practice from this final UST 

regulation because both the association 

and code of practice no longer exist. 

In several cases, EPA is moving a code 

of practice from one section of the final 

UST regulation to another. For example, 

EPA is moving Steel Tank Institute 

Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall 

Underground Steel Storage Tanks from 

§ 280.43(g)—interstitial monitoring to 

§ 280.20(a)(2), which covers steel tanks. 

EPA thinks it makes more sense for this 

to be included under the UST design 

and construction standards, rather than 

as a release detection standard. EPA 

used similar rationale when relocating 

other codes of practice in this final UST 

regulation. 

As in the preamble to the 1988 UST 

regulation, this final UST regulation 

does not require use of a specific 

version or edition of any code. The 

consensus codes are frequently revised 

and updated. EPA recognizes that 

requiring use of the most recent edition 

of a code of practice would cause undue 

confusion in the regulated community. 

For example, owners and operators 

install UST systems according to codes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of practice current at the time of 

installation, but may not have 

equipment in the ground that meets 

codes that are current 10 years later. 

EPA concludes that the industry codes 

in effect at the date of publication of this 

final UST regulation are protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Using future editions of codes instead of 

editions now in effect is not required, 

but is encouraged; updated codes will 

probably provide for newer, more 

effective technologies and practices. 

Using past codes, which have been 

replaced by new editions prior to the 

effective date of this final UST 

regulation, is not allowed because some 

past recommended industry practices 

may not represent current codes of 

practice or may not adequately cover the 

regulatory requirement. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

1988 UST regulation, this final UST 

regulation interprets the term nationally 

recognized organization to mean a 

technical or professional organization 

that has issued standards formed by the 

consensus of its members. The 

organization should consider all 

relevant viewpoints and interests, 

including those of consumers and future 

or existing potential industry 

participants. The resulting standards 

should be widely accepted and based on 

a broad range of technical information, 

and performance criteria should be 

central elements of the resulting 

standards. EPA regards the following 

organizations, whose codes of practice 

are listed in this final UST regulation, 

as examples of nationally recognized 

organizations: 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) 

Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute 

(FTPI) 

National Association of Corrosion 

Engineers (NACE) 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 

National Leak Prevention Association 

(NLPA) 

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) 

Steel Tank Institute (STI) 

Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 

EPA received broad support for 

updating the codes of practice listed 

in the final UST regulation. Several 

commenters pointed out errors to 

titles or designations in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. This final 

UST regulation corrects these errors. 

EPA received comments on the 2011 

proposed UST regulation asking that we 

add or remove several codes of practice. 

EPA reviewed PEI’s recommended 

practice for testing and verification of 

spill, overfill, leak detection, and 

secondary containment equipment (RP 

1200), and in this final UST regulation 

is including it in areas where testing or 

inspecting UST equipment is required. 

EPA also reviewed and is including 

PEI’s recommended practice for the 

inspection and maintenance of UST 

systems (RP 900) in the walkthrough 

inspections portion of this final UST 

regulation. EPA is not including the 

Canadian code for installing fiber 

reinforced plastic linings (ULC/ORD– 

C58.4–05), because this final UST 

regulation no longer allows owners and 

operators to install internal linings to 

meet the corrosion protection upgrade. 

Owners may continue using internal 

linings for other reasons such as 

compatibility or secondary containment; 

but EPA determined there are no 

appropriate areas in this final UST 

regulation to list lining codes of practice 

for those purposes. Also, EPA is not 

including PEI’s recommended practice 

for the inspection and maintenance of 

motor fuel dispensing equipment (RP 

500), because it is a standard for 

inspecting motor fuel dispensing 

equipment and Subtitle I of the SWDA 

does not give EPA the authority to 

regulate aboveground equipment such 

as motor fuel dispensing equipment. 

Finally, EPA is not including STI’s 

storage tank maintenance standard (R– 

111) as an option for periodic 

walkthrough inspections because the 

content of the 2011 version of this code 

of practice only focused on water and 

contaminants in the tank along with 

compatibility. Except for a monthly 

inspection checklist, this code of 

practice does not describe how to 

conduct a periodic walkthrough 

inspection. If STI changes this code of 

practice, implementing agencies may 

determine whether the newer version is 

adequate for meeting the periodic 

walkthrough inspection requirement in 

this final UST regulation. 

In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, 

EPA asked for input on whether the 

requirement to follow codes of practice 

and manufacturer’s instructions under 

the installation requirements in 

§ 280.20(d) should apply to just tanks 

and piping (as stated in the 1988 UST 

regulation) or apply to the UST system 

as a whole. Both the 1988 UST 

regulation and this final UST regulation 

define UST system as the underground 

storage tank, connected underground 

piping, underground ancillary 

equipment, and containment system, if 

any. Commenters strongly supported 

requiring installation of the UST system, 

rather than just tanks and piping, 

according to a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory and according to 

manufacturer’s instructions. For these 

reasons, this final UST regulation 

replaces tanks and piping with UST 

system in § 280.20(d). 

3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade and 

Implementation Deadlines 

This final UST regulation removes 

references to the 1998 deadline and old 

phase in schedules, while continuing to 

allow testing of corrosion protection and 

release detection. These changes 

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. In addition, as of 2010 

implementing agencies have inspected 

all regulated UST systems at least once 

for compliance with release detection, 

release prevention, and financial 

responsibility requirements. 

EPA will no longer allow owners and 

operators to upgrade UST systems if 

they never met the 1998 upgrade 

requirements, unless the implementing 

agency determines the UST system is 

acceptable to upgrade. Owners and 

operators must permanently close nonupgraded UST systems according to the 

closure requirements in subpart G. Nonupgraded UST systems 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 

unprotected metal in contact with soil 

corrodes. EPA is allowing implementing 

agencies to make case-by-case 

determinations on when to allow 

upgrades. EPA does not expect 

implementing agencies to allow 

continued use of tanks 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. 

EPA will continue to allow UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant systems to be 

upgraded with spill, overfill, and 

corrosion protection under subpart K of 

the UST regulation. See section C–2 for 

additional information on upgrading 

these UST systems. 

To meet the release detection 

requirement, § 280.41 of the 1988 UST 

regulation allowed owners and 

operators of USTs not upgraded with 

corrosion protection to use a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41613 

combination of monthly inventory 

control with annual tank tightness 

testing until December 22, 1998. Since 

owners and operators no longer have the 

option to use inventory control and 

annual tightness testing, EPA is 

removing this option from this final 

UST regulation. 

In response to comments received, 

EPA is removing the definition of 

petroleum marketing firm from subpart 

H of this final UST regulation. EPA only 

used the term petroleum marketing firm 

in the compliance dates section as it 

related to when these firms needed to 

meet the financial responsibility 

requirements. Since the compliance 

dates for conventional UST systems 

have passed more than a decade ago, the 

term no longer needs to be defined. 

4. Editorial Corrections and Technical 

Amendments 

This final UST regulation includes 

editorial corrections and technical 

amendments to the 1988 UST 

regulation. 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, this final UST regulation adds 

technical amendments, which include 

updating the final UST regulation to 

incorporate statutory changes that 

occurred since the 1988 UST regulation 

was promulgated and clarifying 

longstanding Agency interpretations 

and policies. EPA is making the 

following technical amendments in this 

final UST regulation: 

• § 280.10(c)(4)—EPA is revising the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission citation 

to be consistent with the Spill 

Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures requirements in 40 

CFR part 112. This final UST regulation 

partially excludes emergency generator 

systems at nuclear power generation 

facilities licensed by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission that are subject 

to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

requirements regarding design and 

quality criteria, including but not 

limited to 10 CFR part 50. EPA 

originally proposed only deleting 

appendix A from the regulatory citation. 

However, EPA agrees with commenters 

that using language consistent with the 

Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures requirements in 40 

CFR part 112 provides clarity and 

consistency for owners and operators of 

emergency generator UST systems at 

nuclear power generation facilities. 

• § 280.12—EPA is revising exclusion 

(ii) of the definition of UST to 

incorporate a revision in section 9001 of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

• This final UST regulation adds a 

technical amendment to § 280.43(b), 

which codifies longstanding Agency 

policy adding additional flexibility for 

using manual tank gauging. This change 

updates UST capacity allowances and 

testing durations when using manual 

tank gauging. Since 1990, EPA allowed 

these deviations from the 1988 UST 

regulation through policy and included 

them in outreach publications. 

• The 2011 proposed UST regulation 

removed the requirement for inventory 

control for the automatic tank gauging 

release detection method in § 280.43(d) 

because some interpreted the language 

as requiring both inventory control and 

automatic tank gauging. However, EPA 

agrees with commenters who indicated 

the language is necessary to ensure 

automatic tank gauging equipment 

meets inventory control performance 

standards in § 280.43(a). More 

specifically, EPA is keeping the 

regulatory language to ensure owners 

and operators continue to measure for 

water as described in the inventory 

control requirement. This final UST 

regulation departs from the proposal 

and retains language established in the 

1988 UST regulation that automatic tank 

gauging equipment also must meet the 

inventory control requirements. This 

final UST regulation does not require 

owners and operators to perform 

inventory control in addition to 

automatic tank gauging. 

• This final UST regulation expressly 

states which new operation and 

maintenance requirements owners and 

operators do not have to meet for UST 

systems in temporary closure. Owners 

and operators of temporarily closed UST 

systems that are empty do not have to 

perform the following periodic release 

detection operation and maintenance 

testing and inspections in subparts C 

and D: 30 day release detection checks, 

annual sump checks, and annual handheld release detection checks described 

in the walkthrough inspection section 

(see section 

B–1); testing of containment sumps used 

for interstitial monitoring described in 

the secondary containment testing 

section (see section B–4); and testing of 

release detection equipment described 

in the release detection equipment 

testing section (see section B–5). These 

requirements are unnecessary as long as 

the temporarily closed UST system is 

empty because release detection is not 

required in the first place. In addition, 

owners and operators of any UST 

system in temporary closure are not 

required to conduct the following 

periodic operation and maintenance 

testing and inspections for spill 

prevention equipment and overfill 

prevention equipment in subpart C: 

Spill prevention equipment testing (see 

section B–2); overfill prevention 

equipment inspections (see section B– 

3); or spill prevention equipment checks 

described in walkthrough inspections 

(see section B–1). Spill and overfill 

testing or inspections are not required 

for UST systems in temporary closure 

because those systems are not receiving 

deliveries of regulated substances. 

Finally, as a conforming amendment, 

this final UST regulation adds subpart K 

to the release detection citation because 

new release detection requirements for 

field-constructed tanks and airport 

hydrant systems are included in that 

subpart. 

• This final UST regulation amends 

the definition of the term accidental 

release in § 280.92 so it matches the 

definition described in the preamble to 

the 1988 UST regulation for the 

financial responsibility requirements 

(53 FR 43334). EPA intended the 

definition in the preamble to be 

included in the 1988 UST regulation, 

but failed to include the concept of 

releases as a result of operating the UST. 

Through this amendment, 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). 

• § 280.94(a)(1)—EPA proposed to 

include the local government option 

citations in this section. However, those 

options are not included in this final 

UST regulation because they are already 

included in § 280.94(a)(2). 

• § 280.97(b)(1) and (2)—EPA added 

the local government options as part of 

the reference since those options are 

also viable financial responsibility 

mechanisms. 

• To make the local government bond 

rating test consistent with the 

requirements of the financial test in 

§ 280.94, this final UST regulation adds 

a new subsection to § 280.104. 

• To ensure the definition of UST 

technical standards in subpart I, Lender 

Liability, includes all of the preventative 

and operating requirements in this final 

UST regulation, EPA revised the 

definition to include subparts J and K as 

part of the preventative and operating 

requirements under 40 CFR part 280. 

• To add clarity about the statement 

for shipping tickets and invoices in 

appendix III, this final UST regulation 

revises the appendix. 

• Finally, the final UST regulation 

revises sections that use the terms 

operating life or properly closed to be 

permanently closed or when a changeVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:07 Jul 14, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JYR2.SGM 15JYR2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

in-service occurs; this amendment will 

clearly indicate when the regulated 

operating life of an UST system ends. 

This final UST regulation does not 

define an operating life or proper 

closure. Rather, it describes permanent 

closure and change-in-service. 

F. Alternative Options EPA Considered 

In developing this final UST 

regulation (hereafter the Selected 

Option), EPA considered and evaluated 

variations of a subset of the regulatory 

requirements using two alternative 

options (hereafter Option 1 and Option 

2). The table below highlights 

differences between the Selected Option 

and Options 1 and 2. Some of the 

regulatory requirements do not vary 

across the options (for example, 

notification of ownership changes is 

required in all three). As a result, 

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 those of the Selected Option. 

COMPARISON OF SELECTED OPTION AND OPTIONS 1 AND 2 

Regulatory requirement 

Options 

Selected 1 2 

Walkthrough inspections ................................................. 30 days .............................. 30 days (per 2011 proposed UST regulation) *.Quarterly. 

Overfill prevention equipment inspections ...................... 3 years ............................... Annual ............................... Not required. 

Spill prevention equipment tests ..................................... 3 years ............................... Annual ............................... 3 years. 

Containment sump tests .................................................. 3 years ............................... Annual ............................... Not required. 

Elimination of flow restrictors in vent lines for all new 

tanks and when overfill devices are replaced.

Required ............................ Required ............................ No change from 1988 UST 

regulation. 

Operability checks for release detection equipment ....... Annual (plus annual check 

of sumps).

Annual (per 2011 proposed 

UST regulation) *.

Annual (plus annual check 

of sumps). 

Groundwater and vapor monitoring for release detection Continue to allow with site 

assessment.

5-year phase out (per 2011 

proposed UST regulation) *.

No change from 1988 UST 

regulation. 

Remove release detection deferral for emergency generator tanks.Required ............................ Required (per 2011 proposed UST regulation) *.Required. 

Requirements for demonstrating compatibility for fuels 

containing >E10 and >B20.

Required ............................ Required (per 2011 proposed UST regulation) *.No change from 1988 UST 

regulation. 

Remove deferrals for airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems and UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks.

Regulate under alternative 

release detection requirements.

Require airport hydrant 

systems and field-constructed tanks notify implementing agency and 

report releases (with no 

other new requirements).

Maintain deferral. 

* In the 2011 proposed UST regulation, these regulatory changes generally consisted of more or stricter requirements than what is in the final 

UST regulation. For example, the 30-day walkthrough inspections in the 2011 proposed UST regulation included monthly check of sumps. 

Please see the 2011 proposed UST regulation for details. 

Below we explain Options 1 and 2, as 

well as our rationale for each. (Note that 

EPA conducted a regulatory impact 

analysis for all three options. The 

results are discussed in the RIA 

document titled Assessment of the 

Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other 

Impacts of the Final Revisions to EPA’s 

Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action.) 

EPA’s Rationale for Option 1 

EPA considered keeping walkthrough 

inspections as described in the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. However, 

based on concerns from commenters 

regarding the proposed walkthrough 

inspection requirements, EPA decided 

to revise the components of the 

walkthrough inspection. See section B– 

1 for details regarding this final UST 

regulation on walkthrough inspections. 

EPA also considered requiring annual 

inspections of overfill prevention 

equipment, annual spill prevention 

equipment tests, and annual 

containment sump testing. After 

reviewing comments, considering the 

benefits of establishing one consistent 

implementation time frame across as 

many regulatory requirements as 

possible, as well as assessing the cost of 

requiring annual tests and inspections, 

EPA is requiring owners and operators 

inspect overfill prevention equipment 

and test spill prevention equipment and 

containment sumps once every three 

years. This balances the benefits of 

ensuring properly functioning 

equipment with the potential 

administrative burden and costs 

imposed on owners and operators. 

When considering operability checks 

for release detection equipment, EPA 

examined the possibility of keeping the 

operability checks as described in the 

2011 proposed UST regulation. 

However, based on comments, EPA 

decided to revise some components of 

the operability checks. This resulted in 

allowing owners and operators to 

perform some release detection checks 

on an annual basis instead of every 30 

days. See section B–5 for details 

regarding release detection equipment 

testing. 

EPA also considered maintaining the 

2011 proposed option of a five year 

phase out of groundwater and vapor 

monitoring as permissible release 

detection methods. Based on concerns 

from states where groundwater and 

vapor monitoring are used frequently by 

owners and operators, EPA is retaining 

groundwater and vapor monitoring as 

long as owners and operators 

demonstrate proper installation and 

performance through a site assessment 

that must be maintained as long as the 

methods are used. See section D–6 for 

details regarding groundwater and vapor 

monitoring. 

EPA also considered maintaining its 

2011 proposed requirements for release 

detection of emergency generator tanks 

and for demonstrating compatibility. 

However, as discussed in earlier 

sections (C–1 for emergency generator 

tanks and D–4 for compatibility), EPA is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41615 

revising these requirements in response 

to comments. For emergency generator 

tanks, we are revising the 

implementation time frame for 

consistency with other implementation 

dates. For compatibility, EPA is 

removing the recordkeeping 

requirement for new installations to 

make it easier for owners and operators 

to be in compliance. EPA is also adding 

a list of equipment that must 

demonstrate compatibility with storing 

ethanol blends greater than 10 percent 

or biodiesel blends greater than 20 

percent, or any other regulated 

substance identified by the 

implementing agency. This will help 

owners and operators understand which 

UST equipment must be demonstrated 

to be compatible. 

Lastly, EPA considered requiring 

owners and operators of airport 

hydrants systems and field-constructed 

tanks submit a one-time notice of 

existence in addition to reporting 

confirmed releases to the implementing 

agency. Owners and operators of these 

systems would not be subject to any 

additional regulatory requirements 

under Option 1. After weighing the 

availability of release detection options 

for these systems, the applicability of 

other requirements in this final UST 

regulation, and the potential human 

health and environmental impact of 

releases from these systems, EPA is fully 

regulating these systems. See C–2 for 

EPA’s rationale for regulating airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. 

EPA’s Rationale for Option 2 

In comparing costs with benefits of 

the final regulatory changes, EPA 

weighed different frequencies for 

walkthrough inspections and periodic 

equipment inspections or tests. EPA 

assessed quarterly walkthrough 

inspections, and not requiring overfill 

prevention equipment inspections and 

containment sump testing as ways to 

reduce potential cost impacts on owners 

and operators. Compared to the 30-day 

requirement, quarterly walkthrough 

inspections would reduce costs to 

owners and operators. However, EPA 

thinks a period less frequent than 30 

days for walkthrough inspections would 

considerably reduce benefits. High 

operator turnover and the frequency of 

deliveries both contribute to the need 

for 30-day walkthrough inspections. 

With that in mind, today EPA is 

requiring 30-day walkthrough 

inspections so owners and operators can 

consistently and routinely verify proper 

spill prevention and release detection 

performance. This will ensure problems 

are detected before a release occurs. 

EPA also considered not requiring 

overfill prevention equipment 

inspections and containment sump 

testing. However, as explained in 

sections B–3, Overfill Prevention 

Equipment Inspections and B–4, 

Secondary Containment Tests, tank 

overfills and containment sump areas 

account for a significant amount of 

releases from UST systems. As a result, 

EPA is requiring overfill prevention 

equipment inspections and containment 

sump testing (for containment sumps 

used for interstitial monitoring) once 

every three years. Overfill prevention 

equipment inspections will ensure 

overfill prevention equipment is 

operating properly. Similarly, 

containment sump testing will ensure 

that containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring will be liquid 

tight. 

To reduce total compliance costs of 

this final UST regulation 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 public 

comments, EPA maintains its position 

that vent line flow restrictors present 

problems for operability and safety 

reasons. As described in section D–1, 

EPA is eliminating ball float valves as 

an overfill prevention equipment option 

for all new tanks and when overfill 

prevention equipment is replaced in 

existing tanks. 

EPA considered maintaining the 

existing requirements for groundwater 

and vapor monitoring, in particular 

retaining the two as permissible release 

detection methods with no changes to 

the 1988 UST regulation. However, 

given the numerous concerns that have 

arisen over the years regarding these 

two release detection methods, such as 

misapplications and improper designs 

of monitoring wells, EPA is retaining 

these two release detection methods 

only if owners and operators 

demonstrate proper installation and 

performance through a site assessment. 

See section D–6 for details regarding 

groundwater and vapor monitoring. 

EPA also considered only retaining 

the current requirement for owners and 

operators to use UST systems made of 

or lined with materials that are 

compatible with the substance stored in 

the UST system. However, EPA 

understands that the chemical and 

physical properties of ethanol and 

biodiesel can be more degrading to 

certain UST materials than petroleum 

alone. As the use of ethanol- and 

biodiesel-blended fuels increases, EPA 

is concerned that not all UST system 

equipment or components are 

compatible with these fuels. Therefore, 

EPA is requiring owners and operators 

demonstrate compatibility of certain 

UST system components when storing 

ethanol blends greater than 10 percent 

and biodiesel blends greater than 20 

percent. Owners and operators can 

demonstrate compatibility of required 

components by using one of the three 

options described in this final UST 

regulation. See section D–4 for details 

regarding compatibility. 

Finally, EPA considered maintaining 

deferrals for airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks. However, 

as explained above, after weighing the 

availability of release detection options 

for these systems, the applicability of 

the other requirements in this final UST 

regulation, and the potential human 

health and environmental impact of 

releases from these systems, EPA is fully 

regulating these systems. See C–2 for 

EPA’s rationale for regulating airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. 

V. Updates to State Program Approval 

Requirements 

EPA is making changes to the 1988 

SPA regulation (40 CFR part 281) to 

make it consistent with certain Energy 

Policy Act requirements and certain 

revisions to the 1988 UST regulation (40 

CFR part 280). Commenters generally 

supported EPA changing portions of the 

1988 SPA regulation and making it 

consistent with revisions to the 1988 

UST regulation. Commenters supported 

EPA keeping the general format of the 

1988 SPA regulation and not making the 

final SPA regulation as explicit or 

prescriptive as this final UST regulation. 

EPA is making these substantive 

changes to the 1988 SPA regulation. 

• § 281.12(b)—adding definitional 

exceptions for several Energy Policy 

Act definitions 

• §§ 281.30(a), 281.33(c)(2), and 

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 section 

9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act 

• §§ 281.30(a)(1) and 281.33(d)(3)— 

exclude safe suction piping, airport 

hydrant system piping, and fieldconstructed tank piping from being 

required to meet the secondary 

containment and interstitial 

monitoring requirements 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

120 53 FR 37216, September 23, 1988. 

• § 281.30(b)—eliminate flow restrictors 

for new or replaced overfill 

prevention 

• § 281.30(c)—add notification for 

ownership changes 

• §§ 281.31 and 281.33(b)—delete 

upgrading requirements and eliminate 

phase-in schedule; add phase-in 

schedule for airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks 

• § 281.32(c)—add requirement for 

states to include provisions for 

demonstrating compatibility with new 

and innovative regulated substances 

or other regulated substances 

identified by implementing agencies 

or include other provisions 

determined by the implementing 

agency to be no less protective of 

human health and the environment 

than the provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility 

• §§ 281.32(e) and (f) and 281.33(a)(3)— 

add periodic testing or inspection of 

spill and overfill prevention 

equipment, containment sumps used 

for interstitial monitoring of piping, 

and mechanical and electronic release 

detection components; and operation 

and maintenance walkthrough 

inspections, as well as maintaining 

associated records 

• § 281.33(c)—limit use of monthly 

inventory control in combination with 

tank tightness testing conducted every 

five years for the first ten years after 

the tank is installed or upgraded, if 

the tank was installed prior to a state 

receiving SPA 

• § 281.33(e)—require hazardous 

substance USTs to only use secondary 

containment with interstitial 

monitoring 

• § 281.34(a)(1)—add interstitial space 

may have been compromised to 

suspected releases 

• § 281.37—eliminate phase-in 

requirement for financial 

responsibility 

• § 281.39—require operator training 

according to § 9010 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act 

• § 281.41(a)(4)—add authority to 

prohibit deliveries 

EPA is making these technical 

changes to the SPA regulation. 

• § 281.10—change subpart to part 

• §§ 281.11(c), 281.20(d), 281.21(a)(2), 

281.23, 281.50(a), and formerly 

§ 281.51—eliminate interim approval 

• § 281.12(a)(2)—change Indian lands to 

Indian country 

• Formerly § 281.32(e)—eliminate 

requirement to maintain upgrade 

records 

• Formerly § 281.38—eliminate 

reserved section for financial 

responsibility for USTs containing 

hazardous substances 

• Move § 281.39 to § 281.38—Lender 

Liability 

• §§ 281.50(e) and 281.51(c)(1)—clarify 

how to provide public notice to attract 

statewide attention 

• § 281.51, formerly § 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 

• § 281.61—move § 281.60(b) to 

§ 281.61(b)(2) 

Background Information 

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 

federal 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 changing the 1988 SPA 

regulation and making it consistent with 

this final UST regulation. By doing so, 

EPA will require states to adopt 

requirements similar to the final UST 

regulation, in order to obtain or retain 

SPA. Commenters supported 

maintaining the general format of the 

1988 SPA regulation and EPA is keeping 

that general format. We are not making 

this final SPA regulation as explicit or 

prescriptive as this final UST regulation. 

Finally, EPA is making technical 

corrections and adding a deadline for 

states to apply for revised state program 

approval. 

Addressing Energy Policy Act 

Requirements and 40 CFR Part 280 

Changes 

How SPA Works 

This final UST regulation primarily 

impacts the 1988 SPA regulation in 40 

CFR part 281, subpart C—Criteria for No 

Less Stringent. As of 2014, 40 states, 

including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico, have state program 

approval and state UST requirements 

apply in lieu of the federal 

requirements. To ensure these 

jurisdictions and any other states or 

territories obtaining SPA adopt these 40 

CFR part 280 changes, EPA must update 

the 1988 SPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

281, subpart C—Criteria for No Less 

Stringent. To continue providing states 

with flexibility and not disrupt current 

state programs, EPA is revising the 1988 

SPA regulation to make it consistent 

with, but not identical to, the 40 CFR 

part 280 changes. Instead, EPA is 

making changes to the 1988 SPA 

regulation in a less prescriptive manner 

than the changes to 40 CFR part 280. 

Since 1988, this approach has proven a 

successful way to implement the UST 

program and provide environmental 

protection. 

The 1988 SPA regulation developed 

no less stringent criteria in the form of 

objectives.120 EPA is continuing this 

format so that, taken as a whole, state 

programs will be no less stringent than 

the federal requirements, even though 

state programs may deviate slightly from 

what is explicitly required in 40 CFR 

part 280. For example, § 281.30 covers 

the no less stringent requirement for 

new UST system design, construction, 

and installation; it corresponds to 

§ 280.20 of this final UST regulation, but 

is much less explicit about 

requirements. 

According to § 281.30 and in order 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, § 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 § 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. 

Goal Oriented Changes 

EPA is making 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 meet the goals of particular 

sections of the final SPA regulation. 

These changes reflect certain 40 CFR 

part 280 changes. 

• § 281.30(c)—add notification for 

ownership changes 

• §§ 281.31 and 281.33(b)—add a phasein schedule for upgrading previously 

deferred airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks 

• § 281.32(c)—add requirement for 

states to include provisions for 

demonstrating compatibility with new 

and innovative regulated substances 

or other regulated substances 

identified by implementing agencies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41617 

or include other provisions 

determined by the implementing 

agency to be no less protective of 

human health and the environment 

than the provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility 

• §§ 281.32(e) and (f) and 281.33(a)(3)— 

add periodic testing or inspection of 

spill and overfill prevention 

equipment, containment sumps used 

for interstitial monitoring of piping, 

and mechanical and electronic release 

detection components; and operation 

and maintenance walkthrough 

inspections, as well as maintaining 

associated records 

The ownership change notification in 

§ 280.22 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. However, the SPA regulation 

change in § 281.30(c) is much less 

prescriptive and indicates that states 

require owners and operators to ‘‘. . . 

notify the implementing state agency 

within a reasonable time frame when 

assuming ownership of an UST system.’’ 

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 jurisdictions. EPA does not have 

an annual UST registration program, so 

we specify a time frame in § 280.22 

because we want to know who owns 

tanks in jurisdictions where we are the 

implementing agency. 

EPA is requiring that previously 

deferred airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks meet 

specific upgrade requirements in 

subpart K. This is one way that states 

can achieve compliance with § 281.31, 

which requires states ensure tanks are 

upgraded to prevent releases due to 

corrosion, spills, and overfills or be 

permanently closed. EPA concludes 

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 thinks it is 

also adequate to upgrade previously 

deferred systems to this standard. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring airport 

hydrant systems, field-constructed 

tanks, and emergency generator tanks be 

upgraded within three years of the 

effective date of the state requirements. 

For states which did not defer these 

systems or already had their 

requirements in place before the 

effective date of this final SPA 

regulation, the three year requirement 

does not apply. In the past, EPA 

experienced issues 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 had difficulty 

implementing or obtaining a retroactive 

requirement. EPA understands that 

states may have given owners and 

operators of UST systems previously 

deferred by EPA different time periods 

than three years to initially meet their 

requirements. 

In § 281.32(c), EPA is adding a 

requirement for states to include 

provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility with new and innovative 

regulated substances or other regulated 

substances identified by implementing 

agencies or include other provisions 

determined by the implementing agency 

to be no less protective of human health 

and the environment than the 

provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility. EPA is concerned about 

the compatibility of new and innovative 

fuels with the existing UST system 

infrastructure. We added to § 280.32 

methods for demonstrating 

compatibility of UST systems with 

certain ethanol and biodiesel blends in 

response to this concern. State UST 

implementing agencies also need to 

ensure owners and operators only store 

regulated substances compatible with 

their UST systems. Requiring states 

have provisions in place for storing new 

and innovative regulated substances in 

order to receive SPA ensures states are 

taking appropriate steps to ensure 

compatibility of the UST system with a 

rapidly expanding spectrum of 

traditional and new and innovative 

fuels. 

This final UST regulation adds 

various UST operation and maintenance 

requirements. In 40 CFR part 280, EPA 

is requiring specific frequencies and 

procedures for testing or inspecting spill 

and overfill prevention equipment, 

testing containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping, testing 

release detection equipment, and 

conducting operation and maintenance 

walkthrough inspections. According to 

§ 281.32, states must require these tests 

or inspections 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. EPA thinks this approach 

allows states that implement 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 

updating § 281.32(g) by adding these 

activities to the recordkeeping 

requirements of SPA. 

Energy Policy Act Changes 

In this final SPA regulation, EPA is 

addressing Energy Policy Act 

requirements more generally than in 

this final UST regulation; however, the 

Energy Policy Act requirements are 

slightly different than the goal oriented 

approach discussed above. The Energy 

Policy Act amends the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act and requires states, which 

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 require 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 the Energy Policy Act 

requirements; many states implemented 

the Energy Policy Act requirements 

according to these guidelines. In order 

to impose similar requirements in 

Indian country and in states that do not 

adopt Energy Policy Act requirements, 

EPA is adding secondary containment 

and operator training to these 40 CFR 

part 280 requirements. However, it is 

not EPA’s intent to supersede programs 

states developed to meet Energy Policy 

Act requirements. 

Several commenters had concerns 

about the Energy Policy Act provisions. 

Seven commenters wanted to ensure 

states only have to meet Energy Policy 

Act grant guidelines and do not have to 

change their regulations to mirror the 40 

CFR part 280 requirements in order to 

obtain SPA. These commenters were 

also concerned that EPA requirements 

for secondary containment and operator 

training could be considered more 

stringent than state requirements that 

met the grant guidelines. EPA agrees 

that requiring states to alter newly 

implemented provisions could cause 

unnecessary work for states and UST 

owners. Therefore, this final SPA 

regulation explicitly addresses the 

secondary containment, manufacturer 

and installer financial responsibility 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41618 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and installer certification, delivery 

prohibition, and operator training 

requirements that appear in the Energy 

Policy Act. EPA agrees that it is not 

necessary for states already meeting 

these Energy Policy Act requirements to 

change their programs in order to 

receive or retain SPA. EPA was unable 

to incorporate a similar requirement in 

40 CFR part 280, so states will need to 

obtain SPA in order to ensure there is 

no difference between state and federal 

requirements with respect to Energy 

Policy Act requirements. 

EPA is adding definitional exceptions 

in § 281.12(b). This final SPA regulation 

allows states to use definitions 

associated with tank and piping 

secondary containment and operator 

training that are different than those in 

40 CFR part 280 as long as those 

definitions are consistent with 

definitions described in sections 9003 

and 9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act. This change provides states with 

additional flexibility in defining key 

terms. 

EPA is adding additional measures to 

protect groundwater and is adding 

operator training requirements in 

subpart C (§§ 281.22(d)(3), 281.30(a), 

281.33(c)(2), and 281.39). Delivery 

prohibition is in subpart D—Adequate 

Enforcement of Compliance 

(§ 281.40(a)). Because delivery 

prohibition is an enforcement option, 

EPA is requiring states have authority to 

prohibit deliveries according to the 

Energy Policy Act and EPA’s grant 

guidelines, rather than make this a no 

less stringent requirement. 

EPA is not adding delivery 

prohibition to 40 CFR part 280 because 

delivery prohibition is primarily an 

enforcement option 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 this final UST 

regulation. However, the only way to 

ensure states have that same authority is 

to require states implement delivery 

prohibition as a prerequisite for SPA, as 

required in § 281.40(a). 

Specific Changes 

EPA is making the changes listed 

below to subpart C—Criteria for No Less 

Stringent to reflect changes made in 40 

CFR part 280. These changes ensure 

states adopt the changes made in 40 

CFR part 280 and are able to receive 

SPA. 

• §§ 281.30(a)(1) and 281.33(d)(3)— 

exclude safe suction piping, airport 

hydrant system piping, and fieldconstructed tank piping from being 

required to meet the secondary 

containment and interstitial 

monitoring requirements 

• § 281.30(b)—eliminate flow restrictors 

for new or replaced overfill 

prevention 

• § 281.31—delete upgrading 

requirements 

• § 281.33(c)—limit use of monthly 

inventory control in combination with 

tank tightness testing conducted every 

five years for the first ten years after 

the tank is installed or upgraded, if 

the tank was installed prior to a state 

receiving SPA 

• § 281.33(e)—require hazardous 

substance USTs to only use secondary 

containment with interstitial 

monitoring 

• § 281.34(a)(1)—add ‘‘. . . interstitial 

space may have been compromised 

. . .’’ to suspected releases 

• § 281.37—eliminate phase-in 

requirement for financial 

responsibility 

In §§ 281.30(a)(1) and 281.33(d)(3) 

EPA is not requiring safe suction piping, 

airport hydrant system piping, and 

piping associated with field-constructed 

tanks greater than 50,000 gallons in 

capacity to meet the secondary 

containment and interstitial monitoring 

requirements. Suction piping that meets 

the requirements of § 281.33(d)(2)(ii) has 

characteristics that ensure little, if any, 

regulated substances will be released if 

a break occurs in the line. For additional 

information see section A–2, Secondary 

Containment. EPA is not requiring 

secondary containment for piping 

associated with field-constructed tanks 

greater than 50,000 gallons in capacity 

and airport hydrant system piping due 

to sloping and corrosion concerns. For 

additional information, see section C–2, 

Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution 

Systems and UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks. 

In § 281.30(b), EPA is requiring states, 

which receive SPA, not allow 

installation of flow restrictors 

(commonly referred to as ball floats) in 

vent lines for overfill prevention for 

new installations or when flow 

restrictors need to be replaced. The 

existing goal of § 281.30(b) is for states 

to require that UST systems have 

equipment to prevent spills and 

overfills. In this final UST regulation, 

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 deleting the 1988 UST regulation 

deadlines in the final SPA regulation. In 

§§ 281.31 and 281.33(b), EPA is 

removing the option for UST upgrades, 

except for USTs deferred in the 1988 

UST regulation. In § 281.37, we are 

eliminating the financial responsibility 

phase-in schedule. Please note EPA is 

allowing states to implement UST 

requirements, such as upgrades and 

operation and maintenance, after the 

deadlines in 40 CFR part 280. EPA is 

taking this action because experience 

has shown that some states had 

difficulties implementing a retroactive 

requirement when applying for SPA 

after a federal deadline has passed. 

In § 281.33(c), EPA is allowing 

monthly inventory control in 

combination with tank tightness testing 

conducted every five years as a release 

detection method for the first ten years 

after a tank is installed or upgraded, 

only if a tank was installed prior to a 

state receiving SPA for the 1988 UST 

regulation. This reflects a change in 40 

CFR part 280 and avoids another 

problem in the 1988 SPA regulation. 

First, EPA is eliminating this method for 

new installations. Second, EPA is tying 

the date for eliminating this method to 

the effective date of a state’s regulations. 

EPA concludes it is better to tie 

deadlines in the final SPA regulation to 

the effective date of states’ regulations, 

rather than dictate specific dates for all 

states. In the 2011 proposed SPA 

regulation, we tied the deadlines to the 

date a state submitted its SPA 

application or revised application. 

However, in this final SPA regulation, 

we realize tying the deadlines to the 

effective date of a state’s regulations is 

clearer for state regulators as well as 

owners and operators. 

Several commenters were concerned 

with how release detection 

requirements were expressed in 40 CFR 

part 281. One commenter was 

concerned that the term monthly in 

§ 281.33(c)(1) is not as stringent as the 

40 CFR part 280 requirement of 

completing release detection every 30 

days. This commenter wanted EPA to 

amend the 40 CFR part 281 language so 

it matches the 30 day wording in 40 

CFR part 280. EPA is maintaining the 

term monthly in 40 CFR part 281. EPA 

agrees there is variation between the 30 

day time frame in 40 CFR part 280 and 

monthly in 40 CFR part 281. For states 

receiving SPA, the difference should 

result in a variation of only a few days, 

and therefore need not be changed. It is 

EPA’s position that release detection 

monitoring should be conducted on a 

consistent and frequently occurring 

basis. EPA chose the 30 day period in 

40 CFR part 280 to represent an average 

calendar month. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41619 

In this final SPA regulation, EPA is 

requiring states, which wish to receive 

SPA, no longer allow installation of 

non-secondarily contained hazardous 

substance UST systems. This is 

consistent with EPA’s change in 

§ 280.42(e); an equivalent and specific 

change in the final SPA regulation is the 

only way to ensure states adopt it. For 

consistency with changes in this final 

UST regulation and to ensure states 

wishing to receive SPA adopt this 

change, in § 281.34(a)(1), EPA is adding 

‘‘. . . interstitial space may have been 

compromised . . .’’ to suspected release 

conditions. 

One commenter expressed concern 

with the release detection language in 

§ 280.41(b)(2)(ii), which indicates EPA 

intends to exempt from release 

detection requirements suction piping 

that meets the condition of paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E). However 

§ 281.33(d)(3) indicates that in order to 

be considered no less stringent, states 

must require new or replaced piping use 

interstitial monitoring with secondary 

containment. EPA agrees with the 

commenter that we need to modify 

§ 281.33(d)(3) to incorporate the 

concepts of § 280.41(b)(2)(ii). In the final 

SPA regulation, EPA is modifying 

§ 281.33(d)(3) to indicate that the 

requirement is applicable to all 

pressurized piping and suction piping 

that does not meet standards in 

§ 281.33(d)(2)(ii). 

One commenter said that it may be 

very difficult to achieve compliance 

with release detection requirements for 

emergency power generator USTs 

within one year. This commenter 

suggested that EPA reword 

§ 281.33(b)(3) to give owners at least 

three years from the effective date of the 

final SPA regulation. EPA agrees with 

the commenter and is extending the 

date of compliance for this requirement 

to three years as we are in this final UST 

regulation; this approach corresponds 

with EPA’s goal of aligning dates of 

compliance to the extent possible. 

Addressing SPA Revision Process 

EPA is adding a requirement for 

approved states to submit a revised 

application within three years of final 

SPA regulation changes that require a 

program revision under § 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 these significant 

changes, EPA thinks it is necessary to 

develop a time frame which will ensure 

approved states meet final SPA 

regulation changes in a reasonable time. 

EPA’s language in § 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, these changes to subpart 

C—Criteria for No Less Stringent will 

require state program revision. 

Commenters disagreed on the 

appropriate time frame for states to 

submit their SPA applications. Some 

said three years was appropriate, while 

others preferred a different time frame. 

EPA maintains that three years is 

adequate for most states to re-apply for 

SPA. One commenter expressed concern 

about what will happen to a state’s SPA 

status if it does not re-apply within the 

required time frame. 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 work with 

states which have not revised their 

programs 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 revised 

applications. EPA will consider these 

factors before initiating state program 

approval withdrawal. One commenter 

was concerned about the cost to states 

of revising and reapplying for SPA. It is 

important for states to reapply for SPA 

to ensure they make appropriate 

changes to their programs. 

Additional Changes to SPA Regulation 

EPA is making these additional 

changes; they are not a direct result of 

these 40 CFR part 280 changes. Rather, 

the majority are corrections to the 1988 

SPA regulation. 

• § 281.10—change subpart to part 

• §§ 281.11(c), 281.20(d), 281.21(a)(2), 

281.23, and formerly § 281.51— 

eliminate interim approval 

• § 281.12(a)(2)—change Indian lands to 

Indian country 

• § 281.32(e)—eliminate requirement to 

maintain upgrade records 

• Formerly § 281.38—eliminate 

reserved section for financial 

responsibility for USTs containing 

hazardous substances 

• Move § 281.39 to § 281.38—Lender 

Liability 

• §§ 281.50(e) and 281.51(c)(1)—clarify 

how to provide public notice to attract 

statewide attention 

• § 281.61—move § 281.60(b) to 

§ 281.61(b)(2) 

The 1988 SPA regulation incorrectly 

uses the term subpart in § 280.10 and, 

therefore, EPA is correctly changing this 

to part. EPA has been using the term 

Indian country instead of Indian lands 

for years. We are now incorporating this 

term in this final SPA regulation; this 

does not alter the meaning. EPA is 

removing the reserved financial 

responsibility for USTs containing 

hazardous substances section (formerly 

§ 281.38); moving the lender liability 

section from § 281.39 to § 281.38; and 

including the new operator training 

section in § 281.39. Because operator 

training needs to be in subpart C, which 

has no section numbers available, 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 deleting the interim SPA 

approval language in §§ 281.11(c) and 

281.51. In more than 20 years of the 

UST program, no state applied for 

interim approval; it is more beneficial to 

receive full approval all at once, rather 

than in steps. Also, because 40 states, 

including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico, have SPA as of 2014, EPA 

thinks interim SPA approval is 

unnecessary at this time. 

EPA is eliminating the requirement to 

maintain upgrade records for the 

operational life of an UST facility. This 

requirement in § 281.32(e) of the 1988 

SPA regulation does not exist in 40 CFR 

part 280. In addition, except for airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks, EPA is no longer allowing 

upgrades. 

EPA is clarifying how to provide 

public notice to attract statewide 

attention in §§ 281.50(e) and 

281.51(c)(1). In today’s digital age, it is 

unnecessary to require publication in a 

state’s newspapers. Each state can 

determine the most appropriate 

methods for public notice and statewide 

attention. 

EPA is also moving § 281.60(b) to 

§ 281.61(b). This paragraph explains the 

procedure EPA will follow to withdraw 

approval after the conclusion of the 

proceeding to withdraw approval. EPA 

thinks this paragraph is better suited for 

§ 281.61, which explains the procedures 

for withdrawing approval, as opposed to 

§ 281.60, which explains the criteria for 

withdrawal. 

VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and 

Benefits 

EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential incremental costs and benefits 

associated with this final UST 

regulation. This analysis is contained in 

the regulatory impact analysis 

document titled Assessment of the 

Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other 

Impacts of the Final Revisions to EPA’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

121Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review, Section 3, http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011- 

1385.pdf. 

Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. The RIA estimated regulatory 

implementation and compliance costs, 

as well as benefits for the three 

regulatory options described in section 

IV, subsection F. In the RIA, EPA 

estimated regulatory compliance costs 

on an annualized basis for the three 

options: $160 million (Selected Option), 

$290 million (Option 1), and $70 

million (Option 2). Separately, the 

analysis assessed the potential benefits 

of the final UST regulation. As 

discussed in the RIA, a substantial 

portion of the beneficial impacts 

associated with the final UST regulation 

are avoided cleanup costs as a result of 

preventing releases and reducing the 

severity of releases. This action is 

expected to have annual cost savings 

related to avoided costs of $310 million 

(range: $120–$530 million) per year 

under the Selected Option, $450 million 

(range: $210–$670 million) per year 

under Option 1, and $230 million 

(range: $45–$420 million) per year 

under Option 2. Due to data and 

resource constraints, EPA was unable to 

quantify some of the final UST 

regulation’s benefits, including 

avoidance of human health risks, 

ecological benefits, and mitigation of 

acute exposure events and large-scale 

releases, such as those from airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. EPA was also unable to place a 

monetary value on the groundwater 

protected by the final UST regulation, 

but estimates that this final UST 

regulation could potentially protect 50 

billion to 240 billion gallons of 

groundwater each year. 

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 are 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Also, as part of EO 13563, EPA 

encourages owners and operators to 

maintain records electronically which 

simplifies compliance and 

recordkeeping by using 21st century 

technology tools.121

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements (ICR) in this rule will be 

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 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The proposed rule ICR was submitted 

to OMB on 11/18/2011 under OMB 

number 2050–0068, ICR number 

1360.11. On 1/30/2012 OMB released a 

Notice of Action of comment filed on 

proposed rule and continue. They also 

issued this comment: ‘‘Terms of the 

previous clearance remain in effect. 

OMB is withholding approval at this 

time. Prior to publication of the final 

rule, the agency should provide a 

summary of any comments related to 

the information collection and their 

response, including any changes made 

to the ICR as a result of comments. In 

addition, the agency must enter the 

correct burden estimates. This action 

has no effect on any current approvals.’’ 

