4156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0406, FRL–9253–7] 

RIN 2060–AP16 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk 

Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline 

Facilities; and Gasoline Dispensing 

Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories: Gasoline 

Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk 

Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which 

EPA promulgated on January 10, 2008, 

and amended on March 7, 2008. In this 

action, EPA is finalizing amendments 

and clarifications to certain definitions 

and applicability provisions of the final 

rules in response to some of the issues 

raised in the petitions for 

reconsideration. In addition, several 

other compliance-related questions 

posed by various individual 

stakeholders and State and local agency 

representatives are addressed in this 

action. We are also denying 

reconsideration on one issue raised in a 

petition for reconsideration received by 

the Agency on the final rules. 

DATES: These final rules are effective on 

January 24, 2011. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of January 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0406. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, EPA 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 legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

The Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center’s Web site is: http:// 

wwwlepa.gov/oar/docket.html. The 

electronic mail (e-mail) address for the 

Air and Radiation Docket is: a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, the telephone number 

is (202) 566–1742, and the Fax number 

is (202) 566–9744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General and Technical Information: 

Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, 

Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143– 

01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, telephone: (919) 541–5397, 

facsimile number: (919) 685–3195, 

e-mail address: shedd.steve@epa.gov. 

Compliance Information: Ms. Maria 

Malave, Office of Compliance, Air 

Compliance Branch (2223A), U.S. EPA, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

telephone: (202) 564–7027, e-mail 

address: 

Malave.Maria@epamail.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include: 

Category NAICS * Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ................................ 324110, 493190, 486910, 

424710, 447110, 447190.

Operations at area sources that transfer and store gasoline, including bulk terminals, bulk plants, pipeline facilities, and gasoline dispensing facilities. 

Federal/State/local/Tribal 

governments. 

* North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13. 

Outline: The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

B. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

A. Petitions for Reconsideration and 

Judicial Review 

B. Other Stakeholder Issues 

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal 

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses 

A. Applicability 

B. Throughput Thresholds 

C. Rule Clarifications 

D. Comments Addressing Other Provisions 

That Were Not Proposed To Be Amended 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 

A. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of these final 

amendments will also be available on 

the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following the Administrator’s 

signature, a copy of this action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN at 

EPA’s Web site provides information 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4157 

1While EPA did grant reconsideration on the 

Alliance’s other issues in its petition for 

reconsideration which also involved the definition 

of ‘‘bulk gasoline plant’’, EPA did so for completely 

independent reasons unrelated to this third issue. 

See 74 FR 66470, 66471. 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

B. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these 

final rules is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by March 25, 2011. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by these final 

rules may not be challenged separately 

in any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information 

On January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1916), 

EPA promulgated National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories: Gasoline 

Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk 

Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CCCCCC) pursuant to 

sections 112(c)(3) and 112(d)(5) of the 

CAA. On March 10, 2008, the 

Administrator received two petitions for 

reconsideration of the final rules. One 

petition was filed by the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) 

and the other by the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) (Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0406, items 0174 

and 0173). The Alliance also filed a 

petition for judicial review of the final 

rules in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. In addition, the Alliance, API, 

and several other stakeholders (affected 

facilities and State and local 

government agencies) contacted EPA 

with questions on issues related to the 

implementation of the final rules. 

A. Petitions for Reconsideration and 

Judicial Review 

1. The Alliance Petition 

The Alliance’s petition for 

reconsideration identified three issues 

for reconsideration (see the preamble to 

the proposed rule for a discussion of 

these issues (74 FR 66471)). The first 

two issues were regarding the definition 

of ‘‘Bulk Gasoline Plant.’’ We granted 

reconsideration of these two issues in 

the proposed rule (74 FR 66471). We are 

taking final action with regard to those 

issues in today’s notice. 

The Alliance raised a third issue in its 

petition for reconsideration, which 

questioned the inclusion of gasoline 

storage tanks used to fuel emergency 

generators and fire pumps as being 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB or 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CCCCCC. The Alliance stated in both its 

petition for reconsideration and in its 

comments submitted on the proposed 

amendments that gasoline storage tanks 

that fuel fire pumps and emergency 

generators should not be covered by 

subparts BBBBBB or CCCCCC. They 

stated that many of these pieces of 

equipment are fueled by gasoline 

storage tanks holding less than 250 

gallons. The Alliance acknowledged 

that other gasoline storage tanks fueling 

this equipment are above this 250-gallon 

level, but it asserts that the gasoline 

storage tanks still have very low 

monthly throughput. The Alliance also 

stated that most emergency generator 

and fire pump gasoline storage tanks 

will have zero gallons per day 

throughput and are likely to be filled 

only once or twice per year after routine 

maintenance and testing. The Alliance 

further stated that regulating this 

equipment under subparts BBBBBB or 

CCCCCC could potentially cover 

thousands of emergency generator and 

fire pump gasoline storage tanks 

nationwide at various types of facilities 

that may not otherwise have air 

permitting requirements. Thus, in its 

petition for reconsideration, the 

Alliance suggested that EPA entirely 

exempt these gasoline storage tanks 

from regulation under either subpart 

BBBBBB or subpart CCCCCC. 

After considering this matter, we deny 

reconsideration of the third issue in the 

Alliance’s petition for reconsideration. 

Under CAA section 307(b)(7)(B), the 

Administrator must initiate 

reconsideration proceedings with 

respect to provisions that are of central 

relevance to the rule at issue if the 

petitioner shows that it was 

impracticable to raise an objection to a 

rule within the public comment period 

or that the grounds for the objection 

arose after the public comment period 

but within the period for filing petitions 

for judicial review. The Alliance 

attempted neither demonstration in its 

petition for reconsideration; instead, it 

merely asserted that ‘‘neither the 

proposal nor the final rule provided any 

notice’’ that these tanks could be subject 

to the rules (see Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0406, item 0152.1). Such 

assertion is not sufficient under CAA 

section 307(d)(7)(B) for requiring EPA to 

reconsider this issue. The provision that 

the Alliance alleges provoked this third 

issue, the originally promulgated 

definition of ‘‘bulk gasoline plant,’’ was 

included in the original proposal 

published on November 9, 2006 (see 40 

CFR 63.11100, 73 FR 1916, 1940). The 

Alliance had ample time during the 60- 

day public comment period to raise its 

concern that this definition of ‘‘bulk 

gasoline plant’’ ‘‘could be read to cover 

gasoline storage tanks that fuel 

emergency generators and fire pumps.’’ 

(See Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0406, item 0152.1.) However, the 

Alliance did not raise this concern in its 

January 8, 2007 comments that it 

submitted on that proposal (see Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0406, item 

0094.1) and has not provided any other 

explanation in its petition for 

reconsideration regarding why doing so 

was ‘‘impracticable.’’ Additionally, the 

Alliance has not provided any argument 

regarding why its concern ‘‘arose after 

the public comment period but within 

the period for filing petitions for judicial 

review.’’ Finally, the Alliance has 

offered no explanation as to why its 

particular issue with this particular 

provision is of ‘‘central relevance to the 

rule.’’ Since the Alliance has not 

demonstrated how its request meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), EPA is denying 

reconsideration of this issue in its 

petition for reconsideration.1 

Furthermore, we disagree with the 

Alliance that gasoline storage tanks that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

fuel emergency generators and fire 

pumps should not be regulated as part 

of the Gasoline Distribution area source 

category. This alleged issue is 

essentially just a request from the 

Alliance that EPA exempt from 

regulation gasoline storage tanks fueling 

emergency generators and fuel pumps. 

However, as we stated in the preamble 

to the proposed amendments (74 FR 

66474), the CAA requires that EPA set 

Federal emission standards under CAA 

section 112(d) for source categories 

listed under CAA section 112(c)(3). The 

list of source categories was developed 

based on an emission inventory. The 

emission inventory for GDF is based on 

the total volume of gasoline consumed 

nationwide (including domestic 

production, plus imports and stock 

changes from the previous year, minus 

exports), the emission factor for gasoline 

loading losses, and the amount of 

submerged and splash loading and 

vapor balancing in the industry. Total 

gasoline consumption is the total used 

nationwide, so the emission inventory 

includes emissions estimates for all end 

users of gasoline, which includes 

gasoline used in these emergency 

generators and fire pumps. See 74 FR 

66470, 66474. Additionally, the types of 

gasoline storage tanks identified by the 

Alliance are essentially the same as 

those found at other GDF, except that 

the average or typical size and gasoline 

throughput tend to be smaller than for 

the gasoline storage tanks at a more 

typical GDF that refuel primarily motor 

vehicles. We considered both the size 

and throughput of gasoline storage tanks 

at GDF in the selection of the control 

requirements in the current rule, so the 

types of controls, and the control levels 

required, are appropriate for even the 

smallest gasoline storage tanks. 

2. The API Petition 

The API Petition for Reconsideration 

identified four issues regarding 

clarifications that they suggested should 

be made to the final rules. We granted 

reconsideration of all four issues and 

addressed them in the preamble and the 

rule text revisions that were included in 

the proposed amendments. Additional 

discussion of the final amendments to 

the rules as a result of our 

reconsideration of the issues in the API 

petition, and our rationale for the 

amendments, is presented in section IV 

of this preamble. 

B. Other Stakeholder Issues 

In addition to the petitions discussed 

above, the Alliance, API, and several 

other stakeholders (affected facilities 

and State and local government 

agencies) contacted EPA with questions 

or issues related to the implementation 

of the final rules. We are finalizing the 

proposed changes to the rules resulting 

from these issues as described in section 

IV of this preamble. 

The amendments being promulgated 

address both the petitions for 

reconsideration and the additional 

questions from other stakeholders. Our 

responses to the stakeholder questions 

do not substantially change the level of 

the standards but clarify some of the 

requirements. These clarifications do 

not change the impacts of the rules. 

Thus, the estimates of environmental, 

cost, and information collection impacts 

are not substantially different than 

estimated at promulgation of these 

rules, and no changes have been made 

to the estimates presented in the final 

rules. 

III. Summary of Changes Since 

Proposal 

This section presents a brief summary 

of the significant changes that have been 

made in the final rule as a result of our 

consideration of the public comments 

on the proposed rule. Each of the items 

listed below is discussed in detail in 

section IV of this preamble. 

1. In the final rule, we have added a 

provision to paragraph (g) in 40 CFR 

63.11081 clarifying that ‘‘An enforceable 

State, local, or Tribal permit limitation 

on throughput, established prior to the 

applicable compliance date, may be 

used in lieu of the 20,000 gallons per 

day design capacity throughput 

threshold, to determine whether the 

facility is a bulk gasoline plant or a bulk 

terminal.’’ 

2. In the final rule, we have clarified 

in 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), that 

the purpose of a heat sensing device 

used to monitor a thermal oxidizer is to 

‘‘send,’’ rather than to ‘‘display’’ (as 

stated in the proposal), either a positive 

or a negative parameter value as a signal 

to indicate the presence or absence, 

respectively, of the pilot flame. We also 

clarified that the analyzer for 

conducting monthly measurements of 

the carbon outlet volatile organic 

compound (VOC) concentration (from a 

carbon bed) can be permanently 

mounted (i.e., it need not be portable as 

was previously stated in the rule at 40 

CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)(iii)). 

3. We have added text to 40 CFR 

63.11092(f) specifying that facilities that 

are subject to subpart XX of 40 CFR part 

60 may elect, after notification to the 

subpart XX delegated authority, to 

comply with the annual certification 

test for gasoline cargo tanks as specified 

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

section. 

4. We have revised the proposed 

amendments to entry 2 of Table 1 to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, to 

correctly specify that the secondary seal 

requirements from 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb (40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) 

and (a)(1)(iv) through (ix)) or 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart WW (40 CFR 

63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D)) do not apply 

to internal floating roof tanks that are 

subject only to subpart BBBBBB. 