The final rule ICR will be submitted to 

OMB under a new ICR OMB control 

number. 

This action contains mandatory 

information collection requirements. 

The labor burden and associated costs 

for these requirements are estimated in 

the ICR supporting statement for this 

final action. The supporting statement 

identifies and estimates the burden for 

each of the changes to the regulation 

that include recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. 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; regulating certain UST systems 

deferred in the 1988 UST regulation; 

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 RIA for this 

action, but using the burden estimations 

for ICRs, the ICR supporting statement 

estimates an average annual labor hour 

burden of 344,000 hours and $12 

million for the final UST 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 211,154 facilities and 56 

states and territories. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 

approved by OMB, the agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to 

display the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

regulation subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute, unless the agency 

certifies that the regulation 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 this final UST regulation on small 

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) 

A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s 

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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this final rule are small businesses and 

small governmental jurisdictions. We 

have determined that less than 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 will be 

impacted at 1 percent or 3 percent of 

revenues. This certification is based on 

the small entities analysis contained in 

the RIA for this final rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41621 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless sought to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

EPA conducted extensive outreach to 

determine how to change the 1988 UST 

regulation. EPA worked with 

representatives of owners and operators 

and reached out specifically to small 

businesses. In addition, EPA limited 

changes that would have required major 

retrofits to UST systems, since this 

would place a high financial burden on 

small businesses. Finally, EPA provided 

numerous options for compliance in 

order to provide as much flexibility as 

possible for small entities. EPA also 

aligned compliance dates to facilitate 

owner and operator compliance. 

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 state, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, EPA prepared under 

section 202 of the UMRA a written 

statement which is summarized below. 

As estimated in the RIA, on an 

annualized basis, the total estimated 

regulatory compliance costs for the 

three options in this final action are 

$160 million (Selected Option), $290 

million (Option 1), and $70 million 

(Option 2). Of this amount, annualized 

costs to state and local governments 

total $6.8 million under the Selected 

Option, $14 million under Option 1, 

and $3.6 million under Option 2. These 

costs consist of estimated regulatory 

compliance costs for state and local 

governments that currently own or 

operate UST systems and annualized 

costs of $120,000 for states to 

implement the final UST regulation. 

EPA estimates total annualized costs to 

owners and operators of tribally-owned 

UST systems are $0.67 million under 

the Selected Option. The estimated 

annualized cost to the private sector is 

approximately $130 million under the 

Selected Option, $270 million under 

Option 1, and $67 million under Option 

2. While this final UST regulation may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for the private sector, thereby 

triggering section 202 of the UMRA, this 

final UST regulation is not subject to the 

requirements of section 204 of UMRA 

because EPA does not think 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. This 

final UST regulation identifies the 

regulatory options EPA considered. The 

RIA estimates the annual cost across the 

three considered options may range 

between $70 million and $290 million. 

Section 205 of the UMRA requires 

federal agencies to select the least costly 

or most cost-effective regulatory 

alternative unless EPA publishes with 

the final regulation an explanation of 

why such alternative was not adopted. 

As discussed earlier in the preamble, 

EPA considered and evaluated 

variations of a subset of the regulatory 

requirements using two alternative 

options (Options 1 and 2). Despite 

Option 2’s lower costs, EPA chose the 

Selected Option because it provides for 

greater protection of human health and 

the environment and better addresses 

stakeholder concerns. 

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 states, the relationship 

between the federal government and 

states, or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government, as specified in EO 13132. 

Under this final action, total costs to all 

affected states and local governments 

(including direct compliance costs, 

notification costs, and state program 

costs) are approximately $9 million. 

This is not considered to be a 

substantial compliance cost under 

federalism requirements. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may 

not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the money 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

will have tribal implications to the 

extent that tribally-owned entities with 

UST systems in Indian country will be 

affected. However, it will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on tribal governments, nor 

preempt tribal law. EPA estimated total 

annualized costs for tribally-owned UST 

systems in Indian country to be $0.67 

million. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing this 

regulation to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input to its 

development. EPA consulted with tribes 

on possible changes to the UST 

regulation shortly after the passage of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 

Energy Policy Act directed EPA to 

coordinate with tribes in developing 

and implementing an UST program 

strategy in Indian country which would 

supplement the existing approach. EPA 

and tribes worked collaboratively to 

develop a tribal strategy. 

There are certain key provisions of the 

Energy Policy Act that apply to states 

receiving federal Subtitle I money, but 

do not apply in Indian country. 

Nonetheless, EPA’s goal in this final 

UST regulation is to establish in Indian 

country federal requirements similar to 

the Energy Policy Act provisions; this is 

an important step in achieving more 

consistent program results in release 

prevention. Both EPA and tribes 

recognize the importance of ensuring 

parity in program implementation 

between states and in Indian country. 

In addition to early consultation with 

tribes, EPA also reached out to tribes as 

we started the official rulemaking 

process and while developing the 2011 

proposed UST regulation. EPA sent 

letters to leaders of over 500 tribes, as 

well as to tribal regulatory staff, inviting 

their participation in developing the 

2011 proposed UST regulation. EPA 

also held conference calls for tribes to 

provide input. EPA heard from both 

tribal officials who work as regulators as 

well as representatives of owners and 

operators of UST systems in Indian 

country. The tribal regulators raised 

concerns about ensuring parity of 

environmental protection between states 

and Indian country. 

EPA determined that this final UST 

regulation is needed to ensure parity 

between UST systems in states and in 

Indian country. This final UST 

regulation is also needed to ensure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

122United States Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

Toxicological Profile For Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons, August 1995. 

123 2011 is the latest year data available from 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics for gallons of 

motor fuel consumed, as reported by: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics. Accessed at: http:// 

www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/ 

publications/national_transportation_statistics/ 

html/table_04_09.html. The 2012 prices per gallon 

for all grades of retail motor gasoline and No. 2 

diesel fuel (all concentrations of sulfur) were $3.63 

and $3.97, respectively, as reported by: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. Short-Term Energy 

Outlook—Real and Nominal Energy Prices for 2012. 

Accessed at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ 

realprices/. We weight these prices according to 

prime supplier sales volumes in 2012 published by 

the Energy Information Administration, which 

summed to 347,234.5 thousands of gallons per day 

for gasoline and 143,270.6 thousands of gallons per 

day for all grades of diesel fuel (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. Petroleum & Other 

Liquids. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes. Accessed 

at: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/ 

pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm. 

equipment is both installed and working 

properly, which will protect the 

environment from potential releases. 

As required by section 7(a), EPA’s 

Tribal Consultation Official certified 

that the requirements of the Executive 

Order have been met in a meaningful 

and timely manner. EPA included a 

copy of the certification in the docket 

for this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

the Agency does not think the 

environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. EPA’s 

risk assessment for this action examines 

potential impacts to groundwater and 

subsequent chemical transport, 

exposure, and risk. While the risk 

assessment did not specifically measure 

exposure to children, the general 

exposure scenarios reflect four exposure 

pathways that have the most significant 

potential for human health impacts. 

They are: 

• Ingestion of chemicals in 

groundwater that have migrated from 

the source area to residential drinking 

water wells; 

• Inhalation of volatile chemicals 

when showering with contaminated 

groundwater; 

• Dermal contact with chemicals 

while bathing or showering with 

contaminated groundwater; and 

• Inhalation of vapors that may 

migrate upward from contaminated 

groundwater into overlying buildings. 

Adults and children can potentially 

be exposed through all four exposure 

pathways considered. For adults, 

inhalation of vapors while showering is 

the most significant exposure pathway; 

for children, ingestion is the most 

significant pathway, because they are 

assumed to take baths and are, therefore, 

not exposed via shower vapor 

inhalation. As a result of the longer 

exposure from showering, adults are 

more sensitive receptors for cancer 

effects compared to children, 

particularly those under age 5 who are 

assumed to take more baths and fewer 

showers.122

While the screening level risk 

assessment is limited in that it only 

examines benzene impacts, the final 

UST regulation will likely reduce other 

contaminant exposures to children in a 

similar pattern and will not create 

significant adverse impacts on 

children’s health. 

The screening level population 

analysis performed to examine EO 

12898 shows that children under 18 

years and children under 5 years of age 

are slightly less likely to be found in the 

vicinity of UST facilities. This suggests 

that the impacts of this action will not 

have a disproportionate impact on 

children’s health. Moreover, because all 

regulatory options in this action will 

increase regulatory stringency and 

reduce the number and size of releases, 

EPA does not expect this action to have 

any disproportionate adverse impact on 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a significant energy 

action as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

following summarizes EPA’s assessment 

of the energy impacts this final UST 

regulation will have on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

This final UST regulation consists of 

additional regulatory requirements that 

apply to the owners and operators of 

underground storage tanks. To the 

extent that the final UST regulation 

affects the motor fuel sector, it does so 

at the retail motor fuel sales level, rather 

than the level of refineries or 

distributors, who supply the retail 

stations with motor fuel. Therefore, we 

do not expect this final UST regulation 

to have a significant adverse impact on 

energy supply or distribution. 

The additional regulatory 

requirements contained in this final 

UST regulation may increase 

compliance costs for owners and 

operators of retail motor fuel stations. If 

owners and operators of retail motor 

fuel stations affected by the final UST 

regulation can pass through their 

increased compliance costs, energy use 

may be affected via higher energy prices 

caused by the final UST regulation. 

However, we do not expect a significant 

change in retail gasoline prices to result 

from this final UST regulation for the 

following reasons: 

• Economic analyses of retail fuel 

prices revealed that demand for gasoline 

is highly sensitive to price (elastic) 

within localized geographic areas—as a 

result, if one motor fuel retailer in an 

area passes through increases in 

compliance costs by increasing gasoline 

prices, while another does not, the one 

with higher prices is at a competitive 

disadvantage; and 

• Retail motor fuel stations often have 

associated stores or services, such as car 

washes, repair operations, and 

convenience outlets, on which they can 

more successfully pass through 

increases in compliance costs. 

Furthermore, when considered in the 

context of total fuel consumption in the 

United States, this final UST regulation 

will represent only a very small fraction 

of motor fuel prices, even if fully passed 

through to consumers. According to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the 

United States consumed approximately 

169 billion gallons of motor fuel 

(including gasoline and diesel) in 2011 

at an average price of $3.73.123 This 

implies that consumers spent $629 

billion in 2012 on motor fuel. The 

overall cost of the final UST regulation 

is approximately $160 million, less than 

0.1 percent of the amount spent by end 

users on motor fuel in 2012. In 

comparison, an increase of 1 cent in the 

average price of motor fuel in 2012 

would have increased the total cost to 

consumers by approximately $1.7 

billion. Given these circumstances, this 

final UST regulation should not 

measurably impact retail motor fuel 

prices. As a result, EPA does not expect 

this final UST regulation to have a 

significant adverse impact on energy 

prices or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41623 

124Note that the affected populations identified 

in the screening analysis summarized here are 

simply defined by specific demographics 

surrounding UST locations. These affected 

populations are not necessarily equivalent to 

communities that others have specifically identified 

as environmental justice communities. 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when EPA decides not to 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action uses technical standards. 

EPA has decided to use voluntary 

consensus standards, called codes of 

practice, described in section E–2. 

These codes of practice meet the 

objectives of this action by establishing 

criteria for the design, construction, and 

maintenance of underground storage 

tanks. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

To inform us about the socioeconomic 

characteristics of communities 

potentially affected by this final UST 

regulation, EPA conducted a screening 

analysis under the 2011 proposed UST 

regulation to examine whether there is 

a statistically significant disparity 

between socioeconomic characteristics 

of populations located near UST 

facilities and those that are not.124 As 

discussed in the RIA, the results 

indicate that minority and low-income 

populations are slightly more likely to 

be located near UST facilities. An 

environmental justice analysis would 

then require an assessment of whether 

there would be disproportionate and 

adverse impacts on these populations. 

However, because all regulatory options 

considered in this final UST regulation 

would increase regulatory stringency 

and reduce the number and size of 

releases, EPA does not anticipate the 

final UST regulation will have any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on these minority or low-income 

communities or any community. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule is effective 

September 14, 2015. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 280 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Confidential business information, 

Groundwater, Hazardous materials, 

Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Underground storage 

tanks, Water pollution control, Water 

supply. 

40 CFR Part 281 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Hazardous substances, Petroleum, State 

program approval, Underground storage 

tanks. 

Dated: June 19, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, parts 280 and 281 of title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

■ 1. Revise part 280 to read as follows: 

PART 280—TECHNICAL STANDARDS 

AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND 

OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANKS (UST) 

Subpart A—Program Scope and Installation 

Requirements for Partially Excluded UST 

Systems 

Sec. 

280.10 Applicability. 

280.11 Installation requirements for 

partially excluded UST systems. 

280.12 Definitions. 

Subpart B—UST Systems: Design, 

Construction, Installation and Notification 

280.20 Performance standards for new UST 

systems. 

280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems. 

280.22 Notification requirements. 

Subpart C—General Operating 

Requirements 

280.30 Spill and overfill control. 

280.31 Operation and maintenance of 

corrosion protection. 

280.32 Compatibility. 

280.33 Repairs allowed. 

280.34 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

280.35 Periodic testing of spill prevention 

equipment and containment sumps used 

for interstitial monitoring of piping and 

periodic inspection of overfill prevention 

equipment. 

280.36 Periodic operation and maintenance 

walkthrough inspections. 

Subpart D—Release Detection 

280.40 General requirements for all UST 

systems. 

280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST 

systems. 

280.42 Requirements for hazardous 

substance UST systems. 

280.43 Methods of release detection for 

tanks. 

280.44 Methods of release detection for 

piping. 

280.45 Release detection recordkeeping. 

Subpart E—Release Reporting, 

Investigation, and Confirmation 

280.50 Reporting of suspected releases. 

280.51 Investigation due to off-site impacts. 

280.52 Release investigation and 

confirmation steps. 

280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills and 

overfills. 

Subpart F—Release Response and 

Corrective Action for UST Systems 

Containing Petroleum or Hazardous 

Substances 

280.60 General. 

280.61 Initial response. 

280.62 Initial abatement measures and site 

check. 

280.63 Initial site characterization. 

280.64 Free product removal. 

280.65 Investigations for soil and 

groundwater cleanup. 

280.66 Corrective action plan. 

280.67 Public participation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart G—Out-of-Service UST Systems 

and Closure 

280.70 Temporary closure. 

280.71 Permanent closure and changes-inservice. 

280.72 Assessing the site at closure or 

change-in-service. 

280.73 Applicability to previously closed 

UST systems. 

280.74 Closure records. 

Subpart H—Financial Responsibility 

280.90 Applicability. 

280.91 Compliance dates. 

280.92 Definition of terms. 

280.93 Amount and scope of required 

financial responsibility. 

280.94 Allowable mechanisms and 

combinations of mechanisms. 

280.95 Financial test of self-insurance. 

280.96 Guarantee. 

280.97 Insurance and risk retention group 

coverage. 

280.98 Surety bond. 

280.99 Letter of credit. 

280.100 Use of state-required mechanism. 

280.101 State fund or other state assurance. 

280.102 Trust fund. 

280.103 Standby trust fund. 

280.104 Local government bond rating test. 

280.105 Local government financial test. 

280.106 Local government guarantee. 

280.107 Local government fund. 

280.108 Substitution of financial assurance 

mechanisms by owner or operator. 

280.109 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a 

provider of financial assurance. 

280.110 Reporting by owner or operator. 

280.111 Recordkeeping. 

280.112 Drawing on financial assurance 

mechanisms. 

280.113 Release from the requirements. 

280.114 Bankruptcy or other incapacity of 

owner or operator or provider of 

financial assurance. 

280.115 Replenishment of guarantees, 

letters of credit, or surety bonds. 

280.116 Suspension of enforcement. 

[Reserved] 

Subpart I—Lender Liability 

280.200 Definitions. 

280.210 Participation in management. 

280.220 Ownership of an underground 

storage tank or underground storage tank 

system or facility or property on which 

an underground storage tank or 

underground storage tank system is 

located. 

280.230 Operating an underground storage 

tank or underground storage tank system. 

Subpart J—Operator Training 

280.240 General requirement for all UST 

systems. 

280.241 Designation of Class A, B, and C 

operators. 

280.242 Requirements for operator training. 

280.243 Timing of operator training. 

280.244 Retraining. 

280.245 Documentation. 

Subpart K—UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant 

Fuel Distribution Systems 

280.250 Definitions. 

280.251 General requirements. 

280.252 Additions, exceptions, and 

alternatives for UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant 

systems. 

Appendix I to Part 280—Notification for 

Underground Storage Tanks (Form) 

Appendix II to Part 280—Notification of 

Ownership Change for Underground 

Storage Tanks (Form) 

Appendix III to Part 280—Statement for 

Shipping Tickets and Invoices 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 

6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 

6991(g), 6991(h), 6991(i). 

Subpart A—Program Scope and 

Installation Requirements for Partially 

Excluded UST Systems 

§ 280.10 Applicability. 

(a) The requirements of this part 

apply to all owners and operators of an 

UST system as defined in § 280.12 

except as otherwise provided in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(1) Previously deferred UST systems. 

Airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems, UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks, and UST systems that 

store fuel solely for use by emergency 

power generators must meet the 

requirements of this part as follows: 

(i) Airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems and UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks must meet the 

requirements in subpart K of this part. 

(ii) UST systems that store fuel solely 

for use by emergency power generators 

installed on or before October 13, 2015 

must meet the subpart D requirements 

on or before October 13, 2018. 

(iii) UST systems that store fuel solely 

for use by emergency power generators 

installed after October 13, 2015 must 

meet all applicable requirements of this 

part at installation. 

(2) Any UST system listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section must meet 

the requirements of § 280.11. 

(b) Exclusions. The following UST 

systems are excluded from the 

requirements of this part: 

(1) Any UST system holding 

hazardous wastes listed or identified 

under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, or a mixture of such 

hazardous waste and other regulated 

substances. 

(2) Any wastewater treatment tank 

system that is part of a wastewater 

treatment facility regulated under 

Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water 

Act. 

(3) Equipment or machinery that 

contains regulated substances for 

operational purposes such as hydraulic 

lift tanks and electrical equipment 

tanks. 

(4) Any UST system whose capacity is 

110 gallons or less. 

(5) Any UST system that contains a de 

minimis concentration of regulated 

substances. 

(6) Any emergency spill or overflow 

containment UST system that is 

expeditiously emptied after use. 

(c) Partial Exclusions. Subparts B, C, 

D, E, G, J, and K of this part do not apply 

to: 

(1) Wastewater treatment tank systems 

not covered under paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section; 

(2) Aboveground storage tanks 

associated with: 

(i) Airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems regulated under subpart K of 

this part; and 

(ii) UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks regulated under 

subpart K of this part; 

(3) Any UST systems containing 

radioactive material that are regulated 

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(42 U.S.C. 2011 and following); and 

(4) Any UST system that is part of an 

emergency generator system at nuclear 

power generation facilities licensed by 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

subject to Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission requirements regarding 

design and quality criteria, including 

but not limited to 10 CFR part 50. 

§ 280.11 Installation requirements for 

partially excluded UST systems. 

(a) Owners and operators must install 

an UST system listed in § 280.10(c)(1), 

(3), or (4) storing regulated substances 

(whether of single or double wall 

construction) that meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) Will prevent releases due to 

corrosion or structural failure for the 

operational life of the UST system; 

(2) Is cathodically protected against 

corrosion, constructed of non-corrodible 

material, steel clad with a noncorrodible material, or designed in a 

manner to prevent the release or 

threatened release of any stored 

substance; and 

(3) Is constructed or lined with 

material that is compatible with the 

stored substance. 

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, an UST system without 

corrosion protection may be installed at 

a site that is determined by a corrosion 

expert not to be corrosive enough to 

cause it to have a release due to 

corrosion during its operating life. 

Owners and operators must maintain 

records that demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of this paragraph 

for the remaining life of the tank. 

Note to paragraphs (a) and (b). The 

following codes of practice may be used as 

guidance for complying with this section: 

(A) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Corrosion Control of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41625 

Underground Storage Tank Systems by 

Cathodic Protection’’; 

(B) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0169, ‘‘Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping 

Systems’’; 

(C) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 1632, ‘‘Cathodic 

Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage 

Tanks and Piping Systems’’; or 

(D) Steel Tank Institute Recommended 

Practice R892, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping 

Networks Associated with Liquid Storage 

and Dispensing Systems’’. 

§ 280.12 Definitions. 

Aboveground release means any 

release to the surface of the land or to 

surface water. This includes, but is not 

limited to, releases from the 

aboveground portion of an UST system 

and aboveground releases associated 

with overfills and transfer operations as 

the regulated substance moves to or 

from an UST system. 

Ancillary equipment means any 

devices including, but not limited to, 

such devices as piping, fittings, flanges, 

valves, and pumps used to distribute, 

meter, or control the flow of regulated 

substances to and from an UST. 

Belowground release means any 

release to the subsurface of the land and 

to groundwater. This includes, but is 

not limited to, releases from the 

belowground portions of an 

underground storage tank system and 

belowground releases associated with 

overfills and transfer operations as the 

regulated substance moves to or from an 

underground storage tank. 

Beneath the surface of the ground 

means beneath the ground surface or 

otherwise covered with earthen 

materials. 

Cathodic protection is a technique to 

prevent corrosion of a metal surface by 

making that surface the cathode of an 

electrochemical cell. For example, a 

tank system can be cathodically 

protected through the application of 

either galvanic anodes or impressed 

current. 

Cathodic protection tester means a 

person who can demonstrate an 

understanding of the principles and 

measurements of all common types of 

cathodic protection systems as applied 

to buried or submerged metal piping 

and tank systems. At a minimum, such 

persons must have education and 

experience in soil resistivity, stray 

current, structure-to-soil potential, and 

component electrical isolation 

measurements of buried metal piping 

and tank systems. 

CERCLA means the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended. 

Class A operator means the individual 

who has primary responsibility to 

operate and maintain the UST system in 

accordance with applicable 

requirements established by the 

implementing agency. The Class A 

operator typically manages resources 

and personnel, such as establishing 

work assignments, to achieve and 

maintain compliance with regulatory 

requirements. 

Class B operator means the individual 

who has day-to-day responsibility for 

implementing applicable regulatory 

requirements established by the 

implementing agency. The Class B 

operator typically implements in-field 

aspects of operation, maintenance, and 

associated recordkeeping for the UST 

system. 

Class C operator means the individual 

responsible for initially addressing 

emergencies presented by a spill or 

release from an UST system. The Class 

C operator typically controls or 

monitors the dispensing or sale of 

regulated substances. 

Compatible means the ability of two 

or more substances to maintain their 

respective physical and chemical 

properties upon contact with one 

another for the design life of the tank 

system under conditions likely to be 

encountered in the UST. 

Connected piping means all 

underground piping including valves, 

elbows, joints, flanges, and flexible 

connectors attached to a tank system 

through which regulated substances 

flow. For the purpose of determining 

how much piping is connected to any 

individual UST system, the piping that 

joins two UST systems should be 

allocated equally between them. 

Consumptive use with respect to 

heating oil means consumed on the 

premises. 

Containment Sump means a liquidtight container that protects the 

environment by containing leaks and 

spills of regulated substances from 

piping, dispensers, pumps and related 

components in the containment area. 

Containment sumps may be single 

walled or secondarily contained and 

located at the top of tank (tank top or 

submersible turbine pump sump), 

underneath the dispenser (underdispenser containment sump), or at 

other points in the piping run 

(transition or intermediate sump). 

Corrosion expert means a person who, 

by reason of thorough knowledge of the 

physical sciences and the principles of 

engineering and mathematics acquired 

by a professional education and related 

practical experience, is qualified to 

engage in the practice of corrosion 

control on buried or submerged metal 

piping systems and metal tanks. Such a 

person must be accredited or certified as 

being qualified by the National 

Association of Corrosion Engineers or be 

a registered professional engineer who 

has certification or licensing that 

includes education and experience in 

corrosion control of buried or 

submerged metal piping systems and 

metal tanks. 

Dielectric material means a material 

that does not conduct direct electrical 

current. Dielectric coatings are used to 

electrically isolate UST systems from 

the surrounding soils. Dielectric 

bushings are used to electrically isolate 

portions of the UST system (e.g., tank 

from piping). 

Dispenser means equipment located 

aboveground that dispenses regulated 

substances from the UST system. 

Dispenser system means the dispenser 

and the equipment necessary to connect 

the dispenser to the underground 

storage tank system. 

Electrical equipment means 

underground equipment that contains 

dielectric fluid that is necessary for the 

operation of equipment such as 

transformers and buried electrical cable. 

Excavation zone means the volume 

containing the tank system and backfill 

material bounded by the ground surface, 

walls, and floor of the pit and trenches 

into which the UST system is placed at 

the time of installation. 

Existing tank system means a tank 

system used to contain an accumulation 

of regulated substances or for which 

installation has commenced on or before 

December 22, 1988. Installation is 

considered to have commenced if: 

(1) The owner or operator has 

obtained all federal, state, and local 

approvals or permits necessary to begin 

physical construction of the site or 

installation of the tank system; and if, 

(2)(i) Either a continuous on-site 

physical construction or installation 

program has begun; or, 

(ii) The owner or operator has entered 

into contractual obligations—which 

cannot be cancelled or modified without 

substantial loss—for physical 

construction at the site or installation of 

the tank system to be completed within 

a reasonable time. 

Farm tank is a tank located on a tract 

of land devoted to the production of 

crops or raising animals, including fish, 

and associated residences and 

improvements. A farm tank must be 

located on the farm property. Farm 

includes fish hatcheries, rangeland and 

nurseries with growing operations. 

Flow-through process tank is a tank 

that forms an integral part of a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

production process through which there 

is a steady, variable, recurring, or 

intermittent flow of materials during the 

operation of the process. Flow-through 

process tanks do not include tanks used 

for the storage of materials prior to their 

introduction into the production 

process or for the storage of finished 

products or by-products from the 

production process. 

Free product refers to a regulated 

substance that is present as a 

nonaqueous phase liquid (e.g., liquid 

not dissolved in water). 

Gathering lines means any pipeline, 

equipment, facility, or building used in 

the transportation of oil or gas during oil 

or gas production or gathering 

operations. 

Hazardous substance UST system 

means an underground storage tank 

system that contains a hazardous 

substance defined in section 101(14) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act of 1980 (but not including any 

substance regulated as a hazardous 

waste under subtitle C) or any mixture 

of such substances and petroleum, and 

which is not a petroleum UST system. 

Heating oil means petroleum that is 

No. 1, No. 2, No. 4—light, No. 4—heavy, 

No. 5—light, No. 5—heavy, and No. 6 

technical grades of fuel oil; other 

residual fuel oils (including Navy 

Special Fuel Oil and Bunker C); and 

other fuels when used as substitutes for 

one of these fuel oils. Heating oil is 

typically used in the operation of 

heating equipment, boilers, or furnaces. 

Hydraulic lift tank means a tank 

holding hydraulic fluid for a closedloop mechanical system that uses 

compressed air or hydraulic fluid to 

operate lifts, elevators, and other similar 

devices. 

Implementing agency means EPA, or, 

in the case of a state with a program 

approved under section 9004 (or 

pursuant to a memorandum of 

agreement with EPA), the designated 

state or local agency responsible for 

carrying out an approved UST program. 

Liquid trap means sumps, well 

cellars, and other traps used in 

association with oil and gas production, 

gathering, and extraction operations 

(including gas production plants), for 

the purpose of collecting oil, water, and 

other liquids. These liquid traps may 

temporarily collect liquids for 

subsequent disposition or reinjection 

into a production or pipeline stream, or 

may collect and separate liquids from a 

gas stream. 

Maintenance means the normal 

operational upkeep to prevent an 

underground storage tank system from 

releasing product. 

Motor fuel means a complex blend of 

hydrocarbons typically used in the 

operation of a motor engine, such as 

motor gasoline, aviation gasoline, No. 1 

or No. 2 diesel fuel, or any blend 

containing one or more of these 

substances (for example: motor gasoline 

blended with alcohol). 

New tank system means a tank system 

that will be used to contain an 

accumulation of regulated substances 

and for which installation has 

commenced after December 22, 1988. 

(See also Existing Tank System.) 

Noncommercial purposes with 

respect to motor fuel means not for 

resale. 

On the premises where stored with 

respect to heating oil means UST 

systems located on the same property 

where the stored heating oil is used. 

Operational life refers to the period 

beginning when installation of the tank 

system has commenced until the time 

the tank system is properly closed under 

subpart G. 

Operator means any person in control 

of, or having responsibility for, the daily 

operation of the UST system. 

Overfill release is a release that occurs 

when a tank is filled beyond its 

capacity, resulting in a discharge of the 

regulated substance to the environment. 

Owner means: 

(1) In the case of an UST system in 

use on November 8, 1984, or brought 

into use after that date, any person who 

owns an UST system used for storage, 

use, or dispensing of regulated 

substances; and 

(2) In the case of any UST system in 

use before November 8, 1984, but no 

longer in use on that date, any person 

who owned such UST immediately 

before the discontinuation of its use. 

Person means an individual, trust, 

firm, joint stock company, federal 

agency, corporation, state, municipality, 

commission, political subdivision of a 

state, or any interstate body. Person also 

includes a consortium, a joint venture, 

a commercial entity, and the United 

States Government. 

Petroleum UST system means an 

underground storage tank system that 

contains petroleum or a mixture of 

petroleum with de minimis quantities of 

other regulated substances. Such 

systems include those containing motor 

fuels, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, 

residual fuel oils, lubricants, petroleum 

solvents, and used oils. 

Pipe or Piping means a hollow 

cylinder or tubular conduit that is 

constructed of non-earthen materials. 

Pipeline facilities (including gathering 

lines) are new and existing pipe rightsof-way and any associated equipment, 

facilities, or buildings. 

Regulated substance means: 

(1) Any substance defined in section 

101(14) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (but 

not including any substance regulated 

as a hazardous waste under subtitle C); 

and 

(2) Petroleum, including crude oil or 

any fraction thereof that is liquid at 

standard conditions of temperature and 

pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 

14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). 

The term regulated substance includes 

but is not limited to petroleum and 

petroleum-based substances comprised 

of a complex blend of hydrocarbons, 

such as motor fuels, jet fuels, distillate 

fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, 

petroleum solvents, and used oils. 

Release means any spilling, leaking, 

emitting, discharging, escaping, 

leaching or disposing from an UST into 

groundwater, surface water or 

subsurface soils. 

Release detection means determining 

whether a release of a regulated 

substance has occurred from the UST 

system into the environment or a leak 

has occurred into the interstitial space 

between the UST system and its 

secondary barrier or secondary 

containment around it. 

Repair means to restore to proper 

operating condition a tank, pipe, spill 

prevention equipment, overfill 

prevention equipment, corrosion 

protection equipment, release detection 

equipment or other UST system 

component that has caused a release of 

product from the UST system or has 

failed to function properly. 

Replaced means: 

(1) For a tank—to remove a tank and 

install another tank. 

(2) For piping—to remove 50 percent 

or more of piping and install other 

piping, excluding connectors, connected 

to a single tank. For tanks with multiple 

piping runs, this definition applies 

independently to each piping run. 

Residential tank is a tank located on 

property used primarily for dwelling 

purposes. 

SARA means the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986. 

Secondary containment or 

Secondarily contained means a release 

prevention and release detection system 

for a tank or piping. This system has an 

inner and outer barrier with an 

interstitial space that is monitored for 

leaks. This term includes containment 

sumps when used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping. 

Septic tank is a water-tight covered 

receptacle designed to receive or 

process, through liquid separation or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41627 

biological digestion, the sewage 

discharged from a building sewer. The 

effluent from such receptacle is 

distributed for disposal through the soil 

and settled solids and scum from the 

tank are pumped out periodically and 

hauled to a treatment facility. 

Storm water or wastewater collection 

system means piping, pumps, conduits, 

and any other equipment necessary to 

collect and transport the flow of surface 

water run-off resulting from 

precipitation, or domestic, commercial, 

or industrial wastewater to and from 

retention areas or any areas where 

treatment is designated to occur. The 

collection of storm water and 

wastewater does not include treatment 

except where incidental to conveyance. 

Surface impoundment is a natural 

topographic depression, man-made 

excavation, or diked area formed 

primarily of earthen materials (although 

it may be lined with man-made 

materials) that is not an injection well. 

Tank is a stationary device designed 

to contain an accumulation of regulated 

substances and constructed of nonearthen materials (e.g., concrete, steel, 

plastic) that provide structural support. 

Training program means any program 

that provides information to and 

evaluates the knowledge of a Class A, 

Class B, or Class C operator through 

testing, practical demonstration, or 

another approach acceptable to the 

implementing agency regarding 

requirements for UST systems that meet 

the requirements of subpart J of this 

part. 

Under-dispenser containment or UDC 

means containment underneath a 

dispenser system designed to prevent 

leaks from the dispenser and piping 

within or above the UDC from reaching 

soil or groundwater. 

Underground area means an 

underground room, such as a basement, 

cellar, shaft or vault, providing enough 

space for physical inspection of the 

exterior of the tank situated on or above 

the surface of the floor. 

Underground release means any 

belowground release. 

Underground storage tank or UST 

means any one or combination of tanks 

(including underground pipes 

connected thereto) that is used to 

contain an accumulation of regulated 

substances, and the volume of which 

(including the volume of underground 

pipes connected thereto) is 10 percent 

or more beneath the surface of the 

ground. This term does not include any: 

(1) Farm or residential tank of 1,100 

gallons or less capacity used for storing 

motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; 

(2) Tank used for storing heating oil 

for consumptive use on the premises 

where stored; 

(3) Septic tank; 

(4) Pipeline facility (including 

gathering lines): 

(i) Which is regulated under 49 U.S.C. 

chapter 601; or 

(ii) Which is an intrastate pipeline 

facility regulated under state laws as 

provided in 49 U.S.C. chapter 601, 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; 

(5) Surface impoundment, pit, pond, 

or lagoon; 

(6) Storm water or wastewater 

collection system; 

(7) Flow-through process tank; 

(8) Liquid trap or associated gathering 

lines directly related to oil or gas 

production and gathering operations; or 

(9) Storage tank situated in an 

underground area (such as a basement, 

cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or 

tunnel) if the storage tank is situated 

upon or above the surface of the floor. 

Note to the definition of Underground 

storage tank or UST. The term 

underground storage tank or UST does 

not include any pipes connected to any 

tank which is described in paragraphs 

(1) through (9) of this definition. 

Upgrade means the addition or 

retrofit of some systems such as 

cathodic protection, lining, or spill and 

overfill controls to improve the ability 

of an underground storage tank system 

to prevent the release of product. 

UST system or Tank system means an 

underground storage tank, connected 

underground piping, underground 

ancillary equipment, and containment 

system, if any. 

Wastewater treatment tank means a 

tank that is designed to receive and treat 

an influent wastewater through 

physical, chemical, or biological 

methods. 

Subpart B—UST Systems: Design, 

Construction, Installation and 

Notification 

§ 280.20 Performance standards for new 

UST systems. 

In order to prevent releases due to 

structural failure, corrosion, or spills 

and overfills for as long as the UST 

system is used to store regulated 

substances, all owners and operators of 

new UST systems must meet the 

following requirements. In addition, 

except for suction piping that meets the 

requirements of § 280.41(b)(1)(ii)(A) 

through (E), tanks and piping installed 

or replaced after April 11, 2016 must be 

secondarily contained and use 

interstitial monitoring in accordance 

with § 280.43(g). Secondary 

containment must be able to contain 

regulated substances leaked from the 

primary containment until they are 

detected and removed and prevent the 

release of regulated substances to the 

environment at any time during the 

operational life of the UST system. For 

cases where the piping is considered to 

be replaced, the entire piping run must 

be secondarily contained. 

(a) Tanks. Each tank must be properly 

designed and constructed, and any 

portion underground that routinely 

contains product must be protected 

from corrosion, in accordance with a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory as 

specified below: 

(1) The tank is constructed of 

fiberglass-reinforced plastic; or 

Note to paragraph (a)(1). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section: 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 

1316, ‘‘Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum 

Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline 

Mixtures’’; or 

(B) Underwriter’s Laboratories of Canada 

S615, ‘‘Standard for Reinforced Plastic 

Underground Tanks for Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids’’. 

(2) The tank is constructed of steel 

and cathodically protected in the 

following manner: 

(i) The tank is coated with a suitable 

dielectric material; 

(ii) Field-installed cathodic protection 

systems are designed by a corrosion 

expert; 

(iii) Impressed current systems are 

designed to allow determination of 

current operating status as required in 

§ 280.31(c); and 

(iv) Cathodic protection systems are 

operated and maintained in accordance 

with § 280.31 or according to guidelines 

established by the implementing 

agency; or 

Note to paragraph (a)(2). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section: 

(A) Steel Tank Institute ‘‘Specification 

STI–P3® Specification and Manual for 

External Corrosion Protection of 

Underground Steel Storage Tanks’’; 

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 

1746, ‘‘External Corrosion Protection Systems 

for Steel Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(C) Underwriters Laboratories of Canada 

S603, ‘‘Standard for Steel Underground 

Tanks for Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids,’’ and S603.1, ‘‘Standard for External 

Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel 

Underground Tanks for Flammable and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Combustible Liquids,’’ and S631, ‘‘Standard 

for Isolating Bushings for Steel Underground 

Tanks Protected with External Corrosion 

Protection Systems’’; 

(D) Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, 

‘‘Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel 

Storage Tanks’’; or 

(E) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Tank Systems by 

Cathodic Protection,’’ and Underwriters 

Laboratories Standard 58, ‘‘Standard for Steel 

Underground Tanks for Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids’’. 

(3) The tank is constructed of steel 

and clad or jacketed with a noncorrodible material; or 

Note to paragraph (a)(3). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section: 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 

1746, ‘‘External Corrosion Protection Systems 

for Steel Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(B) Steel Tank Institute ACT–100®

Specification F894, ‘‘Specification for 

External Corrosion Protection of FRP 

Composite Steel Underground Storage 

Tanks’’; 

(C) Steel Tank Institute ACT–100–U®

Specification F961, ‘‘Specification for 

External Corrosion Protection of Composite 

Steel Underground Storage Tanks’’; or 

(D) Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, 

‘‘Steel Tank Institute Specification for 

Permatank®’’. 

(4) The tank is constructed of metal 

without additional corrosion protection 

measures provided that: 

(i) The tank is installed at a site that 

is determined by a corrosion expert not 

to be corrosive enough to cause it to 

have a release due to corrosion during 

its operating life; and 

(ii) Owners and operators maintain 

records that demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) of this section for the remaining 

life of the tank; or 

(5) The tank construction and 

corrosion protection are determined by 

the implementing agency to be designed 

to prevent the release or threatened 

release of any stored regulated 

substance in a manner that is no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(b) Piping. The piping that routinely 

contains regulated substances and is in 

contact with the ground must be 

properly designed, constructed, and 

protected from corrosion in accordance 

with a code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory as 

specified below. 

(1) The piping is constructed of a noncorrodible material; or 

Note to paragraph (b)(1). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section: 

(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 

971, ‘‘Nonmetallic Underground Piping for 

Flammable Liquids’’; or 

(B) Underwriters Laboratories of Canada 

Standard S660, ‘‘Standard for Nonmetallic 

Underground Piping for Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids’’. 

(2) The piping is constructed of steel 

and cathodically protected in the 

following manner: 

(i) The piping is coated with a 

suitable dielectric material; 

(ii) Field-installed cathodic protection 

systems are designed by a corrosion 

expert; 

(iii) Impressed current systems are 

designed to allow determination of 

current operating status as required in 

§ 280.31(c); and 

(iv) Cathodic protection systems are 

operated and maintained in accordance 

with § 280.31 or guidelines established 

by the implementing agency; or 

Note to paragraph (b)(2). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section: 

(A) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 1632, ‘‘Cathodic 

Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage 

Tanks and Piping Systems’’; 

(B) Underwriters Laboratories Subject 

971A, ‘‘Outline of Investigation for Metallic 

Underground Fuel Pipe’’; 

(C) Steel Tank Institute Recommended 

Practice R892, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping 

Networks Associated with Liquid Storage 

and Dispensing Systems’’; 

(D) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0169, ‘‘Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping 

Systems’’; or 

(E) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Corrosion Control of 

Underground Storage Tank Systems by 

Cathodic Protection’’. 

(3) The piping is constructed of metal 

without additional corrosion protection 

measures provided that: 

(i) The piping is installed at a site that 

is determined by a corrosion expert to 

not be corrosive enough to cause it to 

have a release due to corrosion during 

its operating life; and 

(ii) Owners and operators maintain 

records that demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section for the remaining 

life of the piping; or 

(4) The piping construction and 

corrosion protection are determined by 

the implementing agency to be designed 

to prevent the release or threatened 

release of any stored regulated 

substance in a manner that is no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(c) Spill and overfill prevention 

equipment. (1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, 

to prevent spilling and overfilling 

associated with product transfer to the 

UST system, owners and operators must 

use the following spill and overfill 

prevention equipment: 

(i) Spill prevention equipment that 

will prevent release of product to the 

environment when the transfer hose is 

detached from the fill pipe (for example, 

a spill catchment basin); and 

(ii) Overfill prevention equipment 

that will: 

(A) Automatically shut off flow into 

the tank when the tank is no more than 

95 percent full; or 

(B) Alert the transfer operator when 

the tank is no more than 90 percent full 

by restricting the flow into the tank or 

triggering a high-level alarm; or 

(C) Restrict flow 30 minutes prior to 

overfilling, alert the transfer operator 

with a high level alarm one minute 

before overfilling, or automatically shut 

off flow into the tank so that none of the 

fittings located on top of the tank are 

exposed to product due to overfilling. 

(2) Owners and operators are not 

required to use the spill and overfill 

prevention equipment specified in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section if: 

(i) Alternative equipment is used that 

is determined by the implementing 

agency to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment than the 

equipment specified in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section; or 

(ii) The UST system is filled by 

transfers of no more than 25 gallons at 

one time. 

(3) Flow restrictors used in vent lines 

may not be used to comply with 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section when 

overfill prevention is installed or 

replaced after October 13, 2015. 

(4) Spill and overfill prevention 

equipment must be periodically tested 

or inspected in accordance with 

§ 280.35. 

(d) Installation. The UST system must 

be properly installed in accordance with 

a code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory and in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

Note to paragraph (d). Tank and piping 

system installation practices and procedures 

described in the following codes of practice 

may be used to comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this section: 

(A) American Petroleum Institute 

Publication 1615, ‘‘Installation of 

Underground Petroleum Storage System’’; 

(B) Petroleum Equipment Institute 

Publication RP100, ‘‘Recommended Practices 

for Installation of Underground Liquid 

Storage Systems’’; or 

(C) National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41629 

Liquids Code’’ and Standard 30A, ‘‘Code for 

Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair 

Garages’’. 

(e) Certification of installation. All 

owners and operators must ensure that 

one or more of the following methods of 

certification, testing, or inspection is 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

paragraph (d) of this section by 

providing a certification of compliance 

on the UST notification form in 

accordance with § 280.22. 

(1) The installer has been certified by 

the tank and piping manufacturers; or 

(2) The installer has been certified or 

licensed by the implementing agency; or 

(3) The installation has been 

inspected and certified by a registered 

professional engineer with education 

and experience in UST system 

installation; or 

(4) The installation has been 

inspected and approved by the 

implementing agency; or 

(5) All work listed in the 

manufacturer’s installation checklists 

has been completed; or 

(6) The owner and operator have 

complied with another method for 

ensuring compliance with paragraph (d) 

of this section that is determined by the 

implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment. 

(f) Dispenser systems. Each UST 

system must be equipped with underdispenser containment for any new 

dispenser system installed after April 

11, 2016. 

(1) A dispenser system is considered 

new when both the dispenser and the 

equipment needed to connect the 

dispenser to the underground storage 

tank system are installed at an UST 

facility. The equipment necessary to 

connect the dispenser to the 

underground storage tank system 

includes check valves, shear valves, 

unburied risers or flexible connectors, 

or other transitional components that 

are underneath the dispenser and 

connect the dispenser to the 

underground piping. 

(2) Under-dispenser containment 

must be liquid-tight on its sides, bottom, 

and at any penetrations. Underdispenser containment must allow for 

visual inspection and access to the 

components in the containment system 

or be periodically monitored for leaks 

from the dispenser system. 

§ 280.21 Upgrading of existing UST 

systems. 

Owners and operators must 

permanently close (in accordance with 

subpart G of this part) any UST system 

that does not meet the new UST system 

performance standards in § 280.20 or 

has not been upgraded in accordance 

with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section. This does not apply to 

previously deferred UST systems 

described in subpart K of this part and 

where an upgrade is determined to be 

appropriate by the implementing 

agency. 

(a) Alternatives allowed. All existing 

UST systems must comply with one of 

the following requirements: 

(1) New UST system performance 

standards under § 280.20; 

(2) The upgrading requirements in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section; or 

(3) Closure requirements under 

subpart G of this part, including 

applicable requirements for corrective 

action under subpart F of this part. 

(b) Tank upgrading requirements. 

Steel tanks must be upgraded to meet 

one of the following requirements in 

accordance with a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory: 

(1) Interior lining. Tanks upgraded by 

internal lining must meet the following: 

(i) The lining was installed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 280.33; and 

(ii) Within 10 years after lining, and 

every 5 years thereafter, the lined tank 

is internally inspected and found to be 

structurally sound with the lining still 

performing in accordance with original 

design specifications. If the internal 

lining is no longer performing in 

accordance with original design 

specifications and cannot be repaired in 

accordance with a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory, then the lined tank must be 

permanently closed in accordance with 

subpart G of this part. 