5. In 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB, the following revisions have 

been made to the definitions in 40 CFR 

63.11100: 

• We have revised the proposed 

definition of ‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ to 

add an item (3) that specifically 

excludes sumps, including butane 

blending sample recovery tanks (SRT), 

and oil/water separators, from the 

definition of gasoline storage tank. 

• We have also added a fourth item 

in the definition of ‘‘gasoline storage 

tank’’ excluding ‘‘tanks or vessels 

permanently attached to mobile sources 

such as trucks, railcars, barges, or 

ships.’’ 

• We have amended the definition of 

‘‘pipeline pumping station’’ to read: ‘‘a 

facility along a pipeline containing 

pumps to maintain the desired pressure 

and flow of product through the 

pipeline and not containing gasoline 

storage tanks other than surge control 

tanks.’’ 

6. We have added a new paragraph (f) 

to 40 CFR 63.11113 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC, stating that the 

compliance date for existing GDF that 

only load gasoline into fuel tanks other 

than those in motor vehicles, as defined 

in 40 CFR 63.11132, is January 24, 2014. 

Also, we have added text to paragraph 

(e) of 40 CFR 63.11111 in the final rule 

stating that the date of the start of 

recordkeeping for these existing GDF is 

the date of publication of these final 

amendments. For new sources 

constructed, or for existing sources 

reconstructed, after the date of 

publication of these final amendments, 

recordkeeping must begin upon startup 

of the affected facility. 

7. We have revised 40 CFR 63.11120 

to include a new paragraph (d) that adds 

a cross-reference to the vapor tightness 

testing requirements found in 40 CFR 

63.11092(f). The vapor tightness testing 

was not previously listed in 40 CFR 

63.11120. 

8. We have added rule text in 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(1) stating that GDF that are 

now subject to the rule because they 

only load gasoline into fuel tanks other 

than those in motor vehicles, as defined 

in 40 CFR 63.11132, must submit Initial 

Notifications within 120 days of 

publication of these final amendments. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4159 

9. We have revised 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to include a 

requirement that facilities must state in 

their Notification of Compliance Status 

(NOCS) report whether the facilities’ 

gasoline throughput is determined 

based on the volume of gasoline loaded 

into all gasoline storage tanks, or on the 

volume of gasoline dispensed from all 

gasoline storage tanks. We have also 

specifically included the 60-day time 

frame for the submittal of the NOCS in 

40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2). 

10. We have corrected a typographical 

error in proposed 40 CFR 63.11125(c). 

The citation included in the paragraph 

should be to ‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(2)(i) through 

(viii)’’ rather than to ‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(i) 

through (viii)’’ as it appeared in the 

reconsideration proposal. 

11. In 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CCCCCC, we have added the CAA 

definition of motor vehicles to the 

definitions found in 40 CFR 63.11132. 

IV. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

Amendments to the gasoline 

distribution area source rules were 

proposed on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 

66470). The 60-day public comment 

period ended on February 16, 2010, and 

we received 17 comment letters. 

Comments were received from industry 

representatives, trade associations, State 

and local air pollution control agencies, 

and private citizens. The final rule 

amendments reflect our consideration of 

the significant comments received on 

the proposed action. This section 

presents a summary of the significant 

comments received and our responses to 

those comments. 

A. Applicability 

1. Definition of Bulk Gasoline Plant 

We proposed revising the definition 

of ‘‘bulk gasoline plant’’ in subpart 

BBBBBB to clarify that gasoline from 

these facilities is subsequently loaded 

into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to 

GDF. The proposed definition is as 

follows: ‘‘Bulk gasoline plant means any 

gasoline storage and distribution facility 

that receives gasoline by pipeline, ship 

or barge, or cargo tank and subsequently 

loads the gasoline into gasoline cargo 

tanks for transport to gasoline 

dispensing facilities, and has a gasoline 

throughput of less than 20,000 gallons 

per day. Gasoline throughput shall be 

the maximum calculated design 

throughput as may be limited by 

compliance with an enforceable 

condition under Federal, State, or local 

law and discoverable by the 

Administrator and any other person.’’ 

We received no comments specifically 

addressing the proposed revision to the 

definition of ‘‘bulk gasoline plants’’ and 

are finalizing the definition as proposed. 

2. Definition of Gasoline Dispensing 

Facility 

We proposed amending the definition 

of ‘‘gasoline dispensing facility’’ in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to clarify 

our intent to include all stationary 

facilities that dispense gasoline into the 

fuel tanks of all end users of gasoline. 

The proposed definition is: ‘‘Gasoline 

dispensing facility (GDF) means any 

stationary facility which dispenses 

gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor 

vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad 

vehicle, or nonroad engine, including a 

nonroad vehicle or nonroad engine used 

solely for competition. These facilities 

include, but are not limited to, facilities 

that dispense gasoline into on- and offroad, street, or highway motor vehicles, 

lawn equipment, boats, test engines, 

landscaping equipment, generators, 

pumps, and other gasoline-fueled 

engines and equipment.’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommends that, if EPA finalizes the 

proposed definition of GDF, EPA extend 

the compliance date for facilities that 

may now become affected facilities 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. 

The commenter suggested that since 

EPA will likely not issue the final 

amendments until just prior to the 

January 10, 2011, compliance date, 

many affected sources may be unaware 

that they are subject to subpart CCCCCC. 

The commenter requests that EPA 

consider extending the compliance date 

for GDF that exceed the 10,000 gallons 

per month (gpm) throughput level 

purely because they dispense gasoline 

to end users other than motor vehicles. 

The commenter asserted that these 

facilities may not be able to install the 

necessary control equipment prior to the 

January 10, 2011, deadline, and should 

be provided additional time to comply 

with the submerged fill requirements. 

The commenter stated that the 

proposed new definition of GDF greatly 

expands the affected source category 

beyond the ‘‘fuel tank of a motor 

vehicle’’ category in the current rule. 

The commenter stated that while many 

of the additional affected sources may 

fall under the 10,000 gpm throughput 

level, these facilities would still become 

affected facilities under the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP). The commenter 

stated that State agencies accepting 

delegation of these NESHAP must be 

able to sufficiently implement and 

enforce the standards for all affected 

facilities, not just facilities required to 

control emissions. The commenter 

noted that, in addition to applying good 

management practices, small GDF must 

also be able to produce records to prove 

the facility is under 10,000 gpm 

throughput. The commenter asserted 

that it is not reasonable to believe that 

the majority of these small GDF will 

keep these gasoline throughput records, 

nor that EPA or the delegated State 

agencies will be able to assure 

compliance with the recordkeeping 

requirements. Further, the commenter 

suggested that some facilities may 

exceed the 10,000 gpm throughput 

threshold levels when considering 

fueling nonroad vehicles or nonroad 

engines. 

A second commenter stated many of 

the same concerns as the previous 

commenter and also stated that, without 

any objective research, the Agency 

concluded that the newly-affected 

sources would all have throughputs less 

than 10,000 gpm and therefore be 

subject to only 40 CFR 63.11116. The 

commenter stated that some of their 

facilities would not fit into this 

presumed scenario; as a result, they 

would be given only a few months to 

install submerged fill pipes on all its 

storage tanks. 

The commenter also stated that EPA 

ignores the coincident impacts of a 

source being regulated under the 

NESHAP. For example, the commenter 

stated that they are covered by a New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) General Air Permit. 

The commenter explained that the 

NJDEP General Air Permit excludes 

coverage for any source that is covered 

under 40 CFR part 63. As a result, the 

commenter said that they will have to 

apply for, pay the fees for, and obtain 

an individual permit. The commenter 

asserted that this will also work against 

the NJDEP’s focus on General Air 

Permits, which ensures environmental 

protection while freeing staff resources 

for more worthwhile tasks. The 

commenter stated that the rule should 

be revised to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) If you have an existing affected 

source that becomes subject to the 

control requirements in this subpart 

after January 10, 2008, you must comply 

with the standards in this subpart no 

later than 3 years after the affected 

source becomes subject to the control 

requirements in this subpart.’’ 

Response: We continue to believe that 

the preamble to the January 10, 2008, 

final rule was clear that, as discussed in 

the proposal, all facilities that dispense 

gasoline, both public and private, were 

subject to the rule. However, we 

acknowledged that our intent may have 

been misinterpreted by some readers 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

because the January 10, 2008, final rule 

definition of GDF only referenced the 

dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank 

of a ‘‘motor vehicle.’’ CAA section 216(2) 

defines the term motor vehicle as ‘‘any 

self-propelled vehicle designed for 

transporting persons or property on a 

street or highway.’’ The combination of 

these two definitions results in a 

definition of GDF that is more limited 

than what we intended when 

promulgating the final rule. Thus, we 

agree with the commenters that some 

facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC because they 

dispense gasoline to end users other 

than those defined in the January 10, 

2008, final rule, or specifically defined 

in the CAA as motor vehicles, may not 

have considered themselves subject to 

the rule prior to the clarification of the 

definition of GDF. This segment of the 

GDF population includes those that 

dispense gasoline into the fuel tank of 

a nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine, 

including a nonroad vehicle or nonroad 

engine used solely for competition. It 

would also include facilities dispensing 

gasoline into lawn equipment, boats, 

test engines, landscaping equipment, 

generators, pumps, and other gasolinefueled engines and equipment. 

We recognize that the source category 

was more narrowly defined in the final 

rule than we intended, so we are 

finalizing the proposed amendments to 

the definition of ‘‘gasoline dispensing 

facility’’ to correctly define the source 

category. Because the sources described 

above were only clearly informed that 

40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC was 

applicable to them as of the December 

15, 2009, proposal date, we agree that 

these newly covered sources should be 

allowed additional time in which to 

comply with the revised final rule. 

In the final rule, we have added the 

CAA definition of ‘‘motor vehicles’’ in 

40 CFR 63.11132, and have also added 

a new paragraph (f) to 40 CFR 63.11113 

indicating the compliance dates for new 

and existing GDF that only load gasoline 

into fuel tanks other than those in motor 

vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132. 

For existing GDF that are subject to the 

control requirements in this subpart 

only because they load gasoline into 

fuel tanks other than those in motor 

vehicles, as defined in § 63.11132, the 

compliance date is January 24, 2014. For 

new or reconstructed GDF that are 

subject to the control requirements in 

this subpart only because they load 

gasoline into fuel tanks other than those 

in motor vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 

63.11132, the compliance date is either 

the date of publication of these final 

rules or the date of startup of the 

affected GDF (see 40 CFR 

63.11132(f)(2)), whichever is later. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, to clarify that a single site may 

contain multiple GDF, the following 

sentence be added at the end of the 

proposed definition of GDF: ‘‘Each 

separate gasoline dispensing activity 

and associated gasoline storage tank or 

tanks shall be considered an individual 

GDF for the purposes of this rule.’’ 

Response: Section 63.11111(h) of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, as 

proposed, included the following 

sentence: ‘‘If an area source has two or 

more GDF at separate locations within 

the area source, each GDF is treated as 

a separate affected source.’’ We believe 

that this statement is appropriate to 

resolve the commenter’s concern, that it 

is more specific, and that it is more 

appropriate in the applicability section 

rather than in the definition of a GDF. 

We are, therefore, not incorporating this 

change into the definition of GDF as 

requested by the commenter. 

3. Tanks With Infrequent Use 

We proposed to amend item 1 of 

Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB by adding a subcategory that 

specifies the control requirements for 

tanks that have a capacity of less than 

151 cubic meters and a throughput of 

less than 480 gallons per day (gpd). We 

did not receive comments on this 

proposed amendment and have 

included it in the final rule. 

4. Surge Control Tanks 

We proposed to add a definition of 

‘‘surge control tanks’’ and to amend 

Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB by adding an entry 3 that 

specifies control requirements for these 

tanks. We did not receive comments on 

this proposed amendment and have 

included it in the final rule. 

5. Definition of Gasoline Storage Tank 

We proposed to amend 40 CFR part 

63, subpart BBBBBB to include the 

following definition of ‘‘gasoline storage 

tank’’: ‘‘Gasoline storage tank or vessel 

means each tank, vessel, reservoir, or 

container used for the storage of 

gasoline, but does not include: (1) 

Frames, housing, auxiliary supports, or 

other components that are not directly 

involved in the containment of gasoline 

or gasoline vapors; or (2) subsurface 

caverns or porous rock reservoirs.’’ This 

definition is based on the definition of 

‘‘storage vessel’’ found in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb without the exemption for 

‘‘process tank.’’ 

Comment: Commenters object to the 

proposed definition of ‘‘gasoline storage 

tank’’ and believe that it has potentially 

unintended implications. The 

commenters provided extensive 

comments in support of their position 

that the definition of ‘‘gasoline storage 

tank’’ should be exactly the same as is 

found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, 

i.e., that the definition should 

specifically exclude process tanks. The 

commenters stated that subpart Kb and 

other EPA regulations have 

distinguished between vessels that serve 

a storage function and vessels that serve 

a process function. The commenters 

stated that, by removing the process 

tank exclusion, the rule may 

inadvertently bring underground sumps 

and oil/water separators into the rule. 

The commenters further stated that 

these vessels are not ‘‘storage’’ tanks. 

The commenters explained that sumps 

that collect drained material such that it 

can be pumped to storage or otherwise 

re-injected into the system, serve a 

process rather than a storage function. 

The commenters stated that a typical 

sump has a capacity of approximately 

1,200 gallons, and is used to collect 

liquid from thermal relief valves, 

sample collection activities, and 

maintenance activities. The commenters 

further stated that most sumps are 

equipped with a pump that starts 

automatically as liquids accumulate, 

and that the liquids are either pumped 

back into the pipeline or to a larger 

transmix tank and are not stored longterm in the sump. The commenters 

stated that there is no way to install 

floating roofs on these vessels, and 

installation of a pressure/vacuum (p/v) 

vent on these vessels could result in 

back pressure in the system which 

could cause vapors to go back into the 

loading system. The commenter also 

stated that one particular type of sump, 

a butane SRT, should not be considered 

a storage tank. The commenter 

explained that, for terminals with 

butane blending, a SRT is part of the 

apparatus required by the applicable 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) test method for the 

routine automatic product sampling 

performed for the butane blending 

process. The commenter stated that 

these small tanks (250- or 500-gallons 

capacity) collect used samples of 

gasoline. The commenter also stated 

that a floating roof would not be feasible 

in such small tanks, and closing the 

tank with a pressure vent would 

interfere with the ASTM test method for 

which the tank is installed. The 

commenter further stated that the ASTM 

test method requires the analysis to be 

performed at atmospheric pressure, and, 

thus, the SRT is equipped with an open 

vent in order to prevent back pressure 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4161 

in the analyzer. The commenter 

concluded by saying that a SRT is not 

used for gasoline ‘‘storage,’’ but rather, it 

collects material, for sampling purposes, 

within the butane blending process 

before the material is automatically 

transferred back into the system. 

One commenter also provided 

supporting data regarding the cost and 

emission reduction potential of 

installing p/v vents on sumps and 

underground vessels. The commenter 

stated that the cost of installing a p/v 

vent on an average sized sump would be 

approximately $15,000, the hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP) reductions would 

only be about 6 pounds per year, and 

the cost-effectiveness, even if the p/v 

vent eliminated breathing losses 

entirely, would be over $1 million per 

ton of HAP controlled. 

The commenters requested that, if 

EPA will not maintain the process tank 

exemption, EPA add an exclusion under 

the ‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ definition for 

sumps, including butane blending SRT, 

and oil/water separators. The 

commenters also stated that if EPA will 

not return the process tank exclusion to 

the ‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ definition, 

EPA should specify a separate 

compliance period for process tanks 

(such as flow-through sumps that 

accumulate gasoline) and allow 3 years 

from the date of publication of the final 

amendments. 

Response: Prior to receiving these 

comments, we were not aware of the 

issue related to sumps, including butane 

blending SRT, and oil/water separators. 

After reviewing these comments, we 

agree that these particular types of tanks 

should not be considered ‘‘gasoline 

storage tanks’’ for the purposes of these 

rules. Based on the information 

provided by the commenters, we 

concluded that these types of tanks are 

not ‘‘gasoline storage tanks’’ and not part 

of the gasoline distribution source 

category because the liquids that are 

collected and stored in them do not 

meet the definition of ‘‘gasoline.’’ In 

addition, information provided by the 

commenters indicates that emissions 

from these types of tanks are low 

because they are located underground 

and it is not cost-effective to enclose 

and control emissions by installing p/v 

vent valves. We agree that sumps, 

including butane blending SRT, and oil/ 

water separators are likely not costeffective to control based on the 

information provided by the 

commenters. In the final rule, we have 

revised the definition of ‘‘gasoline 

storage tank’’ to add an item (3) that 

specifically excludes sumps, including 

butane blending SRT, and oil/water 

separators from the definition of 

‘‘gasoline storage tank.’’ Since we have 

excluded these tanks from the definition 

of ‘‘gasoline storage tank,’’ they are not 

subject to control requirements under 

these rules. 

As provided for under these rules, 

whether any other types of tanks used 

at bulk facilities or GDF are subject to 

the requirements of these rules depends 

on whether those tanks meet the 

definition of ‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ in 

the rules (see 40 CFR 63.11100 of 

subpart BBBBBB and 63.11132 of 

subpart CCCCCC). For the gasoline 

distribution area source category, the 

distinction between a ‘‘process tank’’ 

and any other type of tank is not 

relevant for deciding whether the rules 

are applicable. Instead, if a tank used at 

a bulk facility or a GDF meets the 

definition of ‘‘gasoline storage tank,’’ it 

will be subject to the applicable 

requirements in the rule. If that tank 

does not qualify as a ‘‘gasoline storage 

tank,’’ it will not be regulated under 

these rules. Stakeholders that have 

questions about the applicability of 

these rules to particular tanks at their 

facilities may seek assistance from the 

applicable EPA Regional Office or the 

delegated State or local authorities (see 

40 CFR 63.11099 and 63.11131, as 

applicable). Additionally, EPA will 

consider providing specific exclusions 

for specific tanks in the ‘‘gasoline 

storage tank’’ definition as is being done 

today if such action seems appropriate. 

Comment: The commenters also 

stated that the proposed definition of 

‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ fails to 

distinguish between gasoline storage 

tanks located at the terminal and the 

tank trucks that are loaded at the 

terminal. They pointed out that 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Kb makes this 

distinction by exempting ‘‘Vessels 

permanently attached to mobile vehicles 

such as trucks, railcars, barges, or 

ships.’’ The commenters stated that a 

similar clarification should be made in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. 

Response: We considered the 

commenter’s position and agree that 

mobile tanks such as tank trucks that are 

loaded at the terminal were not 

intended to be included in the ‘‘gasoline 

storage tank’’ definition as proposed. 

Such mobile tanks serve a different 

purpose than stationary gasoline storage 

tanks, and the applicable emission 

control technologies are also different. 

We did not anticipate that there would 

be any confusion caused by the lack of 

a specific exclusion for mobile tanks 

from the definition of gasoline storage 

tanks. We are, however, adding a fourth 

item in the definition of ‘‘gasoline 

storage tank’’ excluding ‘‘tanks or vessels 

permanently attached to mobile sources 

such as trucks, railcars, barges, or 

ships.’’ 

Comment: Commenters stated that an 

unintended consequence of the 

‘‘gasoline storage tank’’ definition, as 

proposed, is that it could be 

misconstrued in a manner that would 

result in pipeline pumping stations 

being deemed pipeline breakout 

stations. The commenters stated that if 

a surge control tank or an underground 

sump at a pipeline pumping station 

were construed as being a storage vessel, 

then this facility would be rendered a 

pipeline breakout station under the 

present definition of a pipeline 

pumping station. They pointed out that 

in the preamble for the final rule, EPA 

concluded that it is not necessary for 

pipeline pumping stations to submit 

semi-annual reports for periods in 

which no deviation occurred. The 

commenters further stated that pipeline 

breakout stations, however, must submit 

semi-annual reports regardless of 

whether any deviations occurred. The 

commenters stated that misclassification 

of pipeline pumping stations as pipeline 

breakout stations would impose a 

significant burden on these facilities to 

submit reports that EPA has already 

concluded are unnecessary. The 

commenters request that the rule be 

clarified to avoid a misclassification of 

pipeline pumping stations as pipeline 

breakout stations. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that the definition of 

‘‘pipeline pumping stations’’ needs to be 

clarified. It is not our intent that the 

presence of surge control tanks or sump 

tanks result in a pipeline pumping 

station being required to submit semiannual reports for periods in which no 

deviation occurs, as required for a 

pipeline breakout station. However, as 

discussed earlier, we have excluded 

sump tanks from the definition of a 

‘‘gasoline storage tank,’’ so that is not an 

issue with the definition of ‘‘pipeline 

pumping station.’’ 

Additionally, as stated earlier, we did 

not receive adverse comments on our 

proposed control requirements for surge 

control tanks in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart BBBBBB by adding an entry 

3 (not item 2, as the commenter stated) 

that applies to pipeline breakout 

stations and pipeline pumping stations 

(see title of § 63.11087). Thus, we are 

amending the definition of ‘‘pipeline 

pumping station’’ in this final rule to 

mean ‘‘a facility along a pipeline 

containing pumps to maintain the 

desired pressure and flow of product 

through the pipeline and not containing 

gasoline storage tanks other than surge 

control tanks.’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6. Aviation Gasoline at Airports and 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading at Bulk 

Facilities 

We proposed to specifically exclude 

the loading of aviation gasoline into 

storage tanks at airports and the loading 

of gasoline into marine tank vessels at 

bulk facilities from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC. We did not receive 

comments on this proposed exclusion 

and have included it in the final rules. 

7. Temporary/Contractor Tanks 

We did not propose changes to the 

rule to address a question of how 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC applies to 

temporary or contractor gasoline storage 

tanks. We asked for comment on the 

following rationale for not making any 

changes: ‘‘It appears it is the 

responsibility of the owner or operator 

of the affected facility to ensure that all 

emission sources at the facility comply 

with the requirements of any applicable 

standards. It seems owners or operators 

could consider this responsibility when 

negotiating contracts with third parties 

and address it in the contracts for the 

specific work being done. Thus, the 

requirements in the General Provisions 

will likely adequately address the 

stakeholder’s concern.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with the approach EPA has 

taken regarding temporary/contractor 

gasoline storage tanks. The commenter’s 

concern is that the approach could 

create very burdensome paperwork 

demands for temporary gasoline storage 

tanks due to the initial notifications and 

other potential requirements, such as 

recordkeeping and compliance 

certifications, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC. The commenter also 

asked whether a facility would be 

required to submit a notification to EPA 

when the temporary gasoline storage 

tank is removed from the facility. The 

commenter suggested that EPA clarify 

that any applicable recordkeeping 

requirements for temporary or 

contractor gasoline storage tanks be 

terminated when the gasoline storage 

tank is removed from the site. 

Response: We have not made any 

changes in the final rule as a result of 

these comments. A gasoline storage tank 

temporarily located at a facility should 

be treated the same as any other 

gasoline storage tank at the facility in 

that routine notifications to the 

delegated permitting agency would be 

needed when the gasoline storage tank 

becomes subject to the standard or is 

removed from the facility. We do not 

consider these notifications to be overly 

burdensome, especially considering that 

only gasoline storage tanks with 

gasoline throughput of 10,000 gallons or 

more per month would be required to 

submit them. Also, as with any other 

emission source at a facility, once the 

temporary or contractor gasoline storage 

tank is removed from the facility, the 

owner’s or operator’s obligation to keep 

records regarding that gasoline storage 

tank would also end. The commenter 

did not address directly our proposed 

position that the owner or operator of a 

facility is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring that all emission sources at the 

facility comply with the requirements of 

any applicable standards. Nor did any 

other commenters submit comments 

opposed to our stated position. 