(2) Cathodic protection. Tanks 

upgraded by cathodic protection must 

meet the requirements of 

§ 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) and the 

integrity of the tank must have been 

ensured using one of the following 

methods: 

(i) The tank was internally inspected 

and assessed to ensure that the tank was 

structurally sound and free of corrosion 

holes prior to installing the cathodic 

protection system; or 

(ii) The tank had been installed for 

less than 10 years and is monitored 

monthly for releases in accordance with 

§ 280.43(d) through (i); or 

(iii) The tank had been installed for 

less than 10 years and was assessed for 

corrosion holes by conducting two 

tightness tests that meet the 

requirements of § 280.43(c). The first 

tightness test must have been conducted 

prior to installing the cathodic 

protection system. The second tightness 

test must have been conducted between 

three and six months following the first 

operation of the cathodic protection 

system; or 

(iv) The tank was assessed for 

corrosion holes by a method that is 

determined by the implementing agency 

to prevent releases in a manner that is 

no less protective of human health and 

the environment than paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(3) Internal lining combined with 

cathodic protection. Tanks upgraded by 

both internal lining and cathodic 

protection must meet the following: 

(i) The lining was installed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 280.33; and 

(ii) The cathodic protection system 

meets the requirements of 

§ 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv). 

Note to paragraph (b). The following 

historical codes of practice were listed as 

options for complying with paragraph (b) of 

this section: 

(A) American Petroleum Institute 

Publication 1631, ‘‘Recommended Practice 

for the Interior Lining of Existing Steel 

Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(B) National Leak Prevention Association 

Standard 631, ‘‘Spill Prevention, Minimum 

10 Year Life Extension of Existing Steel 

Underground Tanks by Lining Without the 

Addition of Cathodic Protection’’; 

(C) National Association of Corrosion 

Engineers Standard RP–02–85, ‘‘Control of 

External Corrosion on Metallic Buried, 

Partially Buried, or Submerged Liquid 

Storage Systems’’; and 

(D) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 1632, ‘‘Cathodic 

Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage 

Tanks and Piping Systems’’. 

Note to paragraph b(1)(ii). The following 

codes of practice may be used to comply with 

the periodic lining inspection requirement of 

this section: 

(A) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 1631, ‘‘Interior 

Lining and Periodic Inspection of 

Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(B) National Leak Prevention Association 

Standard 631, Chapter B ‘‘Future Internal 

Inspection Requirements for Lined Tanks’’; 

or 

(C) Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended 

Practice, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Inspecting Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a 

Video Camera’’. 

(c) Piping upgrading requirements. 

Metal piping that routinely contains 

regulated substances and is in contact 

with the ground must be cathodically 

protected in accordance with a code of 

practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory and must meet the 

requirements of § 280.20(b)(2)(ii), (iii), 

and (iv). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Note to paragraph (c). The codes of 

practice listed in the note following 

§ 280.20(b)(2) may be used to comply with 

this requirement. 

(d) Spill and overfill prevention 

equipment. To prevent spilling and 

overfilling associated with product 

transfer to the UST system, all existing 

UST systems must comply with UST 

system spill and overfill prevention 

equipment requirements specified in 

§ 280.20(c). 

§ 280.22 Notification requirements. 

(a) 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 or a state form 

in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

Note to paragraph (a). Owners and 

operators of UST systems that were in the 

ground on or after May 8, 1986, unless taken 

out of operation on or before January 1, 1974, 

were required to notify the designated state 

or local agency in accordance with the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 

1984, Public Law 98–616, on a form 

published by EPA on November 8, 1985 

unless notice was given pursuant to section 

103(c) of CERCLA. Owners and operators 

who have not complied with the notification 

requirements may use portions I through X 

of the notification form contained in 

appendix I of this part. 

(b) Within 30 days of acquisition, any 

person who assumes ownership of a 

regulated underground storage tank 

system, except as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, must 

submit a notice of the ownership change 

to the implementing agency, using the 

form in appendix II of this part or a state 

form in accordance with paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(c) In states where state law, 

regulations, or procedures require 

owners to use forms that differ from 

those set forth in appendix I and 

appendix II of this part to fulfill the 

requirements of this section, the state 

forms may be submitted in lieu of the 

forms set forth in appendix I and 

appendix II. If a state requires that its 

form be used in lieu of the form 

presented in appendix I and appendix 

II, such form must, at a minimum, 

collect the information prescribed in 

appendix I and appendix II. 

(d) Owners required to submit notices 

under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section 

must provide notices to the appropriate 

implementing agency for each tank they 

own. Owners may provide notice for 

several tanks using one notification 

form, but owners who own tanks 

located at more than one place of 

operation must file a separate 

notification form for each separate place 

of operation. 

(e) All owners and operators of new 

UST systems must certify in the 

notification form compliance with the 

following requirements: 

(1) Installation of tanks and piping 

under § 280.20(e); 

(2) Cathodic protection of steel tanks 

and piping under § 280.20(a) and (b); 

(3) Financial responsibility under 

subpart H of this part; and 

(4) Release detection under §§ 280.41 

and 280.42. 

(f) All owners and operators of new 

UST systems must ensure that the 

installer certifies in the notification 

form that the methods used to install the 

tanks and piping complies with the 

requirements in § 280.20(d). 

(g) Beginning October 24, 1988, any 

person who sells a tank intended to be 

used as an underground storage tank 

must notify the purchaser of such tank 

of the owner’s notification obligations 

under paragraph (a) of this section. The 

statement provided in appendix III of 

this part, when used on shipping tickets 

and invoices, may be used to comply 

with this requirement. 

Subpart C—General Operating 

Requirements 

§ 280.30 Spill and overfill control. 

(a) Owners and operators must ensure 

that releases due to spilling or 

overfilling do not occur. The owner and 

operator must ensure that the volume 

available in the tank is greater than the 

volume of product to be transferred to 

the tank before the transfer is made and 

that the transfer operation is monitored 

constantly to prevent overfilling and 

spilling. 

Note to paragraph (a). The transfer 

procedures described in National Fire 

Protection Association Standard 385, 

‘‘Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable 

and Combustible Liquids’’ or American 

Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 

1007, ‘‘Loading and Unloading of MC 306/

DOT 406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles’’ may be 

used to comply with paragraph (a) of this 

section. Further guidance on spill and 

overfill prevention appears in American 

Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 

1621, ‘‘Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail 

Outlets’’. 

(b) The owner and operator must 

report, investigate, and clean up any 

spills and overfills in accordance with 

§ 280.53. 

§ 280.31 Operation and maintenance of 

corrosion protection. 

All owners and operators of metal 

UST systems with corrosion protection 

must comply with the following 

requirements to ensure that releases due 

to corrosion are prevented until the UST 

system is permanently closed or 

undergoes a change-in-service pursuant 

to § 280.71: 

(a) All corrosion protection systems 

must be operated and maintained to 

continuously provide corrosion 

protection to the metal components of 

that portion of the tank and piping that 

routinely contain regulated substances 

and are in contact with the ground. 

(b) All UST systems equipped with 

cathodic protection systems must be 

inspected for proper operation by a 

qualified cathodic protection tester in 

accordance with the following 

requirements: 

(1) Frequency. All cathodic protection 

systems must be tested within 6 months 

of installation and at least every 3 years 

thereafter or according to another 

reasonable time frame established by the 

implementing agency; and 

(2) Inspection criteria. The criteria 

that are used to determine that cathodic 

protection is adequate as required by 

this section must be in accordance with 

a code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association. 

Note to paragraph (b). The following codes 

of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (b) of this section: 

(A) NACE International Test Method TM 

0101, ‘‘Measurement Techniques Related to 

Criteria for Cathodic Protection of 

Underground Storage Tank Systems’’; 

(B) NACE International Test Method 

TM0497, ‘‘Measurement Techniques Related 

to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping 

Systems’’; 

(C) Steel Tank Institute Recommended 

Practice R051, ‘‘Cathodic Protection Testing 

Procedures for STI–P3® USTs’’; 

(D) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic 

Protection’’; or 

(E) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0169, ‘‘Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping 

Systems’’. 

(c) UST systems with impressed 

current cathodic protection systems 

must also be inspected every 60 days to 

ensure the equipment is running 

properly. 

(d) For UST systems using cathodic 

protection, records of the operation of 

the cathodic protection must be 

maintained (in accordance with 

§ 280.34) to demonstrate compliance 

with the performance standards in this 

section. These records must provide the 

following: 

(1) The results of the last three 

inspections required in paragraph (c) of 

this section; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41631 

(2) The results of testing from the last 

two inspections required in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

§ 280.32 Compatibility. 

(a) Owners and operators must use an 

UST system made of or lined with 

materials that are compatible with the 

substance stored in the UST system. 

(b) Owners and operators must notify 

the implementing agency at least 30 

days prior to switching to a regulated 

substance containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol, greater than 20 percent 

biodiesel, or any other regulated 

substance identified by the 

implementing agency. In addition, 

owners and operators with UST systems 

storing these regulated substances must 

meet one of the following: 

(1) Demonstrate compatibility of the 

UST system (including the tank, piping, 

containment sumps, pumping 

equipment, release detection 

equipment, spill equipment, and overfill 

equipment). Owners and operators may 

demonstrate compatibility of the UST 

system by using one of the following 

options: 

(i) Certification or listing of UST 

system equipment or components by a 

nationally recognized, independent 

testing laboratory for use with the 

regulated substance stored; or 

(ii) Equipment or component 

manufacturer approval. The 

manufacturer’s approval must be in 

writing, indicate an affirmative 

statement of compatibility, specify the 

range of biofuel blends the equipment or 

component is compatible with, and be 

from the equipment or component 

manufacturer; or 

(2) Use another option determined by 

the implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the options listed in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) 

Owners and operators must maintain 

records in accordance with § 280.34(b) 

documenting compliance with 

paragraph (b) of this section for as long 

as the UST system is used to store the 

regulated substance. 

Note to § 280.32. The following code of 

practice may be useful in complying with 

this section: American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 1626, ‘‘Storing and 

Handling Ethanol and Gasoline-Ethanol 

Blends at Distribution Terminals and Filling 

Stations.’’ 

§ 280.33 Repairs allowed. 

Owners and operators of UST systems 

must ensure that repairs will prevent 

releases due to structural failure or 

corrosion as long as the UST system is 

used to store regulated substances. The 

repairs must meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Repairs to UST systems must be 

properly conducted in accordance with 

a code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or an 

independent testing laboratory. 

Note to paragraph (a). The following codes 

of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a) of this section: 

(A) National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids Code’’; 

(B) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 2200, ‘‘Repairing 

Crude Oil, Liquified Petroleum Gas, and 

Product Pipelines’’; 

(C) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 1631, ‘‘Interior 

Lining and Periodic Inspection of 

Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(D) National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 326, ‘‘Standard for the Safeguarding 

of Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, 

or Repair’’; 

(E) National Leak Prevention Association 

Standard 631, Chapter A, ‘‘Entry, Cleaning, 

Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of 

Underground Storage Tanks’’; 

(F) Steel Tank Institute Recommended 

Practice R972, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

the Addition of Supplemental Anodes to 

STI–P3® Tanks’’; 

(G) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic 

Protection’’; or 

(H) Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute 

Recommended Practice T–95–02, 

‘‘Remanufacturing of Fiberglass Reinforced 

Plastic (FRP) Underground Storage Tanks’’. 

(b) Repairs to fiberglass-reinforced 

plastic tanks may be made by the 

manufacturer’s authorized 

representatives or in accordance with a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or an 

independent testing laboratory. 

(c) Metal pipe sections and fittings 

that have released product as a result of 

corrosion or other damage must be 

replaced. Non-corrodible pipes and 

fittings may be repaired in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications. 

(d) Repairs to secondary containment 

areas of tanks and piping used for 

interstitial monitoring and to 

containment sumps used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping must have the 

secondary containment tested for 

tightness according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions, a code of 

practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or independent 

testing laboratory, or according to 

requirements established by the 

implementing agency within 30 days 

following the date of completion of the 

repair. All other repairs to tanks and 

piping must be tightness tested in 

accordance with § 280.43(c) and 

§ 280.44(b) within 30 days following the 

date of the completion of the repair 

except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section: 

(1) The repaired tank is internally 

inspected in accordance with a code of 

practice developed by a nationally 

recognized association or an 

independent testing laboratory; or 

(2) The repaired portion of the UST 

system is monitored monthly for 

releases in accordance with a method 

specified in § 280.43(d) through (i); or 

(3) Another test method is used that 

is determined by the implementing 

agency to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment than those 

listed in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

Note to paragraph (d). The following codes 

of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (d) of this section: 

(A) Steel Tank Institute Recommended 

Practice R012, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing 

Underground Double Wall Steel Tanks’’; or 

(B) 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’’. 

(C) Petroleum Equipment Institute 

Recommended Practice RP1200, 

‘‘Recommended Practices for the Testing and 

Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection 

and Secondary Containment Equipment at 

UST Facilities’’. 

(e) Within 6 months following the 

repair of any cathodically protected 

UST system, the cathodic protection 

system must be tested in accordance 

with § 280.31(b) and (c) to ensure that 

it is operating properly. 

(f) Within 30 days following any 

repair to spill or overfill prevention 

equipment, the repaired spill or overfill 

prevention equipment must be tested or 

inspected, as appropriate, in accordance 

with § 280.35 to ensure it is operating 

properly. 

(g) UST system owners and operators 

must maintain records (in accordance 

with § 280.34) of each repair until the 

UST system is permanently closed or 

undergoes a change-in-service pursuant 

to § 280.71. 

§ 280.34 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Owners and operators of UST systems 

must cooperate fully with inspections, 

monitoring and testing conducted by the 

implementing agency, as well as 

requests for document submission, 

testing, and monitoring by the owner or 

operator pursuant to section 9005 of 

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, as amended. 

(a) Reporting. Owners and operators 

must submit the following information 

to the implementing agency: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Notification for all UST systems 

(§ 280.22), which includes certification 

of installation for new UST systems 

(§ 280.20(e)) and notification when any 

person assumes ownership of an UST 

system (§ 280.22(b)); 

(2) Notification prior to UST systems 

switching to certain regulated 

substances (§ 280.32(b)); 

(3) Reports of all releases including 

suspected releases (§ 280.50), spills and 

overfills (§ 280.53), and confirmed 

releases (§ 280.61); 

(4) Corrective actions planned or 

taken including initial abatement 

measures (§ 280.62), initial site 

characterization (§ 280.63), free product 

removal (§ 280.64), investigation of soil 

and groundwater cleanup (§ 280.65), 

and corrective action plan (§ 280.66); 

and 

(5) A notification before permanent 

closure or change-in-service (§ 280.71). 

(b) Recordkeeping. Owners and 

operators must maintain the following 

information: 

(1) A corrosion expert’s analysis of 

site corrosion potential if corrosion 

protection equipment is not used 

(§ 280.20(a)(4); § 280.20(b)(3)). 

(2) Documentation of operation of 

corrosion protection equipment 

(§ 280.31(d)); 

(3) Documentation of compatibility 

for UST systems (§ 280.32(c)); 

(4) Documentation of UST system 

repairs (§ 280.33(g)); 

(5) Documentation of compliance for 

spill and overfill prevention equipment 

and containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping 

(§ 280.35(c)); 

(6) Documentation of periodic 

walkthrough inspections (§ 280.36(b)); 

(7) Documentation of compliance 

with release detection requirements 

(§ 280.45); 

(8) Results of the site investigation 

conducted at permanent closure 

(§ 280.74); and 

(9) Documentation of operator 

training (§ 280.245). 

(c) Availability and maintenance of 

records. Owners and operators must 

keep the records required either: 

(1) At the UST site and immediately 

available for inspection by the 

implementing agency; or 

(2) At a readily available alternative 

site and be provided for inspection to 

the implementing agency upon request. 

(3) In the case of permanent closure 

records required under § 280.74, owners 

and operators are also provided with the 

additional alternative of mailing closure 

records to the implementing agency if 

they cannot be kept at the site or an 

alternative site as indicated in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

§ 280.35 Periodic testing of spill 

prevention equipment and containment 

sumps used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping and periodic inspection of overfill 

prevention equipment. 

(a) Owners and operators of UST 

systems with spill and overfill 

prevention equipment and containment 

sumps used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping must meet these requirements to 

ensure the equipment is operating 

properly and will prevent releases to the 

environment: 

(1) Spill prevention equipment (such 

as a catchment basin, spill bucket, or 

other spill containment device) and 

containment sumps used for interstitial 

monitoring of piping must prevent 

releases to the environment by meeting 

one of the following: 

(i) The equipment is double walled 

and the integrity of both walls is 

periodically monitored at a frequency 

not less than the frequency of the 

walkthrough inspections described in 

§ 280.36. Owners and operators must 

begin meeting paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section and conduct a test within 30 

days of discontinuing periodic 

monitoring of this equipment; or 

(ii) The spill prevention equipment 

and containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping are 

tested at least once every three years to 

ensure the equipment is liquid tight by 

using vacuum, pressure, or liquid 

testing in accordance with one of the 

following criteria: 

(A) Requirements developed by the 

manufacturer (Note: Owners and 

operators may use this option only if the 

manufacturer has developed 

requirements); 

(B) Code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory; or 

(C) Requirements determined by the 

implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the requirements 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) 

of this section. 

(2) Overfill prevention equipment 

must be inspected at least once every 

three years. At a minimum, the 

inspection must ensure that overfill 

prevention equipment is set to activate 

at the correct level specified in 

§ 280.20(c) and will activate when 

regulated substance reaches that level. 

Inspections must be conducted in 

accordance with one of the criteria in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

Note to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2). 

The following code of practice may be used 

to comply with paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2) 

of this section: Petroleum Equipment 

Institute Publication RP1200, 

‘‘Recommended Practices for the Testing and 

Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection 

and Secondary Containment Equipment at 

UST Facilities’’. 

(b) Owners and operators must begin 

meeting these requirements as follows: 

(1) For UST systems in use on or 

before October 13, 2015, the initial spill 

prevention equipment test, containment 

sump test and overfill prevention 

equipment inspection must be 

conducted not later than October 13, 

2018. 

(2) For UST systems brought into use 

after October 13, 2015, these 

requirements apply at installation. 

(c) Owners and operators must 

maintain records as follows (in 

accordance with § 280.34) for spill 

prevention equipment, containment 

sumps used for interstitial monitoring of 

piping, and overfill prevention 

equipment: 

(1) All records of testing or inspection 

must be maintained for three years; and 

(2) For spill prevention equipment 

and containment sumps used for 

interstitial monitoring of piping not 

tested every three years, documentation 

showing that the prevention equipment 

is double walled and the integrity of 

both walls is periodically monitored 

must be maintained for as long as the 

equipment is periodically monitored. 

§ 280.36 Periodic operation and 

maintenance walkthrough inspections. 

(a) To properly operate and maintain 

UST systems, not later than October 13, 

2018 owners and operators must meet 

one of the following: 

(1) Conduct a walkthrough inspection 

that, at a minimum, checks the 

following equipment as specified below: 

(i) Every 30 days (Exception: spill 

prevention equipment at UST systems 

receiving deliveries at intervals greater 

than every 30 days may be checked 

prior to each delivery): 

(A) Spill prevention equipment— 

visually check for damage; remove 

liquid or debris; check for and remove 

obstructions in the fill pipe; check the 

fill cap to make sure it is securely on the 

fill pipe; and, for double walled spill 

prevention equipment with interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the 

interstitial area; and 

(B) Release detection equipment— 

check to make sure the release detection 

equipment is operating with no alarms 

or other unusual operating conditions 

present; and ensure records of release 

detection testing are reviewed and 

current; and 

(ii) Annually: 

(A) Containment sumps—visually 

check for damage, leaks to the 

containment area, or releases to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41633 

environment; remove liquid (in 

contained sumps) or debris; and, for 

double walled sumps with interstitial 

monitoring, check for a leak in the 

interstitial area; and 

(B) Hand held release detection 

equipment—check devices such as tank 

gauge sticks or groundwater bailers for 

operability and serviceability; 

(2) Conduct operation and 

maintenance walkthrough inspections 

according to a standard code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory that checks equipment 

comparable to paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section; or 

Note to paragraph (a)(2). The following 

code of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section: Petroleum 

Equipment Institute Recommended Practice 

RP 900, ‘‘Recommended Practices for the 

Inspection and Maintenance of UST 

Systems’’. 

(3) Conduct operation and 

maintenance walkthrough inspections 

developed by the implementing agency 

that checks equipment comparable to 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) Owners and operators must 

maintain records (in accordance with 

§ 280.34) of operation and maintenance 

walkthrough inspections for one year. 

Records must include a list of each area 

checked, whether each area checked 

was acceptable or needed action taken, 

a description of actions taken to correct 

an issue, and delivery records if spill 

prevention equipment is checked less 

frequently than every 30 days due to 

infrequent deliveries. 

Subpart D—Release Detection 

§ 280.40 General requirements for all UST 

systems. 

(a) Owners and operators of UST 

systems must provide a method, or 

combination of methods, of release 

detection that: 

(1) Can detect a release from any 

portion of the tank and the connected 

underground piping that routinely 

contains product; 

(2) Is installed and calibrated in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions; 

(3) Beginning on October 13, 2018, is 

operated and maintained, and electronic 

and mechanical components are tested 

for proper operation, in accordance with 

one of the following: manufacturer’s 

instructions; a code of practice 

developed by a nationally recognized 

association or independent testing 

laboratory; or requirements determined 

by the implementing agency to be no 

less protective of human health and the 

environment than the two options listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section. A test of the proper operation 

must be performed at least annually 

and, at a minimum, as applicable to the 

facility, cover the following components 

and criteria: 

(i) Automatic tank gauge and other 

controllers: test alarm; verify system 

configuration; test battery backup; 

(ii) Probes and sensors: inspect for 

residual buildup; ensure floats move 

freely; ensure shaft is not damaged; 

ensure cables are free of kinks and 

breaks; test alarm operability and 

communication with controller; 

(iii) Automatic line leak detector: test 

operation to meet criteria in § 280.44(a) 

by simulating a leak; 

(iv) Vacuum pumps and pressure 

gauges: ensure proper communication 

with sensors and controller; and 

(v) Hand-held electronic sampling 

equipment associated with groundwater 

and vapor monitoring: ensure proper 

operation. 

Note to paragraph (a)(3). The following 

code of practice may be used to comply with 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section: Petroleum 

Equipment Institute Publication RP1200, 

‘‘Recommended Practices for the Testing and 

Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection 

and Secondary Containment Equipment at 

UST Facilities’’. 

(4) Meets the performance 

requirements in § 280.43, § 280.44, or 

subpart K of this part, as applicable, 

with any performance claims and their 

manner of determination described in 

writing by the equipment manufacturer 

or installer. In addition, the methods 

listed in § 280.43(b), (c), (d), (h), and (i), 

§ 280.44(a) and (b), and subpart K of this 

part, must be capable of detecting the 

leak rate or quantity specified for that 

method in the corresponding section of 

the rule with a probability of detection 

of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm 

of 0.05. 

(b) When a release detection method 

operated in accordance with the 

performance standards in § 280.43, 

§ 280.44, or subpart K of this part 

indicates a release may have occurred, 

owners and operators must notify the 

implementing agency in accordance 

with subpart E of this part. 

(c) Any UST system that cannot apply 

a method of release detection that 

complies with the requirements of this 

subpart must complete the closure 

procedures in subpart G of this part. For 

previously deferred UST systems 

described in subparts A and K of this 

part, this requirement applies after the 

effective dates described in 

§ 280.10(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 

§ 280.251(a). 

§ 280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST 

systems. 

Owners and operators of petroleum 

UST systems must provide release 

detection for tanks and piping as 

follows: 

(a) Tanks. Tanks must be monitored 

for releases as follows: 

(1) Tanks installed on or before April 

11, 2016 must be monitored for releases 

at least every 30 days using one of the 

methods listed in § 280.43(d) through (i) 

except that: 

(i) UST systems that meet the 

performance standards in § 280.20 or 

§ 280.21, and the monthly inventory 

control requirements in § 280.43(a) or 

(b), may use tank tightness testing 

(conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.43(c)) at least every 5 years until 

10 years after the tank was installed; 

and 

(ii) Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons 

or less and tanks with a capacity of 551 

to 1,000 gallons that meet the tank 

diameter criteria in § 280.43(b) may use 

manual tank gauging (conducted in 

accordance with § 280.43(b)). 

(2) Tanks installed after April 11, 

2016 must be monitored for releases at 

least every 30 days in accordance with 

§ 280.43(g). 

(b) Piping. Underground piping that 

routinely contains regulated substances 

must be monitored for releases in a 

manner that meets one of the following 

requirements: 

(1) Piping installed on or before April 

11, 2016 must meet one of the 

following: 

(i) Pressurized piping. Underground 

piping that conveys regulated 

substances under pressure must: 

(A) Be equipped with an automatic 

line leak detector conducted in 

accordance with § 280.44(a); and 

(B) Have an annual line tightness test 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.44(b) or have monthly monitoring 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.44(c). 

(ii) Suction piping. Underground 

piping that conveys regulated 

substances under suction must either 

have a line tightness test conducted at 

least every 3 years and in accordance 

with § 280.44(b), or use a monthly 

monitoring method conducted in 

accordance with § 280.44(c). No release 

detection is required for suction piping 

that is designed and constructed to meet 

the following standards: 

(A) The below-grade piping operates 

at less than atmospheric pressure; 

(B) The below-grade piping is sloped 

so that the contents of the pipe will 

drain back into the storage tank if the 

suction is released; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(C) Only one check valve is included 

in each suction line; 

(D) The check valve is located directly 

below and as close as practical to the 

suction pump; and 

(E) A method is provided that allows 

compliance with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B) 

through (D) of this section to be readily 

determined. 

(2) Piping installed or replaced after 

April 11, 2016 must meet one of the 

following: 

(i) Pressurized piping must be 

monitored for releases at least every 30 

days in accordance with § 280.43(g) and 

be equipped with an automatic line leak 

detector in accordance with § 280.44(a) 

(ii) Suction piping must be monitored 

for releases at least every 30 days in 

accordance with § 280.43(g). No release 

detection is required for suction piping 

that meets paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) 

through (E) of this section. 

§ 280.42 Requirements for hazardous 

substance UST systems. 

Owners and operators of hazardous 

substance UST systems must provide 

containment that meets the following 

requirements and monitor these systems 

using § 280.43(g) at least every 30 days: 

(a) Secondary containment systems 

must be designed, constructed, and 

installed to: 

(1) Contain regulated substances 

leaked from the primary containment 

until they are detected and removed; 

(2) Prevent the release of regulated 

substances to the environment at any 

time during the operational life of the 

UST system; and 

(3) Be checked for evidence of a 

release at least every 30 days. 

Note to paragraph (a). The provisions of 40 

CFR 265.193, Containment and Detection of 

Releases, may be used to comply with these 

requirements for tanks installed on or before 

October 13, 2015. 

(b) Double walled tanks must be 

designed, constructed, and installed to: 

(1) Contain a leak from any portion of 

the inner tank within the outer wall; 

and 

(2) Detect the failure of the inner wall. 

(c) External liners (including vaults) 

must be designed, constructed, and 

installed to: 

(1) Contain 100 percent of the 

capacity of the largest tank within its 

boundary; 

(2) Prevent the interference of 

precipitation or groundwater intrusion 

with the ability to contain or detect a 

release of regulated substances; and 

(3) Surround the tank completely (i.e., 

it is capable of preventing lateral as well 

as vertical migration of regulated 

substances). 

(d) Underground piping must be 

equipped with secondary containment 

that satisfies the requirements of this 

section (e.g., trench liners, double 

walled pipe). In addition, underground 

piping that conveys regulated 

substances under pressure must be 

equipped with an automatic line leak 

detector in accordance with § 280.44(a). 

(e) For hazardous substance UST 

systems installed on or before October 

13, 2015 other methods of release 

detection may be used if owners and 

operators: 

(1) Demonstrate to the implementing 

agency that an alternate method can 

detect a release of the stored substance 

as effectively as any of the methods 

allowed in § 280.43(b) through (i) can 

detect a release of petroleum; 

(2) Provide information to the 

implementing agency on effective 

corrective action technologies, health 

risks, and chemical and physical 

properties of the stored substance, and 

the characteristics of the UST site; and, 

(3) Obtain approval from the 

implementing agency to use the 

alternate release detection method 

before the installation and operation of 

the new UST system. 

§ 280.43 Methods of release detection for 

tanks. 

Each method of release detection for 

tanks used to meet the requirements of 

§ 280.41 must be conducted in 

accordance with the following: 

(a) Inventory control. Product 

inventory control (or another test of 

equivalent performance) must be 

conducted monthly to detect a release of 

at least 1.0 percent of flow-through plus 

130 gallons on a monthly basis in the 

following manner: 

(1) Inventory volume measurements 

for regulated substance inputs, 

withdrawals, and the amount still 

remaining in the tank are recorded each 

operating day; 

(2) The equipment used is capable of 

measuring the level of product over the 

full range of the tank’s height to the 

nearest one-eighth of an inch; 

(3) The regulated substance inputs are 

reconciled with delivery receipts by 

measurement of the tank inventory 

volume before and after delivery; 

(4) Deliveries are made through a drop 

tube that extends to within one foot of 

the tank bottom; 

(5) Product dispensing is metered and 

recorded within the local standards for 

meter calibration or an accuracy of 6 

cubic inches for every 5 gallons of 

product withdrawn; and 

(6) The measurement of any water 

level in the bottom of the tank is made 

to the nearest one-eighth of an inch at 

least once a month. 

Note to paragraph (a). Practices described 

in the American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 1621, ‘‘Bulk 

Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets’’ may 

be used, where applicable, as guidance in 

meeting the requirements of this paragraph 

(a). 

(b) Manual tank gauging. Manual tank 

gauging must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) Tank liquid level measurements 

are taken at the beginning and ending of 

a period using the appropriate 

minimum duration of test value in the 

table below during which no liquid is 

added to or removed from the tank; 

(2) Level measurements are based on 

an average of two consecutive stick 

readings at both the beginning and 

ending of the period; 

(3) The equipment used is capable of 

measuring the level of product over the 

full range of the tank’s height to the 

nearest one-eighth of an inch; 

(4) A release is suspected and subject 

to the requirements of subpart E if the 

variation between beginning and ending 

measurements exceeds the weekly or 

monthly standards in the following 

table: 

Nominal tank capacity 

Minimum 

duration of 

test 

Weekly 

standard 

(one test) 

Monthly 

standard 

(four test 

average) 

550 gallons or less .............................................................................................................................. 36 hours ...... 10 gallons .... 5 gallons 

551–1,000 gallons (when tank diameter is 64 inches) ....................................................................... 44 hours ...... 9 gallons ...... 4 gallons 

551–1,000 gallons (when tank diameter is 48 inches) ....................................................................... 58 hours ...... 12 gallons .... 6 gallons 

551–1,000 gallons (also requires periodic tank tightness testing) ..................................................... 36 hours ...... 13 gallons ... 7 gallons 

1,001–2,000 gallons (also requires periodic tank tightness testing) .................................................. 36 hours ...... 26 gallons .... 13 gallons 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41635 

(5) Tanks of 550 gallons or less 

nominal capacity and tanks with a 

nominal capacity of 551 to 1,000 gallons 

that meet the tank diameter criteria in 

the table in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section 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 

inventory control in § 280.43(a). Tanks 

of greater than 2,000 gallons nominal 

capacity may not use this method to 

meet the requirements of this subpart. 

(c) Tank tightness testing. Tank 

tightness testing (or another test of 

equivalent performance) must be 

capable of detecting a 0.1 gallon per 

hour leak rate from any portion of the 

tank that routinely contains product 

while accounting for the effects of 

thermal expansion or contraction of the 

product, vapor pockets, tank 

deformation, evaporation or 

condensation, and the location of the 

water table. 

(d) Automatic tank gauging. 

Equipment for automatic tank gauging 

that tests for the loss of product and 

conducts inventory control must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1) The automatic product level 

monitor test can detect a 0.2 gallon per 

hour leak rate from any portion of the 

tank that routinely contains product; 

(2) The automatic tank gauging 

equipment must meet the inventory 

control (or other test of equivalent 

performance) requirements of 

§ 280.43(a); and 

(3) The test must be performed with 

the system operating in one of the 

following modes: 

(i) In-tank static testing conducted at 

least once every 30 days; or 

(ii) Continuous in-tank leak detection 

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. 

(e) Vapor monitoring. Testing or 

monitoring for vapors within the soil 

gas of the excavation zone must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1) The materials used as backfill are 

sufficiently porous (e.g., gravel, sand, 

crushed rock) to readily allow diffusion 

of vapors from releases into the 

excavation area; 

(2) The stored regulated substance, or 

a tracer compound placed in the tank 

system, is sufficiently volatile (e.g., 

gasoline) to result in a vapor level that 

is detectable by the monitoring devices 

located in the excavation zone in the 

event of a release from the tank; 

(3) The measurement of vapors by the 

monitoring device is not rendered 

inoperative by the groundwater, rainfall, 

or soil moisture or other known 

interferences so that a release could go 

undetected for more than 30 days; 

(4) The level of background 

contamination in the excavation zone 

will not interfere with the method used 

to detect releases from the tank; 

(5) The vapor monitors are designed 

and operated to detect any significant 

increase in concentration above 

background of the regulated substance 

stored in the tank system, a component 

or components of that substance, or a 

tracer compound placed in the tank 

system; 

(6) In the UST excavation zone, the 

site is assessed to ensure compliance 

with the requirements in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (4) of this section and to 

establish the number and positioning of 

monitoring wells that will detect 

releases within the excavation zone 

from any portion of the tank that 

routinely contains product; and 

(7) Monitoring wells are clearly 

marked and secured to avoid 

unauthorized access and tampering. 

(f) Groundwater monitoring. Testing 

or monitoring for liquids on the 

groundwater must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) The regulated substance stored is 

immiscible in water and has a specific 

gravity of less than one; 

(2) Groundwater is never more than 

20 feet from the ground surface and the 

hydraulic conductivity of the soil(s) 

between the UST system and the 

monitoring wells or devices is not less 

than 0.01 cm/sec (e.g., the soil should 

consist of gravels, coarse to medium 

sands, coarse silts or other permeable 

materials); 

(3) The slotted portion of the 

monitoring well casing must be 

designed to prevent migration of natural 

soils or filter pack into the well and to 

allow entry of regulated substance on 

the water table into the well under both 

high and low groundwater conditions; 

(4) Monitoring wells shall be sealed 

from the ground surface to the top of the 

filter pack; 

(5) Monitoring wells or devices 

intercept the excavation zone or are as 

close to it as is technically feasible; 

(6) The continuous monitoring 

devices or manual methods used can 

detect the presence of at least one-eighth 

of an inch of free product on top of the 

groundwater in the monitoring wells; 

(7) Within and immediately below the 

UST system excavation zone, the site is 

assessed to ensure compliance with the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (5) of this section and to 

establish the number and positioning of 

monitoring wells or devices that will 

detect releases from any portion of the 

tank that routinely contains product; 

and 

(8) Monitoring wells are clearly 

marked and secured to avoid 

unauthorized access and tampering. 

(g) Interstitial monitoring. Interstitial 

monitoring between the UST system 

and a secondary barrier immediately 

around or beneath it may be used, but 

only if the system is designed, 

constructed, and installed to detect a 

leak from any portion of the tank that 

routinely contains product and also 

meets one of the following 

requirements: 

(1) For double walled UST systems, 

the sampling or testing method can 

detect a leak through the inner wall in 

any portion of the tank that routinely 

contains product; 

(2) For UST systems with a secondary 

barrier within the excavation zone, the 

sampling or testing method used can 

detect a leak between the UST system 

and the secondary barrier; 

(i) The secondary barrier around or 

beneath the UST system consists of 

artificially constructed material that is 

sufficiently thick and impermeable (at 

least 10¥6 cm/sec for the regulated 

substance stored) to direct a leak to the 

monitoring point and permit its 

detection; 

(ii) The barrier is compatible with the 

regulated substance stored so that a leak 

from the UST system will not cause a 

deterioration of the barrier allowing a 

release to pass through undetected; 

(iii) For cathodically protected tanks, 

the secondary barrier must be installed 

so that it does not interfere with the 

proper operation of the cathodic 

protection system; 

(iv) The groundwater, soil moisture, 

or rainfall will not render the testing or 

sampling method used inoperative so 

that a release could go undetected for 

more than 30 days; 

(v) The site is assessed to ensure that 

the secondary barrier is always above 

the groundwater and not in a 25-year 

flood plain, unless the barrier and 

monitoring designs are for use under 

such conditions; and, 

(vi) Monitoring wells are clearly 

marked and secured to avoid 

unauthorized access and tampering. 

(3) For tanks with an internally fitted 

liner, an automated device can detect a 

leak between the inner wall of the tank 

and the liner, and the liner is 

compatible with the substance stored. 

(h) Statistical inventory 

reconciliation. Release detection 

methods based on the application of 

statistical principles to inventory data 

similar to those described in § 280.43(a) 

must meet the following requirements: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Report a quantitative result with a 

calculated leak rate; 

(2) Be capable of detecting a leak rate 

of 0.2 gallon per hour or a release of 150 

gallons within 30 days; and 

(3) Use a threshold that does not 

exceed one-half the minimum detectible 

leak rate. 

(i) Other methods. Any other type of 

release detection method, or 

combination of methods, can be used if: 

(1) It can detect a 0.2 gallon per hour 

leak rate or a release of 150 gallons 

within a month with a probability of 

detection of 0.95 and a probability of 

false alarm of 0.05; or 

(2) The implementing agency may 

approve another method if the owner 

and operator can demonstrate that the 

method can detect a release as 

effectively as any of the methods 

allowed in paragraphs (c) through (h) of 

this section. In comparing methods, the 

implementing agency shall consider the 

size of release that the method can 

detect and the frequency and reliability 

with which it can be detected. If the 

method is approved, the owner and 

operator must comply with any 

conditions imposed by the 

implementing agency on its use to 

ensure the protection of human health 

and the environment. 

§ 280.44 Methods of release detection for 

piping. 

Each method of release detection for 

piping used to meet the requirements of 

§ 280.41 must be conducted in 

accordance with the following: 

(a) Automatic line leak detectors. 

Methods which alert the operator to the 

presence of a leak by restricting or 

shutting off the flow of regulated 

substances through piping or triggering 

an audible or visual alarm may be used 

only if they detect leaks of 3 gallons per 

hour at 10 pounds per square inch line 

pressure within 1 hour. An annual test 

of the operation of the leak detector 

must be conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.40(a)(3). 

(b) Line tightness testing. A periodic 

test of piping may be conducted only if 

it can detect a 0.1 gallon per hour leak 

rate at one and one-half times the 

operating pressure. 

(c) Applicable tank methods. Except 

as described in § 280.41(a), any of the 

methods in § 280.43(e) through (i) may 

be used if they are designed to detect a 

release from any portion of the 

underground piping that routinely 

contains regulated substances. 

§ 280.45 Release detection recordkeeping. 

All UST system owners and operators 

must maintain records in accordance 

with § 280.34 demonstrating compliance 

with all applicable requirements of this 

subpart. These records must include the 

following: 

(a) All written performance claims 

pertaining to any release detection 

system used, and the manner in which 

these claims have been justified or 

tested by the equipment manufacturer 

or installer, must be maintained for 5 

years, or for another reasonable period 

of time determined by the implementing 

agency, from the date of installation. 

Not later than October 13, 2018, records 

of site assessments required under 

§ 280.43(e)(6) and (f)(7) must be 

maintained for as long as the methods 

are used. Records of site assessments 

developed after October 13, 2015 must 

be signed by a professional engineer or 

professional geologist, or equivalent 

licensed professional with experience in 

environmental engineering, 

hydrogeology, or other relevant 

technical discipline acceptable to the 

implementing agency; 

(b) The results of any sampling, 

testing, or monitoring must be 

maintained for at least one year, or for 

another reasonable period of time 

determined by the implementing 

agency, except as follows: 

(1) The results of annual operation 

tests conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.40(a)(3) must be maintained for 

three years. At a minimum, the results 

must list each component tested, 

indicate whether each component tested 

meets criteria in § 280.40(a)(3) or needs 

to have action taken, and describe any 

action taken to correct an issue; and 

(2) The results of tank tightness 

testing conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.43(c) must be retained until the 

next test is conducted; and 

(3) The results of tank tightness 

testing, line tightness testing, and vapor 

monitoring using a tracer compound 

placed in the tank system conducted in 

accordance with § 280.252(d) must be 

retained until the next test is conducted; 

and 

(c) Written documentation of all 

calibration, maintenance, and repair of 

release detection equipment 

permanently located on-site must be 

maintained for at least one year after the 

servicing work is completed, or for 

another reasonable time period 

determined by the implementing 

agency. Any schedules of required 

calibration and maintenance provided 

by the release detection equipment 

manufacturer must be retained for five 

years from the date of installation. 

Subpart E—Release Reporting, 

Investigation, and Confirmation 

§ 280.50 Reporting of suspected releases. 

Owners and operators of UST systems 

must report to the implementing agency 

within 24 hours, or another reasonable 

period specified by the implementing 

agency, and follow the procedures in 

§ 280.52 for any of the following 

conditions: 

(a) The discovery by owners and 

operators or others of released regulated 

substances at the UST site or in the 

surrounding area (such as the presence 

of free product or vapors in soils, 

basements, sewer and utility lines, and 

nearby surface water). 

(b) Unusual operating conditions 

observed by owners and operators (such 

as the erratic behavior of product 

dispensing equipment, the sudden loss 

of product from the UST system, an 

unexplained presence of water in the 

tank, or liquid in the interstitial space 

of secondarily contained systems), 

unless: 

(1) The system equipment or 

component is found not to be releasing 

regulated substances to the 

environment; 

(2) Any defective system equipment 

or component is immediately repaired 

or replaced; and 

(3) For secondarily contained systems, 

except as provided for in 

§ 280.43(g)(2)(iv), any liquid in the 

interstitial space not used as part of the 

interstitial monitoring method (for 

example, brine filled) is immediately 

removed. 

(c) Monitoring results, including 

investigation of an alarm, from a release 

detection method required under 

§§ 280.41 and 280.42 that indicate a 

release may have occurred unless: 

(1) The monitoring device is found to 

be defective, and is immediately 

repaired, recalibrated or replaced, and 

additional monitoring does not confirm 

the initial result; 

(2) The leak is contained in the 

secondary containment and: 

(i) Except as provided for in 

§ 280.43(g)(2)(iv), any liquid in the 

interstitial space not used as part of the 

interstitial monitoring method (for 

example, brine filled) is immediately 

removed; and 

(ii) Any defective system equipment 

or component is immediately repaired 

or replaced; 

(3) In the case of inventory control 

described in § 280.43(a), a second 

month of data does not confirm the 

initial result or the investigation 

determines no release has occurred; or 

(4) The alarm was investigated and 

determined to be a non-release event 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41637 

(for example, from a power surge or 

caused by filling the tank during release 

detection testing). 

§ 280.51 Investigation due to off-site 

impacts. 

When required by the implementing 

agency, owners and operators of UST 

systems must follow the procedures in 

§ 280.52 to determine if the UST system 

is the source of off-site impacts. These 

impacts include the discovery of 

regulated substances (such as the 

presence of free product or vapors in 

soils, basements, sewer and utility lines, 

and nearby surface and drinking waters) 

that has been observed by the 

implementing agency or brought to its 

attention by another party. 

§ 280.52 Release investigation and 

confirmation steps. 

Unless corrective action is initiated in 

accordance with subpart F, owners and 

operators must immediately investigate 

and confirm all suspected releases of 

regulated substances requiring reporting 

under § 280.50 within 7 days, or another 

reasonable time period specified by the 

implementing agency, using either the 

following steps or another procedure 

approved by the implementing agency: 

(a) System test. Owners and operators 

must conduct tests (according to the 

requirements for tightness testing in 

§§ 280.43(c) and 280.44(b) or, as 

appropriate, secondary containment 

testing described in § 280.33(d)). 

(1) The test must determine whether: 

(i) A leak exists in that portion of the 

tank that routinely contains product, or 

the attached delivery piping; or 

(ii) A breach of either wall of the 

secondary containment has occurred. 

(2) If the system test confirms a leak 

into the interstice or a release, owners 

and operators must repair, replace, 

upgrade, or close the UST system. In 

addition, owners and operators must 

begin corrective action in accordance 

with subpart F of this part if the test 

results for the system, tank, or delivery 

piping indicate that a release exists. 

(3) Further investigation is not 

required if the test results for the 

system, tank, and delivery piping do not 

indicate that a release exists and if 

environmental contamination is not the 

basis for suspecting a release. 

(4) Owners and operators must 

conduct a site check as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section if the test 

results for the system, tank, and delivery 

piping do not indicate that a release 

exists but environmental contamination 

is the basis for suspecting a release. 

(b) Site check. Owners and operators 

must measure for the presence of a 

release where contamination is most 

likely to be present at the UST site. In 

selecting sample types, sample 

locations, and measurement methods, 

owners and operators must consider the 

nature of the stored substance, the type 

of initial alarm or cause for suspicion, 

the type of backfill, the depth of 

groundwater, and other factors 

appropriate for identifying the presence 

and source of the release. 

(1) If the test results for the excavation 

zone or the UST site indicate that a 

release has occurred, owners and 

operators must begin corrective action 

in accordance with subpart F of this 

part; 

(2) If the test results for the excavation 

zone or the UST site do not indicate that 

a release has occurred, further 

investigation is not required. 

§ 280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills 

and overfills. 