8. Coverage of Tanks Used To Fuel 

Vehicles and To Fill Cargo Tanks for 

On-Site Fuel Redistribution 

We proposed adding text to each 

subpart to clarify how the two subparts 

would be applied to gasoline storage 

tanks that are used to fuel vehicles, but 

that may also be used to dispense 

gasoline into portable tanks or cargo 

tanks, as follows: 

• Add a paragraph (h) to 40 CFR 

63.11081 of subpart BBBBBB to read as 

follows: ‘‘Storage tanks that are used to 

load gasoline into a cargo tank for the 

on-site redistribution of gasoline to 

another storage tank are subject to this 

subpart.’’ 

• Add a paragraph (j) to 40 CFR 

63.11111 of subpart CCCCCC to read as 

follows: ‘‘The dispensing of gasoline 

from a fixed gasoline storage tank at a 

GDF into a portable gasoline tank for the 

on-site delivery and subsequent 

dispensing of the gasoline into the fuel 

tank of a motor vehicle or other 

gasoline-fueled engine or equipment 

used within the area source is subject to 

§ 63.11116 of this subpart.’’ 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the proposed definition of GDF requires 

that the facility be stationary. The 

commenter stated that the paragraph (j) 

added to 40 CFR 63.11111 of subpart 

CCCCCC, however, contradicts this 

definition and appears to impose 

requirements on portable gasoline tanks 

used for subsequent dispensing. The 

commenter asked that EPA clarify that 

portable gasoline tanks are not subject to 

the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11116 

based on the proposed language in 40 

CFR 63.11111(j). The commenter stated 

that the requirements should only apply 

to the gasoline dispensing from the 

fixed gasoline storage tank at the GDF. 

Response: While we agree with the 

commenter that a GDF is a stationary 

source, there are certain steps that take 

place at the GDF that involve mobile 

equipment. For example, the off-loading 

of gasoline from the gasoline cargo tank 

into the GDF’s fixed storage tanks is 

subject to requirements under subpart 

CCCCCC. In the final rule we are 

requiring that the management practices 

required under 40 CFR 63.11116 must 

be met during all steps in the gasoline 

distribution process. In other words, the 

intermediate operations (see 40 CFR 

63.11111(j)) of loading a portable 

gasoline tank at a GDF, delivering the 

gasoline via the portable gasoline tank, 

and dispensing the gasoline from the 

portable gasoline tank into gasolinefueled engines or pieces of equipment 

(the end-use fuel tank) at the GDF, are 

all part of the gasoline distribution 

process. These intermediate operations 

are subject to the 40 CFR 63.11116 

management practices (minimize spills 

and evaporation). There are no 

notifications or reporting required under 

40 CFR 63.11116; thus, the only 

requirement applicable to these 

intermediate operations is to utilize the 

management practices. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA clarify that gasoline loaded 

into portable gasoline tanks does not 

need to be included in the monthly 

throughput calculation, assuming you 

are calculating the monthly throughput 

by considering the gasoline loaded into 

(rather than dispensed from) all fixed 

gasoline storage tanks at the GDF. The 

commenter explained that, with this 

clarification, monthly throughput 

calculated using the gasoline loaded 

into the fixed gasoline storage tank and 

the portable gasoline storage tank would 

not be double-counted. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposal preamble (74 FR 66478), 

monthly gasoline throughput may be 

measured as either the volume of 

gasoline going into the gasoline storage 

tanks at a GDF or, alternatively, the 

volume of gasoline coming out of the 

gasoline storage tanks. In most 

instances, we expect that measurement 

of the volume of gasoline going into the 

gasoline storage tanks is most 

appropriate because gasoline storage 

tank loadings tend to be done much less 

often, and involve much greater 

quantities at one time, whereas the 

dispensing of the gasoline usually 

occurs in frequent, but low volumes. 

The commenter is correct that gasoline 

loaded into portable gasoline tanks does 

not need to be included in the monthly 

throughput calculation if you are 

calculating the monthly throughput by 

considering the gasoline loaded into 

(rather than dispensed from) all fixed 

gasoline storage tanks at the GDF. 

However, in cases where a facility is 

measuring throughput based on the 

volume pumped out of the GDF, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4163 

loading of a portable tank from the 

GDF’s fixed gasoline storage tank would 

count as throughput, but the subsequent 

off-loading from the portable tank 

would not. Regardless of which 

measurement alternative a facility 

chooses to use, however, the gasoline 

throughput to be used in determining 

the applicable control requirements for 

any GDF is the volume measured for the 

fixed gasoline storage tanks at the entire 

GDF. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

new paragraph (j) of 40 CFR 63.11111 

requires additional explanation. The 

commenter stated that it is unclear what 

requirements apply to a fixed gasoline 

storage tank that dispenses gasoline into 

both portable gasoline tanks (for further 

distribution at the area source) and 

directly into the fuel tanks of the end 

users of gasoline such that it has a total 

monthly throughput that equals or 

exceeds 10,000 gallons. The commenter 

asked: ‘‘[I]f the transfer to a portable 

source is only subject to 40 CFR 

63.11116, is the transfer to fuel tanks of 

end users based upon the monthly 

throughput to those end users or to the 

entire throughput from the GDF?’’ 

Response: As explained in the 

previous response, monthly throughput 

is determined either by accounting for 

all gasoline going into or coming out of 

the fixed gasoline storage tanks at the 

GDF. The monthly throughput for the 

fixed gasoline storage tanks at a GDF 

determines the applicable control 

requirements for those fixed gasoline 

storage tanks. For GDF that choose to 

measure monthly throughput based on 

the total amount of gasoline dispensed 

from the fixed gasoline storage tanks at 

the GDF, it does not matter whether the 

gasoline is pumped into portable tanks 

or into the fuel tanks of the end users 

of the gasoline. The amount dispensed 

in both situations would be included in 

calculating the monthly throughout for 

that GDF. In the commenter’s example, 

if a fixed gasoline storage tank dispenses 

gasoline into both portable gasoline 

tanks (for further distribution at the area 

source) and directly into the fuel tanks 

of the end users of gasoline, such that 

the GDF has a total monthly throughput 

that equals or exceeds 10,000 gallons, 

the fixed gasoline storage tank would be 

subject to either the submerged fill 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.11117 or the 

vapor balance requirements of 40 CFR 

63.11118, depending on the total 

monthly throughput of the GDF. 

As a result of questions by this and 

other commenters regarding the 

applicability of standards to the loading 

of portable gasoline tanks, we have 

clarified the proposed text of 40 CFR 

63.11111(j) to state clearly that the only 

standards applicable to the portable 

gasoline tanks involved in the gasoline 

redistribution operations at the area 

source are the management practices in 

40 CFR 63.11116. 

Comment: One commenter does not 

agree with the proposed revision to 40 

CFR 63.11081(h) for facilities that 

primarily operate as GDF, but 

infrequently may need to redistribute 

small amounts of gasoline between 

different gasoline storage tanks located 

within the same site. The commenter 

stated that GDF that incidentally and 

infrequently redistribute gasoline onsite should only be regulated as GDF 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. 

Response: Our intent for proposing 

the revision to 40 CFR 63.11081(h) was 

to ensure that facilities that use a larger 

central gasoline storage tank to act as a 

feeder tank for smaller gasoline storage 

tanks that are located on the same site 

were subject to the standards for bulk 

gasoline plants. We specified in the new 

paragraph 40 CFR 63.11081(h) that the 

provision applied to gasoline storage 

tanks that load gasoline into a cargo 

tank. To minimize emissions, the 

loading of a gasoline cargo tank should 

only be performed using submerged 

filling. Thus, we disagree with the 

commenter that a facility that loads 

gasoline into a cargo tank for 

redistribution on-site should be 

regulated as a GDF, even if such an 

operation only occurs infrequently. 

Also, the commenter did not explain 

why such activities occur, how 

frequently they occur, what type of 

vessel is used for the redistribution, or 

what volumes of gasoline are typical of 

these activities. We continue to believe 

that the addition of new paragraph 40 

CFR 63.11081(h) provides more clarity 

to the rules. However, we acknowledge 

that it is possible that no matter how the 

final rules are worded, there may be 

situations where the applicability of the 

rules will need to be resolved on a caseby-case basis with the delegated 

permitting authority. 

9. Applicability to Sources That Are 

Subject to and Complying With 40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV 

We proposed amending 40 CFR part 

63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC to specify that, if 

an affected source under either of these 

subparts is also subject to another 

Federal rule like 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVVVVV, the owner or operator may 

elect to comply only with the more 

stringent provisions of the applicable 

subparts. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

gasoline used as a feedstock at a 

chemical manufacturing facility is 

appropriately regulated under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart VVVVVV, and should 

be exempted from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB, and from 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC. The commenter 

stated that, by requiring facilities to 

make a case-by-case comparison of each 

condition in different Federal standards, 

the proposed amendments will only 

serve to make the regulations more 

difficult for affected facilities to comply 

with, and for State agencies to 

implement and enforce. 

Another commenter stated that it is its 

understanding that a given NESHAP is 

a set of requirements that work in 

unison to create a system to ensure 

sources are properly identified, 

controlled, and monitored to ensure 

sufficient environmental protections. 

The commenter stated that the system 

will fail to be cohesive when individual 

components of separate NESHAP are 

combined. The commenter claims that 

this approach is haphazard and 

dissociative. The commenter believes 

that this case-by-case comparison 

method of addressing duplicative 

emission standards is without 

precedent, serves only to create 

confusion, and is almost guaranteed to 

lead to conflict over which part of 

different rules are the most stringent. 

The commenter claims that this is a 

unique approach to duplicative rules. 

The commenter stated that, under the 

maximum achievable control 

technology standards (MACT) rules, a 

source is explicitly exempt from 

duplicate standards if the source is 

already covered. The commenter further 

stated that the same should be applied 

to the area source NESHAP. The 

commenter requested that EPA specify 

the hierarchy of NESHAP applicability 

for a given classification of sources so 

that one, and only one, NESHAP 

standard applies to a source or process 

within a source. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s assertions regarding the 

proposed provisions. Each source has an 

obligation to comply with all applicable 

Federal requirements. However, to the 

extent that a source is subject to 

multiple requirements, that source may 

elect, under either 40 CFR 63.11081(i) or 

40 CFR 63.11111(k), to comply only 

with the more stringent provisions in 

the applicable subparts. These elective 

provisions do not relieve a source of its 

legal obligation to be in compliance 

with all applicable requirements, but 

the provisions do allow a facility to 

identify and comply with only one set 

of requirements (i.e., the most stringent 

requirements in the overlapping rules). 

The provisions themselves are optional; 

those facilities that find them too 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2Specifically, the policy provides that major 

sources can become area sources up until the first 

substantive compliance date of the major source 

MACT standard. 

complex or burdensome may choose not 

to use them and instead comply with all 

applicable subparts. Therefore, we are 

finalizing 40 CFR 63.11081(i) of subpart 

BBBBBB, and 40 CFR 63.11111(i) of 

subpart CCCCCC, as proposed. 

B. Throughput Thresholds 

1. Once Over a Throughput Threshold 

We proposed adding provisions to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, clarifying 

our intent that once an affected source’s 

throughput exceeds an applicable 

throughput threshold in either subpart, 

the affected source will remain subject 

to the requirements for sources above 

the threshold, even if the affected 

source’s throughput later falls below the 

applicable throughput threshold. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

based on EPA’s current definition for 

‘‘bulk gasoline terminal,’’ gasoline 

throughput may be limited by 

compliance with an enforceable 

condition under State law. The 

commenter further stated that many 

existing bulk gasoline plants have actual 

throughputs far below the 20,000 gpd 

threshold, but may not have taken a 

permit limit or other enforceable 

condition prior to January 10, 2008, to 

limit throughput. The commenter noted 

that State agencies should have the 

discretion, prior to the January 10, 2011, 

compliance date, to issue permits or 

regulations limiting the throughput of 

affected sources that can demonstrate 

that actual throughput never exceeded 

20,000 gpd. The commenter stated that 

this is consistent with what EPA has 

allowed for other NESHAP. The 

commenter recommends that EPA 

modify proposed paragraph 40 CFR 

63.11081(f) by adding the italicized text, 

as follows: (f) If your affected source’s 

throughput ever exceeds an applicable 

throughput threshold in the definition 

of ‘‘bulk gasoline terminal,’’ or in item 1 

in Table 2 to this subpart on or after the 

applicable compliance date, the affected 

source will remain subject to the 

requirements for sources above the 

threshold, even if the affected source 

throughput later falls below the 

applicable throughput threshold. 

Response: We considered the 

commenter’s recommendation and agree 

that it is reasonable to allow bulk 

gasoline distribution facilities to 

establish enforceable permit limitations 

on throughput prior to the applicable 

compliance date. Such throughput 

limitations would allow a facility whose 

design capacity is above the 20,000 gpd 

bulk terminal threshold, but whose 

actual throughput is always below the 

threshold, to be subject to the bulk 

gasoline plant standards rather than the 

bulk gasoline terminal standards. In the 

final rule, we have added a provision to 

paragraph (g) in 40 CFR 63.11081 

clarifying that ‘‘An enforceable State, 

local, or Tribal permit limitation on 

throughput, established prior to the 

applicable compliance date, may be 

used in lieu of the 20,000 gpd design 

capacity throughput threshold to 

determine whether the facility is a bulk 

gasoline plant or a bulk gasoline 

terminal.’’ 

Comment: Commenters do not 

support the ‘‘once in/always in’’ (OIAI) 

provisions. The commenters disagree 

that the ongoing compliance costs for a 

GDF with a monthly throughput that 

exceeds, and subsequently falls below, 

100,000 gallons, are ‘‘minor components 

of the total cost of control.’’ Commenters 

stated that the rules would require that 

sources continue to comply with the 

vapor balance testing and reporting 

requirements, and subsequently the 

associated maintenance and 

recordkeeping, rather than just the 

submerged fill and work practice 

standards set forth in 40 CFR 63.11117 

and 40 CFR 63.11116, respectively. The 

commenters also stated that EPA ignores 

the fact that the costs of compliance are 

often greater for the administrative 

burden than for the physical 

requirements. Therefore, according to 

the commenters, if EPA reduced the rule 

requirements coincident with gasoline 

use reductions, it would lower 

compliance costs while maintaining the 

environmental benefit. 

One of the commenters noted that the 

OIAI requirement does not encourage a 

site to reduce its gasoline usage which 

would be a win-win situation for all 

environmental impacts. The commenter 

believes that EPA’s 1995 OIAI policy 

applies to major sources subject to 

MACT standards, and would not apply 

to this area source regulation. 

Several of the commenters suggested 

that, if a GDF can demonstrate that its 

monthly throughput has dropped below 

a throughput threshold and maintained 

that level for a set period of time 

(commenters suggested 1 year to 3 

years), the GDF should be allowed to 

begin complying with the requirements 

for the lesser throughput threshold. One 

commenter recommended that, if a 

facility’s GDF falls below the 100,000 

gpm threshold, it should have the 

option to determine how and when it 

will maintain and test its vapor balance 

system rather than following the 

prescriptive rules. One commenter 

stated that EPA should allow GDF to 

‘‘drop out’’ of NESHAP requirements 

once applicable throughput thresholds 

are no longer being met, and that EPA 

could limit the drop-out option to those 

GDF that do not exceed a throughput 

threshold more than a fixed number of 

times within a set period. The 

commenter stated that once a GDF 

exceeds the applicable throughput 

threshold more than the minimum 

allowable occurrences, the NESHAP 

regulations could then become 

permanent as EPA is proposing to do 

after only a single occurrence. 

One commenter also states that, as 

with GDF, if EPA allows actual 

throughput volumes to determine the 

20,000 gpd threshold for bulk gasoline 

plants as they recommend, additional 

language is needed to prevent 

permanent regulation of a facility if it 

exceeds the threshold due to a one-time 

event. The commenter stated that EPA 

should allow these facilities to exceed 

the 20,000 gpd threshold on a minimum 

number of days over a defined period of 

time before imposing permanent 

regulatory jurisdiction over the facility. 

Response: Several commenters 

provide additional justifications as to 

why they disagree with our intent to 

require a GDF to continue to comply 

with the vapor balance requirements of 

the rule, even when its gasoline 

throughput decreases below the 

applicable threshold. Some commenters 

have referenced EPA’s 1995 OIAI policy 

as part of their justification for changing 

this proposed requirement and 

indicated that it should not apply in this 

rule. We agree that the OIAI policy does 

not apply to area sources; therefore, it is 

not relevant to this rule. The OIAI 

policy is intended to address situations 

where a major source becomes an area 

source, which is not the case in 

question.2 Thus, the OIAI policy is not 

relied upon for the applicable 

provisions in these rules. 

Another commenter indicated that the 

OIAI policy ‘‘does not encourage 

reduction of gasoline usage which 

would be a win-win situation for all 

environmental impacts.’’ First, as stated 

above, the OIAI policy does not apply 

here. Second, we disagree with the 

commenter’s position regarding this 

provision’s impact on gasoline usage 

since gasoline throughput is a function 

of consumer demand, and we have 

already considered seasonal fluctuations 

in the applicable definitions. In other 

words, we do not agree that requiring a 

GDF to maintain a particular level of 

control is what will determine the 

gasoline throughput at that particular 

GDF; instead, it is the consumer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4165 

3 ‘‘Gasoline Distribution Area Source Control Cost 

Estimates’’ October 3, 2006, prepared for the 

November 9, 2009 proposed rule. Docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0406–0063. 

demand for gasoline from that GDF that 

will dictate its gasoline throughput. 

Additionally, a GDF has the option of 

establishing an enforceable gasoline 

throughput limit in its applicable permit 

if that GDF wants to maintain a certain 

maximum level of gasoline throughput 

below the threshold level such that the 

GDF is subject to less stringent control 

requirements in the rule. 

Several additional commenters raised 

concerns with the compliance costs of 

complying with the more stringent 

requirements, i.e., vapor balance system 

rather than submerged fill. However, as 

stated in the proposed amendments (74 

FR 66478), ‘‘neither of these control 

technologies requires significant 

ongoing operating costs[; rather,] the 

primary control costs that the facility 

would incur would be for the initial 

installation [of the equipment].’’ The 

ongoing operating costs (e.g., inspection 

and maintenance of controls plus 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting costs) associated with running 

either a submerged fill system or a vapor 

balance system are reasonable for GDF 

based on the low costs for these items. 

For vapor balance systems, these costs 

include inspection and maintenance of 

the system (about $180 per year 3), the 

periodic pressure testing (estimated to 

cost about $700 and is required once 

every three years, or about $230 per 

year) and other monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements (about 

$575 per year). For submerged fill 

systems these costs would be similar 

(inspection and maintenance costs are 

estimated to be about $100 per year, 

plus similar monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping costs of about $340) 

except that there is no vapor pressure 

required. In other words, the annualized 

costs of running the vapor balance 

system are estimated to be only $310 

($80 plus $230) per year higher than the 

costs of running a submerged fill 

system. Therefore, we disagree that the 

costs of complying with the vapor 

balance system requirements should be 

a reason for allowing facilities that cross 

the applicable threshold level to instead 

continue complying with the submerged 

fill requirements. Instead, as we stated 

previously (74 FR 66478), ‘‘it would 

most likely be more trouble and expense 

to discontinue the use of [either of] the 

controls and to properly remove the 

equipment than to continue their use.’’ 

Also, ‘‘it would be reasonable to assume 

that if a facility once crossed an 

applicable throughput threshold, it 

might do so again at some point in the 

near future. Thus, in addition to the 

environmental gain in requiring the 

continued use of controls, there is a 

practical economic incentive to 

maintaining the equipment.’’ (74 FR 

66478) Finally, as also stated in the 

proposed amendments, requiring vapor 

balance systems to remain operational at 

GDF ‘‘will continue to achieve 

substantial emissions reductions, even if 

the facility’s throughput decreases 

below the applicable thresholds.’’ (74 FR 

66478) 

Based on the above, we have decided 

against allowing a facility to drop 

controls when gasoline throughput falls 

below an applicable threshold as it will 

not result in a significant reduction in 

compliance costs and it will not have an 

overall benefit to the environment. We 

are therefore finalizing these provisions 

as proposed. 

2. Monthly Throughput Definition 

We proposed revising the definition 

of monthly throughput in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC, to remove the 

phrase ‘‘rolling 30-day average’’ in the 

final rule, as well as adding a 

clarification on how it is calculated. We 

also proposed adding text to allow 

throughput to be based on the volume 

of gasoline dispensed by a GDF. 

Comment: Commenters believe that 

the definition of ‘‘monthly throughput’’ 

and the requirement in 40 CFR 

63.11111(e) to demonstrate/document 

throughput, when taken in conjunction 

with the proposed amendments to the 

definition of GDF, will impose 

additional and unnecessary 

recordkeeping requirements for 

facilities. One of the commenters stated 

that the requirement that affected 

sources calculate their throughput every 

day will be a large new administrative 

burden on newly-covered sources with 

absolutely no environmental benefit. 

The commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposal will require them to dedicate 

resources to calculate gasoline 

throughput for each day of the year, and 

claims this is an unreasonable 

administrative burden, and that EPA 

should revise the proposal to read as 

follows: ‘‘Monthly throughput means the 

total volume of gasoline that is loaded 

into, or dispensed from, all gasoline 

storage tanks at each GDF during a 

calendar month. Monthly throughput is 

calculated by summing the volume of 

gasoline loaded into, or dispensed from, 

all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF 

during the current month, plus the total 

volume of gasoline loaded into, or 

dispensed from, all gasoline storage 

tanks at each GDF during the previous 

11 months, and then dividing that sum 

by 12.’’ 

One commenter further stated that 

determining throughput categories 

based on calendar year data would be 

much easier, and in the worst case, 

would result in a delay in determining 

the applicability of a particular 

requirement to a given facility of 1 year. 

The commenter stated that, given that 

facilities whose throughput increases to 

a level that requires greater controls are 

given 3 years to comply, a modest delay 

in how soon this throughput increase is 

detected does not seem that significant. 

One commenter suggested the 

calculation be simplified by allowing a 

facility to use the calendar year annual 

throughput divided by 12 to calculate 

monthly throughput. This commenter 

believes this would simplify the 

calculation significantly for these 

facilities and will maintain the benefit 

of eliminating seasonal variations. The 

commenter stated that many GDF that 

submit calendar year annual 

throughputs to the county, obtain those 

numbers directly from their suppliers 

based on annual gasoline purchased for 

the calendar year. 

Response: We continue to believe that 

the proposed procedure for calculating 

throughput at a GDF is appropriate and 

have finalized that procedure in the 

final rule. As we stated in the preamble 

to the proposal (74 CFR 66478), this was 

the method used to analyze the 

environmental and cost-effectiveness 

calculations for the throughput 

thresholds. We believe that this 

procedure is the best way to avoid the 

impacts of seasonal variations in 

throughput calculations because it is 

based on data that cover an entire year. 

For example, facilities that have a 

significant spike in throughput in the 

summer months are able to lower that 

spike by including the throughput 

during fall and winter in the 

calculation. In other situations, 

throughput may peak in the fall and 

winter months, and be low in the 

summer. 