(a) Owners and operators of UST 

systems must contain and immediately 

clean up a spill or overfill and report to 

the implementing agency within 24 

hours, or another reasonable time period 

specified by the implementing agency, 

and begin corrective action in 

accordance with subpart F of this part 

in the following cases: 

(1) Spill or overfill of petroleum that 

results in a release to the environment 

that exceeds 25 gallons or another 

reasonable amount specified by the 

implementing agency, or that causes a 

sheen on nearby surface water; and 

(2) Spill or overfill of a hazardous 

substance that results in a release to the 

environment that equals or exceeds its 

reportable quantity under CERCLA (40 

CFR part 302). 

Note to paragraph (a). Pursuant to §§ 302.6 

and 355.40 of this chapter, a release of a 

hazardous substance equal to or in excess of 

its reportable quantity must also be reported 

immediately (rather than within 24 hours) to 

the National Response Center under sections 

102 and 103 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 and to appropriate state 

and local authorities under Title III of the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 

Act of 1986. 

(b) Owners and operators of UST 

systems must contain and immediately 

clean up a spill or overfill of petroleum 

that is less than 25 gallons or another 

reasonable amount specified by the 

implementing agency, and a spill or 

overfill of a hazardous substance that is 

less than the reportable quantity. If 

cleanup cannot be accomplished within 

24 hours, or another reasonable time 

period established by the implementing 

agency, owners and operators must 

immediately notify the implementing 

agency. 

Subpart F—Release Response and 

Corrective Action for UST Systems 

Containing Petroleum or Hazardous 

Substances 

§ 280.60 General. 

Owners and operators of petroleum or 

hazardous substance UST systems must, 

in response to a confirmed release from 

the UST system, comply with the 

requirements of this subpart except for 

USTs excluded under § 280.10(b) and 

UST systems subject to RCRA Subtitle C 

corrective action requirements under 

section 3004(u) of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, as 

amended. 

§ 280.61 Initial response. 

Upon confirmation of a release in 

accordance with § 280.52 or after a 

release from the UST system is 

identified in any other manner, owners 

and operators must perform the 

following initial response actions within 

24 hours of a release or within another 

reasonable period of time determined by 

the implementing agency: 

(a) Report the release to the 

implementing agency (e.g., by telephone 

or electronic mail); 

(b) Take immediate action to prevent 

any further release of the regulated 

substance into the environment; and 

(c) Identify and mitigate fire, 

explosion, and vapor hazards. 

§ 280.62 Initial abatement measures and 

site check. 

(a) Unless directed to do otherwise by 

the implementing agency, owners and 

operators must perform the following 

abatement measures: 

(1) Remove as much of the regulated 

substance from the UST system as is 

necessary to prevent further release to 

the environment; 

(2) Visually inspect any aboveground 

releases or exposed belowground 

releases and prevent further migration 

of the released substance into 

surrounding soils and groundwater; 

(3) Continue to monitor and mitigate 

any additional fire and safety hazards 

posed by vapors or free product that 

have migrated from the UST excavation 

zone and entered into subsurface 

structures (such as sewers or 

basements); 

(4) Remedy hazards posed by 

contaminated soils that are excavated or 

exposed as a result of release 

confirmation, site investigation, 

abatement, or corrective action 

activities. If these remedies include 

treatment or disposal of soils, the owner 

and operator must comply with 

applicable state and local requirements; 

(5) Measure for the presence of a 

release where contamination is most 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

likely to be present at the UST site, 

unless the presence and source of the 

release have been confirmed in 

accordance with the site check required 

by § 280.52(b) or the closure site 

assessment of § 280.72(a). In selecting 

sample types, sample locations, and 

measurement methods, the owner and 

operator must consider the nature of the 

stored substance, the type of backfill, 

depth to groundwater and other factors 

as appropriate for identifying the 

presence and source of the release; and 

(6) Investigate to determine the 

possible presence of free product, and 

begin free product removal as soon as 

practicable and in accordance with 

§ 280.64. 

(b) Within 20 days after release 

confirmation, or within another 

reasonable period of time determined by 

the implementing agency, owners and 

operators must submit a report to the 

implementing agency summarizing the 

initial abatement steps taken under 

paragraph (a) of this section and any 

resulting information or data. 

§ 280.63 Initial site characterization. 

(a) Unless directed to do otherwise by 

the implementing agency, owners and 

operators must assemble information 

about the site and the nature of the 

release, including information gained 

while confirming the release or 

completing the initial abatement 

measures in §§ 280.60 and 280.61. This 

information must include, but is not 

necessarily limited to the following: 

(1) Data on the nature and estimated 

quantity of release; 

(2) Data from available sources and/or 

site investigations concerning the 

following factors: Surrounding 

populations, water quality, use and 

approximate locations of wells 

potentially affected by the release, 

subsurface soil conditions, locations of 

subsurface sewers, climatological 

conditions, and land use; 

(3) Results of the site check required 

under § 280.62(a)(5); and 

(4) Results of the free product 

investigations required under 

§ 280.62(a)(6), to be used by owners and 

operators to determine whether free 

product must be recovered under 

§ 280.64. 

(b) Within 45 days of release 

confirmation or another reasonable 

period of time determined by the 

implementing agency, owners and 

operators must submit the information 

collected in compliance with paragraph 

(a) of this section to the implementing 

agency in a manner that demonstrates 

its applicability and technical adequacy, 

or in a format and according to the 

schedule required by the implementing 

agency. 

§ 280.64 Free product removal. 

At sites where investigations under 

§ 280.62(a)(6) indicate the presence of 

free product, owners and operators must 

remove free product to the maximum 

extent practicable as determined by the 

implementing agency while continuing, 

as necessary, any actions initiated under 

§§ 280.61 through 280.63, or preparing 

for actions required under §§ 280.65 

through 280.66. In meeting the 

requirements of this section, owners and 

operators must: 

(a) Conduct free product removal in a 

manner that minimizes the spread of 

contamination into previously 

uncontaminated zones by using 

recovery and disposal techniques 

appropriate to the hydrogeologic 

conditions at the site, and that properly 

treats, discharges or disposes of 

recovery byproducts in compliance with 

applicable local, state, and federal 

regulations; 

(b) Use abatement of free product 

migration as a minimum objective for 

the design of the free product removal 

system; 

(c) Handle any flammable products in 

a safe and competent manner to prevent 

fires or explosions; and 

(d) Unless directed to do otherwise by 

the implementing agency, prepare and 

submit to the implementing agency, 

within 45 days after confirming a 

release, a free product removal report 

that provides at least the following 

information: 

(1) The name of the person(s) 

responsible for implementing the free 

product removal measures; 

(2) The estimated quantity, type, and 

thickness of free product observed or 

measured in wells, boreholes, and 

excavations; 

(3) The type of free product recovery 

system used; 

(4) Whether any discharge will take 

place on-site or off-site during the 

recovery operation and where this 

discharge will be located; 

(5) The type of treatment applied to, 

and the effluent quality expected from, 

any discharge; 

(6) The steps that have been or are 

being taken to obtain necessary permits 

for any discharge; and 

(7) The disposition of the recovered 

free product. 

§ 280.65 Investigations for soil and 

groundwater cleanup. 

(a) In order to determine the full 

extent and location of soils 

contaminated by the release and the 

presence and concentrations of 

dissolved product contamination in the 

groundwater, owners and operators 

must conduct investigations of the 

release, the release site, and the 

surrounding area possibly affected by 

the release if any of the following 

conditions exist: 

(1) There is evidence that 

groundwater wells have been affected 

by the release (e.g., as found during 

release confirmation or previous 

corrective action measures); 

(2) Free product is found to need 

recovery in compliance with § 280.64; 

(3) There is evidence that 

contaminated soils may be in contact 

with groundwater (e.g., as found during 

conduct of the initial response measures 

or investigations required under 

§§ 280.60 through 280.64); and 

(4) The implementing agency requests 

an investigation, based on the potential 

effects of contaminated soil or 

groundwater on nearby surface water 

and groundwater resources. 

(b) Owners and operators must submit 

the information collected under 

paragraph (a) of this section as soon as 

practicable or in accordance with a 

schedule established by the 

implementing agency. 

§ 280.66 Corrective action plan. 

(a) At any point after reviewing the 

information submitted in compliance 

with §§ 280.61 through 280.63, the 

implementing agency may require 

owners and operators to submit 

additional information or to develop 

and submit a corrective action plan for 

responding to contaminated soils and 

groundwater. If a plan is required, 

owners and operators must submit the 

plan according to a schedule and format 

established by the implementing 

agency. Alternatively, owners and 

operators may, after fulfilling the 

requirements of §§ 280.61 through 

280.63, choose to submit a corrective 

action plan for responding to 

contaminated soil and groundwater. In 

either case, owners and operators are 

responsible for submitting a plan that 

provides for adequate protection of 

human health and the environment as 

determined by the implementing 

agency, and must modify their plan as 

necessary to meet this standard. 

(b) The implementing agency will 

approve the corrective action plan only 

after ensuring that implementation of 

the plan will adequately protect human 

health, safety, and the environment. In 

making this determination, the 

implementing agency should consider 

the following factors as appropriate: 

(1) The physical and chemical 

characteristics of the regulated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41639 

substance, including its toxicity, 

persistence, and potential for migration; 

(2) The hydrogeologic characteristics 

of the facility and the surrounding area; 

(3) The proximity, quality, and 

current and future uses of nearby 

surface water and groundwater; 

(4) The potential effects of residual 

contamination on nearby surface water 

and groundwater; 

(5) An exposure assessment; and 

(6) Any information assembled in 

compliance with this subpart. 

(c) Upon approval of the corrective 

action plan or as directed by the 

implementing agency, owners and 

operators must implement the plan, 

including modifications to the plan 

made by the implementing agency. They 

must monitor, evaluate, and report the 

results of implementing the plan in 

accordance with a schedule and in a 

format established by the implementing 

agency. 

(d) Owners and operators may, in the 

interest of minimizing environmental 

contamination and promoting more 

effective cleanup, begin cleanup of soil 

and groundwater before the corrective 

action plan is approved provided that 

they: 

(1) Notify the implementing agency of 

their intention to begin cleanup; 

(2) Comply with any conditions 

imposed by the implementing agency, 

including halting cleanup or mitigating 

adverse consequences from cleanup 

activities; and 

(3) Incorporate these self-initiated 

cleanup measures in the corrective 

action plan that is submitted to the 

implementing agency for approval. 

§ 280.67 Public participation. 

(a) For each confirmed release that 

requires a corrective action plan, the 

implementing agency must provide 

notice to the public by means designed 

to reach those members of the public 

directly affected by the release and the 

planned corrective action. This notice 

may include, but is not limited to, 

public notice in local newspapers, block 

advertisements, public service 

announcements, publication in a state 

register, letters to individual 

households, or personal contacts by 

field staff. 

(b) The implementing agency must 

ensure that site release information and 

decisions concerning the corrective 

action plan are made available to the 

public for inspection upon request. 

(c) Before approving a corrective 

action plan, the implementing agency 

may hold a public meeting to consider 

comments on the proposed corrective 

action plan if there is sufficient public 

interest, or for any other reason. 

(d) The implementing agency must 

give public notice that complies with 

paragraph (a) of this section if 

implementation of an approved 

corrective action plan does not achieve 

the established cleanup levels in the 

plan and termination of that plan is 

under consideration by the 

implementing agency. 

Subpart G—Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure 

§ 280.70 Temporary closure. 

(a) When an UST system is 

temporarily closed, owners and 

operators must continue operation and 

maintenance of corrosion protection in 

accordance with § 280.31, and any 

release detection in accordance with 

subparts D and K of this part. Subparts 

E and F of this part must be complied 

with if a release is suspected or 

confirmed. However, release detection 

and release detection operation and 

maintenance testing and inspections in 

subparts C and D of this part are not 

required as long as the UST system is 

empty. The UST system is empty when 

all materials have been removed using 

commonly employed practices so that 

no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) 

of residue, or 0.3 percent by weight of 

the total capacity of the UST system, 

remain in the system. In addition, spill 

and overfill operation and maintenance 

testing and inspections in subpart C of 

this part are not required. 

(b) When an UST system is 

temporarily closed for 3 months or 

more, owners and operators must also 

comply with the following 

requirements: 

(1) Leave vent lines open and 

functioning; and 

(2) Cap and secure all other lines, 

pumps, manways, and ancillary 

equipment. 

(c) When an UST system is 

temporarily closed for more than 12 

months, owners and operators must 

permanently close the UST system if it 

does not meet either performance 

standards in § 280.20 for new UST 

systems or the upgrading requirements 

in § 280.21, except that the spill and 

overfill equipment requirements do not 

have to be met. Owners and operators 

must permanently close the substandard 

UST systems at the end of this 12-month 

period in accordance with §§ 280.71 

through 280.74, unless the 

implementing agency provides an 

extension of the 12-month temporary 

closure period. Owners and operators 

must complete a site assessment in 

accordance with § 280.72 before such an 

extension can be applied for. 

§ 280.71 Permanent closure and changesin-service. 

(a) At least 30 days before beginning 

either permanent closure or a change-inservice under paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section, or within another 

reasonable time period determined by 

the implementing agency, owners and 

operators must notify the implementing 

agency of their intent to permanently 

close or make the change-in-service, 

unless such action is in response to 

corrective action. The required 

assessment of the excavation zone under 

§ 280.72 must be performed after 

notifying the implementing agency but 

before completion of the permanent 

closure or a change-in-service. 

(b) To permanently close a tank, 

owners and operators must empty and 

clean it by removing all liquids and 

accumulated sludges. All tanks taken 

out of service permanently must: be 

removed from the ground, filled with an 

inert solid material, or closed in place 

in a manner approved by the 

implementing agency. 

(c) Continued use of an UST system 

to store a non-regulated substance is 

considered a change-in-service. Before a 

change-in-service, owners and operators 

must empty and clean the tank by 

removing all liquid and accumulated 

sludge and conduct a site assessment in 

accordance with § 280.72. 

Note to § 280.71. The following cleaning 

and closure procedures may be used to 

comply with this section: 

(A) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 1604, ‘‘Closure of 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks’’; 

(B) American Petroleum Institute Standard 

2015, ‘‘Safe Entry and Cleaning of Petroleum 

Storage Tanks, Planning and Managing Tank 

Entry From Decommissioning Through 

Recommissioning’’; 

(C) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 2016, ‘‘Guidelines 

and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning 

Petroleum Storage Tanks’’; 

(D) American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice RP 1631, ‘‘Interior 

Lining and Periodic Inspection of 

Underground Storage Tanks,’’ may be used as 

guidance for compliance with this section; 

(E) National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 326, ‘‘Standard for the Safeguarding 

of Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, 

or Repair’’; and 

(F) National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health Publication 80–106, 

‘‘Criteria for a Recommended Standard . . . 

Working in Confined Space’’ may be used as 

guidance for conducting safe closure 

procedures at some hazardous substance 

tanks. 

§ 280.72 Assessing the site at closure or 

change-in-service. 

(a) Before permanent closure or a 

change-in-service is completed, owners 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and operators must measure for the 

presence of a release where 

contamination is most likely to be 

present at the UST site. In selecting 

sample types, sample locations, and 

measurement methods, owners and 

operators must consider the method of 

closure, the nature of the stored 

substance, the type of backfill, the depth 

to groundwater, and other factors 

appropriate for identifying the presence 

of a release. The requirements of this 

section are satisfied if one of the 

external release detection methods 

allowed in § 280.43(e) and (f) is 

operating in accordance with the 

requirements in § 280.43 at the time of 

closure, and indicates no release has 

occurred. 

(b) If contaminated soils, 

contaminated groundwater, or free 

product as a liquid or vapor is 

discovered under paragraph (a) of this 

section, or by any other manner, owners 

and operators must begin corrective 

action in accordance with subpart F of 

this part. 

§ 280.73 Applicability to previously closed 

UST systems. 

When directed by the implementing 

agency, the owner and operator of an 

UST system permanently closed before 

December 22, 1988 must assess the 

excavation zone and close the UST 

system in accordance with this subpart 

if releases from the UST may, in the 

judgment of the implementing agency, 

pose a current or potential threat to 

human health and the environment. 

§ 280.74 Closure records. 

Owners and operators must maintain 

records in accordance with § 280.34 that 

are capable of demonstrating 

compliance with closure requirements 

under this subpart. The results of the 

excavation zone assessment required in 

§ 280.72 must be maintained for at least 

three years after completion of 

permanent closure or change-in-service 

in one of the following ways: 

(a) By the owners and operators who 

took the UST system out of service; 

(b) By the current owners and 

operators of the UST system site; or 

(c) By mailing these records to the 

implementing agency if they cannot be 

maintained at the closed facility. 

Subpart H—Financial Responsibility 

§ 280.90 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart applies to owners and 

operators of all petroleum underground 

storage tank (UST) systems except as 

otherwise provided in this section. 

(b) Owners and operators of 

petroleum UST systems are subject to 

these requirements in accordance with 

§ 280.91. 

(c) State and Federal government 

entities whose debts and liabilities are 

the debts and liabilities of a state or the 

United States are exempt from the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(d) The requirements of this subpart 

do not apply to owners and operators of 

any UST system described in 

§ 280.10(b), (c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4). 

(e) If the owner and operator of a 

petroleum underground storage tank are 

separate persons, only one person is 

required to demonstrate financial 

responsibility; however, both parties are 

liable in event of noncompliance. 

§ 280.91 Compliance dates. 

Owners of petroleum underground 

storage tanks must comply with the 

requirements of this subpart. Previously 

deferred UST systems must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart 

according to the schedule in 

§ 280.251(a). 

§ 280.92 Definition of terms. 

When used in this subpart, the 

following terms shall have the meanings 

given below: 

Accidental release means any sudden 

or nonsudden release of petroleum 

arising from operating an underground 

storage tank that results in a need for 

corrective action and/or compensation 

for bodily injury or property damage 

neither expected nor intended by the 

tank owner or operator. 

Bodily injury shall have the meaning 

given to this term by applicable state 

law; however, this term shall not 

include those liabilities which, 

consistent with standard insurance 

industry practices, are excluded from 

coverage in liability insurance policies 

for bodily injury. 

Chief Financial Officer, in the case of 

local government owners and operators, 

means the individual with the overall 

authority and responsibility for the 

collection, disbursement, and use of 

funds by the local government. 

Controlling interest means direct 

ownership of at least 50 percent of the 

voting stock of another entity. 

Director of the Implementing Agency 

means the EPA Regional Administrator, 

or, in the case of a state with a program 

approved under section 9004, the 

Director of the designated state or local 

agency responsible for carrying out an 

approved UST program. 

Financial reporting year means the 

latest consecutive twelve-month period 

for which any of the following reports 

used to support a financial test is 

prepared: 

(1) A 10–K report submitted to the 

SEC; 

(2) An annual report of tangible net 

worth submitted to Dun and Bradstreet; 

or 

(3) Annual reports submitted to the 

Energy Information Administration or 

the Rural Utilities Service. 

Note to the definition of Financial 

reporting year. ‘‘Financial reporting 

year’’ may thus comprise a fiscal or a 

calendar year period. 

Legal defense cost is any expense that 

an owner or operator or provider of 

financial assurance incurs in defending 

against claims or actions brought: 

(1) By EPA or a state to require 

corrective action or to recover the costs 

of corrective action; 

(2) By or on behalf of a third party for 

bodily injury or property damage caused 

by an accidental release; or 

(3) By any person to enforce the terms 

of a financial assurance mechanism. 

Local government shall have the 

meaning given this term by applicable 

state law and includes Indian tribes. 

The term is generally intended to 

include: 

(1) Counties, municipalities, 

townships, separately chartered and 

operated special districts (including 

local government public transit systems 

and redevelopment authorities), and 

independent school districts authorized 

as governmental bodies by state charter 

or constitution; and 

(2) Special districts and independent 

school districts established by counties, 

municipalities, townships, and other 

general purpose governments to provide 

essential services. 

Occurrence means an accident, 

including continuous or repeated 

exposure to conditions, which results in 

a release from an underground storage 

tank. 

Note to the definition of Occurrence. 

This definition is intended to assist in 

the understanding of these regulations 

and is not intended either to limit the 

meaning of ‘‘occurrence’’ in a way that 

conflicts with standard insurance usage 

or to prevent the use of other standard 

insurance terms in place of 

‘‘occurrence.’’ 

Owner or operator, when the owner or 

operator are separate parties, refers to 

the party that is obtaining or has 

obtained financial assurances. 

Petroleum marketing facilities include 

all facilities at which petroleum is 

produced or refined and all facilities 

from which petroleum is sold or 

transferred to other petroleum marketers 

or to the public. 

Property damage shall have the 

meaning given this term by applicable 

state law. This term shall not include 

those liabilities which, consistent with 

standard insurance industry practices, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41641 

are excluded from coverage in liability 

insurance policies for property damage. 

However, such exclusions for property 

damage shall not include corrective 

action associated with releases from 

tanks which are covered by the policy. 

Provider of financial assurance means 

an entity that provides financial 

assurance to an owner or operator of an 

underground storage tank through one 

of the mechanisms listed in §§ 280.95 

through 280.107, including a guarantor, 

insurer, risk retention group, surety, 

issuer of a letter of credit, issuer of a 

state-required mechanism, or a state. 

Substantial business relationship 

means the extent of a business 

relationship necessary under applicable 

state law to make a guarantee contract 

issued incident to that relationship 

valid and enforceable. A guarantee 

contract is issued ‘‘incident to that 

relationship’’ if it arises from and 

depends on existing economic 

transactions between the guarantor and 

the owner or operator. 

Substantial governmental relationship 

means the extent of a governmental 

relationship necessary under applicable 

state law to make an added guarantee 

contract issued incident to that 

relationship valid and enforceable. A 

guarantee contract is issued ‘‘incident to 

that relationship’’ if it arises from a clear 

commonality of interest in the event of 

an UST release such as coterminous 

boundaries, overlapping constituencies, 

common groundwater aquifer, or other 

relationship other than monetary 

compensation that provides a 

motivation for the guarantor to provide 

a guarantee. 

Tangible net worth means the tangible 

assets that remain after deducting 

liabilities; such assets do not include 

intangibles such as goodwill and rights 

to patents or royalties. For purposes of 

this definition, ‘‘assets’’ means all 

existing and all probable future 

economic benefits obtained or 

controlled by a particular entity as a 

result of past transactions. 

Termination under § 280.97(b)(1) and 

(2) means only those changes that could 

result in a gap in coverage as where the 

insured has not obtained substitute 

coverage or has obtained substitute 

coverage with a different retroactive 

date than the retroactive date of the 

original policy. 

§ 280.93 Amount and scope of required 

financial responsibility. 

(a) Owners or operators of petroleum 

underground storage tanks must 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

taking corrective action and for 

compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage caused by 

accidental releases arising from the 

operation of petroleum underground 

storage tanks in at least the following 

per-occurrence amounts: 

(1) For owners or operators of 

petroleum underground storage tanks 

that are located at petroleum marketing 

facilities, or that handle an average of 

more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum 

per month based on annual throughput 

for the previous calendar year; $1 

million. 

(2) For all other owners or operators 

of petroleum underground storage tanks; 

$500,000. 

(b) Owners or operators of petroleum 

underground storage tanks must 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

taking corrective action and for 

compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage caused by 

accidental releases arising from the 

operation of petroleum underground 

storage tanks in at least the following 

annual aggregate amounts: 

(1) For owners or operators of 1 to 100 

petroleum underground storage tanks, 

$1 million; and 

(2) For owners or operators of 101 or 

more petroleum underground storage 

tanks, $2 million. 

(c) For the purposes of paragraphs (b) 

and (f) of this section, only, ‘‘a 

petroleum underground storage tank’’ 

means a single containment unit and 

does not mean combinations of single 

containment units. 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, if the owner or 

operator uses separate mechanisms or 

separate combinations of mechanisms to 

demonstrate financial responsibility for: 

(1) Taking corrective action; 

(2) Compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by sudden accidental releases; or 

(3) Compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by nonsudden accidental 

releases, the amount of assurance 

provided by each mechanism or 

combination of mechanisms must be in 

the full amount specified in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this section. 

(e) If an owner or operator uses 

separate mechanisms or separate 

combinations of mechanisms to 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

different petroleum underground 

storage tanks, the annual aggregate 

required shall be based on the number 

of tanks covered by each such separate 

mechanism or combination of 

mechanisms. 

(f) Owners or operators shall review 

the amount of aggregate assurance 

provided whenever additional 

petroleum underground storage tanks 

are acquired or installed. If the number 

of petroleum underground storage tanks 

for which assurance must be provided 

exceeds 100, the owner or operator shall 

demonstrate financial responsibility in 

the amount of at least $2 million of 

annual aggregate assurance by the 

anniversary of the date on which the 

mechanism demonstrating financial 

responsibility became effective. If 

assurance is being demonstrated by a 

combination of mechanisms, the owner 

or operator shall demonstrate financial 

responsibility in the amount of at least 

$2 million of annual aggregate assurance 

by the first-occurring effective date 

anniversary of any one of the 

mechanisms combined (other than a 

financial test or guarantee) to provide 

assurance. 

(g) The amounts of assurance required 

under this section exclude legal defense 

costs. 

(h) The required per-occurrence and 

annual aggregate coverage amounts do 

not in any way limit the liability of the 

owner or operator. 

§ 280.94 Allowable mechanisms and 

combinations of mechanisms. 

(a) Subject to the limitations of 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section: 

(1) An owner or operator, including a 

local government owner or operator, 

may use any one or combination of the 

mechanisms listed in §§ 280.95 through 

280.103 to demonstrate financial 

responsibility under this subpart for one 

or more underground storage tanks; and 

(2) A local government owner or 

operator may use any one or 

combination of the mechanisms listed 

in §§ 280.104 through 280.107 to 

demonstrate financial responsibility 

under this subpart for one or more 

underground storage tanks. 

(b) An owner or operator may use a 

guarantee under § 280.96 or surety bond 

under § 280.98 to establish financial 

responsibility only if the Attorney(s) 

General of the state(s) in which the 

underground storage tanks are located 

has (have) submitted a written statement 

to the implementing agency that a 

guarantee or surety bond executed as 

described in this section is a legally 

valid and enforceable obligation in that 

state. 

(c) An owner or operator may use selfinsurance in combination with a 

guarantee only if, for the purpose of 

meeting the requirements of the 

financial test under this rule, the 

financial statements of the owner or 

operator are not consolidated with the 

financial statements of the guarantor. 

§ 280.95 Financial test of self-insurance. 

(a) An owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, may satisfy the requirements 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of § 280.93 by passing a financial test as 

specified in this section. To pass the 

financial test of self-insurance, the 

owner or operator, and/or guarantor 

must meet the criteria of paragraph (b) 

or (c) of this section based on year-end 

financial statements for the latest 

completed fiscal year. 

(b)(1) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, must have a tangible net 

worth of at least ten times: 

(i) The total of the applicable 

aggregate amount required by § 280.93, 

based on the number of underground 

storage tanks for which a financial test 

is used to demonstrate financial 

responsibility to EPA under this section 

or to a state implementing agency under 

a state program approved by EPA under 

40 CFR part 281; 

(ii) The sum of the corrective action 

cost estimates, the current closure and 

post-closure care cost estimates, and 

amount of liability coverage for which a 

financial test is used to demonstrate 

financial responsibility to EPA under 40 

CFR 264.101, 264.143, 264.145, 265.143, 

265.145, 264.147, and 265.147 or to a 

state implementing agency under a state 

program authorized by EPA under 40 

CFR part 271; and 

(iii) The sum of current plugging and 

abandonment cost estimates for which a 

financial test is used to demonstrate 

financial responsibility to EPA under 40 

CFR 144.63 or to a state implementing 

agency under a state program authorized 

by EPA under 40 CFR part 145. 

(2) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, must have a tangible net 

worth of at least $10 million. 

(3) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, must have a letter signed by 

the chief financial officer worded as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(4) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, must either: 

(i) File financial statements annually 

with the U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the Energy Information 

Administration, or the Rural Utilities 

Service; or 

(ii) Report annually the firm’s tangible 

net worth to Dun and Bradstreet, and 

Dun and Bradstreet must have assigned 

the firm a financial strength rating of 4A 

or 5A. 

(5) The firm’s year-end financial 

statements, if independently audited, 

cannot include an adverse auditor’s 

opinion, a disclaimer of opinion, or a 

‘‘going concern’’ qualification. 

(c)(1) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor must meet the financial test 

requirements of 40 CFR 264.147(f)(1), 

substituting the appropriate amounts 

specified in § 280.93(b)(1) and (2) for the 

‘‘amount of liability coverage’’ each time 

specified in that section. 

(2) The fiscal year-end financial 

statements of the owner or operator, 

and/or guarantor, must be examined by 

an independent certified public 

accountant and be accompanied by the 

accountant’s report of the examination. 

(3) The firm’s year-end financial 

statements cannot include an adverse 

auditor’s opinion, a disclaimer of 

opinion, or a ‘‘going concern’’ 

qualification. 

(4) The owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, must have a letter signed by 

the chief financial officer, worded as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(5) If the financial statements of the 

owner or operator, and/or guarantor, are 

not submitted annually to the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the Energy Information Administration 

or the Rural Utilities Service, the owner 

or operator, and/or guarantor, must 

obtain a special report by an 

independent certified public accountant 

stating that: 

(i) He has compared the data that the 

letter from the chief financial officer 

specifies as having been derived from 

the latest year-end financial statements 

of the owner or operator, and/or 

guarantor, with the amounts in such 

financial statements; and 

(ii) In connection with that 

comparison, no matters came to his 

attention which caused him to believe 

that the specified data should be 

adjusted. 

(d) To demonstrate that it meets the 

financial test under paragraph (b) or (c) 

of this section, the chief financial officer 

of the owner or operator, or guarantor, 

must sign, within 120 days of the close 

of each financial reporting year, as 

defined by the twelve-month period for 

which financial statements used to 

support the financial test are prepared, 

a letter worded exactly as follows, 

except that the instructions in brackets 

are to be replaced by the relevant 

information and the brackets deleted: 

Letter From Chief Financial Officer 

I am the chief financial officer of 

[insert: name and address of the owner 

or operator, or guarantor]. This letter is 

in support of the use of [insert: ‘‘the 

financial test of self-insurance,’’ and/or 

‘‘guarantee’’] to demonstrate financial 

responsibility for [insert: ‘‘taking 

corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage’’] caused by 

[insert: ‘‘sudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘nonsudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘accidental releases’’] in the amount of 

at least [insert: dollar amount] per 

occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] 

annual aggregate arising from operating 

(an) underground storage tank(s). 

Underground storage tanks at the 

following facilities are assured by this 

financial test or a financial test under an 

authorized State program by this [insert: 

‘‘owner or operator,’’ and/or 

‘‘guarantor’’]: [List for each facility: the 

name and address of the facility where 

tanks assured by this financial test are 

located, and whether tanks are assured 

by this financial test or a financial test 

under a State program approved under 

40 CFR part 281. If separate mechanisms 

or combinations of mechanisms are 

being used to assure any of the tanks at 

this facility, list each tank assured by 

this financial test or a financial test 

under a State program authorized under 

40 CFR part 281 by the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR 280.22 or the corresponding State 

requirements.] 

A [insert: ‘‘financial test,’’ and/or 

‘‘guarantee’’] is also used by this [insert: 

‘‘owner or operator,’’ or ‘‘guarantor’’] to 

demonstrate evidence of financial 

responsibility in the following amounts 

under other EPA regulations or state 

programs authorized by EPA under 40 

CFR parts 271 and 145: 

EPA Regulations Amount 

Closure (§§ 264.143 and 265.143) $ll 

Post-Closure Care (§§ 264.145 

and 265.145) ............................. $ll 

Liability Coverage (§§ 264.147 

and 265.147) ............................. $ll 

Corrective Action (§ 264.101(b)) $ll 

Plugging and Abandonment 

(§ 144.63) .................................. $ll 

Closure ......................................... $ll 

Post-Closure Care ......................... $ll 

Liability Coverage ........................ $ll 

Corrective Action ......................... $ll 

Plugging and Abandonment ....... $ll 

Total ...................................... $ll 

This [insert: ‘‘owner or operator,’’ or 

‘‘guarantor’’] has not received an 

adverse opinion, a disclaimer of 

opinion, or a ‘‘going concern’’ 

qualification from an independent 

auditor on his financial statements for 

the latest completed fiscal year. 

[Fill in the information for Alternative 

I if the criteria of paragraph (b) of 

§ 280.95 are being used to demonstrate 

compliance with the financial test 

requirements. Fill in the information for 

Alternative II if the criteria of paragraph 

(c) of § 280.95 are being used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

financial test requirements.] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41643 

Alternative I 

1. Amount of annual UST aggregate coverage being assured by 

a financial test, and/or guarantee ......................................... $ll 

2. Amount of corrective action, 

closure and post-closure care 

costs, liability coverage, and 

plugging and abandonment 

costs covered by a financial 

test, and/or guarantee .............. $ll 

3. Sum of lines 1 and 2 ............... $ll 

4. Total tangible assets ................ $ll 

5. Total liabilities [if any of the 

amount reported on line 3 is 

included in total liabilities, 

you may deduct that amount 

from this line and add that 

amount to line 6] ..................... $ll 

6. Tangible net worth [subtract 

line 5 from line 4] .................... $ll 

Yes No 

7. Is line 6 at least $10 million? l l 

8. Is line 6 at least 10 times line 

3? ............................................... l l 

9. Have financial statements for 

the latest fiscal year been filed 

with the Securities and Exchange Commission? ............... l l 

10. Have financial statements for 

the latest fiscal year been filed 

with the Energy Information 

Administration? ....................... l l 

11. Have financial statements for 

the latest fiscal year been filed 

with the Rural Utilities Service? ............................................ l l 

12. Has financial information 

been provided to Dun and 

Bradstreet, and has Dun and 

Bradstreet provided a financial 

strength rating of 4A or 5A? 

[Answer ‘‘Yes’’ only if both 

criteria have been met.] ........... ................

Alternative II 

1. Amount of annual UST aggregate coverage being assured by 

a test, and/or guarantee ........... $ll 

2. Amount of corrective action, 

closure and post-closure care 

costs, liability coverage, and 

plugging and abandonment 

costs covered by a financial 

test, and/or guarantee .............. $ll 

3. Sum of lines 1 and 2 ............... $ll 

4. Total tangible assets ................ $ll 

5. Total liabilities [if any of the 

amount reported on line 3 is 

included in total liabilities, 

you may deduct that amount 

from this line and add that 

amount to line 6] ..................... $ll 

6. Tangible net worth [subtract 

line 5 from line 4] .................... $ll 

7. Total assets in the U.S. [required only if less than 90 percent of assets are located in 

the U.S.] .................................... $ll 

Yes No 

8. Is line 6 at least $10 million? l l 

l l 

9. Is line 6 at least 6 times line 

3? ............................................... l l 

Alternative I 

10. Are at least 90 percent of assets located in the U.S.? [If 

‘‘No,’’ complete line 11.] ......... l l 

11. Is line 7 at least 6 times line 

3? [Fill in either lines 12–15 

or lines 16–18:] ........................ l l 

Yes No 

12. Current assets ........................ $ll 

13. Current liabilities .................. $ll 

14. Net working capital [subtract 

line 13 from line 12] ................ $ll 

Yes No 

15. Is line 14 at least 6 times 

line 3? ....................................... l l 

16. Current bond rating of most 

recent bond issue ..................... l l 

17. Name of rating service .......... l l 

18. Date of maturity of bond ....... l l 

19. Have financial statements for 

the latest fiscal year been filed 

with the SEC, the Energy Information Administration, or 

the Rural Utilities Service? ..... l l 

[If ‘‘No,’’ please attach a report from 

an independent certified public 

accountant certifying that there are no 

material differences between the data as 

reported in lines 4–18 above and the 

financial statements for the latest fiscal 

year.] 

[For both Alternative I and 

Alternative II complete the certification 

with this statement.] 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this letter is identical to the wording 

specified in 40 CFR 280.95(d) as such 

regulations were constituted on the date 

shown immediately below. 

[Signature] 

[Name] 

[Title] 

[Date] 

(e) If an owner or operator using the 

test to provide financial assurance finds 

that he or she no longer meets the 

requirements of the financial test based 

on the year-end financial statements, the 

owner or operator must obtain 

alternative coverage within 150 days of 

the end of the year for which financial 

statements have been prepared. 

(f) The Director of the implementing 

agency may require reports of financial 

condition at any time from the owner or 

operator, and/or guarantor. If the 

Director finds, on the basis of such 

reports or other information, that the 

owner or operator, and/or guarantor, no 

longer meets the financial test 

requirements of § 280.95(b) or (c) and 

(d), the owner or operator must obtain 

alternate coverage within 30 days after 

notification of such a finding. 

(g) If the owner or operator fails to 

obtain alternate assurance within 150 

days of finding that he or she no longer 

meets the requirements of the financial 

test based on the year-end financial 

statements, or within 30 days of 

notification by the Director of the 

implementing agency that he or she no 

longer meets the requirements of the 

financial test, the owner or operator 

must notify the Director of such failure 

within 10 days. 

§ 280.96 Guarantee. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 by 

obtaining a guarantee that conforms to 

the requirements of this section. The 

guarantor must be: 

(1) A firm that: 

(i) Possesses a controlling interest in 

the owner or operator; 

(ii) Possesses a controlling interest in 

a firm described under paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section; or, 

(iii) Is controlled through stock 

ownership by a common parent firm 

that possesses a controlling interest in 

the owner or operator; or, 

(2) A firm engaged in a substantial 

business relationship with the owner or 

operator and issuing the guarantee as an 

act incident to that business 

relationship. 

(b) Within 120 days of the close of 

each financial reporting year the 

guarantor must demonstrate that it 

meets the financial test criteria of 

§ 280.95 based on year-end financial 

statements for the latest completed 

financial reporting year by completing 

the letter from the chief financial officer 

described in § 280.95(d) and must 

deliver the letter to the owner or 

operator. If the guarantor fails to meet 

the requirements of the financial test at 

the end of any financial reporting year, 

within 120 days of the end of that 

financial reporting year the guarantor 

shall send by certified mail, before 

cancellation or nonrenewal of the 

guarantee, notice to the owner or 

operator. If the Director of the 

implementing agency notifies the 

guarantor that he no longer meets the 

requirements of the financial test of 

§ 280.95(b) or (c) and (d), the guarantor 

must notify the owner or operator 

within 10 days of receiving such 

notification from the Director. In both 

cases, the guarantee will terminate no 

less than 120 days after the date the 

owner or operator receives the 

notification, as evidenced by the return 

receipt. The owner or operator must 

obtain alternative coverage as specified 

in § 280.114(e). 

(c) The guarantee must be worded as 

follows, except that instructions in 

brackets are to be replaced with the 

relevant information and the brackets 

deleted: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Guarantee 

Guarantee made this [date] by [name 

of guaranteeing entity], a business entity 

organized under the laws of the state of 

[name of state], herein referred to as 

guarantor, to [the state implementing 

agency] and to any and all third parties, 

and obligees, on behalf of [owner or 

operator] of [business address]. Recitals. 

(1) Guarantor meets or exceeds the 

financial test criteria of 40 CFR 

280.95(b) or (c) and (d) and agrees to 

comply with the requirements for 

guarantors as specified in 40 CFR 

280.96(b). 

(2) [Owner or operator] owns or 

operates the following underground 

storage tank(s) covered by this 

guarantee: [List the number of tanks at 

each facility and the name(s) and 

address(es) of the facility(ies) where the 

tanks are located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure different 

tanks at any one facility, for each tank 

covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR 280.22 or the corresponding state 

requirement, and the name and address 

of the facility.] This guarantee satisfies 

40 CFR part 280, subpart H 

requirements for assuring funding for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/ 

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’; if 

coverage is different for different tanks 

or locations, indicate the type of 

coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the 

above-identified underground storage 

tank(s) in the amount of [insert dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert 

dollar amount] annual aggregate. (3) [Insert appropriate phrase: ‘‘On 

behalf of our subsidiary’’ (if guarantor is 

corporate parent of the owner or 

operator); ‘‘On behalf of our affiliate’’ (if 

guarantor is a related firm of the owner 

or operator); or ‘‘Incident to our 

business relationship with’’ (if guarantor 

is providing the guarantee as an 

incident to a substantial business 

relationship with owner or operator)] 

[owner or operator], guarantor 

guarantees to [implementing agency] 

and to any and all third parties that: In the event that [owner or operator] 

fails to provide alternative coverage 

within 60 days after receipt of a notice 

of cancellation of this guarantee and the 

[Director of the implementing agency] 

has determined or suspects that a 

release has occurred at an underground 

storage tank covered by this guarantee, 

the guarantor, upon instructions from 

the [Director], shall fund a standby trust 

fund in accordance with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 280.112, in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified 

above. 

In the event that the [Director] 

determines that [owner or operator] has 

failed to perform corrective action for 

releases arising out of the operation of 

the above-identified tank(s) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 280, 

subpart F, the guarantor upon written 

instructions from the [Director] shall 

fund a standby trust in accordance with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112, in an 

amount not to exceed the coverage 

limits specified above. If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy 

a judgment or award based on a 

determination of liability for bodily 

injury or property damage to third 

parties caused by [‘‘sudden’’ and/or 

‘‘nonsudden’’] accidental releases 

arising from the operation of the aboveidentified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a 

claim arising from or alleged to arise 

from such injury or damage, the 

guarantor, upon written instructions 

from the [Director], shall fund a standby 

trust in accordance with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 280.112 to satisfy such 

judgment(s), award(s), or settlement 

agreement(s) up to the limits of coverage 

specified above. (4) Guarantor agrees that if, at the end 

of any fiscal year before cancellation of 

this guarantee, the guarantor fails to 

meet the financial test criteria of 40 CFR 

280.95(b) or (c) and (d), guarantor shall 

send within 120 days of such failure, by 

certified mail, notice to [owner or 

operator]. The guarantee will terminate 

120 days from the date of receipt of the 

notice by [owner or operator], as 

evidenced by the return receipt. (5) Guarantor agrees to notify [owner 

or operator] by certified mail of a 

voluntary or involuntary proceeding 

under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code 

naming guarantor as debtor, within 10 

days after commencement of the 

proceeding. (6) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee notwithstanding 

any modification or alteration of any 

obligation of [owner or operator] 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 280. (7) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee for so long as 

[owner or operator] must comply with 

the applicable financial responsibility 

requirements of 40 CFR part 280, 

subpart H for the above-identified 

tank(s), except that guarantor may 

cancel this guarantee by sending notice 

by certified mail to [owner or operator], 

such cancellation to become effective no 

earlier than 120 days after receipt of 

such notice by [owner or operator], as 

evidenced by the return receipt. 

(8) The guarantor’s obligation does 

not apply to any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [insert owner or 

operator] under a workers’ 

compensation, disability benefits, or 

unemployment compensation law or 

other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert owner or operator] arising from, 

and in the course of, employment by 

[insert owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaded to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert owner or operator] that is not the 

direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank; 

(e) Bodily damage or property damage 

for which [insert owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

(9) Guarantor expressly waives notice 

of acceptance of this guarantee by [the 

implementing agency], by any or all 

third parties, or by [owner or operator]. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this guarantee is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.96(c) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the effective date shown immediately 

below. 

Effective date:llllllllllll 

[Name of guarantor] 

[Authorized signature for guarantor] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature of witness or notary: 

(d) An owner or operator who uses a 

guarantee to satisfy the requirements of 

§ 280.93 must establish a standby trust 

fund when the guarantee is obtained. 

Under the terms of the guarantee, all 

amounts paid by the guarantor under 

the guarantee will be deposited directly 

into the standby trust fund in 

accordance with instructions from the 

Director of the implementing agency 

under § 280.112. This standby trust fund 

must meet the requirements specified in 

§ 280.103. 

§ 280.97 Insurance and risk retention 

group coverage. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 by 

obtaining liability insurance that 

conforms to the requirements of this 

section from a qualified insurer or risk 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41645 

retention group. Such insurance may be 

in the form of a separate insurance 

policy or an endorsement to an existing 

insurance policy. 

(b) Each insurance policy must be 

amended by an endorsement worded as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, or evidenced by a certificate of 

insurance worded as specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except 

that instructions in brackets must be 

replaced with the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

(1) Endorsement. 

Name: [name of each covered location] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address: [address of each covered 

location] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Policy Number: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Period of Coverage: [current policy 

period] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address of [Insurer or Risk Retention 

Group]: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of Insured: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address of Insured: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Endorsement: 

1. This endorsement certifies that the 

policy to which the endorsement is 

attached provides liability insurance 

covering the following underground 

storage tanks: 

[List the number of tanks at each 

facility and the name(s) and address(es) 

of the facility(ies) where the tanks are 

located. If more than one instrument is 

used to assure different tanks at any one 

facility, for each tank covered by this 

instrument, list the tank identification 

number provided in the notification 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22, or 

the corresponding state requirement, 

and the name and address of the 

facility.] for [insert: ‘‘taking corrective 

action’’ and/or ‘‘compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’; in accordance with and 

subject to the limits of liability, 

exclusions, conditions, and other terms 

of the policy; if coverage is different for 

different tanks or locations, indicate the 

type of coverage applicable to each tank 

or location] arising from operating the 

underground storage tank(s) identified 

above. 

The limits of liability are [insert the 

dollar amount of the ‘‘each Occurrence’’ 

and ‘‘annual aggregate’’ limits of the 

Insurer’s or Group’s liability; if the 

amount of coverage is different for 

different types of coverage or for 

different underground storage tanks or 

locations, indicate the amount of 

coverage for each type of coverage and/ 

or for each underground storage tank or 

location], exclusive of legal defense 

costs, which are subject to a separate 

limit under the policy. This coverage is 

provided under [policy number]. The 

effective date of said policy is [date]. 