As one commenter pointed out, 

basing the calculation on the calendar 

year period would result in facilities 

determining their throughput and the 

applicable control requirement, only 

once per year. We do not consider this 

to be appropriate nor that it represents 

our intent that facilities achieve 

continuous compliance with the 

standards. 

The throughput calculation procedure 

is simple and will not require facilities 

to expend significant extra resources. It 

seems reasonable to expect that nearly 

all GDF facilities already keep a record 

of each cargo tank delivery of gasoline 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to the facility. For those days when no 

deliveries are made, the facility would 

merely enter a ‘‘zero’’ in their records. In 

addition, the rule does not require that 

the actual calculation of throughput be 

performed every day. For example, a 

facility that receives a delivery of 

gasoline once per week could update 

the running volume of gasoline 

delivered, and perform the throughput 

calculation only on those days when a 

delivery is made. For each intervening 

day when no deliveries are received, the 

calculated monthly throughput would 

always be equal to or less than that 

calculated on the day of the last 

delivery. For the reasons described 

above, we have concluded that the 

procedure for calculating monthly 

throughput is appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the definition of ‘‘monthly throughput’’ 

in 40 CFR 63.11132 gives a choice for 

calculating monthly throughput as 

either the total volume of gasoline that 

is loaded into all gasoline storage tanks, 

or the total volume of gasoline that is 

dispensed from all gasoline storage 

tanks. The commenter stated that 

clarification is needed that, if one 

method is chosen over the other, the 

source must then stay with that choice 

of calculating monthly throughput for 

the duration of existence of the GDF for 

clarity, simplicity, and enforcement 

purposes, or recommended that one of 

the choices be taken out of the rule. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that facilities subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC should be 

required to document whether they 

have chosen to calculate monthly 

throughput based on gasoline volume 

loaded into all storage tanks or gasoline 

volume dispensed from all storage 

tanks. We have revised 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to include a 

requirement that facilities must state in 

their NOCS report the basis they will 

use to calculate monthly throughput. 

The second sentence in each of these 

paragraphs now reads: ‘‘The NOCS must 

be signed by a responsible official who 

must certify its accuracy, must indicate 

whether the source has complied with 

the requirements of this subpart, and 

must indicate whether the facilities’ 

monthly throughput is calculated based 

on the volume of gasoline loaded into 

all storage tanks or on the volume of 

gasoline dispensed from all storage 

tanks.’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommends that EPA add a sentence to 

the proposed new definition for 

‘‘monthly throughput’’ in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC, stating that the 

Administrator may allow GDF with less 

than 10,000 gpm throughput to use 

alternative methods for calculating their 

monthly throughput. 

Response: We have not made any 

changes to the definition based on this 

comment. The commenter did not offer 

any recommendations regarding 

alternative methods that could be used 

or any reasons why alternative methods 

would be beneficial. We believe that by 

offering facilities the choice of 

calculating throughput based on the 

volume of gasoline delivered to the 

facility, or on the volume of gasoline 

dispensed from the facility, we have 

provided sufficient flexibility. Also, 

requiring all affected facilities to use 

one of these two approaches for 

calculating their throughput will 

simplify the implementation and 

enforcement of the rule. 

Comment: One commenter fully 

supports the proposed method of 

calculating monthly throughput for GDF 

and believes that it is a more equitable 

method to determine GDF monthly 

threshold throughputs. However, with 

regard to daily throughput calculations 

for bulk gasoline plants, the commenter 

noted that EPA is proposing new 

language in 40 CFR 63.11081 that 

specifically prohibits averaging to 

determine actual throughput thresholds. 

Instead, according to the commenter, 

the NESHAP require the 20,000 gpd 

threshold to be based on the maximum 

calculated design throughput for any 

single day. The commenter believes, as 

with GDF, the maximum daily 

throughput for bulk gasoline plants 

should be based on actual daily 

throughputs averaged over a 365-day 

period. The commenter stated that 

determining the 20,000 gpd threshold 

based on maximum calculated design 

throughput is too broad of a standard to 

be a reliable determinant for 

applicability of the NESHAP 

requirements. The commenter further 

stated that maximum daily design 

throughputs can range significantly 

depending on factors that have nothing 

to do with actual throughput, or even 

the size of the tank. The commenter 

urges the EPA to adopt language that 

allows the 20,000 gpd throughput 

calculation for bulk gasoline plants to be 

based on the actual daily throughput 

averaged over 365 days. The commenter 

stated that this language is essential 

because the actual daily throughput at 

bulk gasoline plants is far less than the 

20,000 gpd threshold under the rule. 

The commenter is concerned that 

calculation of throughput based on 

maximum daily design capacity rather 

than actual throughput could bump 

bulk plants up to ‘‘gasoline terminal’’ 

status under the rule, a regulatory 

change that would impose a much 

heavier compliance burden. The 

commenter believes that permanently 

regulating small bulk gasoline plants 

that otherwise have small daily gasoline 

throughput as if they were a large 

‘‘gasoline terminal,’’ based solely on 

maximum design capacity, and not 

actual throughput, serves no regulatory 

purpose. The commenter urges EPA to 

adopt language that would base 

threshold calculations on actual 

throughputs averaged over 365 days. 

The commenter also recommends that 

EPA allow these facilities to exceed the 

20,000 gpd threshold on a minimum 

number of days over a defined period of 

time before imposing permanent 

regulatory jurisdiction over the facility. 

Response: The threshold for 

distinguishing whether a distribution 

facility is a bulk gasoline plant or a bulk 

gasoline terminal for the purpose of 

these rules is the same as the threshold 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R (the major 

source Gasoline Distribution NESHAP), 

and 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX (the 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for Bulk Gasoline Terminals). 

These rules were published as final 

rules on December 14, 1994, and August 

18, 1983, respectively. Therefore, we 

have been using this methodology since 

August of 1983, and are concerned that 

changes made at this point would be 

confusing to many stakeholders. In 

addition, we do not want to create a 

situation where some facilities could 

fall between the definition of a bulk 

terminal and the definition of a bulk 

plant (i.e., a gap in coverage). Thus, we 

disagree with the commenter that the 

definition should now be changed to 

use a different method for calculating 

throughput. It is also important to note 

that the definition of a bulk gasoline 

plant provides that facilities may limit 

their throughput by compliance with an 

enforceable condition under Federal, 

State, or local law. Thus, a facility 

whose maximum calculated design 

throughput is above the 20,000 gpd 

threshold may still be considered a bulk 

gasoline plant if the actual throughput 

is limited to less than 20,000 gpd by an 

enforceable condition of a permit. 

3. Start of Throughput Records 

We proposed in both 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC that existing sources 

begin keeping records and calculating 

throughput as of January 10, 2008 (the 

date of promulgation of the final rules). 

For new sources constructed, or for 

existing sources reconstructed after 

November 9, 2006, we proposed that 

recordkeeping must begin upon startup 

of the affected facility. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4167 

Comment: Commenters stated their 

concerns with the EPA’s proposed dates 

for compliance with recordkeeping 

requirements. One of the commenters 

stated that EPA has proposed to clarify 

(in 40 CFR 63.11111(e)) that 

recordkeeping of monthly throughput 

should have begun when the original 

rule was adopted (January 10, 2008), but 

that this will not be possible for sites 

that become newly subject to the rule as 

a result of this rulemaking. The 

commenters recommended adding the 

following language to 40 CFR 

63.11111(e): ‘‘If an existing source 

becomes subject to this subpart after 

January 10, 2008, recordkeeping must 

begin on the date that it becomes subject 

to this subpart.’’ 

One of the commenters stated that 

they support the proposed clarification 

on how to calculate the monthly 

throughput, but noted that requiring 

throughput records back to January 10, 

2008, could cause a GDF that has not 

been tracking monthly throughput since 

January 10, 2008, to be out of 

compliance. The commenter stated that 

the compliance date for existing sources 

for 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC is 

January 10, 2011, and, while they agree 

with EPA’s logic that ‘‘it is in the best 

interest of the facility to be aware as 

early as possible what control 

requirements must be met,’’ there are 

many GDF facilities with a monthly 

throughput significantly less than 

10,000 gallons for which control is not 

required. The commenter stated that 

these facilities should not be considered 

out of compliance if throughput records 

were not retained beginning on January 

10, 2008. The commenter proposes that 

documentation of the monthly 

throughput for existing sources begins 

on January 10, 2010. The commenter 

stated that, based on the proposed 

definition of monthly throughput, using 

a start date of January 10, 2010, would 

provide sufficient data to determine 

which threshold applies. 

Response: As discussed in an earlier 

response, we agree with the commenters 

that some facilities that are subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, because 

they dispense gasoline to end users 

other than motor vehicles, may not have 

considered themselves subject to the 

rule prior to the clarification of the 

definition of GDF. In the final rule (40 

CFR 63.11113(f)), we have clarified the 

compliance dates for GDF that only load 

gasoline into fuel tanks other than those 

in motor vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 

63.11132. Thus we are also adding text 

to paragraph (e) of 40 CFR 63.11111 in 

the final rule stating that the date of the 

start of recordkeeping for those existing 

GDF is January 24, 2011. For those new 

sources constructed, or for existing 

sources reconstructed, after January 24, 

2011, recordkeeping must begin upon 

startup of the affected facility. 

As to the second comment on 

changing the start of recordkeeping for 

existing sources from the date of the 

final rule (January 10, 2008) to one year 

prior to the final compliance date of 

January 10, 2011, we continue to believe 

that it is reasonable to expect facilities 

to begin keeping throughput records as 

soon as they become subject to the rules, 

and that records for 3 years of operation 

are better than records for only 1 year. 

Thus, owners or operators of all existing 

affected sources that did not begin 

keeping records as of January 10, 2008, 

because they did not consider 

themselves subject to the rules, should 

begin keeping records as of the date of 

these final revisions to the rules 

(January 24, 2011). All other existing 

sources should keep records of 

throughput as of January 10, 2008. As 

mentioned above, new sources must 

begin keeping throughout records upon 

start-up. We have clarified these 

requirements in the final rule at 40 CFR 

63.11111(e). 

4. Multiple Tanks at Multiple Locations 

at Affected Sources 

We proposed to add a new paragraph 

(h) in 40 CFR 63.11111 of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC to clarify that a 

single area source may have multiple 

GDF. We received no comments on the 

proposed new paragraph and have 

incorporated it into the final rule. 

C. Rule Clarifications 

1. Recordkeeping for Continuous 

Compliance Monitoring 

The final rule language for alternative 

monitoring of control devices, in 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii) and 

(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of subpart BBBBBB, 

inadvertently included the emergency 

shutdown system among the equipment 

to be checked on a daily basis. The 

proposed amendments clarified that the 

emergency shutdown system, which is 

not part of the emissions control system, 

is not subject to the rule, but that the 

system is to be checked semi-annually. 

We received no comments on this 

amendment and have finalized the 

amendment, as proposed. 

We also proposed revising the 

verification sentences in 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii) and 

(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB to read as follows: 

‘‘Verification shall be through visual 

observation, or through an automated 

alarm or shutdown system that monitors 

and records system operation. A manual 

or electronic record of the start and end 

of a shutdown event may be used.’’ 

Comment: Commenters supported 

EPA’s clarification that records of 

shutdown events may be either manual 

or electronic. The commenters stated, 

however, that detailed requirements for 

the record of a shutdown event are 

specified in 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(v) and 

(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(v), and, thus, the phrase 

‘‘start and end of a’’ is unnecessary and 

potentially confusing. The commenters 

request that this phrase be deleted such 

that the sentence reads as follows: ‘‘A 

manual or electronic record of the 

shutdown event may be used.’’ 

Response: In previous comments on 

this paragraph, the commenters 

suggested that either manual or 

electronic records of shutdown events 

should be allowed. We agreed with the 

commenter that the intent of the 

provision was to generate a record of 

such events, not to specify the exact 

form in which the record was generated. 

Thus, the revision that we proposed 

would allow for the manual recording of 

a shutdown event as an alternative to an 

electronic record. We disagree with the 

commenter, however, that the record of 

a shutdown event should not include 

both the time that the event began and 

the time that the unit was restarted after 

the event ended. It is important that the 

beginning and ending times, and, thus, 

the duration of such an event, be 

recorded. We consider the requirements 

in the paragraph to be clear and 

reasonable, and to meet the 

commenter’s original desire that manual 

records be allowed. We have finalized 

the text of this paragraph as proposed. 

2. Submerged Fill Drop Tube 

Measurements and Alternatives 

One stakeholder questioned how to 

measure the distance of the fill pipe 

from the bottom of the gasoline storage 

tank when the end of the fill pipe is cut 

at a 45 degree angle. In the preamble to 

the proposed rule, we explained that the 

measurement of the distance of the fill 

pipe from the bottom of the gasoline 

storage tank should be made at the point 

in the opening of the pipe that is the 

greatest distance from the bottom of the 

gasoline storage tank. We did not 

receive any comments on this approach. 

We proposed, in both subparts, to 

allow existing gasoline storage tanks to 

have fill pipes that are further from the 

bottom of the gasoline storage tank than 

specified in 40 CFR 63.11086(a) and 40 

CFR 63.11117(b) if the owner can 

demonstrate that at all times the level of 

the liquid in the gasoline storage tank is 

above the entire opening of the fill pipe, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

provided adequate recordkeeping is 

performed, and records are maintained. 

Comment: Commenters expressed 

concerns related to the proposed 

amendment to 40 CFR 63.11086. The 

commenters stated that it is not clear 

what kinds of records will be required, 

and it will be difficult for field 

inspectors to ensure compliance. One of 

the commenters questioned whether 

daily delivery and dispensing records 

would be sufficient, or if an 

instantaneous accounting of gasoline 

storage tank level would be required. 

One commenter stated that it would 

require a great deal of work for an 

inspector to determine that the level had 

actually NEVER fallen below the 

acceptable level between inspections, 

and, in reality, the records would 

probably never be checked. The 

commenter believes that the effort of 

reviewing the proper records would be 

much more complicated than installing 

the properly cut fill pipe. 

One commenter stated that, to ensure 

compliance, inspectors would have to 

review daily gasoline storage tank level 

data for months or years. The 

commenter further stated that, given the 

lack of specificity in the proposal as to 

how the necessary records must be kept 

by the facility, there could be significant 

recordkeeping differences, and 

extremely large data review would be 

required to determine compliance. The 

commenter then stated that to have to 

review months of this type of data could 

be quite time-consuming for the 

inspector. The commenter stated that 

most State regulations that have been in 

place for years just specify a depth for 

the drop tube, such as the 6-inch or 12- 

inch length, and this has not presented 

significant difficulty for tank owner 

compliance. Two of the commenters 

recommended that EPA modify the 

regulations to require a specific length 

for the drop tube. 

Response: The proposed amendment 

to 40 CFR 63.11086 provides an 

alternative to meeting the applicable 6- 

or 12-inch requirement for submerged 

fill pipes, and should not be chosen by 

the owner or operator if they cannot 

maintain proper documentation because 

it is, or becomes, too burdensome. We 

proposed, and have finalized, this 

alternative for owners or operators in 

cases where they ‘‘can demonstrate that 

the liquid level in the gasoline storage 

tank is always above the entire opening 

of the fill pipe.’’ We also specified that 

‘‘documentation providing such 

demonstration must be made available 

for inspection by the Administrator’s 

delegated representative during the 

course of a site visit.’’ We did not 

specify how the owner or operator 

should make such a demonstration, but 

merely provided them the alternative to 

do so. Thus, it is the responsibility of 

the owner or operator to document to 

the inspector’s satisfaction that the 

liquid level in the gasoline storage tank 

prior to each loading is sufficient to 

cover the fill pipe. Basically, the owner 

or operator will have the dimensions of 

the gasoline storage tank and the depth 

of the drop tube, and, from that 

information, can calculate the amount of 

gasoline that must remain in the tank to 

always keep the end of the fill pipe 

submerged. Thus, the owner or operator 

must keep records of those calculations 

and of the amount of gasoline that is 

always maintained in the gasoline 

storage tank prior to refilling the 

gasoline storage tank. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

‘‘portable’’ fill tubes are forbidden by the 

rule. The commenter stated that they 

have some facilities with smaller 

gasoline storage tanks (typically <2,000 

gallons), particularly aboveground 

gasoline storage tanks, that use portable 

fill tubes when filling the gasoline 

storage tanks, as allowed by their local 

regulations for GDF, and asks that this 

be addressed in the rule. 

The same commenter also stated that 

they have facilities that have fill tube 

diffusers installed at the bottom of the 

fill tubes which prevent the 

measurement of tube depth from the 

bottom of the gasoline storage tank. The 

commenter questioned how they should 

verify on-going compliance of these 

facilities with the depth requirements. 

The commenter recommended the rule 

specifically state how on-going 

compliance with the depth requirement 

is verified. 

Response: The rule does not specify 

that fill pipes must be permanently 

installed. Therefore, the types of 

portable fill pipes mentioned by the 

commenter are not forbidden by the 

rule. With regard to the commenter’s 

question about fill pipes that have 

diffusers installed, we can only 

recommend that the inspector work 

with the owner or operator of the 

gasoline storage tank to obtain sufficient 

information on the design of the diffuser 

so that the actual measurement of the 

fill pipe can be adjusted to account for 

the diffuser. The commenter, a county 

enforcement agency representative, did 

not state how they currently account for 

the diffusers when performing 

inspections of facilities within the 

county. 

3. Continuous Compliance Monitoring 

of All Vapor Processors 

We proposed clarifications that the 

intent in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB was to provide that all vapor 

processors required in Table 2 item 1(b) 

for gasoline loading rack(s) at a bulk 

gasoline terminal with gasoline 

throughput of 250,000 gpd, or greater, 

must have continuous compliance 

monitoring under 40 CFR 63.11092(b). 

We proposed to clarify 40 CFR 63.11092 

by restructuring paragraphs (b) and 

(b)(1) as follows: (1) Revised 40 CFR 

63.11092(b) becomes the introductory 

language that requires all affected 

facilities to monitor vapor processors; 

and (2) revised paragraph 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1) lists the specific 

monitoring requirements for: (a) Carbon 

adsorption systems (40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(i)); (b) condenser systems 

(40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(ii)); and (c) 

thermal oxidation systems (40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(iii)). Section 

63.11092(b)(1)(iv) remains the same and 

contains the alternative monitoring 

provisions. 

We also proposed clarifying our intent 

regarding the monitoring for the 

presence of a pilot flame by adding a 

sentence to 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), which reads as 

follows: ‘‘The monitor shall show a 

positive parameter value to indicate that 

the pilot flame is on, or a negative 

parameter value to indicate that the 

pilot flame is off.’’ 

Comment: Commenters stated that, 

under the proposed amendments, EPA 

would require a continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) for any performance test 

option chosen under 40 CFR 

63.11092(a). The commenters stated that 

this would extend CMS requirements to 

a population of control devices that had 

not been previously understood to be 

subject to those requirements. The 

commenters noted that the original rule 

promulgated in January 2008, stated that 

a CMS was only required for 

performance tests under 40 CFR 

63.11092(a)(1), and excluded those 

addressed under 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(2) 

and (a)(3). The commenters stated that 

in EPA’s proposed rule, 40 CFR 

63.11092(b) and (b)(1) have been 

rewritten from the original rule, and the 

result is that CMS would now be 

required for all facilities covered under 

40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1) through (5). The 

commenter expressed concern that this 

new language could be interpreted as 

requiring the installation of an add-on 

monitoring device where one was not 

previously understood to be needed. 

The commenter stated that this could 

result in a significant investment of 

resources. 

Additionally, the commenters stated 

that, as contained in 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(4) and (b)(5), the proposed 

rule adds an ‘Administrator Approval’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4169 

4 It is our understanding that all control devices 

include process monitors such as these to assist the 

owner/operator in the proper operation of the 

device. Thus, these CMS are not likely to be 

significantly different than what would be used in 

the absence of these standards. 

step that had not previously been 

required for sources employing 40 CFR 

63.11092(a)(2) or 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(3) 

in lieu of 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(1). The 

commenters stated that this change 

would add an approval step to a 

population of control devices that were 

not previously deemed subject to this 

requirement, and that the time 

remaining prior to the compliance date 

for the rule is insufficient to develop, 

gain approval of, and implement a CMS 

plan. 

Finally, the commenters stated that, 

given that this change in guidance has 

the effect of extending the CMS 

requirement to a population of control 

devices that were previously understood 

to not be subject to this requirement, 

and the fact that there had not been fair 

notice of this change, EPA should 

extend the compliance period for 

implementing CMS at facilities that, in 

lieu of conducting a new initial 

performance test, utilize the provisions 

of 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(2) or 40 CFR 

63.11092(a)(3). The commenters stated 

that EPA should allow 3 years from the 

date of publication of the final 

amendments for implementation of 

CMS for these facilities. 

Response: The General Provisions 

defines CMS as ‘‘a comprehensive term 

that may include, but is not limited to, 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems, continuous opacity monitoring 

systems, continuous parameter 

monitoring systems, or other manual or 

automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an 

applicable regulation on a continuous 

basis as defined by the regulation.’’ 

Thus, a CMS is not necessarily an addon emissions monitor, but may be any 

type of manual or automatic monitoring 

that shows that the pollution controls 

are operating properly on a continuous 

basis. For example, a heat-sensing 

device installed in proximity to the pilot 

light of a flare to indicate the presence 

of a flame would be a CMS because it 

would show whether or not the flare 

was operational.4

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed amendments (74 FR 66481), it 

was our intent that all vapor processors 

required under item 1(b) of Table 2 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB for 

gasoline loading rack(s) at a bulk 

gasoline terminal with gasoline 

throughput of 250,000 gpd, or greater, 

must have continuous compliance 

monitoring under 40 CFR 63.11092(b). 

The January 10, 2008, final rule did not 

exempt anyone from the continuous 

monitoring requirements. Thus, it is not 

clear how the commenters came to their 

conclusion that some facilities did not 

have to comply with the continuous 

monitoring requirements. However, 

given that there was confusion, and 

given that the commenters are trade 

organizations that represent the majority 

of bulk gasoline terminals, we agreed 

that clarifications were needed. We 

proposed such clarifications and are 

finalizing them in this rulemaking. 

The commenter also mentioned 

Administrator approval as a new 

requirement. As explained above, it has 

always been our intent that vapor 

processors must have continuous 

monitoring and must comply with all of 

the associated requirements. The 

approval of the CMS monitoring plan by 

the Administrator (or the delegated 

authority) is not a new requirement but 

was always a part of the process of 

implementing the continuous 

monitoring provisions. In other words, 

the requirement for obtaining 

Administrator approval was included in 

the final rule and was not newly 

proposed in the proposed amendments 

(73 FR 1936–1938). 

CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) provides that 

EPA, or the delegated State or local 

authority, may grant an existing source 

a 1-year extension for compliance with 

an emission standard if such time is 

needed to install controls for meeting 

the standard. However, because the 

continuous monitoring requirements 

that we have clarified in these 

amendments are not emission 

standards, we are not extending the 

compliance date for these continuous 

monitoring requirements. 