2. The insurance afforded with 

respect to such occurrences is subject to 

all of the terms and conditions of the 

policy; provided, however, that any 

provisions inconsistent with 

subsections (a) through (e) of this 

Paragraph 2 are hereby amended to 

conform with subsections (a) through 

(e); 

a. Bankruptcy or insolvency of the 

insured shall not relieve the [‘‘Insurer’’ 

or ‘‘Group’’] of its obligations under the 

policy to which this endorsement is 

attached. 

b. The [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] is liable 

for the payment of amounts within any 

deductible applicable to the policy to 

the provider of corrective action or a 

damaged third-party, with a right of 

reimbursement by the insured for any 

such payment made by the [‘‘Insurer’’ or 

‘‘Group’’]. This provision does not apply 

with respect to that amount of any 

deductible for which coverage is 

demonstrated under another mechanism 

or combination of mechanisms as 

specified in 40 CFR 280.95–280.102 and 

280.104–280.107. 

c. Whenever requested by [a Director 

of an implementing agency], the 

[‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] agrees to furnish 

to [the Director] a signed duplicate 

original of the policy and all 

endorsements. 

d. Cancellation or any other 

termination of the insurance by the 

[‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’], except for nonpayment of premium or 

misrepresentation by the insured, will 

be effective only upon written notice 

and only after the expiration of 60 days 

after a copy of such written notice is 

received by the insured. Cancellation for 

non-payment of premium or 

misrepresentation by the insured will be 

effective only upon written notice and 

only after expiration of a minimum of 

10 days after a copy of such written 

notice is received by the insured. 

[Insert for claims-made policies: 

e. The insurance covers claims 

otherwise covered by the policy that are 

reported to the [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] 

within six months of the effective date 

of cancellation or non-renewal of the 

policy except where the new or renewed 

policy has the same retroactive date or 

a retroactive date earlier than that of the 

prior policy, and which arise out of any 

covered occurrence that commenced 

after the policy retroactive date, if 

applicable, and prior to such policy 

renewal or termination date. Claims 

reported during such extended reporting 

period are subject to the terms, 

conditions, limits, including limits of 

liability, and exclusions of the policy.] 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this instrument is identical to the 

wording in 40 CFR 280.97(b)(1) and that 

the [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] is [‘‘licensed 

to transact the business of insurance or 

eligible to provide insurance as an 

excess or surplus lines insurer in one or 

more states’’]. 

[Signature of authorized representative 

of Insurer or Risk Retention Group] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing], Authorized 

Representative of [name of Insurer 

or Risk Retention Group] 

[Address of Representative] 

(2) Certificate of Insurance. 

Name: [name of each covered location] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address: [address of each covered 

location] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Policy Number: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Endorsement (if applicable): 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Period of Coverage: [current policy 

period] 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of [Insurer or Risk Retention 

Group]: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address of [Insurer or Risk Retention 

Group]: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of Insured: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address of Insured: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Certification: 

1. [Name of Insurer or Risk Retention 

Group], [the ‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’], as 

identified above, hereby certifies that it 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

has issued liability insurance covering 

the following underground storage 

tank(s): 

[List the number of tanks at each 

facility and the name(s) and address(es) 

of the facility(ies) where the tanks are 

located. If more than one instrument is 

used to assure different tanks at any one 

facility, for each tank covered by this 

instrument, list the tank identification 

number provided in the notification 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22, or 

the corresponding state requirement, 

and the name and address of the 

facility.] for [insert: ‘‘taking corrective 

action’’ and/or ‘‘compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’; in accordance with and 

subject to the limits of liability, 

exclusions, conditions, and other terms 

of the policy; if coverage is different for 

different tanks or locations, indicate the 

type of coverage applicable to each tank 

or location] arising from operating the 

underground storage tank(s) identified 

above. 

The limits of liability are [insert the 

dollar amount of the ‘‘each occurrence’’ 

and ‘‘annual aggregate’’ limits of the 

Insurer’s or Group’s liability; if the 

amount of coverage is different for 

different types of coverage or for 

different underground storage tanks or 

locations, indicate the amount of 

coverage for each type of coverage and/ 

or for each underground storage tank or 

location], exclusive of legal defense 

costs, which are subject to a separate 

limit under the policy. This coverage is 

provided under [policy number]. The 

effective date of said policy is [date]. 

2. The [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] further 

certifies the following with respect to 

the insurance described in Paragraph 1: 

a. Bankruptcy or insolvency of the 

insured shall not relieve the [‘‘Insurer’’ 

or ‘‘Group’’] of its obligations under the 

policy to which this certificate applies. 

b. The [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] is liable 

for the payment of amounts within any 

deductible applicable to the policy to 

the provider of corrective action or a 

damaged third-party, with a right of 

reimbursement by the insured for any 

such payment made by the [‘‘Insurer’’ or 

‘‘Group’’]. This provision does not apply 

with respect to that amount of any 

deductible for which coverage is 

demonstrated under another mechanism 

or combination of mechanisms as 

specified in 40 CFR 280.95–280.102 and 

280.104–280.107. 

c. Whenever requested by [a Director 

of an implementing agency], the 

[‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] agrees to furnish 

to [the Director] a signed duplicate 

original of the policy and all 

endorsements. 

d. Cancellation or any other 

termination of the insurance by the 

[‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’], except for nonpayment of premium or 

misrepresentation by the insured, will 

be effective only upon written notice 

and only after the expiration of 60 days 

after a copy of such written notice is 

received by the insured. Cancellation for 

non-payment of premium or 

misrepresentation by the insured will be 

effective only upon written notice and 

only after expiration of a minimum of 

10 days after a copy of such written 

notice is received by the insured. [Insert for claims-made policies]: 

e. The insurance covers claims 

otherwise covered by the policy that are 

reported to the [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] 

within six months of the effective date 

of cancellation or non-renewal of the 

policy except where the new or renewed 

policy has the same retroactive date or 

a retroactive date earlier than that of the 

prior policy, and which arise out of any 

covered occurrence that commenced 

after the policy retroactive date, if 

applicable, and prior to such policy 

renewal or termination date. Claims 

reported during such extended reporting 

period are subject to the terms, 

conditions, limits, including limits of 

liability, and exclusions of the policy.] I hereby certify that the wording of 

this instrument is identical to the 

wording in 40 CFR 280.97(b)(2) and that 

the [‘‘Insurer’’ or ‘‘Group’’] is [‘‘licensed 

to transact the business of insurance, or 

eligible to provide insurance as an 

excess or surplus lines insurer, in one 

or more states’’]. 

[Signature of authorized representative 

of Insurer] 

[Type name] 

[Title], Authorized Representative of 

[name of Insurer or Risk Retention 

Group] [Address of Representative] 

(c) Each insurance policy must be 

issued by an insurer or a risk retention 

group that, at a minimum, is licensed to 

transact the business of insurance or 

eligible to provide insurance as an 

excess or surplus lines insurer in one or 

more states. 

§ 280.98 Surety bond. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 by 

obtaining a surety bond that conforms to 

the requirements of this section. The 

surety company issuing the bond must 

be among those listed as acceptable 

sureties on federal bonds in the latest 

Circular 570 of the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury. (b) The surety bond must be worded 

as follows, except that instructions in 

brackets must be replaced with the 

relevant information and the brackets 

deleted: 

Performance Bond 

Date bond executed: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Period of coverage: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Principal: [legal name and business 

address of owner or operator] lllllllllllllllllllll

Type of organization: [insert 

‘‘individual,’’ ‘‘joint venture,’’ 

‘‘partnership,’’ or ‘‘corporation’’] lllllllllllllllllllll

State of incorporation (if applicable): 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Surety(ies): [name(s) and business 

address(es)] lllllllllllllllllllll

Scope of Coverage: [List the number of 

tanks at each facility and the 

name(s) and address(es) of the 

facility(ies) where the tanks are 

located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure 

different tanks at any one facility, 

for each tank covered by this 

instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in 

the notification submitted pursuant 

to 40 CFR 280.22, or the 

corresponding state requirement, 

and the name and address of the 

facility. List the coverage 

guaranteed by the bond: ‘‘taking 

corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’ ‘‘arising from operating 

the underground storage Tank’’]. 

Penal sums of bond: 

Per occurrence $ 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Annual aggregate $ 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Surety’s bond number: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Know All Persons by These Presents, 

that we, the Principal and Surety(ies), 

hereto are firmly bound to [the 

implementing agency], in the above 

penal sums for the payment of which 

we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, 

administrators, successors, and assigns 

jointly and severally; provided that, 

where the Surety(ies) are corporations 

acting as co-sureties, we, the Sureties, 

bind ourselves in such sums jointly and 

severally only for the purpose of 

allowing a joint action or actions against 

any or all of us, and for all other 

purposes each Surety binds itself, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41647 

jointly and severally with the Principal, 

for the payment of such sums only as is 

set forth opposite the name of such 

Surety, but if no limit of liability is 

indicated, the limit of liability shall be 

the full amount of the penal sums. 

Whereas said Principal is required 

under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, as amended, to provide 

financial assurance for [insert: ‘‘taking 

corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage caused by’’ 

either ‘‘sudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘nonsudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘accidental releases’’; if coverage is 

different for different tanks or locations, 

indicate the type of coverage applicable 

to each tank or location] arising from 

operating the underground storage tanks 

identified above, and 

Whereas said Principal shall establish 

a standby trust fund as is required when 

a surety bond is used to provide such 

financial assurance; 

Now, therefore, the conditions of the 

obligation are such that if the Principal 

shall faithfully [‘‘take corrective action, 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 280, 

subpart F and the Director of the state 

implementing agency’s instructions 

for,’’ and/or ‘‘compensate injured third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’] arising from operating the 

tank(s) identified above, or if the 

Principal shall provide alternate 

financial assurance, as specified in 40 

CFR part 280, subpart H, within 120 

days after the date the notice of 

cancellation is received by the Principal 

from the Surety(ies), then this obligation 

shall be null and void; otherwise it is to 

remain in full force and effect. 

Such obligation does not apply to any 

of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [insert owner or 

operator] under a workers’ 

compensation, disability benefits, or 

unemployment compensation law or 

other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert owner or operator] arising from, 

and in the course of, employment by 

[insert owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert owner or operator] that is not the 

direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank; 

(e) Bodily injury or property damage 

for which [insert owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

The Surety(ies) shall become liable on 

this bond obligation only when the 

Principal has failed to fulfill the 

conditions described above. 

Upon notification by [the Director of 

the implementing agency] that the 

Principal has failed to [‘‘take corrective 

action, in accordance with 40 CFR part 

280, subpart F and the Director’s 

instructions,’’ and/or ‘‘compensate 

injured third parties’’] as guaranteed by 

this bond, the Surety(ies) shall either 

perform [‘‘corrective action in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 280 and 

the Director’s instructions,’’ and/or 

‘‘third-party liability compensation’’] or 

place funds in an amount up to the 

annual aggregate penal sum into the 

standby trust fund as directed by [the 

Regional Administrator or the Director] 

under 40 CFR 280.112. 

Upon notification by [the Director] 

that the Principal has failed to provide 

alternate financial assurance within 60 

days after the date the notice of 

cancellation is received by the Principal 

from the Surety(ies) and that [the 

Director] has determined or suspects 

that a release has occurred, the 

Surety(ies) shall place funds in an 

amount not exceeding the annual 

aggregate penal sum into the standby 

trust fund as directed by [the Director] 

under 40 CFR 280.112. 

The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) 

notification of amendments to 

applicable laws, statutes, rules, and 

regulations and agrees that no such 

amendment shall in any way alleviate 

its (their) obligation on this bond. 

The liability of the Surety(ies) shall 

not be discharged by any payment or 

succession of payments hereunder, 

unless and until such payment or 

payments shall amount in the annual 

aggregate to the penal sum shown on the 

face of the bond, but in no event shall 

the obligation of the Surety(ies) 

hereunder exceed the amount of said 

annual aggregate penal sum. 

The Surety(ies) may cancel the bond 

by sending notice of cancellation by 

certified mail to the Principal, provided, 

however, that cancellation shall not 

occur during the 120 days beginning on 

the date of receipt of the notice of 

cancellation by the Principal, as 

evidenced by the return receipt. 

The Principal may terminate this 

bond by sending written notice to the 

Surety(ies). 

In Witness Thereof, the Principal and 

Surety(ies) have executed this Bond and 

have affixed their seals on the date set 

forth above. 

The persons whose signatures appear 

below hereby certify that they are 

authorized to execute this surety bond 

on behalf of the Principal and 

Surety(ies) and that the wording of this 

surety bond is identical to the wording 

specified in 40 CFR 280.98(b) as such 

regulations were constituted on the date 

this bond was executed. 

Principal 

[Signature(s)] 

[Names(s)] 

[Title(s)] 

[Corporate seal] 

Corporate Surety(ies) 

[Name and address] 

[State of Incorporation: llll] 

[Liability limit: $ llll] 

[Signature(s)] 

[Names(s) and title(s)] 

[Corporate seal] 

[For every co-surety, provide 

signature(s), corporate seal, and other 

information in the same manner as for 

Surety above.] 

Bond premium: $ llll 

(c) Under the terms of the bond, the 

surety will become liable on the bond 

obligation when the owner or operator 

fails to perform as guaranteed by the 

bond. In all cases, the surety’s liability 

is limited to the per-occurrence and 

annual aggregate penal sums. 

(d) The owner or operator who uses 

a surety bond to satisfy the requirements 

of § 280.93 must establish a standby 

trust fund when the surety bond is 

acquired. Under the terms of the bond, 

all amounts paid by the surety under the 

bond will be deposited directly into the 

standby trust fund in accordance with 

instructions from the Director under 

§ 280.112. This standby trust fund must 

meet the requirements specified in 

§ 280.103. 

§ 280.99 Letter of credit. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 by 

obtaining an irrevocable standby letter 

of credit that conforms to the 

requirements of this section. The issuing 

institution must be an entity that has the 

authority to issue letters of credit in 

each state where used and whose letterof-credit operations are regulated and 

examined by a federal or state agency. 

(b) The letter of credit must be 

worded as follows, except that 

instructions in brackets are to be 

replaced with the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit 

[Name and address of issuing 

institution] 

[Name and address of Director(s) of state 

implementing agency(ies)] 

Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby 

establish our Irrevocable Standby Letter 

of Credit No. ll in your favor, at the 

request and for the account of [owner or 

operator name] of [address] up to the 

aggregate amount of [in words] U.S. 

dollars ($[insert dollar amount]), 

available upon presentation [insert, if 

more than one Director of a state 

implementing agency is a beneficiary, 

‘‘by any one of you’’] of 

(1) your sight draft, bearing reference 

to this letter of credit, No. ll and 

(2) your signed statement reading as 

follows: ‘‘I certify that the amount of the 

draft is payable pursuant to regulations 

issued under authority of Subtitle I of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended.’’ 

This letter of credit may be drawn on 

to cover [insert: ‘‘taking corrective 

action’’ and/or ‘‘compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’] arising from operating the 

underground storage tank(s) identified 

below in the amount of [in words] 

$[insert dollar amount] per occurrence 

and [in words] $[insert dollar amount] 

annual aggregate: 

[List the number of tanks at each 

facility and the name(s) and address(es) 

of the facility(ies) where the tanks are 

located. If more than one instrument is 

used to assure different tanks at any one 

facility, for each tank covered by this 

instrument, list the tank identification 

number provided in the notification 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22, or 

the corresponding state requirement, 

and the name and address of the 

facility.] 

The letter of credit may not be drawn 

on to cover any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [insert owner or 

operator] under a workers’ 

compensation, disability benefits, or 

unemployment compensation law or 

other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert owner or operator] arising from, 

and in the course of, employment by 

[insert owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert owner or operator] that is not the 

direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank; 

(e) Bodily injury or property damage 

for which [insert owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

This letter of credit is effective as of 

[date] and shall expire on [date], but 

such expiration date shall be 

automatically extended for a period of 

[at least the length of the original term] 

on [expiration date] and on each 

successive expiration date, unless, at 

least 120 days before the current 

expiration date, we notify [owner or 

operator] by certified mail that we have 

decided not to extend this letter of 

credit beyond the current expiration 

date. In the event that [owner or 

operator] is so notified, any unused 

portion of the credit shall be available 

upon presentation of your sight draft for 

120 days after the date of receipt by 

[owner or operator], as shown on the 

signed return receipt. 

Whenever this letter of credit is 

drawn on under and in compliance with 

the terms of this credit, we shall duly 

honor such draft upon presentation to 

us, and we shall deposit the amount of 

the draft directly into the standby trust 

fund of [owner or operator] in 

accordance with your instructions. 

We certify that the wording of this 

letter of credit is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.99(b) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the date shown immediately below. 

[Signature(s) and title(s) of official(s) of 

issuing institution] 

[Date] 

This credit is subject to [insert ‘‘the 

most recent edition of the Uniform 

Customs and Practice for Documentary 

Credits, published and copyrighted by 

the International Chamber of 

Commerce,’’ or ‘‘the Uniform 

Commercial Code’’]. 

(c) An owner or operator who uses a 

letter of credit to satisfy the 

requirements of § 280.93 must also 

establish a standby trust fund when the 

letter of credit is acquired. Under the 

terms of the letter of credit, all amounts 

paid pursuant to a draft by the Director 

of the implementing agency will be 

deposited by the issuing institution 

directly into the standby trust fund in 

accordance with instructions from the 

Director under § 280.112. This standby 

trust fund must meet the requirements 

specified in § 280.103. 

(d) The letter of credit must be 

irrevocable with a term specified by the 

issuing institution. The letter of credit 

must provide that credit be 

automatically renewed for the same 

term as the original term, unless, at least 

120 days before the current expiration 

date, the issuing institution notifies the 

owner or operator by certified mail of its 

decision not to renew the letter of 

credit. Under the terms of the letter of 

credit, the 120 days will begin on the 

date when the owner or operator 

receives the notice, as evidenced by the 

return receipt. 

§ 280.100 Use of state-required 

mechanism. 

(a) For underground storage tanks 

located in a state that does not have an 

approved program, and where the state 

requires owners or operators of 

underground storage tanks to 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

taking corrective action and/or for 

compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage, an owner 

or operator may use a state-required 

financial mechanism to meet the 

requirements of § 280.93 if the Regional 

Administrator determines that the state 

mechanism is at least equivalent to the 

financial mechanisms specified in this 

subpart. 

(b) The Regional Administrator will 

evaluate the equivalency of a staterequired mechanism principally in 

terms of: certainty of the availability of 

funds for taking corrective action and/ 

or for compensating third parties; the 

amount of funds that will be made 

available; and the types of costs 

covered. The Regional Administrator 

may also consider other factors as is 

necessary. 

(c) The state, an owner or operator, or 

any other interested party may submit to 

the Regional Administrator a written 

petition requesting that one or more of 

the state-required mechanisms be 

considered acceptable for meeting the 

requirements of § 280.93. The 

submission must include copies of the 

appropriate state statutory and 

regulatory requirements and must show 

the amount of funds for corrective 

action and/or for compensating third 

parties assured by the mechanism(s). 

The Regional Administrator may require 

the petitioner to submit additional 

information as is deemed necessary to 

make this determination. 

(d) Any petition under this section 

may be submitted on behalf of all of the 

state’s underground storage tank owners 

and operators. 

(e) The Regional Administrator will 

notify the petitioner of his 

determination regarding the 

mechanism’s acceptability in lieu of 

financial mechanisms specified in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41649 

subpart. Pending this determination, the 

owners and operators using such 

mechanisms will be deemed to be in 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 280.93 for underground storage tanks 

located in the state for the amounts and 

types of costs covered by such 

mechanisms. 

§ 280.101 State fund or other state 

assurance. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 for 

underground storage tanks located in a 

state, where EPA is administering the 

requirements of this subpart, which 

assures that monies will be available 

from a state fund or state assurance 

program to cover costs up to the limits 

specified in § 280.93 or otherwise 

assures that such costs will be paid if 

the Regional Administrator determines 

that the state’s assurance is at least 

equivalent to the financial mechanisms 

specified in this subpart. 

(b) The Regional Administrator will 

evaluate the equivalency of a state fund 

or other state assurance principally in 

terms of: Certainty of the availability of 

funds for taking corrective action and/ 

or for compensating third parties; the 

amount of funds that will be made 

available; and the types of costs 

covered. The Regional Administrator 

may also consider other factors as is 

necessary. 

(c) The state must submit to the 

Regional Administrator a description of 

the state fund or other state assurance to 

be supplied as financial assurance, 

along with a list of the classes of 

underground storage tanks to which the 

funds may be applied. The Regional 

Administrator may require the state to 

submit additional information as is 

deemed necessary to make a 

determination regarding the 

acceptability of the state fund or other 

state assurance. Pending the 

determination by the Regional 

Administrator, the owner or operator of 

a covered class of USTs will be deemed 

to be in compliance with the 

requirements of § 280.93 for the 

amounts and types of costs covered by 

the state fund or other state assurance. 

(d) The Regional Administrator will 

notify the state of his determination 

regarding the acceptability of the state’s 

fund or other assurance in lieu of 

financial mechanisms specified in this 

subpart. Within 60 days after the 

Regional Administrator notifies a state 

that a state fund or other state assurance 

is acceptable, the state must provide to 

each owner or operator for which it is 

assuming financial responsibility a 

letter or certificate describing the nature 

of the state’s assumption of 

responsibility. The letter or certificate 

from the state must include, or have 

attached to it, the following information: 

the facility’s name and address and the 

amount of funds for corrective action 

and/or for compensating third parties 

that is assured by the state. The owner 

or operator must maintain this letter or 

certificate on file as proof of financial 

responsibility in accordance with 

§ 280.111(b)(8). 

§ 280.102 Trust fund. 

(a) An owner or operator may satisfy 

the requirements of § 280.93 by 

establishing a trust fund that conforms 

to the requirements of this section. The 

trustee must be an entity that has the 

authority to act as a trustee and whose 

trust operations are regulated and 

examined by a federal agency or an 

agency of the state in which the fund is 

established. 

(b) The wording of the trust agreement 

must be identical to the wording 

specified in § 280.103(b)(1), and must be 

accompanied by a formal certification of 

acknowledgement as specified in 

§ 280.103(b)(2). 

(c) The trust fund, when established, 

must be funded for the full required 

amount of coverage, or funded for part 

of the required amount of coverage and 

used in combination with other 

mechanism(s) that provide the 

remaining required coverage. 

(d) If the value of the trust fund is 

greater than the required amount of 

coverage, the owner or operator may 

submit a written request to the Director 

of the implementing agency for release 

of the excess. 

(e) If other financial assurance as 

specified in this subpart is substituted 

for all or part of the trust fund, the 

owner or operator may submit a written 

request to the Director of the 

implementing agency for release of the 

excess. 

(f) Within 60 days after receiving a 

request from the owner or operator for 

release of funds as specified in 

paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, the 

Director of the implementing agency 

will instruct the trustee to release to the 

owner or operator such funds as the 

Director specifies in writing. 

§ 280.103 Standby trust fund. 

(a) An owner or operator using any 

one of the mechanisms authorized by 

§§ 280.96, 280.98, or 280.99 must 

establish a standby trust fund when the 

mechanism is acquired. The trustee of 

the standby trust fund must be an entity 

that has the authority to act as a trustee 

and whose trust operations are regulated 

and examined by a Federal agency or an 

agency of the state in which the fund is 

established. 

(b)(1) The standby trust agreement, or 

trust agreement, must be worded as 

follows, except that instructions in 

brackets are to be replaced with the 

relevant information and the brackets 

deleted: 

Trust Agreement 

Trust agreement, the ‘‘Agreement,’’ 

entered into as of [date] by and between 

[name of the owner or operator], a 

[name of state] [insert ‘‘corporation,’’ 

‘‘partnership,’’ ‘‘association,’’ or 

‘‘proprietorship’’], the ‘‘Grantor,’’ and 

[name of corporate trustee], [insert 

‘‘Incorporated in the state of lll ’’ or 

‘‘a national bank’’], the ‘‘Trustee.’’ 

Whereas, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

‘‘EPA,’’ an agency of the United States 

Government, has established certain 

regulations applicable to the Grantor, 

requiring that an owner or operator of 

an underground storage tank shall 

provide assurance that funds will be 

available when needed for corrective 

action and third-party compensation for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by sudden and nonsudden 

accidental releases arising from the 

operation of the underground storage 

tank. The attached Schedule A lists the 

number of tanks at each facility and the 

name(s) and address(es) of the 

facility(ies) where the tanks are located 

that are covered by the [insert ‘‘standby’’ 

where trust agreement is standby trust 

agreement] trust agreement. 

[Whereas, the Grantor has elected to 

establish [insert either ‘‘a guarantee,’’ 

‘‘surety bond,’’ or ‘‘letter of credit’’] to 

provide all or part of such financial 

assurance for the underground storage 

tanks identified herein and is required 

to establish a standby trust fund able to 

accept payments from the instrument 

(This paragraph is only applicable to the 

standby trust agreement.)]; 

Whereas, the Grantor, acting through 

its duly authorized officers, has selected 

the Trustee to be the trustee under this 

agreement, and the Trustee is willing to 

act as trustee; 

Now, therefore, the Grantor and the 

Trustee agree as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

As used in this Agreement: 

(a) The term ‘‘Grantor’’ means the 

owner or operator who enters into this 

Agreement and any successors or 

assigns of the Grantor. 

(b) The term ‘‘Trustee’’ means the 

Trustee who enters into this Agreement 

and any successor Trustee. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 2. Identification of the Financial 

Assurance Mechanism 

This Agreement pertains to the 

[identify the financial assurance 

mechanism, either a guarantee, surety 

bond, or letter of credit, from which the 

standby trust fund is established to 

receive payments (This paragraph is 

only applicable to the standby trust 

agreement.)]. 

Section 3. Establishment of Fund 

The Grantor and the Trustee hereby 

establish a trust fund, the ‘‘Fund,’’ for 

the benefit of [implementing agency]. 

The Grantor and the Trustee intend that 

no third party have access to the Fund 

except as herein provided. [The Fund is 

established initially as a standby to 

receive payments and shall not consist 

of any property.] Payments made by the 

provider of financial assurance pursuant 

to [the Director of the implementing 

agency’s] instruction are transferred to 

the Trustee and are referred to as the 

Fund, together with all earnings and 

profits thereon, less any payments or 

distributions made by the Trustee 

pursuant to this Agreement. The Fund 

shall be held by the Trustee, IN TRUST, 

as hereinafter provided. The Trustee 

shall not be responsible nor shall it 

undertake any responsibility for the 

amount or adequacy of, nor any duty to 

collect from the Grantor as provider of 

financial assurance, any payments 

necessary to discharge any liability of 

the Grantor established by [the state 

implementing agency] 

Section 4. Payment for [‘‘Corrective 

Action’’ and/or ‘‘Third-Party Liability 

Claims’’] 

The Trustee shall make payments 

from the Fund as [the Director of the 

implementing agency] shall direct, in 

writing, to provide for the payment of 

the costs of [insert: ‘‘taking corrective 

action’’ and/or ‘‘compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden 

accidental releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden 

accidental Releases’’ or ‘‘accidental 

releases’’] arising from operating the 

tanks covered by the financial assurance 

mechanism identified in this 

Agreement. 

The Fund may not be drawn upon to 

cover any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [insert owner or 

operator] under a workers’ 

compensation, disability benefits, or 

unemployment compensation law or 

other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert owner or operator] arising from, 

and in the course of employment by 

[insert owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert owner or operator] that is not the 

direct result of a release from a 

petroleum underground storage tank; 

(e) Bodily injury or property damage 

for which [insert owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

The Trustee shall reimburse the 

Grantor, or other persons as specified by 

[the Director], from the Fund for 

corrective action expenditures and/or 

third-party liability claims in such 

amounts as [the Director] shall direct in 

writing. In addition, the Trustee shall 

refund to the Grantor such amounts as 

[the Director] specifies in writing. Upon 

refund, such funds shall no longer 

constitute part of the Fund as defined 

herein. 

Section 5. Payments Comprising the 

Fund 

Payments made to the Trustee for the 

Fund shall consist of cash and securities 

acceptable to the Trustee. 

Section 6. Trustee Management 

The Trustee shall invest and reinvest 

the principal and income of the Fund 

and keep the Fund invested as a single 

fund, without distinction between 

principal and income, in accordance 

with general investment policies and 

guidelines which the Grantor may 

communicate in writing to the Trustee 

from time to time, subject, however, to 

the provisions of this Section. In 

investing, reinvesting, exchanging, 

selling, and managing the Fund, the 

Trustee shall discharge his duties with 

respect to the trust fund solely in the 

interest of the beneficiaries and with the 

care, skill, prudence, and diligence 

under the circumstances then prevailing 

which persons of prudence, acting in a 

like capacity and familiar with such 

matters, would use in the conduct of an 

enterprise of a like character and with 

like aims; except that: 

(i) Securities or other obligations of 

the Grantor, or any other owner or 

operator of the tanks, or any of their 

affiliates as defined in the Investment 

Company Act of 1940, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 80a–2(a), shall not be acquired or 

held, unless they are securities or other 

obligations of the federal or a state 

government; 

(ii) The Trustee is authorized to invest 

the Fund in time or demand deposits of 

the Trustee, to the extent insured by an 

agency of the federal or state 

government; and 

(iii) The Trustee is authorized to hold 

cash awaiting investment or distribution 

uninvested for a reasonable time and 

without liability for the payment of 

interest thereon. 

Section 7. Commingling and Investment 

The Trustee is expressly authorized in 

its discretion: 

(a) To transfer from time to time any 

or all of the assets of the Fund to any 

common, commingled, or collective 

trust fund created by the Trustee in 

which the Fund is eligible to 

participate, subject to all of the 

provisions thereof, to be commingled 

with the assets of other trusts 

participating therein; and 

(b) To purchase shares in any 

investment company registered under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq., including one 

which may be created, managed, 

underwritten, or to which investment 

advice is rendered or the shares of 

which are sold by the Trustee. The 

Trustee may vote such shares in its 

discretion. 

Section 8. Express Powers of Trustee 

Without in any way limiting the 

powers and discretions conferred upon 

the Trustee by the other provisions of 

this Agreement or by law, the Trustee is 

expressly authorized and empowered: 

(a) To sell, exchange, convey, transfer, 

or otherwise dispose of any property 

held by it, by public or private sale. No 

person dealing with the Trustee shall be 

bound to see to the application of the 

purchase money or to inquire into the 

validity or expediency of any such sale 

or other disposition; 

(b) To make, execute, acknowledge, 

and deliver any and all documents of 

transfer and conveyance and any and all 

other instruments that may be necessary 

or appropriate to carry out the powers 

herein granted; 

(c) To register any securities held in 

the Fund in its own name or in the 

name of a nominee and to hold any 

security in bearer form or in book entry, 

or to combine certificates representing 

such securities with certificates of the 

same issue held by the Trustee in other 

fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or 

arrange for the deposit of such securities 

in a qualified central depository even 

though, when so deposited, such 

securities may be merged and held in 

bulk in the name of the nominee of such 

depository with other securities 

deposited therein by another person, or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41651 

to deposit or arrange for the deposit of 

any securities issued by the United 

States Government, or any agency or 

instrumentality thereof, with a Federal 

Reserve bank, but the books and records 

of the Trustee shall at all times show 

that all such securities are part of the 

Fund; 

(d) To deposit any cash in the Fund 

in interest-bearing accounts maintained 

or savings certificates issued by the 

Trustee, in its separate corporate 

capacity, or in any other banking 

institution affiliated with the Trustee, to 

the extent insured by an agency of the 

federal or state government; and 

(e) To compromise or otherwise adjust 

all claims in favor of or against the 

Fund. 

Section 9. Taxes and Expenses 

All taxes of any kind that may be 

assessed or levied against or in respect 

of the Fund and all brokerage 

commissions incurred by the Fund shall 

be paid from the Fund. All other 

expenses incurred by the Trustee in 

connection with the administration of 

this Trust, including fees for legal 

services rendered to the Trustee, the 

compensation of the Trustee to the 

extent not paid directly by the Grantor, 

and all other proper charges and 

disbursements of the Trustee shall be 

paid from the Fund. 

Section 10. Advice of Counsel 

The Trustee may from time to time 

consult with counsel, who may be 

counsel to the Grantor, with respect to 

any questions arising as to the 

construction of this Agreement or any 

action to be taken hereunder. The 

Trustee shall be fully protected, to the 

extent permitted by law, in acting upon 

the advice of counsel. 

Section 11. Trustee Compensation 

The Trustee shall be entitled to 

reasonable compensation for its services 

as agreed upon in writing from time to 

time with the Grantor. 

Section 12. Successor Trustee 

The Trustee may resign or the Grantor 

may replace the Trustee, but such 

resignation or replacement shall not be 

effective until the Grantor has appointed 

a successor trustee and this successor 

accepts the appointment. The successor 

trustee shall have the same powers and 

duties as those conferred upon the 

Trustee hereunder. Upon the successor 

trustee’s acceptance of the appointment, 

the Trustee shall assign, transfer, and 

pay over to the successor trustee the 

funds and properties then constituting 

the Fund. If for any reason the Grantor 

cannot or does not act in the event of 

the resignation of the Trustee, the 

Trustee may apply to a court of 

competent jurisdiction for the 

appointment of a successor trustee or for 

instructions. The successor trustee shall 

specify the date on which it assumes 

administration of the trust in writing 

sent to the Grantor and the present 

Trustee by certified mail 10 days before 

such change becomes effective. Any 

expenses incurred by the Trustee as a 

result of any of the acts contemplated by 

this Section shall be paid as provided in 

Section 9. 

Section 13. Instructions to the Trustee 

All orders, requests, and instructions 

by the Grantor to the Trustee shall be in 

writing, signed by such persons as are 

designated in the attached Schedule B 

or such other designees as the Grantor 

may designate by amendment to 

Schedule B. The Trustee shall be fully 

protected in acting without inquiry in 

accordance with the Grantor’s orders, 

requests, and instructions. All orders, 

requests, and instructions by [the 

Director of the implementing agency] to 

the Trustee shall be in writing, signed 

by [the Director], and the Trustee shall 

act and shall be fully protected in acting 

in accordance with such orders, 

requests, and instructions. The Trustee 

shall have the right to assume, in the 

absence of written notice to the 

contrary, that no event constituting a 

change or a termination of the authority 

of any person to act on behalf of the 

Grantor or [the director] hereunder has 

occurred. The Trustee shall have no 

duty to act in the absence of such 

orders, requests, and instructions from 

the Grantor and/or [the Director], except 

as provided for herein. 

Section 14. Amendment of Agreement 

This Agreement may be amended by 

an instrument in writing executed by 

the Grantor and the Trustee, or by the 

Trustee and [the Director of the 

implementing agency] if the Grantor 

ceases to exist. 

Section 15. Irrevocability and 

Termination 

Subject to the right of the parties to 

amend this Agreement as provided in 

Section 14, this Trust shall be 

irrevocable and shall continue until 

terminated at the written direction of 

the Grantor and the Trustee, or by the 

Trustee and [the Director of the 

implementing agency], if the Grantor 

ceases to exist. Upon termination of the 

Trust, all remaining trust property, less 

final trust administration expenses, 

shall be delivered to the Grantor. 

Section 16. Immunity and 

Indemnification 

The Trustee shall not incur personal 

liability of any nature in connection 

with any act or omission, made in good 

faith, in the administration of this Trust, 

or in carrying out any directions by the 

Grantor or [the Director of the 

implementing agency] issued in 

accordance with this Agreement. The 

Trustee shall be indemnified and saved 

harmless by the Grantor, from and 

against any personal liability to which 

the Trustee may be subjected by reason 

of any act or conduct in its official 

capacity, including all expenses 

reasonably incurred in its defense in the 

event the Grantor fails to provide such 

defense. 

Section 17. Choice of Law 

This Agreement shall be 

administered, construed, and enforced 

according to the laws of the state of 

[insert name of state], or the Comptroller 

of the Currency in the case of National 

Association banks. 

Section 18. Interpretation 

As used in this Agreement, words in 

the singular include the plural and 

words in the plural include the singular. 

The descriptive headings for each 

section of this Agreement shall not 

affect the interpretation or the legal 

efficacy of this Agreement. 

In Witness whereof the parties have 

caused this Agreement to be executed 

by their respective officers duly 

authorized and their corporate seals (if 

applicable) to be hereunto affixed and 

attested as of the date first above 

written. The parties below certify that 

the wording of this Agreement is 

identical to the wording specified in 40 

CFR 280.103(b)(1) as such regulations 

were constituted on the date written 

above. 

[Signature of Grantor] 

[Name of the Grantor] 

[Title] 

Attest: 

[Signature of Trustee] 

[Name of the Trustee] 

[Title] 

[Seal] 

[Signature of Witness] 

[Name of the Witness] 

[Title] 

[Seal] 

(2) The standby trust agreement, or 

trust agreement must be accompanied 

by a formal certification of 

acknowledgement similar to the 

following. State requirements may differ 

on the proper content of this 

acknowledgment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

State of 

lllllllllllllllllllll

County of 

lllllllllllllllllllll

On this [date], before me personally 

came [owner or operator] to me known, 

who, being by me duly sworn, did 

depose and say that she/he resides at 

[address], that she/he is [title] of 

[corporation], the corporation described 

in and which executed the above 

instrument; that she/he knows the seal 

of said corporation; that the seal affixed 

to such instrument is such corporate 

seal; that it was so affixed by order of 

the Board of Directors of said 

corporation; and that she/he signed her/ 

his name thereto by like order. 

[Signature of Notary Public] 

[Name of Notary Public] 

(c) The Director of the implementing 

agency will instruct the trustee to 

refund the balance of the standby trust 

fund to the provider of financial 

assurance if the Director determines that 

no additional corrective action costs or 

third-party liability claims will occur as 

a result of a release covered by the 

financial assurance mechanism for 

which the standby trust fund was 

established. 

(d) An owner or operator may 

establish one trust fund as the 

depository mechanism for all funds 

assured in compliance with this rule. 

§ 280.104 Local government bond rating 

test. 

(a) A general purpose local 

government owner or operator and/or 

local government serving as a guarantor 

may satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 

by having a currently outstanding issue 

or issues of general obligation bonds of 

$1 million or more, excluding refunded 

obligations, with a Moody’s rating of 

Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa, or a Standard & 

Poor’s rating of AAA, AA, A, or BBB. 

Where a local government has multiple 

outstanding issues, or where a local 

government’s bonds are rated by both 

Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, the 

lowest rating must be used to determine 

eligibility. Bonds that are backed by 

credit enhancement other than 

municipal bond insurance may not be 

considered in determining the amount 

of applicable bonds outstanding. 

(b) A local government owner or 

operator or local government serving as 

a guarantor that is not a general-purpose 

local government and does not have the 

legal authority to issue general 

obligation bonds may satisfy the 

requirements of § 280.93 by having a 

currently outstanding issue or issues of 

revenue bonds of $1 million or more, 

excluding refunded issues, and by also 

having a Moody’s rating of Aaa, Aa, A, 

or Baa, or a Standard & Poor’s rating of 

AAA, AA, A, or BBB as the lowest 

rating for any rated revenue bond issued 

by the local government. Where bonds 

are rated by both Moody’s and Standard 

& Poor’s, the lower rating for each bond 

must be used to determine eligibility. 

Bonds that are backed by credit 

enhancement may not be considered in 

determining the amount of applicable 

bonds outstanding. 

(c) The local government owner or 

operator and/or guarantor must 

maintain a copy of its bond rating 

published within the last 12 months by 

Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. 

(d) To demonstrate that it meets the 

local government bond rating test, the 

chief financial officer of a general 

purpose local government owner or 

operator and/or guarantor must sign a 

letter worded exactly as follows, except 

that the instructions in brackets are to 

be replaced by the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Letter from Chief Financial Officer 

I am the chief financial officer of 

[insert: name and address of local 

government owner or operator, or 

guarantor]. This letter is in support of 

the use of the bond rating test to 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage’’] 

caused by [insert: ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’] in the 

amount of at least [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: 

dollar amount] annual aggregate arising 

from operating (an) underground storage 

tank(s). 

Underground storage tanks at the 

following facilities are assured by this 

bond rating test: [List for each facility: 

the name and address of the facility 

where tanks are assured by the bond 

rating test]. 

The details of the issue date, maturity, 

outstanding amount, bond rating, and 

bond rating agency of all outstanding 

bond issues that are being used by 

[name of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor] to demonstrate 

financial responsibility are as follows: 

Issue date Maturity date Outstanding amount Bond rating Rating agency 

[Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s] 

The total outstanding obligation of 

[insert amount], excluding refunded 

bond issues, exceeds the minimum 

amount of $1 million. All outstanding 

general obligation bonds issued by this 

government that have been rated by 

Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s are rated 

as at least investment grade (Moody’s 

Baa or Standard & Poor’s BBB) based on 

the most recent ratings published within 

the last 12 months. Neither rating 

service has provided notification within 

the last 12 months of downgrading of 

bond ratings below investment grade or 

of withdrawal of bond rating other than 

for repayment of outstanding bond 

issues. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this letter is identical to the wording 

specified in 40 CFR 280.104(d) as such 

regulations were constituted on the date 

shown immediately below. 

[Date] 

[Signature] 

[Name] 

[Title] 

(e) To demonstrate that it meets the 

local government bond rating test, the 

chief financial officer of local 

government owner or operator and/or 

guarantor other than a general purpose 

government must sign a letter worded 

exactly as follows, except that the 

instructions in brackets are to be 

replaced by the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Letter from Chief Financial Officer 

I am the chief financial officer of 

[insert: name and address of local 

government owner or operator, or 

guarantor]. This letter is in support of 

the use of the bond rating test to 

demonstrate financial responsibility for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage’’] 

caused by [insert: ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’] in the 

amount of at least [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: 

dollar amount] annual aggregate arising 

from operating (an) underground storage 

tank(s). This local government is not 

organized to provide general 

governmental services and does not 

have the legal authority under state law 

or constitutional provisions to issue 

general obligation debt. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41653 

Underground storage tanks at the 

following facilities are assured by this 

bond rating test: [List for each facility: 

the name and address of the facility 

where tanks are assured by the bond 

rating test]. 

The details of the issue date, maturity, 

outstanding amount, bond rating, and 

bond rating agency of all outstanding 

revenue bond issues that are being used 

by [name of local government owner or 

operator, or guarantor] to demonstrate 

financial responsibility are as follows: 

Issue date Maturity date Outstanding amount Bond rating Rating agency 

[Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s] 

The total outstanding obligation of 

[insert amount], excluding refunded 

bond issues, exceeds the minimum 

amount of $1 million. All outstanding 

revenue bonds issued by this 

government that have been rated by 

Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s are rated 

as at least investment grade (Moody’s 

Baa or Standard & Poor’s BBB) based on 

the most recent ratings published within 

the last 12 months. The revenue bonds 

listed are not backed by third-party 

credit enhancement or insured by a 

municipal bond insurance company. 

Neither rating service has provided 

notification within the last 12 months of 

downgrading of bond ratings below 

investment grade or of withdrawal of 

bond rating other than for repayment of 

outstanding bond issues. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this letter is identical to the wording 

specified in 40 CFR 280.104(e) as such 

regulations were constituted on the date 

shown immediately below. 

[Date] 

[Signature] 

[Name] 

[Title] 

(f) The Director of the implementing 

agency may require reports of financial 

condition at any time from the local 

government owner or operator, and/or 

local government guarantor. If the 

Director finds, on the basis of such 

reports or other information, that the 

local government owner or operator, 

and/or guarantor, no longer meets the 

local government bond rating test 

requirements of § 280.104, the local 

government owner or operator must 

obtain alternative coverage within 30 

days after notification of such a finding. 

(g) If a local government owner or 

operator using the bond rating test to 

provide financial assurance finds that it 

no longer meets the bond rating test 

requirements, the local government 

owner or operator must obtain 

alternative coverage within 150 days of 

the change in status. 

(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. 

§ 280.105 Local government financial test. 

(a) A local government owner or 

operator may satisfy the requirements of 

§ 280.93 by passing the financial test 

specified in this section. To be eligible 

to use the financial test, the local 

government owner or operator must 

have the ability and authority to assess 

and levy taxes or to freely establish fees 

and charges. To pass the local 

government financial test, the owner or 

operator must meet the criteria of 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section 

based on year-end financial statements 

for the latest completed fiscal year. 

(b)(1) The local government owner or 

operator must have the following 

information available, as shown in the 

year-end financial statements for the 

latest completed fiscal year: 

(i) Total revenues. Consists of the sum 

of general fund operating and nonoperating revenues including net local 

taxes, licenses and permits, fines and 

forfeitures, revenues from use of money 

and property, charges for services, 

investment earnings, sales (property, 

publications, etc.), intergovernmental 

revenues (restricted and unrestricted), 

and total revenues from all other 

governmental funds including 

enterprise, debt service, capital projects, 

and special revenues, but excluding 

revenues to funds held in a trust or 

agency capacity. For purposes of this 

test, the calculation of total revenues 

shall exclude all transfers between 

funds under the direct control of the 

local government using the financial test 

(interfund transfers), liquidation of 

investments, and issuance of debt. 

(ii) Total expenditures. Consists of the 

sum of general fund operating and nonoperating expenditures including public 

safety, public utilities, transportation, 

public works, environmental protection, 

cultural and recreational, community 

development, revenue sharing, 

employee benefits and compensation, 

office management, planning and 

zoning, capital projects, interest 

payments on debt, payments for 

retirement of debt principal, and total 

expenditures from all other 

governmental funds including 

enterprise, debt service, capital projects, 

and special revenues. For purposes of 

this test, the calculation of total 

expenditures shall exclude all transfers 

between funds under the direct control 

of the local government using the 

financial test (interfund transfers). 

(iii) Local revenues. Consists of total 

revenues (as defined in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) of this section) minus the sum 

of all transfers from other governmental 

entities, including all monies received 

from Federal, state, or local government 

sources. 

(iv) Debt service. Consists of the sum 

of all interest and principal payments 

on all long-term credit obligations and 

all interest-bearing short-term credit 

obligations. Includes interest and 

principal payments on general 

obligation bonds, revenue bonds, notes, 

mortgages, judgments, and interest 

bearing warrants. Excludes payments on 

non-interest-bearing short-term 

obligations, interfund obligations, 

amounts owed in a trust or agency 

capacity, and advances and contingent 

loans from other governments. 

(v) Total funds. Consists of the sum of 

cash and investment securities from all 

funds, including general, enterprise, 

debt service, capital projects, and 

special revenue funds, but excluding 

employee retirement funds, at the end of 

the local government’s financial 

reporting year. Includes Federal 

securities, Federal agency securities, 

state and local government securities, 

and other securities such as bonds, 

notes and mortgages. For purposes of 

this test, the calculation of total funds 

shall exclude agency funds, private trust 

funds, accounts receivable, value of real 

property, and other non-security assets. 

(vi) Population consists of the number 

of people in the area served by the local 

government. 

(2) The local government’s year-end 

financial statements, if independently 

audited, cannot include an adverse 

auditor’s opinion or a disclaimer of 

opinion. The local government cannot 

have outstanding issues of general 

obligation or revenue bonds that are 

rated as less than investment grade. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) The local government owner or 

operator must have a letter signed by the 

chief financial officer worded as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) To demonstrate that it meets the 

financial test under paragraph (b) of this 

section, the chief financial officer of the 

local government owner or operator, 

must sign, within 120 days of the close 

of each financial reporting year, as 

defined by the twelve-month period for 

which financial statements used to 

support the financial test are prepared, 

a letter worded exactly as follows, 

except that the instructions in brackets 

are to be replaced by the relevant 

information and the brackets deleted: 

Letter From Chief Financial Officer 

I am the chief financial officer of 

[insert: name and address of the owner 

or operator]. This letter is in support of 

the use of the local government 

financial test to demonstrate financial 

responsibility for [insert: ‘‘taking 

corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage’’] caused by 

[insert: ‘‘sudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘nonsudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘accidental releases’’] in the amount of 

at least [insert: dollar amount] per 

occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] 

annual aggregate arising from operating 

[an] underground storage tank[s]. 

Underground storage tanks at the 

following facilities are assured by this 

financial test [List for each facility: the 

name and address of the facility where 

tanks assured by this financial test are 

located. If separate mechanisms or 

combinations of mechanisms are being 

used to assure any of the tanks at this 

facility, list each tank assured by this 

financial test by the tank identification 

number provided in the notification 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 280.22 or 

the corresponding state requirements.] 

This owner or operator has not 

received an adverse opinion, or a 

disclaimer of opinion from an 

independent auditor on its financial 

statements for the latest completed 

fiscal year. Any outstanding issues of 

general obligation or revenue bonds, if 

rated, have a Moody’s rating of Aaa, Aa, 

A, or Baa or a Standard and Poor’s 

rating of AAA, AA, A, or BBB; if rated 

by both firms, the bonds have a Moody’s 

rating of Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa and a 

Standard and Poor’s rating of AAA, AA, 

A, or BBB. 

Worksheet for Municipal Financial Test 

Part I: Basic Information 

1. Total Revenues 

a. Revenues (dollars) 

Value of revenues excludes 

liquidation of investments and issuance 

of debt. Value includes all general fund 

operating and non-operating revenues, 

as well as all revenues from all other 

governmental funds including 

enterprise, debt service, capital projects, 

and special revenues, but excluding 

revenues to funds held in a trust or 

agency capacity. 

b. Subtract interfund transfers (dollars)

c. Total Revenues (dollars) 

2. Total Expenditures 

a. Expenditures (dollars) 

Value consists of the sum of general 

fund operating and non-operating 

expenditures including interest 

payments on debt, payments for 

retirement of debt principal, and total 

expenditures from all other 

governmental funds including 

enterprise, debt service, capital projects, 

and special revenues. 

b. Subtract interfund transfers (dollars)

llll 

c. Total Expenditures (dollars) 

3. Local Revenues 

a. Total Revenues (from 1c) 

(dollars)llll 

b. Subtract total intergovernmental 

transfers (dollars)llll 

c. Local Revenues (dollars)llll 

4. Debt Service 

a. Interest and fiscal charges (dollars) 

llll 

b. Add debt retirement (dollars)llll 

c. Total Debt Service (dollars)llll 

5. Total Funds (Dollars)llll (Sum 

of amounts held as cash and investment 

securities from all funds, excluding 

amounts held for employee retirement 

funds, agency funds, and trust funds) 

6. Population (Persons)llll 

Part II: Application of Test 

7. Total Revenues to Population 

a. Total Revenues (from 1c)llll 

b. Population (from 6)llll 

c. Divide 7a by 7bllll 

d. Subtract 417llll 

e. Divide by 5,212llll 

f. Multiply by 4.095llll 

8. Total Expenses to Population 

a. Total Expenses (from 2c)llll 

b. Population (from 6) llll 

c. Divide 8a by 8bllll 

d. Subtract 524llll 

e. Divide by 5,401llll 

f. Multiply by 4.095llll 

9. Local Revenues to Total Revenues 

a. Local Revenues (from 3c)llll 

b. Total Revenues (from 1c)llll 

c. Divide 9a by 9bllll 

d. Subtract .695llll 

e. Divide by .205llll 

f. Multiply by 2.840llll 

10. Debt Service to Population 

a. Debt Service (from 4c)llll 

b. Population (from 6)llll 

c. Divide 10a by 10bllll 

d. Subtract 51llll 

e. Divide by 1,038llll 

f. Multiply by ¥1.866llll 

11. Debt Service to Total Revenues 

a. Debt Service (from 4c)llll 

b. Total Revenues (from 1c)llll 

c. Divide 11a by 11bllll 

d. Subtract .068llll 

e. Divide by .259llll 

f. Multiply by ¥3.533llll 

12. Total Revenues to Total Expenses 

a. Total Revenues (from 1c)llll 

b. Total Expenses (from 2c)llll 

c. Divide 12a by 12bllll 

d. Subtract .910llll 

e. Divide by .899llll 

f. Multiply by 3.458llll 

13. Funds Balance to Total Revenues 

a. Total Funds (from 5)llll 

b. Total Revenues (from 1c)llll 

c. Divide 13a by 13bllll 

d. Subtract .891llll 

e. Divide by 9.156llll 

f. Multiply by 3.270llll 

14. Funds Balance to Total Expenses 

a. Total Funds (from 5)llll 

b. Total Expenses (from 2c)llll 

c. Divide 14a by 14bllll 

d. Subtract .866llll 

e. Divide by 6.409llll 

f. Multiply by 3.270llll 

15. Total Funds to Populationllll 

a. Total Funds (from 5)llll 

b. Population (from 6)llll 

c. Divide 15a by 15bllll 

d. Subtract 270llll 

e. Divide by 4,548llll 

f. Multiply by 1.866llll 

16. Add 7f + 8f + 9f + 10f + 11f + 12f 

+ 13f + 14f + 15f + 4.937llll 

I hereby certify that the financial 

index shown on line 16 of the 

worksheet is greater than zero and that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41655 

the wording of this letter is identical to 

the wording specified in 40 CFR 

280.105(c) as such regulations were 

constituted on the date shown 

immediately below. 

[Date] 

[Signature] 

[Name] 

[Title] 

(d) If a local government owner or 

operator using the test to provide 

financial assurance finds that it no 

longer meets the requirements of the 

financial test based on the year-end 

financial statements, the owner or 

operator must obtain alternative 

coverage within 150 days of the end of 

the year for which financial statements 

have been prepared. 

(e) The Director of the implementing 

agency may require reports of financial 

condition at any time from the local 

government owner or operator. If the 

Director finds, on the basis of such 

reports or other information, that the 

local government owner or operator no 

longer meets the financial test 

requirements of § 280.105(b) and (c), the 

owner or operator must obtain alternate 

coverage within 30 days after 

notification of such a finding. 

(f) 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 financial test based on the yearend financial statements or within 30 

days of notification by the Director of 

the implementing agency that it no 

longer meets the requirements of the 

financial test, the owner or operator 

must notify the Director of such failure 

within 10 days. 

§ 280.106 Local government guarantee. 

(a) A local government owner or 

operator may satisfy the requirements of 

§ 280.93 by obtaining a guarantee that 

conforms to the requirements of this 

section. The guarantor must be either 

the state in which the local government 

owner or operator is located or a local 

government having a ‘‘substantial 

governmental relationship’’ with the 

owner and operator and issuing the 

guarantee as an act incident to that 

relationship. A local government acting 

as the guarantor must: 

(1) Demonstrate that it meets the bond 

rating test requirement of § 280.104 and 

deliver a copy of the chief financial 

officer’s letter as contained in 

§ 280.104(d) and (e) to the local 

government owner or operator; or 

(2) Demonstrate that it meets the 

worksheet test requirements of 

§ 280.105 and deliver a copy of the chief 

financial officer’s letter as contained in 

§ 280.105(c) to the local government 

owner or operator; or 

(3) Demonstrate that it meets the local 

government fund requirements of 

§ 280.107(a), (b), or (c) and deliver a 

copy of the chief financial officer’s letter 

as contained in § 280.107 to the local 

government owner or operator. 

(b) If the local government guarantor 

is unable to demonstrate financial 

assurance under any of §§ 280.104, 

280.105, or 280.107(a), (b), or (c), at the 

end of the financial reporting year, the 

guarantor shall send by certified mail, 

before cancellation or non-renewal of 

the guarantee, notice to the owner or 

operator. The guarantee will terminate 

no less than 120 days after the date the 

owner or operator receives the 

notification, as evidenced by the return 

receipt. The owner or operator must 

obtain alternative coverage as specified 

in § 280.114(e). 

(c) The guarantee agreement must be 

worded as specified in paragraph (d) or 

(e) of this section, depending on which 

of the following alternative guarantee 

arrangements is selected: 

(1) If, in the default or incapacity of 

the owner or operator, the guarantor 

guarantees to fund a standby trust as 

directed by the Director of the 

implementing agency, the guarantee 

shall be worded as specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(2) If, in the default or incapacity of 

the owner or operator, the guarantor 

guarantees to make payments as 

directed by the Director of the 

implementing agency for taking 

corrective action or compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage, the guarantee shall be worded 

as specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(d) If the guarantor is a state, the local 

government guarantee with standby 

trust must be worded exactly as follows, 

except that instructions in brackets are 

to be replaced with relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Local Government Guarantee With 

Standby Trust Made by a State 

Guarantee made this [date] by [name 

of state], herein referred to as guarantor, 

to [the state implementing agency] and 

to any and all third parties, and obliges, 

on behalf of [local government owner or 

operator]. 

Recitals 

(1) Guarantor is a state. 

(2) [Local government owner or 

operator] owns or operates the following 

underground storage tank(s) covered by 

this guarantee: [List the number of tanks 

at each facility and the name(s) and 

address(es) of the facility(ies) where the 

tanks are located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure different 

tanks at any one facility, for each tank 

covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR part 280 or the corresponding state 

requirement, and the name and address 

of the facility.] This guarantee satisfies 

40 CFR part 280, subpart H 

requirements for assuring funding for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’; if 

coverage is different for different tanks 

or locations, indicate the type of 

coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the 

above-identified underground storage 

tank(s) in the amount of [insert dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert 

dollar amount] annual aggregate. 

(3) Guarantor guarantees to 

[implementing agency] and to any and 

all third parties that: 

In the event that [local government 

owner or operator] fails to provide 

alternative coverage within 60 days after 

receipt of a notice of cancellation of this 

guarantee and the [Director of the 

implementing agency] has determined 

or suspects that a release has occurred 

at an underground storage tank covered 

by this guarantee, the guarantor, upon 

instructions from the [Director] shall 

fund a standby trust fund in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112, 

in an amount not to exceed the coverage 

limits specified above. 

In the event that the [Director] 

determines that [local government 

owner or operator] has failed to perform 

corrective action for releases arising out 

of the operation of the above-identified 

tank(s) in accordance with 40 CFR part 

280, subpart F, the guarantor upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall fund a standby trust fund in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR 280.112, in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified 

above. 

If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy 

a judgment or award based on a 

determination of liability for bodily 

injury or property damage to third 

parties caused by [‘‘sudden’’ and/or 

‘‘nonsudden’’] accidental releases 

arising from the operation of the aboveidentified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a 

claim arising from or alleged to arise 

from such injury or damage, the 

guarantor, upon written instructions 

from the [Director], shall fund a standby 

trust in accordance with the provisions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of 40 CFR 280.112 to satisfy such 

judgment(s), award(s), or settlement 

agreement(s) up to the limits of coverage 

specified above. 

(4) Guarantor agrees to notify [owner 

or operator] by certified mail of a 

voluntary or involuntary proceeding 

under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code 

naming guarantor as debtor, within 10 

days after commencement of the 

proceeding. 

(5) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee notwithstanding 

any modification or alteration of any 

obligation of [owner or operator] 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 280. 

(6) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee for so long as [local 

government owner or operator] must 

comply with the applicable financial 

responsibility requirements of 40 CFR 

part 280, subpart H for the above 

identified tank(s), except that guarantor 

may cancel this guarantee by sending 

notice by certified mail to [owner or 

operator], such cancellation to become 

effective no earlier than 120 days after 

receipt of such notice by [owner or 

operator], as evidenced by the return 

receipt. 

(7) The guarantor’s obligation does 

not apply to any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [local 

government owner or operator] under a 

workers’ compensation, disability 

benefits, or unemployment 

compensation law or other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert: local 

government owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] that is not the direct result of 

a release from a petroleum underground 

storage tank; 

(e) Bodily damage or property damage 

for which [insert owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

(8) Guarantor expressly waives notice 

of acceptance of this guarantee by [the 

implementing agency], by any or all 

third parties, or by [local government 

owner or operator], 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this guarantee is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.106(d) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the effective date shown immediately 

below. 

Effective date: 

[Name of guarantor] 

[Authorized signature for guarantor] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing] 

Signature of witness or notary: 

If the guarantor is a local government, 

the local government guarantee with 

standby trust must be worded exactly as 

follows, except that instructions in 

brackets are to be replaced with relevant 

information and the brackets deleted: 

Local Government Guarantee With 

Standby Trust Made by a Local 

Government 

Guarantee made this [date] by [name 

of guaranteeing entity], a local 

government organized under the laws of 

[name of state], herein referred to as 

guarantor, to [the state implementing 

agency] and to any and all third parties, 

and obliges, on behalf of [local 

government owner or operator]. 

Recitals 

(1) Guarantor meets or exceeds [select 

one: the local government bond rating 

test requirements of 40 CFR 280.104, the 

local government financial test 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.105, or the 

local government fund under 40 CFR 

280.107(a), 280.107(b), or 280.107(c)]. 

(2) [Local government owner or 

operator] owns or operates the following 

underground storage tank(s) covered by 

this guarantee: [List the number of tanks 

at each facility and the name(s) and 

address(es) of the facility(ies) where the 

tanks are located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure different 

tanks at any one facility, for each tank 

covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR part 280 or the corresponding state 

requirement, and the name and address 

of the facility.] This guarantee satisfies 

40 CFR part 280, subpart H 

requirements for assuring funding for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/ 

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden accidental 

Releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental Releases’’; if 

coverage is different for different tanks 

or locations, indicate the type of 

coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the 

above-identified underground storage 

tank(s) in the amount of [insert dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: 

dollar amount] annual aggregate. 

(3) Incident to our substantial 

governmental relationship with [local 

government owner or operator], 

guarantor guarantees to [implementing 

agency] and to any and all third parties 

that: 

In the event that [local government 

owner or operator] fails to provide 

alternative coverage within 60 days after 

receipt of a notice of cancellation of this 

guarantee and the [Director of the 

implementing agency] has determined 

or suspects that a release has occurred 

at an underground storage tank covered 

by this guarantee, the guarantor, upon 

instructions from the [Director] shall 

fund a standby trust fund in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 280.112, 

in an amount not to exceed the coverage 

limits specified above. 

In the event that the [Director] 

determines that [local government 

owner or operator] has failed to perform 

corrective action for releases arising out 

of the operation of the above-identified 

tank(s) in accordance with 40 CFR part 

280, subpart F, the guarantor upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall fund a standby trust fund in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR 280.112, in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified 

above. 

If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy 

a judgment or award based on a 

determination of liability for bodily 

injury or property damage to third 

parties caused by [‘‘sudden’’ and/or 

‘‘nonsudden’’] accidental releases 

arising from the operation of the aboveidentified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a 

claim arising from or alleged to arise 

from such injury or damage, the 

guarantor, upon written instructions 

from the [Director], shall fund a standby 

trust in accordance with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 280.112 to satisfy such 

judgment(s), award(s), or settlement 

agreement(s) up to the limits of coverage 

specified above. 

(4) Guarantor agrees that, if at the end 

of any fiscal year before cancellation of 

this guarantee, the guarantor fails to 

meet or exceed the requirements of the 

financial responsibility mechanism 

specified in paragraph (1), guarantor 

shall send within 120 days of such 

failure, by certified mail, notice to [local 

government owner or operator], as 

evidenced by the return receipt. 

(5) Guarantor agrees to notify [owner 

or operator] by certified mail of a 

voluntary or involuntary proceeding 

under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code 

naming guarantor as debtor, within 10 

days after commencement of the 

proceeding. 

(6) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee notwithstanding 

any modification or alteration of any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41657 

obligation of [owner or operator] 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 280. 

(7) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee for so long as [local 

government owner or operator] must 

comply with the applicable financial 

responsibility requirements of 40 CFR 

part 280, subpart H for the above 

identified tank(s), except that guarantor 

may cancel this guarantee by sending 

notice by certified mail to [owner or 

operator], such cancellation to become 

effective no earlier than 120 days after 

receipt of such notice by [owner or 

operator], as evidenced by the return 

receipt. 

(8) The guarantor’s obligation does 

not apply to any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [local 

government owner or operator] under a 

workers’ compensation, disability 

benefits, or unemployment 

compensation law or other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert: local 

government owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] that is not the direct result of 

a release from a petroleum underground 

storage tank; 

(e) Bodily damage or property damage 

for which [insert: owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

(9) Guarantor expressly waives notice 

of acceptance of this guarantee by [the 

implementing agency], by any or all 

third parties, or by [local government 

owner or operator]. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this guarantee is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.106(d) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the effective date shown immediately 

below. 

Effective date: 

[Name of guarantor] 

[Authorized signature for guarantor] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing] 

Signature of witness or notary: 

(e) If the guarantor is a state, the local 

government guarantee without standby 

trust must be worded exactly as follows, 

except that instructions in brackets are 

to be replaced with relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Local Government Guarantee Without 

Standby Trust Made by a State 

Guarantee made this [date] by [name 

of state], herein referred to as guarantor, 

to [the state implementing agency] and 

to any and all third parties, and obliges, 

on behalf of [local government owner or 

operator]. 

Recitals 

(1) Guarantor is a state. 

(2) [Local government owner or 

operator] owns or operates the following 

underground storage tank(s) covered by 

this guarantee: [List the number of tanks 

at each facility and the name(s) and 

address(es) of the facility(ies) where the 

tanks are located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure different 

tanks at any one facility, for each tank 

covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR part 280 or the corresponding state 

requirement, and the name and address 

of the facility.] This guarantee satisfies 

40 CFR part 280, subpart H 

requirements for assuring funding for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’; if 

coverage is different for different tanks 

or locations, indicate the type of 

coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the 

above-identified underground storage 

tank(s) in the amount of [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: 

dollar amount] annual aggregate. 

(3) Guarantor guarantees to 

[implementing agency] and to any and 

all third parties and obliges that: 

In the event that [local government 

owner or operator] fails to provide 

alternative coverage within 60 days after 

receipt of a notice of cancellation of this 

guarantee and the [Director of the 

implementing agency] has determined 

or suspects that a release has occurred 

at an underground storage tank covered 

by this guarantee, the guarantor, upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall make funds available to pay for 

corrective actions and compensate third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage in an amount not to exceed the 

coverage limits specified above. 

In the event that the [Director] 

determines that [local government 

owner or operator] has failed to perform 

corrective action for releases arising out 

of the operation of the above-identified 

tank(s) in accordance with 40 CFR part 

280, subpart F, the guarantor upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall make funds available to pay for 

corrective actions in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified 

above. 

If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy 

a judgment or award based on a 

determination of liability for bodily 

injury or property damage to third 

parties caused by [‘‘sudden’’ and/or 

‘‘nonsudden’’] accidental releases 

arising from the operation of the aboveidentified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a 

claim arising from or alleged to arise 

from such injury or damage, the 

guarantor, upon written instructions 

from the [Director], shall make funds 

available to compensate third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage in an 

amount not to exceed the coverage 

limits specified above. 

(4) Guarantor agrees to notify [owner 

or operator] by certified mail of a 

voluntary or involuntary proceeding 

under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code 

naming guarantor as debtor, within 10 

days after commencement of the 

proceeding. 

(5) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee notwithstanding 

any modification or alteration of any 

obligation of [owner or operator] 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 280. 

(6) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee for so long as [local 

government owner or operator] must 

comply with the applicable financial 

responsibility requirements of 40 CFR 

part 280, subpart H for the above 

identified tank(s), except that guarantor 

may cancel this guarantee by sending 

notice by certified mail to [owner or 

operator], such cancellation to become 

effective no earlier than 120 days after 

receipt of such notice by [owner or 

operator], as evidenced by the return 

receipt. If notified of a probable release, 

the guarantor agrees to remain bound to 

the terms of this guarantee for all 

charges arising from the release, up to 

the coverage limits specified above, 

notwithstanding the cancellation of the 

guarantee with respect to future 

releases. 

(7) The guarantor’s obligation does 

not apply to any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [local 

government owner or operator] under a 

workers’ compensation disability 

benefits, or unemployment 

compensation law or other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert local government owner or 

operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert: local 

government owner or operator]; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] that is not the direct result of 

a release from a petroleum underground 

storage tank; 

(e) Bodily damage or property damage 

for which [insert: owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. 

(8) Guarantor expressly waives notice 

of acceptance of this guarantee by [the 

implementing agency], by any or all 

third parties, or by [local government 

owner or operator]. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this guarantee is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.106(e) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the effective date shown immediately 

below. 

Effective date: 

[Name of guarantor] 

[Authorized signature for guarantor] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing] 

Signature of witness or notary: 

If the guarantor is a local government, 

the local government guarantee without 

standby trust must be worded exactly as 

follows, except that instructions in 

brackets are to be replaced with relevant 

information and the brackets deleted: 

Local Government Guarantee Without 

Standby Trust Made by a Local 

Government 

Guarantee made this [date] by [name 

of guaranteeing entity], a local 

government organized under the laws of 

[name of state], herein referred to as 

guarantor, to [the state implementing 

agency] and to any and all third parties, 

and obliges, on behalf of [local 

government owner or operator]. 

Recitals 

(1) Guarantor meets or exceeds [select 

one: the local government bond rating 

test requirements of 40 CFR 280.104, the 

local government financial test 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.105, the 

local government fund under 40 CFR 

280.107(a), 280.107(b), or 280.107(c)]. 

(2) [Local government owner or 

operator] owns or operates the following 

underground storage tank(s) covered by 

this guarantee: [List the number of tanks 

at each facility and the name(s) and 

address(es) of the facility(ies) where the 

tanks are located. If more than one 

instrument is used to assure different 

tanks at any one facility, for each tank 

covered by this instrument, list the tank 

identification number provided in the 

notification submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR part 280 or the corresponding state 

requirement, and the name and address 

of the facility.] This guarantee satisfies 

40 CFR part 280, subpart H 

requirements for assuring funding for 

[insert: ‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/

or ‘‘compensating third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage 

caused by’’ either ‘‘sudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘nonsudden accidental 

releases’’ or ‘‘accidental releases’’; if 

coverage is different for different tanks 

or locations, indicate the type of 

coverage applicable to each tank or 

location] arising from operating the 

above-identified underground storage 

tank(s) in the amount of [insert: dollar 

amount] per occurrence and [insert: 

dollar amount] annual aggregate. 

(3) Incident to our substantial 

governmental relationship with [local 

government owner or operator], 

guarantor guarantees to [implementing 

agency] and to any and all third parties 

and obliges that: 

In the event that [local government 

owner or operator] fails to provide 

alternative coverage within 60 days after 

receipt of a notice of cancellation of this 

guarantee and the [Director of the 

implementing agency] has determined 

or suspects that a release has occurred 

at an underground storage tank covered 

by this guarantee, the guarantor, upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall make funds available to pay for 

corrective actions and compensate third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage in an amount not to exceed the 

coverage limits specified above. 

In the event that the [Director] 

determines that [local government 

owner or operator] has failed to perform 

corrective action for releases arising out 

of the operation of the above-identified 

tank(s) in accordance with 40 CFR part 

280, subpart F, the guarantor upon 

written instructions from the [Director] 

shall make funds available to pay for 

corrective actions in an amount not to 

exceed the coverage limits specified 

above. 

If [owner or operator] fails to satisfy 

a judgment or award based on a 

determination of liability for bodily 

injury or property damage to third 

parties caused by [‘‘sudden’’ and/or 

‘‘nonsudden’’] accidental releases 

arising from the operation of the aboveidentified tank(s), or fails to pay an 

amount agreed to in settlement of a 

claim arising from or alleged to arise 

from such injury or damage, the 

guarantor, upon written instructions 

from the [Director], shall make funds 

available to compensate third parties for 

bodily injury and property damage in an 

amount not to exceed the coverage 

limits specified above. 

(4) Guarantor agrees that if at the end 

of any fiscal year before cancellation of 

this guarantee, the guarantor fails to 

meet or exceed the requirements of the 

financial responsibility mechanism 

specified in paragraph (1), guarantor 

shall send within 120 days of such 

failure, by certified mail, notice to [local 

government owner or operator], as 

evidenced by the return receipt. 

(5) Guarantor agrees to notify [owner 

or operator] by certified mail of a 

voluntary or involuntary proceeding 

under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code 

naming guarantor as debtor, within 10 

days after commencement of the 

proceeding. 

(6) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee notwithstanding 

any modification or alteration of any 

obligation of [owner or operator] 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 280. 

(7) Guarantor agrees to remain bound 

under this guarantee for so long as [local 

government owner or operator] must 

comply with the applicable financial 

responsibility requirements of 40 CFR 

part 280, subpart H for the above 

identified tank(s), except that guarantor 

may cancel this guarantee by sending 

notice by certified mail to [owner or 

operator], such cancellation to become 

effective no earlier than 120 days after 

receipt of such notice by [owner or 

operator], as evidenced by the return 

receipt. If notified of a probable release, 

the guarantor agrees to remain bound to 

the terms of this guarantee for all 

charges arising from the release, up to 

the coverage limits specified above, 

notwithstanding the cancellation of the 

guarantee with respect to future 

releases. 

(8) The guarantor’s obligation does 

not apply to any of the following: 

(a) Any obligation of [local 

government owner or operator] under a 

workers’ compensation disability 

benefits, or unemployment 

compensation law or other similar law; 

(b) Bodily injury to an employee of 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] arising from, and in the course 

of, employment by [insert: local 

government owner or operator]; 

(c) Bodily injury or property damage 

arising from the ownership, 

maintenance, use, or entrustment to 

others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or 

watercraft; 

(d) Property damage to any property 

owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41659 

custody, or control of, or occupied by 

[insert: local government owner or 

operator] that is not the direct result of 

a release from a petroleum underground 

storage tank; (e) Bodily damage or property damage 

for which [insert: owner or operator] is 

obligated to pay damages by reason of 

the assumption of liability in a contract 

or agreement other than a contract or 

agreement entered into to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 280.93. (9) Guarantor expressly waives notice 

of acceptance of this guarantee by [the 

implementing agency], by any or all 

third parties, or by [local government 

owner or operator], I hereby certify that the wording of 

this guarantee is identical to the 

wording specified in 40 CFR 280.106(e) 

as such regulations were constituted on 

the effective date shown immediately 

below. 

Effective date: 

[Name of guarantor] 

[Authorized signature for guarantor] 

[Name of person signing] 

[Title of person signing] 

Signature of witness or notary: 

§ 280.107 Local government fund. 

A local government owner or operator 

may satisfy the requirements of § 280.93 

by establishing a dedicated fund 

account that conforms to the 

requirements of this section. Except as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, a dedicated fund may not be 

commingled with other funds or 

otherwise used in normal operations. A 

dedicated fund will be considered 

eligible if it meets one of the following 

requirements: (a) The fund is dedicated by state 

constitutional provision, or local 

government statute, charter, ordinance, 

or order to pay for taking corrective 

action and for compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by accidental releases 

arising from the operation of petroleum 

underground storage tanks and is 

funded for the full amount of coverage 

required under § 280.93, or funded for 

part of the required amount of coverage 

and used in combination with other 

mechanism(s) that provide the 

remaining coverage; or (b) The fund is dedicated by state 

constitutional provision, or local 

government statute, charter, ordinance, 

or order as a contingency fund for 

general emergencies, including taking 

corrective action and compensating 

third parties for bodily injury and 

property damage caused by accidental 

releases arising from the operation of 

petroleum underground storage tanks, 

and is funded for five times the full 

amount of coverage required under 

§ 280.93, or funded for part of the 

required amount of coverage and used 

in combination with other 

mechanism(s) that provide the 

remaining coverage. If the fund is 

funded for less than five times the 

amount of coverage required under 

§ 280.93, the amount of financial 

responsibility demonstrated by the fund 

may not exceed one-fifth the amount in 

the fund; or 

(c) The fund is dedicated by state 

constitutional provision, or local 

government statute, charter, ordinance 

or order to pay for taking corrective 

action and for compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by accidental releases 

arising from the operation of petroleum 

underground storage tanks. A payment 

is made to the fund once every year for 

seven years until the fund is fullyfunded. This seven year period is 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘pay-inperiod.’’ The amount of each payment 

must be determined by this formula: 

Where TF is the total required financial 

assurance for the owner or operator, CF 

is the current amount in the fund, and 

Y is the number of years remaining in 

the pay-in-period; and, (1) The local government owner or 

operator has available bonding 

authority, approved through voter 

referendum (if such approval is 

necessary prior to the issuance of 

bonds), for an amount equal to the 

difference between the required amount 

of coverage and the amount held in the 

dedicated fund. This bonding authority 

shall be available for taking corrective 

action and for compensating third 

parties for bodily injury and property 

damage caused by accidental releases 

arising from the operation of petroleum 

underground storage tanks; or (2) The local government owner or 

operator has a letter signed by the 

appropriate state attorney general 

stating that the use of the bonding 

authority will not increase the local 

government’s debt beyond the legal debt 

ceilings established by the relevant state 

laws. The letter must also state that 

prior voter approval is not necessary 

before use of the bonding authority. (d) To demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements of the local government 

fund, the chief financial officer of the 

local government owner or operator 

and/or guarantor must sign a letter 

worded exactly as follows, except that 

the instructions in brackets are to be 

replaced by the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Letter from Chief Financial 

Officer 

I am the chief financial officer of 

[insert: name and address of local 

government owner or operator, or 

guarantor]. This letter is in support of 

the use of the local government fund 

mechanism to demonstrate financial 

responsibility for [insert: ‘‘taking 

corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage’’] caused by 

[insert: ‘‘sudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘nonsudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘accidental releases’’] in the amount of 

at least [insert: dollar amount] per 

occurrence and [insert: dollar amount] 

annual aggregate arising from operating 

(an) underground storage tank(s). 

Underground storage tanks at the 

following facilities are assured by this 

local government fund mechanism: [List 

for each facility: The name and address 

of the facility where tanks are assured 

by the local government fund]. 

[Insert: ‘‘The local government fund is 

funded for the full amount of coverage 

required under § 280.93, or funded for 

part of the required amount of coverage 

and used in combination with other 

mechanism(s) that provide the 

remaining coverage.’’ or ‘‘The local 

government fund is funded for five 

times the full amount of coverage 

required under § 280.93, or funded for 

part of the required amount of coverage 

and used in combination with other 

mechanisms(s) that provide the 

remaining coverage,’’ or ‘‘A payment is 

made to the fund once every year for 

seven years until the fund is fullyfunded and [name of local government 

owner or operator] has available 

bonding authority, approved through 

voter referendum, of an amount equal to 

the difference between the required 

amount of coverage and the amount 

held in the dedicated fund’’ or ‘‘A 

payment is made to the fund once every 

year for seven years until the fund is 

fully-funded and I have attached a letter 

signed by the State Attorney General 

stating that (1) the use of the bonding 

authority will not increase the local 

government’s debt beyond the legal debt 

ceilings established by the relevant state 

laws and (2) that prior voter approval is 

not necessary before use of the bonding 

authority’’]. 

The details of the local government 

fund are as follows: 

Amount in Fund (market value of fund 

at close of last fiscal year): 

[If fund balance is incrementally 

funded as specified in § 280.107(c), 

insert: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.042</GPH>
41660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Amount added to fund in the most 

recently completed fiscal year: 

Number of years remaining in the payin-period: llll] 

A copy of the state constitutional 

provision, or local government statute, 

charter, ordinance or order dedicating 

the fund is attached. 

I hereby certify that the wording of 

this letter is identical to the wording 

specified in 40 CFR 280.107(d) as such 

regulations were constituted on the date 

shown immediately below. 

[Date] 

[Signature] 

[Name] 

[Title] 

§ 280.108 Substitution of financial 

assurance mechanisms by owner or 

operator. 

(a) An owner or operator may 

substitute any alternate financial 

assurance mechanisms as specified in 

this subpart, provided that at all times 

he maintains an effective financial 

assurance mechanism or combination of 

mechanisms that satisfies the 

requirements of § 280.93. 

(b) After obtaining alternate financial 

assurance as specified in this subpart, 

an owner or operator may cancel a 

financial assurance mechanism by 

providing notice to the provider of 

financial assurance. 

§ 280.109 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a 

provider of financial assurance. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided, a 

provider of financial assurance may 

cancel or fail to renew an assurance 

mechanism by sending a notice of 

termination by certified mail to the 

owner or operator. 

(1) Termination of a local government 

guarantee, a guarantee, a surety bond, or 

a letter of credit may not occur until 120 

days after the date on which the owner 

or operator receives the notice of 

termination, as evidenced by the return 

receipt. 

(2) Termination of insurance or risk 

retention coverage, except for nonpayment or misrepresentation by the 

insured, or state-funded assurance may 

not occur until 60 days after the date on 

which the owner or operator receives 

the notice of termination, as evidenced 

by the return receipt. Termination for 

non-payment of premium or 

misrepresentation by the insured may 

not occur until a minimum of 10 days 

after the date on which the owner or 

operator receives the notice of 

termination, as evidenced by the return 

receipt. 

(b) If a provider of financial 

responsibility cancels or fails to renew 

for reasons other than incapacity of the 

provider as specified in § 280.114, the 

owner or operator must obtain alternate 

coverage as specified in this section 

within 60 days after receipt of the notice 

of termination. If the owner or operator 

fails to obtain alternate coverage within 

60 days after receipt of the notice of 

termination, the owner or operator must 

notify the Director of the implementing 

agency of such failure and submit: 

(1) The name and address of the 

provider of financial assurance; 

(2) The effective date of termination; 

and 

(3) The evidence of the financial 

assistance mechanism subject to the 

termination maintained in accordance 

with § 280.111(b). 

§ 280.110 Reporting by owner or operator. 

(a) An owner or operator must submit 

the appropriate forms listed in 

§ 280.111(b) documenting current 

evidence of financial responsibility to 

the Director of the implementing 

agency: 

(1) Within 30 days after the owner or 

operator identifies a release from an 

underground storage tank required to be 

reported under § 280.53 or § 280.61; 

(2) If the owner or operator fails to 

obtain alternate coverage as required by 

this subpart, within 30 days after the 

owner or operator receives notice of: 

(i) Commencement of a voluntary or 

involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming a 

provider of financial assurance as a 

debtor; 

(ii) Suspension or revocation of the 

authority of a provider of financial 

assurance to issue a financial assurance 

mechanism; 

(iii) Failure of a guarantor to meet the 

requirements of the financial test; 

(iv) Other incapacity of a provider of 

financial assurance; or 

(3) As required by §§ 280.95(g) and 

280.109(b). 

(b) An owner or operator must certify 

compliance with the financial 

responsibility requirements of this part 

as specified in the new tank notification 

form when notifying the appropriate 

state or local agency of the installation 

of a new underground storage tank 

under § 280.22. 

(c) The Director of the Implementing 

Agency may require an owner or 

operator to submit evidence of financial 

assurance as described in § 280.111(b) 

or other information relevant to 

compliance with this subpart at any 

time. 

§ 280.111 Recordkeeping. 

(a) Owners or operators must 

maintain evidence of all financial 

assurance mechanisms used to 

demonstrate financial responsibility 

under this subpart for an underground 

storage tank until released from the 

requirements of this subpart under 

§ 208.113. An owner or operator must 

maintain such evidence at the 

underground storage tank site or the 

owner’s or operator’s place of work. 

Records maintained off-site must be 

made available upon request of the 

implementing agency. 

(b) An owner or operator must 

maintain the following types of 

evidence of financial responsibility: 

(1) An owner or operator using an 

assurance mechanism specified in 

§§ 280.95 through 280.100 or § 280.102 

or §§ 280.104 through 280.107 must 

maintain a copy of the instrument 

worded as specified. 

(2) An owner or operator using a 

financial test or guarantee, or a local 

government financial test or a local 

government guarantee supported by the 

local government financial test must 

maintain a copy of the chief financial 

officer’s letter based on year-end 

financial statements for the most recent 

completed financial reporting year. 

Such evidence must be on file no later 

than 120 days after the close of the 

financial reporting year. 

(3) An owner or operator using a 

guarantee, surety bond, or letter of 

credit must maintain a copy of the 

signed standby trust fund agreement 

and copies of any amendments to the 

agreement. 

(4) A local government owner or 

operator using a local government 

guarantee under § 280.106(d) must 

maintain a copy of the signed standby 

trust fund agreement and copies of any 

amendments to the agreement. 

(5) A local government owner or 

operator using the local government 

bond rating test under § 280.104 must 

maintain a copy of its bond rating 

published within the last twelve months 

by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. 

(6) A local government owner or 

operator using the local government 

guarantee under § 280.106, where the 

guarantor’s demonstration of financial 

responsibility relies on the bond rating 

test under § 280.104 must maintain a 

copy of the guarantor’s bond rating 

published within the last twelve months 

by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. 

(7) An owner or operator using an 

insurance policy or risk retention group 

coverage must maintain a copy of the 

signed insurance policy or risk retention 

group coverage policy, with the 

endorsement or certificate of insurance 

and any amendments to the agreements. 

(8) An owner or operator covered by 

a state fund or other state assurance 

must maintain on file a copy of any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41661 

evidence of coverage supplied by or 

required by the state under § 280.101(d). 

(9) An owner or operator using a local 

government fund under § 280.107 must 

maintain the following documents: 

(i) A copy of the state constitutional 

provision or local government statute, 

charter, ordinance, or order dedicating 

the fund; and 

(ii) Year-end financial statements for 

the most recent completed financial 

reporting year showing the amount in 

the fund. If the fund is established 

under § 280.107(c) using incremental 

funding backed by bonding authority, 

the financial statements must show the 

previous year’s balance, the amount of 

funding during the year, and the closing 

balance in the fund. 

(iii) If the fund is established under 

§ 280.107(c) using incremental funding 

backed by bonding authority, the owner 

or operator must also maintain 

documentation of the required bonding 

authority, including either the results of 

a voter referendum (under 

§ 280.107(c)(1)), or attestation by the 

State Attorney General as specified 

under § 280.107(c)(2). 

(10) A local government owner or 

operator using the local government 

guarantee supported by the local 

government fund must maintain a copy 

of the guarantor’s year-end financial 

statements for the most recent 

completed financial reporting year 

showing the amount of the fund. 

(11)(i) An owner or operator using an 

assurance mechanism specified in 

§§ 280.95 through 280.107 must 

maintain an updated copy of a 

certification of financial responsibility 

worded as follows, except that 

instructions in brackets are to be 

replaced with the relevant information 

and the brackets deleted: 

Certification of Financial 

Responsibility 

[Owner or operator] hereby certifies 

that it is in compliance with the 

requirements of subpart H of 40 CFR 

part 280. 

The financial assurance mechanism(s) 

used to demonstrate financial 

responsibility under subpart H of 40 

CFR part 280 is (are) as follows: 

[For each mechanism, list the type of 

mechanism, name of issuer, mechanism 

number (if applicable), amount of 

coverage, effective period of coverage 

and whether the mechanism covers 

‘‘taking corrective action’’ and/or 

‘‘compensating third parties for bodily 

injury and property damage caused by’’ 

either ‘‘sudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘nonsudden accidental releases’’ or 

‘‘accidental releases.’’] 

[Signature of owner or operator] 

[Name of owner or operator] 

[Title] 

[Date] 

[Signature of witness or notary] 

[Name of witness or notary] 

[Date] 

(ii) The owner or operator must 

update this certification whenever the 

financial assurance mechanism(s) used 

to demonstrate financial responsibility 

change(s). 

§ 280.112 Drawing on financial assurance 

mechanisms. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the Director of the 

implementing agency shall require the 

guarantor, surety, or institution issuing 

a letter of credit to place the amount of 

funds stipulated by the Director, up to 

the limit of funds provided by the 

financial assurance mechanism, into the 

standby trust if: 

(1)(i) The owner or operator fails to 

establish alternate financial assurance 

within 60 days after receiving notice of 

cancellation of the guarantee, surety 

bond, letter of credit, or, as applicable, 

other financial assurance mechanism; 

and 

(ii) The Director determines or 

suspects that a release from an 

underground storage tank covered by 

the mechanism has occurred and so 

notifies the owner or operator or the 

owner or operator has notified the 

Director pursuant to subparts E or F of 

a release from an underground storage 

tank covered by the mechanism; or 

(2) The conditions of paragraph (b)(1) 

or (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section are 

satisfied. 

(b) The Director of the implementing 

agency may draw on a standby trust 

fund when: 

(1) The Director makes a final 

determination that a release has 

occurred and immediate or long-term 

corrective action for the release is 

needed, and the owner or operator, after 

appropriate notice and opportunity to 

comply, has not conducted corrective 

action as required under subpart F of 

this part; or 

(2) The Director has received either: 

(i) Certification from the owner or 

operator and the third-party liability 

claimant(s) and from attorneys 

representing the owner or operator and 

the third-party liability claimant(s) that 

a third-party liability claim should be 

paid. The certification must be worded 

as follows, except that instructions in 

brackets are to be replaced with the 

relevant information and the brackets 

deleted: 

Certification of Valid Claim 

The undersigned, as principals and as 

legal representatives of [insert: owner or 

operator] and [insert: name and address 

of third-party claimant], hereby certify 

that the claim of bodily injury [and/or] 

property damage caused by an 

accidental release arising from operating 

[owner’s or operator’s] underground 

storage tank should be paid in the 

amount of $[_]. 

[Signatures] 

Owner or Operator 

Attorney for Owner or Operator 

(Notary) 

Date 

[Signatures] 

Claimant(s) 

Attorney(s) for Claimant(s) 

(Notary) 

Date 

or 

(ii) A valid final court order 

establishing a judgment against the 

owner or operator for bodily injury or 

property damage caused by an 

accidental release from an underground 

storage tank covered by financial 

assurance under this subpart and the 

Director determines that the owner or 

operator has not satisfied the judgment. 

(c) If the Director of the implementing 

agency determines that the amount of 

corrective action costs and third-party 

liability claims eligible for payment 

under paragraph (b) of this section may 

exceed the balance of the standby trust 

fund and the obligation of the provider 

of financial assurance, the first priority 

for payment shall be corrective action 

costs necessary to protect human health 

and the environment. The Director shall 

pay third-party liability claims in the 

order in which the Director receives 

certifications under paragraph (b)(2)(i) 

of this section, and valid court orders 

under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(d) A governmental entity acting as 

guarantor under § 280.106(e), the local 

government guarantee without standby 

trust, shall make payments as directed 

by the Director under the circumstances 

described in § 280.112(a), (b), and (c). 

§ 280.113 Release from the requirements. 

An owner or operator is no longer 

required to maintain financial 

responsibility under this subpart for an 

underground storage tank after the tank 

has been permanently closed or 

undergoes a change-in-service or, if 

corrective action is required, after 

corrective action has been completed 

and the tank has been permanently 

closed or undergoes a change-in-service 

as required by subpart G of this part. 

§ 280.114 Bankruptcy or other incapacity 

of owner or operator or provider of financial 

assurance. 

(a) Within 10 days after 

commencement of a voluntary or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming an 

owner or operator as debtor, the owner 

or operator must notify the Director of 

the implementing agency by certified 

mail of such commencement and submit 

the appropriate forms listed in 

§ 280.111(b) documenting current 

financial responsibility. 

(b) Within 10 days after 

commencement of a voluntary or 

involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming a 

guarantor providing financial assurance 

as debtor, such guarantor must notify 

the owner or operator by certified mail 

of such commencement as required 

under the terms of the guarantee 

specified in § 280.96. 

(c) Within 10 days after 

commencement of a voluntary or 

involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming a local 

government owner or operator as debtor, 

the local government owner or operator 

must notify the Director of the 

implementing agency by certified mail 

of such commencement and submit the 

appropriate forms listed in § 280.111(b) 

documenting current financial 

responsibility. 

(d) Within 10 days after 

commencement of a voluntary or 

involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming a 

guarantor providing a local government 

financial assurance as debtor, such 

guarantor must notify the local 

government owner or operator by 

certified mail of such commencement as 

required under the terms of the 

guarantee specified in § 280.106. 

(e) An owner or operator who obtains 

financial assurance by a mechanism 

other than the financial test of selfinsurance will be deemed to be without 

the required financial assurance in the 

event of a bankruptcy or incapacity of 

its provider of financial assurance, or a 

suspension or revocation of the 

authority of the provider of financial 

assurance to issue a guarantee, 

insurance policy, risk retention group 

coverage policy, surety bond, letter of 

credit, or state-required mechanism. The 

owner or operator must obtain alternate 

financial assurance as specified in this 

subpart within 30 days after receiving 

notice of such an event. If the owner or 

operator does not obtain alternate 

coverage within 30 days after such 

notification, he must notify the Director 

of the implementing agency. 

(f) Within 30 days after receipt of 

notification that a state fund or other 

state assurance has become incapable of 

paying for assured corrective action or 

third-party compensation costs, the 

owner or operator must obtain alternate 

financial assurance. 

§ 280.115 Replenishment of guarantees, 

letters of credit, or surety bonds. 

(a) If at any time after a standby trust 

is funded upon the instruction of the 

Director of the implementing agency 

with funds drawn from a guarantee, 

local government guarantee with 

standby trust, letter of credit, or surety 

bond, and the amount in the standby 

trust is reduced below the full amount 

of coverage required, the owner or 

operator shall by the anniversary date of 

the financial mechanism from which the 

funds were drawn: 

(1) Replenish the value of financial 

assurance to equal the full amount of 

coverage required; or 

(2) Acquire another financial 

assurance mechanism for the amount by 

which funds in the standby trust have 

been reduced. 

(b) For purposes of this section, the 

full amount of coverage required is the 

amount of coverage to be provided by 

§ 280.93. If a combination of 

mechanisms was used to provide the 

assurance funds which were drawn 

upon, replenishment shall occur by the 

earliest anniversary date among the 

mechanisms. 

§ 280.116 Suspension of enforcement. 

[Reserved] 

Subpart I—Lender Liability 

§ 280.200 Definitions. 

(a) UST technical standards, as used 

in this subpart, refers to the UST 

preventative and operating requirements 

under subparts B, C, D, G, J, and K of 

this part and § 280.50. 

(b) Petroleum production, refining, 

and marketing. (1) Petroleum 

production means the production of 

crude oil or other forms of petroleum (as 

defined in § 280.12) as well as the 

production of petroleum products from 

purchased materials. 

(2) Petroleum refining means the 

cracking, distillation, separation, 

conversion, upgrading, and finishing of 

refined petroleum or petroleum 

products. 

(3) Petroleum marketing means the 

distribution, transfer, or sale of 

petroleum or petroleum products for 

wholesale or retail purposes. 

(c) Indicia of ownership means 

evidence of a secured interest, evidence 

of an interest in a security interest, or 

evidence of an interest in real or 

personal property securing a loan or 

other obligation, including any legal or 

equitable title or deed to real or personal 

property acquired through or incident to 

foreclosure. Evidence of such interests 

include, but are not limited to, 

mortgages, deeds of trust, liens, surety 

bonds and guarantees of obligations, 

title held pursuant to a lease financing 

transaction in which the lessor does not 

select initially the leased property 

(hereinafter ‘‘lease financing 

transaction’’), and legal or equitable title 

obtained pursuant to foreclosure. 

Evidence of such interests also includes 

assignments, pledges, or other rights to 

or other forms of encumbrance against 

property that are held primarily to 

protect a security interest. A person is 

not required to hold title or a security 

interest in order to maintain indicia of 

ownership. 

(d) A holder is a person who, upon 

the effective date of this regulation or in 

the future, maintains indicia of 

ownership (as defined in § 280.200(c)) 

primarily to protect a security interest 

(as defined in § 280.200(f)(1)) in a 

petroleum UST or UST system or 

facility or property on which a 

petroleum UST or UST system is 

located. A holder includes the initial 

holder (such as a loan originator); any 

subsequent holder (such as a successorin-interest or subsequent purchaser of 

the security interest on the secondary 

market); a guarantor of an obligation, 

surety, or any other person who holds 

ownership indicia primarily to protect a 

security interest; or a receiver or other 

person who acts on behalf or for the 

benefit of a holder. 

(e) A borrower, debtor, or obligor is a 

person whose UST or UST system or 

facility or property on which the UST or 

UST system is located is encumbered by 

a security interest. These terms may be 

used interchangeably. 

(f) Primarily to protect a security 

interest means that the holder’s indicia 

of ownership are held primarily for the 

purpose of securing payment or 

performance of an obligation. 

(1) Security interest means an interest 

in a petroleum UST or UST system or 

in the facility or property on which a 

petroleum UST or UST system is 

located, created or established for the 

purpose of securing a loan or other 

obligation. Security interests include 

but are not limited to mortgages, deeds 

of trusts, liens, and title pursuant to 

lease financing transactions. Security 

interests may also arise from 

transactions such as sale and leasebacks, 

conditional sales, installment sales, 

trust receipt transactions, certain 

assignments, factoring agreements, 

accounts receivable financing 

arrangements, and consignments, if the 

transaction creates or establishes an 

interest in an UST or UST system or in 

the facility or property on which the 

UST or UST system is located, for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41663 

purpose of securing a loan or other 

obligation. 

(2) Primarily to protect a security 

interest, as used in this subpart, does 

not include indicia of ownership held 

primarily for investment purposes, nor 

ownership indicia held primarily for 

purposes other than as protection for a 

security interest. A holder may have 

other, secondary reasons for 

maintaining indicia of ownership, but 

the primary reason why any ownership 

indicia are held must be as protection 

for a security interest. 

(g) Operation means, for purposes of 

this subpart, the use, storage, filling, or 

dispensing of petroleum contained in an 

UST or UST system. 

§ 280.210 Participation in management. 

The term ‘‘participating in the 

management of an UST or UST system’’ 

means that, subsequent to the effective 

date of this subpart, December 6, 1995, 

the holder is engaging in 

decisionmaking control of, or activities 

related to, operation of the UST or UST 

system, as defined herein. 

(a) Actions that are participation in 

management. (1) Participation in the 

management of an UST or UST system 

means, for purposes of this subpart, 

actual participation by the holder in the 

management or control of 

decisionmaking related to the operation 

of an UST or UST system. Participation 

in management does not include the 

mere capacity or ability to influence or 

the unexercised right to control UST or 

UST system operations. A holder is 

participating in the management of the 

UST or UST system only if the holder 

either: 

(i) Exercises decisionmaking control 

over the operational (as opposed to 

financial or administrative) aspects of 

the UST or UST system, such that the 

holder has undertaken responsibility for 

all or substantially all of the 

management of the UST or UST system; 

or 

(ii) Exercises control at a level 

comparable to that of a manager of the 

borrower’s enterprise, such that the 

holder has assumed or manifested 

responsibility for the overall 

management of the enterprise 

encompassing the day-to-day 

decisionmaking of the enterprise with 

respect to all, or substantially all, of the 

operational (as opposed to financial or 

administrative) aspects of the enterprise. 

(2) Operational aspects of the 

enterprise relate to the use, storage, 

filling, or dispensing of petroleum 

contained in an UST or UST system, 

and include functions such as that of a 

facility or plant manager, operations 

manager, chief operating officer, or chief 

executive officer. Financial or 

administrative aspects include functions 

such as that of a credit manager, 

accounts payable/receivable manager, 

personnel manager, controller, chief 

financial officer, or similar functions. 

Operational aspects of the enterprise do 

not include the financial or 

administrative aspects of the enterprise, 

or actions associated with 

environmental compliance, or actions 

undertaken voluntarily to protect the 

environment in accordance with 

applicable requirements in this part or 

applicable state requirements in those 

states that have been delegated authority 

by EPA to administer the UST program 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and 40 CFR 

part 281. 

(b) Actions that are not participation 

in management pre-foreclosure. (1) 

Actions at the inception of the loan or 

other transaction. No act or omission 

prior to the time that indicia of 

ownership are held primarily to protect 

a security interest constitutes evidence 

of participation in management within 

the meaning of this subpart. A 

prospective holder who undertakes or 

requires an environmental investigation 

(which could include a site assessment, 

inspection, and/or audit) of the UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is located 

(in which indicia of ownership are to be 

held), or requires a prospective 

borrower to clean up contamination 

from the UST or UST system or to 

comply or come into compliance 

(whether prior or subsequent to the time 

that indicia of ownership are held 

primarily to protect a security interest) 

with any applicable law or regulation, is 

not by such action considered to be 

participating in the management of the 

UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located. 

(2) Loan policing and work out. 

Actions that are consistent with holding 

ownership indicia primarily to protect a 

security interest do not constitute 

participation in management for 

purposes of this subpart. The authority 

for the holder to take such actions may, 

but need not, be contained in 

contractual or other documents 

specifying requirements for financial, 

environmental, and other warranties, 

covenants, conditions, representations 

or promises from the borrower. Loan 

policing and work out activities cover 

and include all such activities up to 

foreclosure, exclusive of any activities 

that constitute participation in 

management. 

(i) Policing the security interest or 

loan. (A) A holder who engages in 

policing activities prior to foreclosure 

will remain within the exemption 

provided that the holder does not 

together with other actions participate 

in the management of the UST or UST 

system as provided in § 280.210(a). 

Such policing actions include, but are 

not limited to, requiring the borrower to 

clean up contamination from the UST or 

UST system during the term of the 

security interest; requiring the borrower 

to comply or come into compliance with 

applicable federal, state, and local 

environmental and other laws, rules, 

and regulations during the term of the 

security interest; securing or exercising 

authority to monitor or inspect the UST 

or UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is located 

(including on-site inspections) in which 

indicia of ownership are maintained, or 

the borrower’s business or financial 

condition during the term of the 

security interest; or taking other actions 

to adequately police the loan or security 

interest (such as requiring a borrower to 

comply with any warranties, covenants, 

conditions, representations, or promises 

from the borrower). 

(B) Policing activities also include 

undertaking by the holder of UST 

environmental compliance actions and 

voluntary environmental actions taken 

in compliance with this part, provided 

that the holder does not otherwise 

participate in the management or daily 

operation of the UST or UST system as 

provided in § 280.210(a) and § 280.230. 

Such allowable actions include, but are 

not limited to, release detection and 

release reporting, release response and 

corrective action, temporary or 

permanent closure of an UST or UST 

system, UST upgrading or replacement, 

and maintenance of corrosion 

protection. A holder who undertakes 

these actions must do so in compliance 

with the applicable requirements in this 

part or applicable state requirements in 

those states that have been delegated 

authority by EPA to administer the UST 

program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c 

and 40 CFR part 281. A holder may 

directly oversee these environmental 

compliance actions and voluntary 

environmental actions, and directly hire 

contractors to perform the work, and is 

not by such action considered to be 

participating in the management of the 

UST or UST system. 

(ii) Loan work out. A holder who 

engages in work out activities prior to 

foreclosure will remain within the 

exemption provided that the holder 

does not together with other actions 

participate in the management of the 

UST or UST system as provided in 

§ 280.210(a). For purposes of this rule, 

‘‘work out’’ refers to those actions by 

which a holder, at any time prior to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

foreclosure, seeks to prevent, cure, or 

mitigate a default by the borrower or 

obligor; or to preserve, or prevent the 

diminution of, the value of the security. 

Work out activities include, but are not 

limited to, restructuring or renegotiating 

the terms of the security interest; 

requiring payment of additional rent or 

interest; exercising forbearance; 

requiring or exercising rights pursuant 

to an assignment of accounts or other 

amounts owing to an obligor; requiring 

or exercising rights pursuant to an 

escrow agreement pertaining to amounts 

owing to an obligor; providing specific 

or general financial or other advice, 

suggestions, counseling, or guidance; 

and exercising any right or remedy the 

holder is entitled to by law or under any 

warranties, covenants, conditions, 

representations, or promises from the 

borrower. 

(c) Foreclosure on an UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

an UST or UST system is located, and 

participation in management activities 

post-foreclosure. 

(1) Foreclosure. (i) Indicia of 

ownership that are held primarily to 

protect a security interest include legal 

or equitable title or deed to real or 

personal property acquired through or 

incident to foreclosure. For purposes of 

this subpart, the term ‘‘foreclosure’’ 

means that legal, marketable or 

equitable title or deed has been issued, 

approved, and recorded, and that the 

holder has obtained access to the UST, 

UST system, UST facility, and property 

on which the UST or UST system is 

located, provided that the holder acted 

diligently to acquire marketable title or 

deed and to gain access to the UST, UST 

system, UST facility, and property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located. The indicia of ownership held 

after foreclosure continue to be 

maintained primarily as protection for a 

security interest provided that the 

holder undertakes to sell, re-lease an 

UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located, held pursuant to a 

lease financing transaction (whether by 

a new lease financing transaction or 

substitution of the lessee), or otherwise 

divest itself of the UST or UST system 

or facility or property on which the UST 

or UST system is located, in a 

reasonably expeditious manner, using 

whatever commercially reasonable 

means are relevant or appropriate with 

respect to the UST or UST system or 

facility or property on which the UST or 

UST system is located, taking all facts 

and circumstances into consideration, 

and provided that the holder does not 

participate in management (as defined 

in § 280.210(a)) prior to or after 

foreclosure. 

(ii) For purposes of establishing that 

a holder is seeking to sell, re-lease 

pursuant to a lease financing transaction 

(whether by a new lease financing 

transaction or substitution of the lessee), 

or divest in a reasonably expeditious 

manner an UST or UST system or 

facility or property on which the UST or 

UST system is located, the holder may 

use whatever commercially reasonable 

means as are relevant or appropriate 

with respect to the UST or UST system 

or facility or property on which the UST 

or UST system is located, or may 

employ the means specified in 

§ 280.210(c)(2). A holder that outbids, 

rejects, or fails to act upon a written 

bona fide, firm offer of fair 

consideration for the UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located, as 

provided in § 280.210(c)(2), is not 

considered to hold indicia of ownership 

primarily to protect a security interest. 

(2) Holding foreclosed property for 

disposition and liquidation. A holder, 

who does not participate in 

management prior to or after 

foreclosure, may sell, re-lease, pursuant 

to a lease financing transaction (whether 

by a new lease financing transaction or 

substitution of the lessee), an UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located, liquidate, wind up operations, 

and take measures, prior to sale or other 

disposition, to preserve, protect, or 

prepare the secured UST or UST system 

or facility or property on which the UST 

or UST system is located. A holder may 

also arrange for an existing or new 

operator to continue or initiate 

operation of the UST or UST system. 

The holder may conduct these activities 

without voiding the security interest 

exemption, subject to the requirements 

of this subpart. 

(i) A holder establishes that the 

ownership indicia maintained after 

foreclosure continue to be held 

primarily to protect a security interest 

by, within 12 months following 

foreclosure, listing the UST or UST 

system or the facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located, with a broker, dealer, or agent 

who deals with the type of property in 

question, or by advertising the UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located, as being for sale or disposition 

on at least a monthly basis in either a 

real estate publication or a trade or other 

publication suitable for the UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located, or a 

newspaper of general circulation 

(defined as one with a circulation over 

10,000, or one suitable under any 

applicable federal, state, or local rules of 

court for publication required by court 

order or rules of civil procedure) 

covering the location of the UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located. For 

purposes of this provision, the 12- 

month period begins to run from 

December 6, 1995 or from the date that 

the marketable title or deed has been 

issued, approved and recorded, and the 

holder has obtained access to the UST, 

UST system, UST facility and property 

on which the UST or UST system is 

located, whichever is later, provided 

that the holder acted diligently to 

acquire marketable title or deed and to 

obtain access to the UST, UST system, 

UST facility and property on which the 

UST or UST system is located. If the 

holder fails to act diligently to acquire 

marketable title or deed or to gain access 

to the UST or UST system, the 12-month 

period begins to run from December 6, 

1995 or from the date on which the 

holder first acquires either title to or 

possession of the secured UST or UST 

system, or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located, 

whichever is later. 

(ii) A holder that outbids, rejects, or 

fails to act upon an offer of fair 

consideration for the UST or UST 

system or the facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located, establishes by such outbidding, 

rejection, or failure to act, that the 

ownership indicia in the secured UST 

or UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is located 

are not held primarily to protect the 

security interest, unless the holder is 

required, in order to avoid liability 

under federal or state law, to make a 

higher bid, to obtain a higher offer, or 

to seek or obtain an offer in a different 

manner. 

(A) Fair consideration, in the case of 

a holder maintaining indicia of 

ownership primarily to protect a senior 

security interest in the UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located, is the 

value of the security interest as defined 

in this section. The value of the security 

interest includes all debt and costs 

incurred by the security interest holder, 

and is calculated as an amount equal to 

or in excess of the sum of the 

outstanding principal (or comparable 

amount in the case of a lease that 

constitutes a security interest) owed to 

the holder immediately preceding the 

acquisition of full title (or possession in 

the case of a lease financing transaction) 

pursuant to foreclosure, plus any 

unpaid interest, rent, or penalties 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41665 

(whether arising before or after 

foreclosure). The value of the security 

interest also includes all reasonable and 

necessary costs, fees, or other charges 

incurred by the holder incident to work 

out, foreclosure, retention, preserving, 

protecting, and preparing, prior to sale, 

the UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located, re-lease, pursuant to 

a lease financing transaction (whether 

by a new lease financing transaction or 

substitution of the lessee), of an UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located, or other disposition. The value 

of the security interest also includes 

environmental investigation costs 

(which could include a site assessment, 

inspection, and/or audit of the UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which the UST or UST system is 

located), and corrective action costs 

incurred under §§ 280.51 through 

280.67 or any other costs incurred as a 

result of reasonable efforts to comply 

with any other applicable federal, state 

or local law or regulation; less any 

amounts received by the holder in 

connection with any partial disposition 

of the property and any amounts paid 

by the borrower (if not already applied 

to the borrower’s obligations) 

subsequent to the acquisition of full title 

(or possession in the case of a lease 

financing transaction) pursuant to 

foreclosure. In the case of a holder 

maintaining indicia of ownership 

primarily to protect a junior security 

interest, fair consideration is the value 

of all outstanding higher priority 

security interests plus the value of the 

security interest held by the junior 

holder, each calculated as set forth in 

this paragraph (c). 

(B) Outbids, rejects, or fails to act 

upon an offer of fair consideration 

means that the holder outbids, rejects, 

or fails to act upon within 90 days of 

receipt, a written, bona fide, firm offer 

of fair consideration for the UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located 

received at any time after six months 

following foreclosure, as defined in 

§ 280.210(c). A ‘‘written, bona fide, firm 

offer’’ means a legally enforceable, 

commercially reasonable, cash offer 

solely for the foreclosed UST or UST 

system or facility or property on which 

the UST or UST system is located, 

including all material terms of the 

transaction, from a ready, willing, and 

able purchaser who demonstrates to the 

holder’s satisfaction the ability to 

perform. For purposes of this provision, 

the six-month period begins to run from 

December 6, 1995 or from the date that 

marketable title or deed has been issued, 

approved and recorded to the holder, 

and the holder has obtained access to 

the UST, UST system, UST facility and 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located, whichever is later, 

provided that the holder was acting 

diligently to acquire marketable title or 

deed and to obtain access to the UST or 

UST system, UST facility and property 

on which the UST or UST system is 

located. If the holder fails to act 

diligently to acquire marketable title or 

deed or to gain access to the UST or 

UST system, the six-month period 

begins to run from December 6, 1995 or 

from the date on which the holder first 

acquires either title to or possession of 

the secured UST or UST system, or 

facility or property on which the UST or 

UST system is located, whichever is 

later. 

(3) Actions that are not participation 

in management post-foreclosure. A 

holder is not considered to be 

participating in the management of an 

UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located when undertaking 

actions under this part, provided that 

the holder does not otherwise 

participate in the management or daily 

operation of the UST or UST system as 

provided in § 280.210(a) and § 280.230. 

Such allowable actions include, but are 

not limited to, release detection and 

release reporting, release response and 

corrective action, temporary or 

permanent closure of an UST or UST 

system, UST upgrading or replacement, 

and maintenance of corrosion 

protection. A holder who undertakes 

these actions must do so in compliance 

with the applicable requirements in this 

part or applicable state requirements in 

those states that have been delegated 

authority by EPA to administer the UST 

program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c 

and 40 CFR part 281. A holder may 

directly oversee these environmental 

compliance actions and voluntary 

environmental actions, and directly hire 

contractors to perform the work, and is 

not by such action considered to be 

participating in the management of the 

UST or UST system. 

§ 280.220 Ownership of an underground 

storage tank or underground storage tank 

system or facility or property on which an 

underground storage tank or underground 

storage tank system is located. 

Ownership of an UST or UST system 

or facility or property on which an UST 

or UST system is located. A holder is 

not an ‘‘owner’’ of a petroleum UST or 

UST system or facility or property on 

which a petroleum UST or UST system 

is located for purposes of compliance 

with the UST technical standards as 

defined in § 280.200(a), the UST 

corrective action requirements under 

§§ 280.51 through 280.67, and the UST 

financial responsibility requirements 

under §§ 280.90 through 280.111, 

provided the person: 

(a) Does not participate in the 

management of the UST or UST system 

as defined in § 280.210; and 

(b) Does not engage in petroleum 

production, refining, and marketing as 

defined in § 280.200(b). 

§ 280.230 Operating an underground 

storage tank or underground storage tank 

system. 

(a) Operating an UST or UST system 

prior to foreclosure. A holder, prior to 

foreclosure, as defined in § 280.210(c), 

is not an ‘‘operator’’ of a petroleum UST 

or UST system for purposes of 

compliance with the UST technical 

standards as defined in § 280.200(a), the 

UST corrective action requirements 

under §§ 280.51 through 280.67, and the 

UST financial responsibility 

requirements under §§ 280.90 through 

280.111, provided that, after December 

6, 1995, the holder is not in control of 

or does not have responsibility for the 

daily operation of the UST or UST 

system. 

(b) Operating an UST or UST system 

after foreclosure. The following 

provisions apply to a holder who, 

through foreclosure, as defined in 

§ 280.210(c), acquires a petroleum UST 

or UST system or facility or property on 

which a petroleum UST or UST system 

is located. 

(1) A holder is not an ‘‘operator’’ of 

a petroleum UST or UST system for 

purposes of compliance with this part if 

there is an operator, other than the 

holder, who is in control of or has 

responsibility for the daily operation of 

the UST or UST system, and who can 

be held responsible for compliance with 

applicable requirements of this part or 

applicable state requirements in those 

states that have been delegated authority 

by EPA to administer the UST program 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and 40 CFR 

part 281. 

(2) If another operator does not exist, 

as provided for under paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, a holder is not an 

‘‘operator’’ of the UST or UST system, 

for purposes of compliance with the 

UST technical standards as defined in 

§ 280.200(a), the UST corrective action 

requirements under §§ 280.51 through 

280.67, and the UST financial 

responsibility requirements under 

§§ 280.90 through 280.111, provided 

that the holder: 

(i) Empties all of its known USTs and 

UST systems within 60 calendar days 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

after foreclosure or within 60 calendar 

days after December 6, 1995, whichever 

is later, or another reasonable time 

period specified by the implementing 

agency, so that no more than 2.5 

centimeters (one inch) of residue, or 0.3 

percent by weight of the total capacity 

of the UST system, remains in the 

system; leaves vent lines open and 

functioning; and caps and secures all 

other lines, pumps, manways, and 

ancillary equipment; and 

(ii) Empties those USTs and UST 

systems that are discovered after 

foreclosure within 60 calendar days 

after discovery or within 60 calendar 

days after December 6, 1995, whichever 

is later, or another reasonable time 

period specified by the implementing 

agency, so that no more than 2.5 

centimeters (one inch) of residue, or 0.3 

percent by weight of the total capacity 

of the UST system, remains in the 

system; leaves vent lines open and 

functioning; and caps and secures all 

other lines, pumps, manways, and 

ancillary equipment. 

(3) If another operator does not exist, 

as provided for under paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, in addition to satisfying 

the conditions under paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, the holder must either: 

(i) Permanently close the UST or UST 

system in accordance with §§ 280.71 

through 280.74, except § 280.72(b); or 

(ii) Temporarily close the UST or UST 

system in accordance with the following 

applicable provisions of § 280.70: 

(A) Continue operation and 

maintenance of corrosion protection in 

accordance with § 280.31; 

(B) Report suspected releases to the 

implementing agency; and 

(C) Conduct a site assessment in 

accordance with § 280.72(a) if the UST 

system is temporarily closed for more 

than 12 months and the UST system 

does not meet either the performance 

standards in § 280.20 for new UST 

systems or the upgrading requirements 

in § 280.21, except that the spill and 

overfill equipment requirements do not 

have to be met. The holder must report 

any suspected releases to the 

implementing agency. For purposes of 

this provision, the 12-month period 

begins to run from December 6, 1995 or 

from the date on which the UST system 

is emptied and secured under paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, whichever is later. 

(4) The UST system can remain in 

temporary closure until a subsequent 

purchaser has acquired marketable title 

to the UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located. Once a subsequent 

purchaser acquires marketable title to 

the UST or UST system or facility or 

property on which the UST or UST 

system is located, the purchaser must 

decide whether to operate or close the 

UST or UST system in accordance with 

applicable requirements in this part or 

applicable state requirements in those 

states that have been delegated authority 

by EPA to administer the UST program 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and 40 CFR 

part 281. 

Subpart J—Operator Training 

§ 280.240 General requirement for all UST 

systems. 

Not later than October 13, 2018, all 

owners and operators of UST systems 

must ensure they have designated Class 

A, Class B, and Class C operators who 

meet the requirements of this subpart. 

§ 280.241 Designation of Class A, B, and C 

operators. 

UST system owners and operators 

must designate: 

(a) At least one Class A and one Class 

B operator for each UST or group of 

USTs at a facility; and 

(b) Each individual who meets the 

definition of Class C operator at the UST 

facility as a Class C operator. 

§ 280.242 Requirements for operator 

training. 

UST system owners and operators 

must ensure Class A, Class B, and Class 

C operators meet the requirements of 

this section. Any individual designated 

for more than one operator class must 

successfully complete the required 

training program or comparable 

examination according to the operator 

class in which the individual is 

designated. 

(a) Class A operators. Each designated 

Class A operator must either be trained 

in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section or pass a 

comparable examination in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) At a minimum, the training 

program for the Class A operator must 

provide general knowledge of the 

requirements in this paragraph (a). At a 

minimum, the training must teach the 

Class A operators, as applicable, about 

the purpose, methods, and function of: 

(i) Spill and overfill prevention; 

(ii) Release detection; 

(iii) Corrosion protection; 

(iv) Emergency response; 

(v) Product and equipment 

compatibility and demonstration; 

(vi) Financial responsibility; 

(vii) Notification and storage tank 

registration; 

(viii) Temporary and permanent 

closure; 

(ix) Related reporting, recordkeeping, 

testing, and inspections; 

(x) Environmental and regulatory 

consequences of releases; and 

(xi) Training requirements for Class B 

and Class C operators. 

(2) At a minimum, the training 

program must evaluate Class A 

operators to determine these individuals 

have the knowledge and skills to make 

informed decisions regarding 

compliance and determine whether 

appropriate individuals are fulfilling the 

operation, maintenance, and 

recordkeeping requirements for UST 

systems in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(b) Class B operators. Each designated 

Class B operator must either receive 

training in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) of this section or pass a 

comparable examination, in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) At a minimum, the training 

program for the Class B operator must 

cover either: general requirements that 

encompass all regulatory requirements 

and typical equipment used at UST 

facilities; or site-specific requirements 

which address only the regulatory 

requirements and equipment specific to 

the facility. At a minimum, the training 

program for Class B operators must 

teach the Class B operator, as 

applicable, about the purpose, methods, 

and function of: 

(i) Operation and maintenance; 

(ii) Spill and overfill prevention; 

(iii) Release detection and related 

reporting; 

(iv) Corrosion protection; 

(v) Emergency response; 

(vi) Product and equipment 

compatibility and demonstration; 

(vii) Reporting, recordkeeping, testing, 

and inspections; 

(viii) Environmental and regulatory 

consequences of releases; and 

(ix) Training requirements for Class C 

operators. 

(2) At a minimum, the training 

program must evaluate Class B operators 

to determine these individuals have the 

knowledge and skills to implement 

applicable UST regulatory requirements 

in the field on the components of 

typical UST systems or, as applicable, 

site-specific equipment used at an UST 

facility in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. 

(c) Class C operators. Each designated 

Class C operator must either: be trained 

by a Class A or Class B operator in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(2) of this section; complete a training 

program in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section; or pass a 

comparable examination, in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) At a minimum, the training 

program for the Class C operator must 

teach the Class C operators to take 

appropriate actions (including notifying 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41667 

appropriate authorities) in response to 

emergencies or alarms caused by spills 

or releases resulting from the operation 

of the UST system. 

(2) At a minimum, the training 

program must evaluate Class C operators 

to determine these individuals have the 

knowledge and skills to take appropriate 

action (including notifying appropriate 

authorities) in response to emergencies 

or alarms caused by spills or releases 

from an underground storage tank 

system. 

(d) Training program. Any training 

program must meet the minimum 

requirements of this section and include 

an evaluation through testing, a 

practical demonstration, or another 

approach acceptable to the 

implementing agency. 

(e) Comparable examination. A 

comparable examination must, at a 

minimum, test the knowledge of the 

Class A, Class B, or Class C operators in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section, 

as applicable. 

§ 280.243 Timing of operator training. 

(a) An owner and operator must 

ensure that designated Class A, Class B, 

and Class C operators meet the 

requirements in § 280.242 not later than 

October 13, 2018. 

(b) Class A and Class B operators 

designated after October 13, 2018 must 

meet requirements in § 280.242 within 

30 days of assuming duties. 

(c) Class C operators designated after 

October 13, 2018 must be trained before 

assuming duties of a Class C operator. 

§ 280.244 Retraining. 

Class A and Class B operators of UST 

systems determined by the 

implementing agency to be out of 

compliance must complete a training 

program or comparable examination in 

accordance with requirements in 

§ 280.242. The training program or 

comparable examination must be 

developed or administered by an 

independent organization, the 

implementing agency, or a recognized 

authority. At a minimum, the training 

must cover the area(s) determined to be 

out of compliance. UST system owners 

and operators must ensure Class A and 

Class B operators are retrained pursuant 

to this section no later than 30 days 

from the date the implementing agency 

determines the facility is out of 

compliance except in one of the 

following situations: 

(a) Class A and Class B operators take 

annual refresher training. Refresher 

training for Class A and Class B 

operators must cover all applicable 

requirements in § 280.242, or 

(b) The implementing agency, at its 

discretion, waives this retraining 

requirement for either the Class A or 

Class B operator or both. 

§ 280.245 Documentation. 

Owners and operators of underground 

storage tank systems must maintain a 

list of designated Class A, Class B, and 

Class C operators and maintain records 

verifying that training and retraining, as 

applicable, have been completed, in 

accordance with § 280.34 as follows: 

(a) The list must: 

(1) Identify all Class A, Class B, and 

Class C operators currently designated 

for the facility; and 

(2) Include names, class of operator 

trained, date assumed duties, date each 

completed initial training, and any 

retraining. 

(b) Records verifying completion of 

training or retraining must be a paper or 

electronic record for Class A, Class B, 

and Class C operators. The records, at a 

minimum, must identify name of 

trainee, date trained, operator training 

class completed, and list the name of 

the trainer or examiner and the training 

company name, address, and telephone 

number. Owners and operators must 

maintain these records for as long as 

Class A, Class B, and Class C operators 

are designated. The following 

requirements also apply to the following 

types of training: 

(1) Records from classroom or field 

training programs (including Class C 

operator training provided by the Class 

A or Class B operator) or a comparable 

examination must, at a minimum, be 

signed by the trainer or examiner; 

(2) Records from computer based 

training must, at a minimum, indicate 

the name of the training program and 

web address, if Internet based; and 

(3) Records of retraining must include 

those areas on which the Class A or 

Class B operator has been retrained. 

Subpart K—UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport 

Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems 

§ 280.250 Definitions. 

For purposes of this subpart, the 

following definitions apply: 

Airport hydrant fuel distribution 

system (also called airport hydrant 

system) means an UST system which 

fuels aircraft and operates under high 

pressure with large diameter piping that 

typically terminates into one or more 

hydrants (fill stands). The airport 

hydrant system begins where fuel enters 

one or more tanks from an external 

source such as a pipeline, barge, rail car, 

or other motor fuel carrier. 

Field-constructed tank means a tank 

constructed in the field. For example, a 

tank constructed of concrete that is 

poured in the field, or a steel or 

fiberglass tank primarily fabricated in 

the field is considered field-constructed. 

§ 280.251 General requirements. 

(a) Implementation of requirements. 

Owners and operators must comply 

with the requirements of this part for 

UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks and airport hydrant systems as 

follows: 

(1) For UST systems installed on or 

before October 13, 2015 the 

requirements are effective according to 

the following schedule: 

Requirement Effective date 

Upgrading UST systems; general operating requirements; and operator training ............................................................... October 13, 2018. 

Release detection .................................................................................................................................................................. October 13, 2018. 

Release reporting, response, and investigation; closure; financial responsibility and notification (except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section).

October 13, 2015. 

(2) For UST systems installed after 

October 13, 2015, the requirements 

apply at installation. 

(b) Not later than October 13, 2018, all 

owners of previously deferred UST 

systems must submit a one-time notice 

of tank system existence to the 

implementing agency, using the form in 

appendix I of this part or a state form 

in accordance with § 280.22(c). Owners 

and operators of UST systems in use as 

of October 13, 2015 must demonstrate 

financial responsibility at the time of 

submission of the notification form. 

(c) Except as provided in § 280.252, 

owners and operators must comply with 

the requirements of subparts A through 

H and J of this part. 

(d) In addition to the codes of practice 

listed in § 280.20, owners and operators 

may use military construction criteria, 

such as Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 

3–460–01, Petroleum Fuel Facilities, 

when designing, constructing, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

installing airport hydrant systems and 

UST systems with field-constructed 

tanks. 

§ 280.252 Additions, exceptions, and 

alternatives for UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant 

systems. 

(a) Exception to piping secondary 

containment requirements. Owners and 

operators may use single walled piping 

when installing or replacing piping 

associated with UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons and piping associated with 

airport hydrant systems. Piping 

associated with UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks less than or equal to 

50,000 gallons not part of an airport 

hydrant system must meet the 

secondary containment requirement 

when installed or replaced. 

(b) Upgrade requirements. Not later 

than October 13, 2018, airport hydrant 

systems and UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks where installation 

commenced on or before October 13, 

2015 must meet the following 

requirements or be permanently closed 

pursuant to subpart G of this part. 

(1) Corrosion protection. UST system 

components in contact with the ground 

that routinely contain regulated 

substances must meet one of the 

following: 

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a) 

of this section, the new UST system 

performance standards for tanks at 

§ 280.20(a) and for piping at § 280.20(b); 

or 

(ii) Be constructed of metal and 

cathodically protected according to a 

code of practice developed by a 

nationally recognized association or 

independent testing laboratory and 

meets the following: 

(A) Cathodic protection must meet the 

requirements of § 280.20(a)(2)(ii), (iii), 

and (iv) for tanks, and § 280.20(b)(2)(ii), 

(iii), and (iv) for piping. 

(B) Tanks greater than 10 years old 

without cathodic protection must be 

assessed to ensure the tank is 

structurally sound and free of corrosion 

holes prior to adding cathodic 

protection. The assessment must be by 

internal inspection or another method 

determined by the implementing agency 

to adequately assess the tank for 

structural soundness and corrosion 

holes. 

Note to paragraph (b). The following codes 

of practice may be used to comply with this 

paragraph (b): 

(A) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0285, ‘‘External Control of Underground 

Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic 

Protection’’; 

(B) NACE International Standard Practice 

SP 0169, ‘‘Control of External Corrosion on 

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping 

Systems’’; 

(C) National Leak Prevention Association 

Standard 631, Chapter C, ‘‘Internal 

Inspection of Steel Tanks for Retrofit of 

Cathodic Protection’’; or 

(D) American Society for Testing and 

Materials Standard G158, ‘‘Standard Guide 

for Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel 

Tanks’’. 

(2) Spill and overfill prevention 

equipment. To prevent spilling and 

overfilling associated with product 

transfer to the UST system, all UST 

systems with field-constructed tanks 

and airport hydrant systems must 

comply with new UST system spill and 

overfill prevention equipment 

requirements specified in § 280.20(c). 

(c) Walkthrough inspections. In 

addition to the walkthrough inspection 

requirements in § 280.36, owners and 

operators must inspect the following 

additional areas for airport hydrant 

systems at least once every 30 days if 

confined space entry according to the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (see 29 CFR part 1910) 

is not required or at least annually if 

confined space entry is required and 

keep documentation of the inspection 

according to § 280.36(b). 

(1) Hydrant pits—visually check for 

any damage; remove any liquid or 

debris; and check for any leaks, and 

(2) Hydrant piping vaults—check for 

any hydrant piping leaks. 

(d) Release detection. Owners and 

operators of UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant 

systems must begin meeting the release 

detection requirements described in this 

subpart not later than October 13, 2018. 

(1) Methods of release detection for 

field-constructed tanks. Owners and 

operators of field-constructed tanks with 

a capacity less than or equal to 50,000 

gallons must meet the release detection 

requirements in subpart D of this part. 

Owners and operators of fieldconstructed tanks with a capacity 

greater than 50,000 gallons must meet 

either the requirements in subpart D 

(except § 280.43(e) and (f) must be 

combined with inventory control as 

stated below) or use one or a 

combination of the following alternative 

methods of release detection: 

(i) Conduct an annual tank tightness 

test that can detect a 0.5 gallon per hour 

leak rate; 

(ii) Use an automatic tank gauging 

system to perform release detection at 

least every 30 days that can detect a leak 

rate less than or equal to one gallon per 

hour. This method must be combined 

with a tank tightness test that can detect 

a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate 

performed at least every three years; 

(iii) Use an automatic tank gauging 

system to perform release detection at 

least every 30 days that can detect a leak 

rate less than or equal to two gallons per 

hour. This method must be combined 

with a tank tightness test that can detect 

a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate 

performed at least every two years; 

(iv) Perform vapor monitoring 

(conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.43(e) for a tracer compound 

placed in the tank system) capable of 

detecting a 0.1 gallon per hour leak rate 

at least every two years; 

(v) Perform inventory control 

(conducted in accordance with 

Department of Defense Directive 

4140.25; ATA Airport Fuel Facility 

Operations and Maintenance Guidance 

Manual; or equivalent procedures) at 

least every 30 days that can detect a leak 

equal to or less than 0.5 percent of flowthrough; and 

(A) Perform a tank tightness test that 

can detect a 0.5 gallon per hour leak rate 

at least every two years; or 

(B) Perform vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring (conducted in 

accordance with § 280.43(e) or (f), 

respectively, for the stored regulated 

substance) at least every 30 days; or 

(vi) Another method approved by the 

implementing agency if the owner and 

operator can demonstrate that the 

method can detect a release as 

effectively as any of the methods 

allowed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through 

(v) of this section. In comparing 

methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release that the 

method can detect and the frequency 

and reliability of detection. 

(2) Methods of release detection for 

piping. Owners and operators of 

underground piping associated with 

field-constructed tanks less than or 

equal to 50,000 gallons must meet the 

release detection requirements in 

subpart D of this part. Owners and 

operators of underground piping 

associated with airport hydrant systems 

and field-constructed tanks greater than 

50,000 gallons must follow either the 

requirements in subpart D (except 

§ 280.43(e) and (f) must be combined 

with inventory control as stated below) 

or use one or a combination of the 

following alternative methods of release 

detection: 

(i)(A) Perform a semiannual or annual 

line tightness test at or above the piping 

operating pressure in accordance with 

the table below. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41669 

MAXIMUM LEAK DETECTION RATE PER TEST SECTION VOLUME

Test section volume 

(gallons) 

Semiannual 

test—leak 

detection rate 

not to exceed 

(gallons per 

hour) 

Annual test— 

leak detection 

rate not to 

exceed 

(gallons per 

hour) 

<50,000 .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.0 0 .5 

≥50,000 to <75,000 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0 .75 

≥75,000 to <100,000 ............................................................................................................................................. 2.0 1 .0 

≥100,000 ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.0 1 .5 

(B) Piping segment volumes ≥100,000 

gallons not capable of meeting the 

maximum 3.0 gallon per hour leak rate 

for the semiannual test may be tested at 

a leak rate up to 6.0 gallons per hour 

according to the following schedule: 

PHASE IN FOR PIPING SEGMENTS ≥100,000 GALLONS IN VOLUME

First test ............................... Not later than October 13, 2018 (may use up to 6.0 gph leak rate). 

Second test .......................... Between October 13, 2018 and October 13, 2021 (may use up to 6.0 gph leak rate). 

Third test .............................. Between October 13, 2021 and October 13, 2022 (must use 3.0 gph for leak rate). 

Subsequent tests ................. After October 13, 2022, begin using semiannual or annual line testing according to the Maximum Leak Detection 

Rate Per Test Section Volume table above. 

(ii) Perform vapor monitoring 

(conducted in accordance with 

§ 280.43(e) for a tracer compound 

placed in the tank system) capable of 

detecting a 0.1 gallon per hour leak rate 

at least every two years; 

(iii) Perform inventory control 

(conducted in accordance with 

Department of Defense Directive 

4140.25; ATA Airport Fuel Facility 

Operations and Maintenance Guidance 

Manual; or equivalent procedures) at 

least every 30 days that can detect a leak 

equal to or less than 0.5 percent of flowthrough; and 

(A) Perform a line tightness test 

(conducted in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section using 

the leak rates for the semiannual test) at 

least every two years; or 

(B) Perform vapor monitoring or 

groundwater monitoring (conducted in 

accordance with § 280.43(e) or (f), 

respectively, for the stored regulated 

substance) at least every 30 days; or 

(iv) Another method approved by the 

implementing agency if the owner and 

operator can demonstrate that the 

method can detect a release as 

effectively as any of the methods 

allowed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. In comparing 

methods, the implementing agency shall 

consider the size of release that the 

method can detect and the frequency 

and reliability of detection. 

(3) Recordkeeping for release 

detection. Owners and operators must 

maintain release detection records 

according to the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 280.45. 

(e) Applicability of closure 

requirements to previously closed UST 

systems. When directed by the 

implementing agency, the owner and 

operator of an UST system with fieldconstructed tanks or airport hydrant 

system permanently closed before 

October 13, 2015 must assess the 

excavation zone and close the UST 

system in accordance with subpart G of 

this part if releases from the UST may, 

in the judgment of the implementing 

agency, pose a current or potential 

threat to human health and the 

environment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix I to Part 280—Notification 

for Underground Storage Tanks 

(Forms) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.043</GPH>

&EPA United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks 

Implementing Agency Name And Address: 

(previously deferred 

Number of tanks at facility What USTs Are Included? An UST system is defined as any one or 

combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated 

IG!mNiiuCm3!lbe~rio]fDc~o~nEtin u~a~t~io~n~s~h!e!et~sialtilta~c!hledmiJili3i!jr.1iml• substances, and whose volume (including connected underground piping) is 10 percent or more beneath the ground. Regulated USTs store petroleum or 

hazardous substances (see What Substances Are Covered below). This 

includes UST systems with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel Please type or print in ink. Also, be sure you have signatures in ink 

for sections VIII and XI. Complete a notification form for each location 

containing underground storage tanks. If more than 5 tanks are 

owned at this location, you may photocopy pages 3 through 6 and use 

them for additional tanks. 

The primary purpose of this notification form is to provide infomnation 

about the installation, existence, changes to, and closure of 

underground storage tank systems (USTs) that store or have stored 

petroleum or hazardous substances. The infomnation you provide will 

be based on reasonably available records, or in the absence of such 

records, your knowledge or recollection. 

Federal law requires UST ownens to use this notification form for 

all USTs storing regulated substances that are brought into use 

after May 8, 1986, or USTs in the ground as of May 8, 1986 that 

have stored regulated substances at any time since January 1, 

1974. The infonmation requested is required by Section 9002 of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended. 

Who Must Notify? 40 CFR part 280, as amended, requires owners 

of USTs that store regulated substances (unless exempted) to notify 

implementing agencies of the existence of their USTs. Owner is 

defined as: 

In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use 

after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or 

dispensing of regulated substances: or 

In the case of an UST in use before November 8, 1984, but no longer in use on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its 

discontinuation. 

Also, owners of previously deferred UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems in the 

ground as of October 13, 2015 must submit a one-time notification of 

existence by October 13, 2018. Owners of UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems 

brought into use after October 13, 2015 are considered new facilities 

and must follow the same notification requirements as all other UST 

owners. 

Street Address 

distribution systems. 

What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification (see § 280.10 and § 280.12)? 

Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986; 

Farm or residential tanks of 1,1 00 gallons or less capacity storing motor fuel for 

noncommercial purposes; 

Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored; 

Septic tanks; 

Certain pipeline facilities regulated under chapters 601 and 603 of Title 49; 

Surface impoundments. pits, ponds, or lagoons; 

Storm water or wastewater collection systems: 

Flow-through process tanks; 

Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly relaled to oil or gas production 

and gathering operations; 

Tanks an or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or tunnels: 

Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less: 

Wastewater treatment tank systems; 

UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954; 

UST systems that are part of an emergency generator system at nuclear power 

generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 

CFR part 50. 

What Substances Are Covered? The notification requirements apply to 

USTs containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Petroleum 

includes gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which is 

liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees 

Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). Hazardous 

substances are those found in Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, with the 

exception of those substances regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

When And Who To Notify? Owners who bring USTs into use after May 8, 

1986 must submit this notification form to the implementing agency within 30 

days of bringing the UST into use. If the implementing agency requires 

notification of any amendments to the facility, send information to the 

implementing agency immediately. 

Penalties: Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false 

infomnation shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $16,000 for each 

i 

County If address is the same as in Section I, check the box and proceed to section Ill. 

If address is different, enter address below: 

f----------------,--------,,---------1 StreetAddress 

City Zip Code 

Phone Number (Include Area Code) 

EPA Fanm 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 

Previous editions may be used while supplies last. 

City State Zip Code 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41671 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.044</GPH>

&EPA 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

Approval expires XXIXXIXX 

Notification For Underground Storage Tanks 

Ill. TYPE OF OWNER I IV. INDIAN COUNTRY 

D Federal D Tribal Federally recognized tribe where USTs are 

Government Government USTs are located on land within an located: 

D D Indian reservation or on trust lands D State Local outside reservation boundaries 

Government Government 

D Commercial D Private 

V. TYPE OF FACILITY 

D Auto Dealership D Federal - Military D Residential 

D Commercial Airport Or Airline D Gas Station D Trucking Or Transport 

D Contractor D Industrial D Utilities 

D Farm D Petroleum Distributor D Other (Explain) 

D Federal- Non-military D Railroad 

VI. CONTACT PERSON IN CHARGE OF TANKS 

Name: Job Title: Address: Phone Number (Include Area Code): 

VII. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 

D I have met the financial responsibility requirements (in accordance with 40 CFR part 280 Subpart H) by using the following mechanisms: 

(check all that apply) 

D Bond Rating Test D Local Government Financial Test D Surety Bond 

D Commercial Insurance D Risk Retention Group D Trust Fund 

D Guarantee D Self-insurance (Financial Test) D Other Method (describe here) 

D Letter Of Credit D State Fund 

D I do not have to meet financial responsibility requirements because 40 CFR part 280 Subpart H is not applicable to me (e.g., if you are a state or 

federal owner). 

VIII. CERTIFICATION (Read and sign after completing ALL SECTIONS of this notification form) 

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in Sections I through XI of this notification 

form and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that 

the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. 

Name and official title of owner or owner"s Signature Date Signed 

authorized representative (Print) 

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice 

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency"s need for 

this infonnation, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates. and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden. including through the use of automated 

collection techniques to the Director. Collection Strategies Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822n. 1200 Pennsylvania Ave .• NW. Washington. D.C. 20460. 

Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. 

EPA Fonn 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Previous editions may be used while supplies last. 
41672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.045</GPH>

&EPA 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

Notification For Underground Storage Tanks 

OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

Approval expires XXIXXIXX 

IX. DESCRIPTION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (Complete for all tanks and piping at this location) 

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

1. Status Of Tank (check only one) 

Currently In Use D D D D D 

Temporarily Closed D D D D D 

Permanently Closed D D D D D 

2. Date Of Installation (month/year) 

3. Estimated Total Capacity (gallons) 

4. Tank Attributes 

(check all that apply) 

Asphalt Coated Or Bare Steel D D D D D 

Cathodically Protected Steel D D D D D (impressed current) 

Cathodically Protected Steel D D D D D (sacrificial anodes) 

Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel D D D D D (impressed current) 

Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel D D D D D (sacrificial anodes) 

Composite D D D D D (steel clad with noncorrodible material) 

Concrete D D D D D 

Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic D D D D D 

Noncorrodible Tank Jacket D D D D D 

Lined Interior D D D D D 

Excavation Liner D D D D D 

Double Walled D D D D D 

Manifolded D D D D D 

Compartmentalized D D D D D 

Field-constructed D D D D D 

Unknown D D D D D 

Other, Specify Here 

Check Box If Tank Has Ever Been D D D D D Repaired 

5. Overfill Protection Installed 

(check all that apply) 

Automatic Shutoff D D D D D 

Flow Restrictor D D D D D 

High-level Alarm D D D D D 

Other, Specify Here 

6. Spill Prevention Installed D D D D D 

Double Walled D D D D D 

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 

Previous editions may be used while supplies last. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41673 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.046</GPH>

&EPA 

United States OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

Environmental Protection Agency Approval expires XX/XX/XX 

Washington, DC 20460 

Notification For Underground Storage Tanks 

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

7. Piping Attributes 

(check all that apply) 

Bare Steel D D D D D 

Galvanized Steel D D D D D 

Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic D D D D D 

Flexible Plastic D D D D D 

Copper D D D D D 

Cathodically Protected D D D D D (impressed current) 

Cathodically Protected D D D D D (sacrificial anodes) 

Double Walled D D D D D 

Secondary Containment D D D D D 

Airport Hydrant Piping D D D D D 

Unknown D D D D D 

Other, Specify Here 

8. Piping Delivery Type 

(check all that apply) 

Safe Suction (no valve at tank) D D D D D 

U.S. Suction (valve at tank) D D D D D 

Pressure D D D D D 

Gravity Feed D D D D D 

9. Substance Currently Stored (or last 

stored in the case of closed tanks) 

(check all that apply) 

Gasoline (containing s 10% ethanol) D D D D D 

Diesel D D D D D 

Biodiesel D D D D D 

Kerosene D D D D D 

Heating Oil D D D D D 

Used Oil D D D D D 

Gasoline Containing >10% Ethanol 

(specify amount of ethanol) 

Diesel Containing >20% Biodiesel 

(specify amount of biodiesel) 

Other, specify here 

Hazardous Substance D D D D D 

CERCLA Name Or CAS Number 

Mixture Of Substances D D D D D 

Please Specify Substances Here 

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 

Previous editions may be used while supplies last. 
41674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.047</GPH>

United States OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

&EPA Environmental Protection Agency Approval expires XXIXXIXX 

Washington, DC 20460 

Notification For Underground Storage Tanks 

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. 

1 0. Release Detection 

(check all that apply) TANK PIPE TANK PIPE TANK PIPE TANK PIPE TANK PIPE 

Manual Tank Gauging D D D D D 

Tank Tightness Testing D D D D D 

Inventory Control D D D D D 

Automatic Tank Gauging D D D D D D D D D D 

Vapor Monitoring D D D D D D D D D D 

Groundwater Monitoring D D D D D D D D D D 

Interstitial Monitoring 

D D D D D D D D D D (required for new or replaced 

tanks or piping) 

Statistical Inventory Reconciliation D D D D D D D D D D 

Automatic Line Leak Detectors D D D D D 

Line Tightness Testing D D D D D 

No Release Detection Required D D D D D D D D D D (such as some types of suction piping) 

Other Method Allowed By Implementing 

Agency D D D D D D D D D D 

Other, Specify Here 

X. CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN SERVICE 

1. Closure Or Change In Service 

Estimated Date The UST Was Last Used 

For Storing Regulated Substances 

(month/day/year) 

Check Box If This Is A Change In 

Service D D D D D (i.e., Change of storage to a nonregulated substance) 

2. Tank Closure 

Estimated Date Tank Closed 

(month/day/year) 

(check all that apply below) 

Tank Removed From Ground D D D D D 

Tank Closed In Ground D D D D D 

Tank Filled With Inert Material D D D D D 

Describe The Inert Fill Material Here 

3. Site Assessment 

Check Box If The Site Assessment Was 

Completed D D D D D 

Check Box If Evidence Of A Release 

Was D D D D D Detected 

Other, Specify Here 

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 

Previous editions mav be used while supplies last. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41675 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.048</GPH>

&EPA 

Tank Identification Number 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

Notification For Underground Storage Tanks 

Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. I Tank No. 

OMB Control No. 2050-0068 

Approval expires XXIXXIXX 

-

Tank No. 

XI. CERTIFICATION OF INSTALLATION (Complete For UST Systems Installed After December 22, 1988 And For Airport 

Hydrant Distribution Systems And Field-Constructed USTs Installed After October 13, 2015) 

Installer Of Tank And Piping 

(check all that apply) 

Installer Certified By Tank And Piping 

Manufacturers D D D D D 

Installer Certified Or Licensed By The D D D D D Implementing Agency 

Installation Inspected By A Registered 

Engineer D D D D D 

Installation Inspected And Approved By D D D D D Implementing Agency 

Manufacturer's Installation Checklists 

Have Been Completed D D D D D 

Another Method Allowed By D D D D D Implementing Agency 

Specify Other Method Here 

Signature Of UST Installer Certifying Proper Installation Of UST System 

Name Signature Date 

Position Company 

EPA Form 7530-1 (Rev. 6-2015) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 

i 
41676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix II to Part 280—Notification 

of Ownership for Underground Storage 

Tanks (Form) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15JY15.049</GPH>

&EPA United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

I 

Approval expires XXJXXJXX 

Notification of Ownership Change for Underground Storage Tanks 

Implementing Agency Name And Address: 

Please type or print in ink. Also, be sure you have signatures in ink. 

The primary purpose of this notification form is to inform implementing 

agencies of ownership changes for underground storage tank (UST) 

systems that store or have stored petroleum or hazardous 

substances. 

Federal regulation requires UST owners to notify the implementing 

agency of any ownership change for USTs storing regulated 

substances after October 13,2015. 

Who Must Notify? 40 CFR part 280, as amended, requires owners of 

USTs that store regulated substances (unless exempted) to notify 

implementing agencies of any ownership changes. Owner is defined 

as: 

In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use 

after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or 

dispensing of regulated substances; or 

In the case of an UST in use before November a, 1984, but no longer in 

use on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its discontinuation. 

What USTs Are Included? An UST system is defined as any one or 

combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of 

regulated substances, and whose volume (including connected 

underground piping) is 10 percent or more beneath the ground. 

Regulated USTs store petroleum or hazardous substances (see What 

Substances Are Covered to the right). This includes UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution 

systems. 

When And Who To Notify? Any owner or operator who assumes 

ownership of a regulated UST system must submit this notification 

form to the implementing agency within 30 days of assuming such 

ownership. 

OWNERSHIP OF USTs 

Corporation lnd1v1dual, Publ1c Agency Or Other Ent1ty 

Current Owner Name Previous Owner Name 

Current Owner Address Previous Owner Address 

Current Owner Phone Previous Owner P han e 

Signature Of Current Owner: 

PapeiWork Reduction Act Notice 

I 

What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification (see§ 280.10 and§ 280.12)? 

Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986; 

Farm or residential tanks of 1,1 oo gallons or less capacity stonng motor fuel for 

noncommercial purposes; 

Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored; 

Septic tanks; 

Certain pipeline facilities regulated under chapters 601 and 603 of Title 49; 

Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons; 

Storm water or wastewater collection systems; 

Flow-through process tanks; 

Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production 

and gathering operations: 

Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or 

tunnels; 

Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less; 

Wastewater treatment tank systems: 

UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954; 

UST systems that are part of an emergency generator system at nuclear power 

generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 1 a 

CFR part 50. 

What Substances Are Covered? The notification requirements apply to USTs 

containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Petroleum includes 

gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at 

standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 

14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). Hazardous substances are those 

found in Section 101 {14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, with the exception of those substances 

regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. 

Penalties: Any owner who knowing II fails to notify or submits false information 

shall be subject to a civil penalty no to exceed $16,000 for each tank for which 

notification is not given or for which false information is given. 

FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION OF USTs 

Facility Name 

D Check here if name changed alter ownership 

D Check this box if the physical address of the USTs is the same as the current owner 

address. If address is different, enter address below: 

If required by implementing agency, give the geographic location of USTs either in decimal 

degrees, or degrees, minutes, and seconds. Example: Latitude: 36.12348 (or 36" 7' 

24.4"), Longitude: -106.549876 (or -106' 32' 59.6") 

Latitude Lonaitude 

Date Of Ownership Change 

Date: 

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for 

this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggesled methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 

collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. 

Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. 

EPA Form 6200-10 Electronic and paper versions acceptable. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41677 

Appendix III to Part 280—Statement for 

Shipping Tickets and Invoices 

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 regulation at 40 CFR 280.22 to 

determine if you are affected by this law. 

■ 2. Revise part 281 to read as follows: 

PART 281—APPROVAL OF STATE 

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 

PROGRAMS 

Subpart A—Purpose, General Requirements 

and Scope 

Sec. 

281.10 Purpose. 

281.11 General requirements. 

281.12 Scope and definitions. 

Subpart B—Components of a Program 

Application 

281.20 Program application. 

281.21 Description of state program. 

281.22 Procedures for adequate 

enforcement. 

281.23 Memorandum of agreement. 

281.24 Attorney General’s statement. 

Subpart C—Criteria for No Less Stringent 

281.30 New UST system design, 

construction, installation, and 

notification. 

281.31 Upgrading existing UST systems. 

281.32 General operating requirements. 

281.33 Release detection. 

281.34 Release reporting, investigation, 

and confirmation. 

281.35 Release response and corrective 

action. 

281.36 Out-of-service UST systems and 

closure. 

281.37 Financial responsibility for UST 

systems containing petroleum. 

281.38 Lender liability. 

281.39 Operator training. 

Subpart D—Adequate Enforcement of 

Compliance 

281.40 Requirements for compliance 

program and authority. 

281.41 Requirements for enforcement 

authority. 

281.42 Requirements for public 

participation. 

281.43 Sharing of information. 

Subpart E—Approval Procedures 

281.50 Approval procedures for state 

programs. 

281.51 Revision of approved state 

programs. 

Subpart F—Withdrawal of Approval of State 

Programs 

281.60 Criteria for withdrawal of approval 

of state programs. 

281.61 Procedures for withdrawal of 

approval of state programs. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), 

6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(i), 6991(k). 

Subpart A—Purpose, General 

Requirements and Scope 

§ 281.10 Purpose. 

(a) This part specifies the 

requirements that state programs must 

meet for approval by the Administrator 

under section 9004 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, and the procedures EPA 

will follow in approving, revising and 

withdrawing approval of state programs. 

(b) State submissions for program 

approval must be in accordance with 

the procedures set out in this part. 

(c) A state may apply for approval 

under this part at any time after the 

promulgation of release detection, 

prevention, and corrective action 

regulations under § 9003 of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. 

(d) Any state program approved by 

the Administrator under this part shall 

at all times be conducted in accordance 

with the requirements of this part. 

§ 281.11 General requirements. 

(a) State program elements. The 

following substantive elements of a state 

program must be addressed in a state 

application for approval: 

(1) Requirements for all existing and 

new underground storage tanks: 

(i) New UST systems (design, 

construction, installation, and 

notification); 

(ii) Upgrading of existing UST 

systems; 

(iii) General operating requirements; 

(iv) Release detection; 

(v) Release reporting, investigation, 

and confirmation; 

(vi) Out-of-service USTs and closure; 

(vii) Release response and corrective 

action; 

(viii) Financial responsibility for UST 

systems containing petroleum; and 

(ix) Operator training. 

(2) Provisions for adequate 

enforcement of compliance with the 

above program elements. 

(b) Final approval. The state must 

demonstrate that its requirements under 

each state program element for existing 

and new UST systems are no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements as set forth in subpart C of 

this part. The state must also 

demonstrate that it has a program that 

provides adequate enforcement of 

compliance with these requirements. 

(c) States with programs approved 

under this part are authorized to 

administer the state program in lieu of 

the federal program and will have 

primary enforcement responsibility with 

respect to the requirements of the 

approved program. EPA retains 

authority to take enforcement action in 

approved states as necessary and will 

notify the designated lead state agency 

of any such intended action. 

§ 281.12 Scope and definitions. 

(a) Scope. (1) The Administrator may 

approve either partial or complete state 

programs. A ‘‘partial’’ state program 

regulates either solely UST systems 

containing petroleum or solely UST 

systems containing hazardous 

substances. If a ‘‘partial’’ state program 

is approved, EPA will administer the 

remaining part of the program. A 

‘‘complete’’ state program regulates both 

petroleum and hazardous substance 

tanks. 

(2) EPA will administer the UST 

program in Indian country, except 

where Congress has clearly expressed an 

intention to grant a state authority to 

regulate petroleum and hazardous 

substance USTs in Indian country. In 

either case, this decision will not impair 

a state’s ability to obtain program 

approval for petroleum or hazardous 

substances in non-Indian country in 

accordance with this part. 

(3) Nothing in this subpart precludes 

a state from: 

(i) Adopting or enforcing 

requirements that are more stringent or 

more extensive than those required 

under this part; or 

(ii) Operating a program with a greater 

scope of coverage than that required 

under this part. Where an approved 

state program has a greater scope of 

coverage than required by federal law, 

the additional coverage is not part of the 

federally-approved program. 

(b) Definitions. (1) The definitions in 

40 CFR part 280 apply to this entire part 

except as described below. 

(i) States may use the definitions 

associated with tank and piping 

secondary containment as defined in 

section 9003 of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act. 

(ii) States may use the definitions 

associated with operator training as 

described in § 9010 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. 

(2) For the purposes of this part the 

term ‘‘final approval’’ means the 

approval received by a state program 

that meets the requirements in 

§ 281.11(b). 

Subpart B—Components of a Program 

Application 

§ 281.20 Program application. 

Any state that seeks to administer a 

program under this part must submit an 

application containing the following 

parts: 

(a) A transmittal letter from the 

Governor of the state requesting 

program approval; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) A description in accordance with 

§ 281.21 of the state program and 

operating procedures; 

(c) A demonstration of the state’s 

procedures to ensure adequate 

enforcement; 

(d) A Memorandum of Agreement 

outlining roles and responsibilities of 

EPA and the implementing agency; 

(e) An Attorney General’s statement in 

accordance with § 281.25 certifying to 

applicable state authorities; and 

(f) Copies of all applicable state 

statutes and regulations. 

§ 281.21 Description of state program. 

A state seeking to administer a 

program under this part must submit a 

description of the program it proposes 

to administer under state law in lieu of 

the federal program. The description of 

a state’s existing or planned program 

must include: 

(a) The scope of the state program: 

(1) Whether the state program 

regulates UST systems containing 

petroleum or hazardous substances, or 

both; 

(2) Whether the state program is more 

stringent or broader in scope than the 

federal program, and in what ways; and 

(3) Whether the state has any existing 

authority in Indian country or has 

existing agreements with Indian tribes 

relevant to the regulation of 

underground storage tanks. 

(b) The organization and structure of 

the state and local agencies with 

responsibility for administering the 

program. The jurisdiction and 

responsibilities of all state and local 

implementing agencies must be 

delineated, appropriate procedures for 

coordination set forth, and one state 

agency designated as a ‘‘lead agency’’ to 

facilitate communications between EPA 

and the state. 

(c) Staff resources to carry out and 

enforce the required state program 

elements, both existing and planned, 

including the number of employees, 

agency where employees are located, 

general duties of the employees, and 

current limits or restrictions on hiring or 

utilization of staff. 

(d) An existing state funding 

mechanism to meet the estimated costs 

of administering and enforcing the 

required state program elements, and 

any restrictions or limitations upon this 

funding. 

§ 281.22 Procedures for adequate 

enforcement. 

A state must submit a description of 

its compliance monitoring and 

enforcement procedures, including 

related state administrative or judicial 

review procedures. 

§ 281.23 Memorandum of agreement. 

EPA and the approved state will 

negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) containing proposed areas of 

coordination and shared responsibilities 

between the state and EPA and separate 

EPA and state roles and responsibilities 

in areas including, but not limited to: 

Implementation of partial state 

programs; enforcement; compliance 

monitoring; EPA oversight; and sharing 

and reporting of information. At the 

time of approval, the MOA must be 

signed by the Regional Administrator 

and the appropriate official of the state 

lead agency. 

§ 281.24 Attorney General’s statement. 

(a) A state must submit a written 

demonstration from the Attorney 

General that the laws and regulations of 

the state provide adequate authority to 

carry out the program described under 

§ 281.21 and to meet other requirements 

of this part. This statement may be 

signed by independent legal counsel for 

the state rather than the Attorney 

General, provided that such counsel has 

full authority to independently 

represent the state Agency in court on 

all matters pertaining to the state 

program. This statement must include 

citations to the specific statutes, 

administrative regulations, and where 

appropriate, judicial decisions that 

demonstrate adequate authority to 

regulate and enforce requirements for 

UST systems. State statutes and 

regulations cited by the state Attorney 

General must be fully effective when the 

program is approved. 

(b) If a state currently has authority 

over underground storage tank activities 

in Indian country, the statement must 

contain an appropriate analysis of the 

state’s authority. 

Subpart C—Criteria for No Less 

Stringent 

§ 281.30 New UST system design, 

construction, installation, and notification. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for new UST system 

design, construction, installation, and 

notification, the state must have 

requirements that ensure all new 

underground storage tanks, and the 

attached piping in contact with the 

ground and used to convey the 

regulated substance stored in the tank, 

conform to the following: 

(a) Be designed, constructed, and 

installed in a manner that will prevent 

releases for their operating life due to 

manufacturing defects, structural 

failure, or corrosion. Unless the state 

requires manufacturer and installer 

financial responsibility and installer 

certification in accordance with section 

9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, then the state must meet the 

following: 

(1) New or replaced tanks and piping 

must use interstitial monitoring within 

secondary containment in accordance 

with section 9003(i)(1) of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act except as follows: 

(i) Underground piping associated 

with: Airport hydrant systems or fieldconstructed tanks greater than 50,000 

gallons or 

(ii) Underground suction piping that 

meets § 281.33(d)(2)(ii). 

(2) New motor fuel dispenser systems 

installed and connected to an UST 

system must be equipped with underdispenser containment in accordance 

with section 9003(i)(1) of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. 

Note to paragraph (a). Codes of practice 

developed by nationally recognized 

organizations and national independent 

testing laboratories may be used to 

demonstrate that the state program 

requirements are no less stringent in this 

area. 

(b) Be provided with equipment to 

prevent spills and tank overfills when 

new tanks are installed or existing tanks 

are upgraded, unless the tank does not 

receive more than 25 gallons at one 

time. Flow restrictors used in vent lines 

are not allowable forms of overfill 

prevention when overfill prevention is 

installed or replaced. 

(c) All UST system owners and 

operators must notify the implementing 

agency of the existence of any new UST 

system and notify the implementing 

agency within a reasonable timeframe 

when assuming ownership of an UST 

system using a process designated by 

the implementing agency. 

§ 281.31 Upgrading existing UST systems. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

upgrading requirements, the state must 

have requirements that ensure existing 

UST systems meet the requirements of 

§ 281.30; are upgraded to prevent 

releases for their operating life due to 

corrosion, spills, or overfills; or are 

permanently closed with the following 

exceptions: 

(a) Upgrade requirements for 

previously deferred UST systems. 

Previously deferred airport hydrant fuel 

distribution systems and UST systems 

with field-constructed tanks must 

within three years of the effective date 

of its state requirements meet the 

requirements of § 281.30 or be 

permanently closed. This provision 

would not apply, however, to states that 

did not defer these UST systems and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41679 

already had, prior to the effective date 

of this provision, existing requirements 

with specified compliance periods for 

these types of UST systems. 

(b) Upgrade requirements for other 

UST systems. States may allow UST 

systems to be upgraded if the state 

determines that the upgrade is 

appropriate to prevent releases for the 

operating life of the UST system due to 

corrosion and spills or overfills. 

§ 281.32 General operating requirements. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

general operating requirements, the state 

must have requirements that ensure all 

new and existing UST systems conform 

to the following: 

(a) Prevent spills and overfills by 

ensuring that the space in the tank is 

sufficient to receive the volume to be 

transferred and that the transfer 

operation is monitored constantly; 

(b) Where equipped with cathodic 

protection, be operated and maintained 

by a person with sufficient training and 

experience in preventing corrosion, and 

in a manner that ensures that no 

releases occur during the operating life 

of the UST system; 

Note to paragraph (b). Codes of practice 

developed by nationally recognized 

organizations and national independent 

testing laboratories may be used to 

demonstrate the state program requirements 

are no less stringent. 

(c) Be made of or lined with materials 

that are compatible with the substance 

stored; in order to ensure compatibility, 

the state requirements must also include 

provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility with new and innovative 

regulated substances or other regulated 

substances identified by the 

implementing agency or include other 

provisions determined by the 

implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the provisions for 

demonstrating compatibility; 

(d) At the time of upgrade or repair, 

be structurally sound and upgraded or 

repaired in a manner that will prevent 

releases due to structural failure or 

corrosion during their operating lives; 

(e) Have spill and overfill prevention 

equipment periodically tested or 

inspected in a manner and frequency 

that ensures its functionality for the 

operating life of the equipment and have 

the integrity of containment sumps used 

for interstitial monitoring of piping 

periodically tested in a manner and 

frequency that prevents releases during 

the operating life of the UST system; 

(f) Have operation and maintenance 

walkthrough inspections periodically 

conducted in a manner and frequency 

that ensures proper operation and 

maintenance for the operating life of the 

UST system; and 

(g) Have records of monitoring, 

testing, repairs, and inspections. These 

records must be made readily available 

when requested by the implementing 

agency. 

§ 281.33 Release detection. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for release detection, the 

state must have requirements that at a 

minimum ensure all UST systems are 

provided with release detection that 

conforms to the following: 

(a) General methods. Release 

detection requirements for owners and 

operators must consist of a method, or 

combination of methods, that is: 

(1) Capable of detecting a release of 

the regulated substance from any 

portion of the UST system that routinely 

contains regulated substances—as 

effectively as any of the methods 

allowed under this part—for as long as 

the UST system is in operation. In 

comparing methods, the implementing 

agency shall consider the size of release 

that the method can detect and the 

speed and reliability with which the 

release can be detected. 

(2) Designed, installed, calibrated, 

operated and maintained so that 

releases will be detected in accordance 

with the capabilities of the method; 

(3) Operated and maintained, and 

electronic and mechanical components 

and other equipment are tested or 

inspected periodically, in a manner and 

frequency that ensures proper operation 

to detect releases for the operating life 

of the release detection equipment. 

(b) Phase-in of requirements. Release 

detection requirements must, at a 

minimum, be applied at all UST 

systems immediately, except for UST 

systems previously deferred under 

§ 280.10(a)(1). Release detection 

requirements must, at a minimum, be 

scheduled to be applied to those 

previously deferred UST systems as 

follows: 

(1) Immediately when a new 

previously deferred UST system is 

installed; and 

(2) For any previously deferred UST 

system within three years of the 

effective date of its state requirements. 

This provision would not apply, 

however, to states that did not defer 

these UST systems and already had, 

prior to the effective date of this 

provision, existing release detection 

requirements with specified compliance 

periods for these types of UST systems. 

(c) Requirements for petroleum tanks. 

All petroleum tanks must meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) All petroleum tanks must be 

sampled, tested, or checked for releases 

at least monthly, except that tanks 

installed before October 13, 2015 or 

upgraded tanks (that is, tanks and 

piping protected from releases due to 

corrosion and equipped with both spill 

and overfill prevention devices) may 

temporarily use monthly inventory 

control (or its equivalent) in 

combination with tightness testing (or 

its equivalent) conducted every five 

years for the first 10 years after the tank 

is installed; and 

(2) New or replaced petroleum tanks 

must use interstitial monitoring within 

secondary containment in accordance 

with section 9003(i)(1) of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act except when the 

state requires manufacturer and installer 

financial responsibility and installer 

certification in accordance with section 

9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act. 

(d) Requirements for petroleum 

piping. All underground piping attached 

to the tank that routinely conveys 

petroleum must conform to the 

following: 

(1) If the petroleum is conveyed under 

greater than atmospheric pressure: 

(i) The piping must be equipped with 

release detection that detects a release 

within an hour by restricting or shutting 

off flow or sounding an alarm; and 

(ii) The piping must have monthly 

monitoring applied or annual tightness 

tests conducted. 

(2) If suction lines are used: 

(i) Tightness tests must be conducted 

at least once every three years, unless a 

monthly method of detection is applied 

to this piping; or 

(ii) The piping is designed to allow 

the contents of the pipe to drain back 

into the storage tank if the suction is 

released and is also designed to allow 

an inspector to immediately determine 

the integrity of the piping system. 

(3) Except as provided for in 

§ 281.30(a)(1) new or replaced 

petroleum piping must use interstitial 

monitoring within secondary 

containment in accordance with section 

9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act except when the state requires 

evidence of financial responsibility and 

certification in accordance with section 

9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act. 

(e) Requirements for hazardous 

substance UST systems. All new 

hazardous substance UST systems must 

use interstitial monitoring within 

secondary containment of the tanks and 

the attached underground piping that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

conveys the regulated substance stored 

in the tank. For hazardous substance 

UST systems installed prior to October 

13, 2015, owners and operators can use 

another form of release detection if the 

owner and operator can demonstrate to 

the state (or the state otherwise 

determines) that another method will 

detect a release of the regulated 

substance as effectively as other 

methods allowed under the state 

program for petroleum UST systems and 

that effective corrective action 

technology is available for the 

hazardous substance being stored that 

can be used to protect human health 

and the environment. 

§ 281.34 Release reporting, investigation, 

and confirmation. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for release reporting, 

investigation, and confirmation, the 

state must have requirements that 

ensure all owners and operators 

conform with the following: 

(a) Promptly investigate all suspected 

releases, including: 

(1) When unusual operating 

conditions, release detection signals and 

environmental conditions at the site 

suggest a release of regulated substances 

may have occurred or the interstitial 

space may have been compromised; and 

(2) When required by the 

implementing agency to determine the 

source of a release having an impact in 

the surrounding area; and 

(b) Promptly report all confirmed 

underground releases and any spills and 

overfills that are not contained and 

cleaned up. 

(c) Ensure that all owners and 

operators contain and clean up 

unreported spills and overfills in a 

manner that will protect human health 

and the environment. 

§ 281.35 Release response and corrective 

action. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for release response and 

corrective action, the state must have 

requirements that ensure: 

(a) All releases from UST systems are 

promptly assessed and further releases 

are stopped; 

(b) Actions are taken to identify, 

contain and mitigate any immediate 

health and safety threats that are posed 

by a release (such activities include 

investigation and initiation of free 

product removal, if present); 

(c) All releases from UST systems are 

investigated to determine if there are 

impacts on soil and groundwater, and 

any nearby surface waters. The extent of 

soil and groundwater contamination 

must be delineated when a potential 

threat to human health and the 

environment exists. 

(d) All releases from UST systems are 

cleaned up through soil and 

groundwater remediation and any other 

steps are taken, as necessary to protect 

human health and the environment; 

(e) Adequate information is made 

available to the state to demonstrate that 

corrective actions are taken in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section. This information must be 

submitted in a timely manner that 

demonstrates its technical adequacy to 

protect human health and the 

environment; and 

(f) In accordance with § 280.67, the 

state must notify the affected public of 

all confirmed releases requiring a plan 

for soil and groundwater remediation, 

and upon request provide or make 

available information to inform the 

interested public of the nature of the 

release and the corrective measures 

planned or taken. 

§ 281.36 Out-of-service UST systems and 

closure. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for temporarily closed 

UST systems and permanent closure, 

the state must have requirements that 

ensure UST systems conform with the 

following: 

(a) Removal from service. All new and 

existing UST systems temporarily 

closed must: 

(1) Continue to comply with general 

operating requirements, release 

reporting and investigation, and release 

response and corrective action; 

(2) Continue to comply with release 

detection requirements if regulated 

substances are stored in the tank; 

(3) Be closed off to outside access; and 

(4) Be permanently closed if the UST 

system has not been protected from 

corrosion and has not been used in one 

year, unless the state approves an 

extension after the owner and operator 

conducts a site assessment. 

(b) Permanent closure of UST 

systems. All tanks and piping must be 

cleaned and permanently closed in a 

manner that eliminates the potential for 

safety hazards and any future releases. 

The owner or operator must notify the 

state of permanent UST system closures. 

The site must also be assessed to 

determine if there are any present or 

were past releases, and if so, release 

response and corrective action 

requirements must be complied with. 

(c) All UST systems taken out of 

service before the effective date of the 

federal regulations must permanently 

close in accordance with paragraph (b) 

of this section when directed by the 

implementing agency. 

§ 281.37 Financial responsibility for UST 

systems containing petroleum. 

(a) In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the federal requirements 

for financial responsibility for UST 

systems containing petroleum, the state 

requirements for financial responsibility 

for petroleum UST systems must ensure 

that: 

(1) Owners and operators have $1 

million per occurrence for corrective 

action and third-party claims in a timely 

manner to protect human health and the 

environment; 

(2) Owners and operators not engaged 

in petroleum production, refining, and 

marketing and who handle a throughput 

of 10,000 gallons of petroleum per 

month or less have $500,000 per 

occurrence for corrective action and 

third-party claims in a timely manner to 

protect human health and the 

environment; 

(3) Owners and operators of 1 to 100 

petroleum USTs must have an annual 

aggregate of $1 million; and 

(4) Owners and operators of 101 or 

more petroleum USTs must have an 

annual aggregate of $2 million. 

(b) States may allow the use of a wide 

variety of financial assurance 

mechanisms to meet this requirement. 

Each financial mechanism must meet 

the following criteria in order to be no 

less stringent than the federal 

requirements. The mechanism must: Be 

valid and enforceable; be issued by a 

provider that is qualified or licensed in 

the state; not permit cancellation 

without allowing the state to draw 

funds; ensure that funds will only and 

directly be used for corrective action 

and third party liability costs; and 

require that the provider notify the 

owner or operator of any circumstances 

that would impair or suspend coverage. 

(c) States must require owners and 

operators to maintain records that 

demonstrate compliance with the state 

financial responsibility requirements, 

and these records must be made readily 

available when requested by the 

implementing agency. 

§ 281.38 Lender liability. 

(a) A state program that contains a 

security interest exemption will be 

considered to be no less stringent than, 

and as broad in scope as, the federal 

program provided that the state’s 

exemption: 

(1) Mirrors the security interest 

exemption provided for in 40 CFR part 

280, subpart I; or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41681 

(2) Achieves the same effect as 

provided by the following key criteria: 

(i) A holder, meaning a person who 

maintains indicia of ownership 

primarily to protect a security interest in 

a petroleum UST or UST system or 

facility or property on which a 

petroleum UST or UST system is 

located, who does not participate in the 

management of the UST or UST system 

as defined under § 280.10 of this 

chapter, and who does not engage in 

petroleum production, refining, and 

marketing as defined under § 280.200(b) 

of this chapter is not: 

(A) An ‘‘owner’’ of a petroleum UST 

or UST system or facility or property on 

which a petroleum UST or UST system 

is located for purposes of compliance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

280; or 

(B) An ‘‘operator’’ of a petroleum UST 

or UST system for purposes of 

compliance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 280, provided the holder is not 

in control of or does not have 

responsibility for the daily operation of 

the UST or UST system. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 281.39 Operator training. 

In order to be considered no less 

stringent than the corresponding federal 

requirements for operator training, the 

state must have an operator training 

program that meets the minimum 

requirements of section 9010 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

Subpart D—Adequate Enforcement of 

Compliance 

§ 281.40 Requirements for compliance 

monitoring program and authority. 

(a) Any authorized representative of 

the state engaged in compliance 

inspections, monitoring, or testing must 

have authority to obtain by request any 

information from an owner or operator 

with respect to the UST system(s) that 

is necessary to determine compliance 

with the UST regulations. 

(b) Any authorized representative of 

the state must have authority to require 

an owner or operator to conduct 

monitoring or testing. 

(c) Authorized representatives must 

have the authority to enter any site or 

premises subject to UST regulations or 

in which records relevant to the 

operation of the UST system(s) are kept, 

and to copy these records, obtain 

samples of regulated substances, and 

inspect or conduct the monitoring or 

testing of UST system(s). 

(d) State programs must have 

procedures for receipt, evaluation, 

retention, and investigation of records 

and reports required of owners or 

operators and must provide for 

enforcement of failure to submit these 

records and reports. 

(e)(1) State programs must have 

inspection procedures to determine, 

independent of information supplied by 

regulated persons, compliance with 

program requirements, and must 

provide for enforcement of failure to 

comply with the program requirements. 

States must maintain a program for 

systematic inspections of facilities 

subject to UST regulations in a manner 

designed to determine compliance or 

non-compliance, to verify accuracy of 

information submitted by owners or 

operators of regulated USTs, and to 

verify adequacy of methods used by 

owners or operators in developing that 

information. 

(2) When inspections are conducted, 

samples taken, or other information 

gathered, these procedures must be 

conducted in a manner (for example, 

using proper ‘‘chain of custody’’ 

procedures) that will produce evidence 

admissible in an enforcement 

proceeding, or in court. 

(f) Public effort in reporting violations 

must be encouraged and states must 

make available information on reporting 

procedures. State programs must 

maintain a program for investigating 

information obtained from the public 

about suspected violations of UST 

program requirements. 

(g) The state must maintain the data 

collected through inspections and 

evaluation of records in such a manner 

that the implementing agency can 

monitor over time the compliance status 

of the regulated community. Any 

compilation, index, or inventory of such 

facilities and activities shall be made 

available to EPA upon request. 

§ 281.41 Requirements for enforcement 

authority. 

(a) Any state administering a program 

must have the authority to implement 

the following remedies for violations of 

state program requirements: 

(1) To restrain immediately and 

effectively any person by order or by 

suit in state court from engaging in any 

unauthorized activity that is 

endangering or causing damage to 

public health or the environment; 

(2) To sue in courts of competent 

jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or 

continuing violation of any program 

requirement; 

(3) To assess or sue to recover in court 

civil penalties as follows: 

(i) Civil penalties for failure to notify 

or for submitting false information 

pursuant to tank notification 

requirements must be capable of being 

assessed up to $5,000 or more per 

violation. 

(ii) Civil penalties for failure to 

comply with any state requirements or 

standards for existing or new tank 

systems must be capable of being 

assessed for each instance of violation, 

up to $5,000 or more for each tank for 

each day of violation. If the violation is 

continuous, civil penalties shall be 

capable of being assessed up to $5,000 

or more for each day of violation. 

(4) To prohibit the delivery, deposit, 

or acceptance of a regulated substance 

into an underground storage tank 

identified by the implementing agency 

to be ineligible for such delivery, 

deposit, or acceptance in accordance 

with section 9012 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. 

(b) The burden of proof and degree of 

knowledge or intent required under 

state law for establishing violations 

under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 

must be no greater than the burden of 

proof or degree of knowledge or intent 

that EPA must provide when it brings 

an action under Subtitle I of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. 

(c) A civil penalty assessed, sought, or 

agreed upon by the implementing 

agency(ies) under paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section must be appropriate to the 

violation. 

§ 281.42 Requirements for public 

participation. 

Any state administering a program 

must provide for public participation in 

the state enforcement process by 

providing any one of the following three 

options: 

(a) Authority that allows intervention 

analogous to Federal Rule 24(a)(2) from 

Title IV of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and assurance by the state 

that it will not oppose intervention 

under the state analogue to Rule 24(a)(2) 

on the ground that the applicant’s 

interest is adequately represented by the 

state. 

(b) Authority that allows intervention 

of right in any civil action to obtain the 

remedies specified in § 281.41 by any 

citizen having an interest that is or may 

be adversely affected; or 

(c) Assurance by the appropriate state 

agency that: 

(1) It will provide notice and 

opportunity for public comment on all 

proposed settlements of civil 

enforcement actions (except where 

immediate action is necessary to 

adequately protect human health and 

the environment); 

(2) It will investigate and provide 

responses to citizen complaints about 

violations; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
41682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) It will not oppose citizen 

intervention when permissive 

intervention is allowed by statute, rule, 

or regulation. 

§ 281.43 Sharing of information. 

(a) States with approved programs 

must furnish EPA, upon request, any 

information in state files obtained or 

used in the administration of the state 

program. This information includes: 

(1) Any information submitted to the 

state under a claim of confidentiality. 

The state must submit that claim to EPA 

when providing such information. Any 

information obtained from a state and 

subject to a claim of confidentiality will 

be treated in accordance with federal 

regulations in 40 CFR part 2; and 

(2) Any information that is submitted 

to the state without a claim of 

confidentiality. EPA may make this 

information available to the public 

without further notice. 

(b) EPA must furnish to states with 

approved programs, upon request, any 

information in EPA files that the state 

needs to administer its approved state 

program. Such information includes: 

(1) Any information that is submitted 

to EPA without a claim of 

confidentiality; and 

(2) Any information submitted to EPA 

under a claim of confidentiality, subject 

to the conditions in 40 CFR part 2. 

Subpart E—Approval Procedures 

§ 281.50 Approval procedures for state 

programs. 

(a) The following procedures are 

required for all applications, regardless 

of whether the application is for a 

partial or complete program, as defined 

in § 281.12. 

(b) Before submitting an application 

to EPA for approval of a state program, 

the state must provide an opportunity 

for public notice and comment in the 

development of its underground storage 

tank program. 

(c) When EPA receives a state 

program application, EPA will examine 

the application and notify the state 

whether its application is complete, in 

accordance with the application 

components required in § 281.20. The 

180-day statutory review period begins 

only after EPA has determined that a 

complete application has been received. 

(d) The state and EPA may by mutual 

agreement extend the review period. 

(e) After receipt of a complete 

program application, the Administrator 

will tentatively determine approval or 

disapproval of the state program. EPA 

shall issue public notice of the tentative 

determination in the Federal Register 

and other mechanisms to attract statewide attention. Notice of the tentative 

determination must also: 

(1) Afford the public 30 days after the 

notice to comment on the state’s 

application and the Administrator’s 

tentative determination; and 

(2) Include a general statement of the 

areas of concern, if the Administrator 

indicates the state program may not be 

approved; and 

(3) Note the availability for inspection 

by the public of the state program 

application; and 

(4) Indicate that a public hearing will 

be held by EPA no earlier than 30 days 

after notice of the tentative 

determination unless insufficient public 

interest is expressed, at which time the 

Regional Administrator may cancel the 

public hearing. 

(f) Within 180 days of receipt of a 

complete state program application, the 

Administrator must make a final 

determination whether to approve the 

state program after review of all public 

comments. EPA will give notice of its 

determination in the Federal Register 

and codify the approved state program. 

The notice must include a statement of 

the reasons for this determination and a 

response to significant comments 

received. 

§ 281.51 Revision of approved state 

programs. 

(a) Either EPA or the approved state 

may initiate program revision. Program 

revision may be necessary when the 

controlling federal or state statutory or 

regulatory authority is changed or when 

responsibility for the state program is 

shifted to a new agency or agencies. The 

state must inform EPA of any proposed 

modifications to its basic statutory or 

regulatory authority or change in 

division of responsibility among state 

agencies. EPA will determine in each 

case whether a revision of the approved 

program is required. Approved state 

programs must submit a revised 

application within three years of any 

changes to this part that requires a 

program revision. 

(b) Whenever the Administrator has 

reason to believe that circumstances 

have changed with respect to an 

approved state program or the federal 

program, the Administrator may 

request, and the state must provide, a 

revised application as prescribed by 

EPA. 

(c) The Administrator will approve or 

disapprove program revisions based on 

the requirements of this part and 

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act pursuant to the procedures under 

this section, or under § 281.50 if EPA 

has reason to believe the proposed 

revision will receive significant negative 

comment from the public. 

(1) The Administrator must issue 

public notice of planned approval or 

disapproval of a state program revision 

in the Federal Register and other 

mechanisms to attract state-wide 

attention. The public notice must 

summarize the state program revision, 

indicate whether EPA intends to 

approve or disapprove the revision, and 

provide for an opportunity to comment 

for a period of 30 days. 

(2) The Administrator’s decision on 

the proposed revision becomes effective 

60 days after the date of publication in 

the Federal Register in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unless 

significant negative comment opposing 

the proposed revision is received during 

the comment period. If significant 

negative comment is received, EPA 

must notify the state and within 60 days 

after the date of publication, publish in 

the Federal Register either: 

(i) A withdrawal of the immediate 

final decision, which will then be 

treated as a tentative decision in 

accordance with the applicable 

procedures of § 281.50(e) and (f); or 

(ii) A notice that contains a response 

to significant negative comments and 

affirms either that the immediate final 

decision takes effect or reverses the 

decision. 

(d) Revised state programs that 

receive approval must be codified in the 

Federal Register. 

Subpart F—Withdrawal of Approval of 

State Programs 

§ 281.60 Criteria for withdrawal of approval 

of state programs. 

The Administrator may withdraw 

program approval when the Agency 

determines that a state no longer has 

adequate regulatory or statutory 

authority or is not administering and 

enforcing an approved program in 

accordance with this part. The state 

must have adequate capability to 

administer and enforce the state 

program. In evaluating whether such 

capability exists, the Agency will 

consider whether the state is 

implementing an adequate enforcement 

program by evaluating the quality of 

compliance monitoring and 

enforcement actions. 

§ 281.61 Procedures for withdrawal of 

approval of state programs. 

(a) The following procedures apply 

when a state with an approved program 

voluntarily transfers to EPA those 

program responsibilities required by 

federal law. 

(1) The state must give EPA notice of 

the proposed transfer, and submit, at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 41683 

least 90 days before the transfer, a plan 

for the orderly transfer of all relevant 

program information necessary for EPA 

to administer the program. 

(2) Within 30 days of receiving the 

state’s transfer plan, EPA must evaluate 

the plan and identify any additional 

information needed by the federal 

government for program administration. 

(3) At least 30 days before the transfer 

is to occur, EPA must publish notice of 

the transfer in the Federal Register and 

other mechanisms to attract state-wide 

attention. 

(b) The following procedures apply 

when the Administrator considers 

withdrawing approval. 

(1) When EPA begins proceedings to 

determine whether to withdraw 

approval of a state program (either on its 

own initiative or in response to a 

petition from an interested person), 

withdrawal proceedings will be 

conducted in accordance with 

procedures set out in 40 CFR 271.23(b) 

and (c), except for § 271.23(b)(8)(iii) to 

the extent that it deviates from 

requirements under § 281.60. 

(2) If the state fails to take appropriate 

action within a reasonable time, not to 

exceed 120 days after notice from the 

Administrator that the state is not 

administering and enforcing its program 

in accordance with the requirements of 

this part, EPA will withdraw approval 

of the state’s program. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15914 Filed 7–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2