Comment: Commenters support EPA’s 

clarification that monitoring the pilot 

flame on a thermal oxidation system 

meets the requirements for a CMS, with 

the presence of the pilot flame 

constituting the monitored operating 

parameter. The commenters request, 

however, a clarification in the rule 

language. The commenters stated that 

the requirement is for the monitoring 

system to ‘‘automatically prevent 

gasoline loading operations from 

beginning at any time that the pilot 

flame is absent.’’ Thus, according to the 

commenters, the requirement is for the 

heat-sensing device to send a signal (or 

refrain from sending a signal) to allow 

loading to commence, rather than to 

visually display the parameter value 

(i.e., on or off). The commenters 

recommended that this clarification 

might be achieved by the following edits 

to the rule language: 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), ‘‘The presence 

of a thermal oxidation system pilot 

flame shall be monitored using a heatsensing device, such as an ultraviolet 

beam sensor or a thermocouple, 

installed in proximity of the pilot light 

to indicate the presence of a flame. The 

heat-sensing device shall send a positive 

parameter value to indicate that the 

pilot flame is on, or a negative 

parameter value to indicate that the 

pilot flame is off.’’ 

Response: We considered the 

clarification recommended by the 

commenters and agree that the purpose 

of the heat sensing device is to send 

either a positive or a negative parameter 

value as a signal to indicate the 

presence or absence of the pilot flame. 

Thus, it is the action of sending the 

appropriate signal to the loading system 

that is significant, not the actual 

‘‘displaying’’ of the positive or negative 

parameter value. In the final rule, we 

have incorporated the clarification into 

40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), as 

recommended by the commenters. 

4. Secondary Rim Seal Requirements 

Specified Under 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart WW 

We proposed clarifying in item 2(d) in 

Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB, that the same rim seal 

requirements are intended regardless of 

whether the owner/operator opts to 

comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Kb, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. In 

either case, the secondary seal 

requirements are meant to not apply to 

internal floating-roof tanks that are 

subject only to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

they appreciate EPA’s intended 

clarification, but stated that EPA’s 

attempt to make the necessary 

corrections in Table 1 failed to properly 

do so. The commenters provided edits 

to the proposed Table 1 revisions that 

they claim will clearly specify that the 

secondary seal requirements from 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Kb (40 CFR 

60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (a)(1)(iv) 

through (ix)), or 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

WW (40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D)) 

do not apply to internal floating roof 

tanks that are subject only to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BBBBBB. 

Response: We reviewed the 

commenter’s recommended edits to the 

proposed Table 1 revisions and agree 

that the edits are appropriate. In the 

proposal, we inadvertently referred to 

the secondary seal requirements from 40 

CFR part 63, subpart WW in the same 

Table 1 entry as the requirements from 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. Our intent 

was to discuss subpart Kb and subpart 

WW in separate Table 1 entries. Thus, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) applies to GDF with 

monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline or 

more, and 40 CFR 63.11124(b)(1) applies to GDF 

with monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons of 

gasoline or more. As specified in 40 CFR 

63.11116(b), GDF with monthly throughput of less 

than 10,000 gallons of gasoline are not required to 

submit notifications or reports, but must have 

records available within 24 hours of a request by 

the Administrator to document gasoline 

throughput. 

6These notifications must include the following 

information: The name and address of the owner or 

operator; the address (i.e., physical location) of the 

affected source; an identification of the relevant 

standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of 

the notification, and the source’s compliance date; 

a brief description of the nature, size, design, and 

method of operation of the source and an 

identification of the types of emission points within 

the affected source subject to the relevant standard 

and types of hazardous air pollutants emitted; and 

a statement of whether the affected source is a 

major source or an area source. Notifications must 

be submitted to the Administrator, the appropriate 

Regional office, and the State, as specified in 40 

CFR 63.9. 

we have revised the text of items 2.(b) 

and 2.(d) in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) Equip each internal floating roof 

gasoline storage tank according to the 

requirements in § 60.112b(a)(1) of this 

chapter, except for the secondary seal 

requirements under 

§ 60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and the 

requirements in § 60.112b(a)(1)(iv) 

through (ix) of this chapter;’’ 

‘‘(d) Equip and operate each internal 

and external floating roof gasoline 

storage tank according to the applicable 

requirements in § 63.1063(a)(1) and (b), 

except for the secondary seal 

requirements under § 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) 

and (D), and equip each external 

floating roof gasoline storage tank 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.1063(a)(2) if such storage tank does 

not currently meet the requirements of 

§ 63.1063(a)(1).’’ 

5. Monitoring of Submerged Fill 

Loading Racks 

We proposed a clarification that the 

testing and monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR 63.11092 in subpart BBBBBB do 

not apply to bulk gasoline terminals 

with throughputs below the threshold 

value of 250,000 gpd. We received no 

comments related to the proposed 

clarification and have incorporated it 

into the final rule. 

6. Initial Notifications 

We did not propose revisions to the 

Initial Notification requirements, but we 

did solicit comment on whether the 

provisions, as written, including those 

in the General Provisions, are sufficient 

for accommodating all facilities who 

find it necessary to submit a revised 

Notification or a new Notification as a 

result of amendments to the rule. 

Comment: One commenter restated 

that EPA should clarify how newlysubject sites should proceed with 

submitting Initial Notifications. The 

commenter stated that, in the preamble, 

EPA states that newly-subject sites 

would have 120 days after the source 

becomes subject to the relevant standard 

to submit the Initial Notification in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2). The 

commenter stated that 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(1) does not reference 40 

CFR 63.9(b)(2), however, and that 

confuses the subject. They suggested 

edits to 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) that 

would revise the first sentence to read: 

‘‘You must submit an Initial Notification 

that you are subject to this subpart by 

May 9, 2008, or within 120 calendar 

days after you become subject to 

§ 63.11117, whichever is later, unless 

you meet the requirements in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section.’’ 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that those GDF that would 

be considered ‘‘newly-subject’’ affected 

sources as a result of revisions to the 

subparts should have adequate time to 

submit new or revised Initial 

Notifications. We have included in the 

final rule provisions that specify that 

sources that have become affected 

sources as a result of the revisions to the 

subpart have 120 days in which to 

submit the Initial Notification. 

For GDF, in the final rule we have 

clarified the compliance dates for GDF 

that only load gasoline into fuel tanks 

other than those in motor vehicles, as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.11132. We have 

also added rule text in 40 CFR 

63.11124 5 stating that GDF that only 

load gasoline into fuel tanks other than 

those in motor vehicles, as defined in 40 

CFR 63.11132, must submit Initial 

Notifications 6 by May 24, 2011. Those 

sources include GDF that dispense 

gasoline into portable tanks or to end 

users other than motor vehicles, as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.11132, and that 

may not have considered themselves 

subject to the rule prior to the 

clarification of the definition of GDF. 

7. Notification of Compliance Status 

(NOCS) 

In the January 10, 2008, final rule (40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC), 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) stated that the 

NOCS be submitted by the compliance 

date specified in 40 CFR 63.11113. 

However, Table 3 indicates that the 

NOCS should be submitted according to 

the schedule specified in 40 CFR 

63.9(h), which states that the NOCS is 

due 60 days following the compliance 

demonstration. Stakeholders pointed 

out this inconsistency, and we proposed 

revising the rule text in 40 CFR 

63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to be 

consistent with the 60-day time frame 

specified in 40 CFR 63.9(h) for submittal 

of the NOCS for GDF. In each paragraph, 

the revised text would read as follows: 

‘‘You must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status to the applicable 

EPA Regional Office and the delegated 

State authority, as specified in § 63.13, 

in accordance with the schedule 

specified in § 63.9(h).’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

because there are no initial performance 

tests or compliance demonstrations for 

owners and operators subject to the 

control requirements in 40 CFR 

63.11117 (submerged fill), it is unclear 

when the NOCS is due for these sources. 

The commenter stated that if it is EPA’s 

intent for sources subject to the control 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.11117 to 

submit their NOCS within 60 days of 

the compliance date, this should be 

expressly stated in the rule. 

Response: We agree with the 

recommendation made by the 

commenter, and have included the 60- 

day timeframe for the submittal of the 

NOCS in 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2), which 

now reads: ‘‘You must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status to the 

applicable EPA Regional office and the 

delegated State authority, as specified in 

§ 63.13, within 60 days of the applicable 

compliance date specified in § 63.11113, 

unless you meet the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.’’ 

8. Storage Tank Inspections 

We received several questions from 

stakeholders regarding the specific 

requirements for gasoline storage tank 

inspections under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB. However, we 

proposed to leave the gasoline storage 

tank inspection requirements 

unchanged from the January 10, 2008, 

final rule. We received no comments 

related to this proposal, and have not 

revised the gasoline storage tank 

inspection requirements. 

9. General Provisions Applicability 

We proposed to revise certain entries 

in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB, and Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC, to eliminate 

requirements related to startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

plans, which are not required under 

these subparts. We proposed that in the 

‘‘applicability’’ column in Table 3 for 

each subpart, the entries for 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c), and 63.10(b)(2)(i) 

through (iv) be changed from ‘‘yes’’ to 

‘‘no.’’ Since proposal, we have identified 

certain other provisions listed in Table 

3 to each subpart that are related to the 

now vacated SSM provisions (Sierra 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4171 

Club v. EPA, 551 F 1019 (DC Cir., 2008), 

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010)), and that warrant revision. 

Specifically, in the final rule, we have 

revised Table 3 to subpart BBBBBB to 

specify that the following provisions do 

not apply: 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), 

63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v). We have 

revised Table 3 to subpart CCCCCC to 

specify that the following provisions do 

not apply: 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), 

63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v). We also 

added language to both subparts 

BBBBBB and CCCCCC specifying that 

owners or operators have a general duty 

to minimize emissions and provisions 

for recordkeeping and reporting of 

periods of malfunctions of process 

equipment, or air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment. 

As stated earlier, in the proposed 

amendments we proposed to change the 

‘‘yes’’ to a ‘‘no’’ in the ‘‘applicability’’ 

column of Table 3 in both subparts 

BBBBBB and CCCCCC for the following 

provisions: 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and 

63.10(b)(2)(iii). We proposed these 

changes because we received comments 

from stakeholders that these provisions 

relate to SSM plans, which are not 

required under these rules. After further 

reviewing these provisions, we found 

that these particular provisions are not 

SSM-related; rather, these provisions 

address CMS equipment and 

maintenance of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, respectively. 

Therefore, for subpart BBBBBB, we are 

not making the proposed changes but 

instead will finalize Table 3 in subpart 

BBBBBB to indicate a ‘‘yes’’ for the 

applicability of these provisions. 

Subpart CCCCCC does not have any 

CMS requirements, so we will finalize 

the ‘‘no’’ for 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and a ‘‘yes’’ for 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) for the applicability of 

these provisions in Table 3 to subpart 

CCCCCC. 

We also proposed amending the entry 

for 40 CFR 63.5 (submittal of 

construction/reconstruction 

notifications) in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC to state that the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.5 do not 

apply to facilities that are only subject 

to 40 CFR 63.11116. The only control 

requirements that these facilities are 

subject to are the Management Practices 

specified in 40 CFR 63.11116; therefore, 

the submittal of notifications is not 

necessary. We did not receive any 

comments on this proposed 

amendment, and are finalizing the 

amendment as proposed. 

Comment: One commenter supports 

most of the revisions that EPA proposed 

relative to the General Provision 

requirements. The commenter 

suggested, however, that EPA revise 

Table 3 to clarify the Agency’s intent 

that facilities with gasoline throughput 

less than 10,000 gallons are not required 

to submit any notifications or reports. 

The commenter stated that, as written, 

Table 3 appears to require such facilities 

to submit some notifications (such as 

compliance certifications under 40 CFR 

63.9(h)). The commenter suggested that 

EPA include a statement in Table 3 that 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A do not apply to facilities only 

subject to 40 CFR 63.11116. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that Table 3 be 

revised to specifically note each 

requirement that does not apply to GDF 

that are subject only to the management 

practices in 40 CFR 63.11116. We have, 

however, revised the text in 40 CFR 

63.11116(b) to state that ‘‘you are not 

required to submit notifications or 

reports as specified in § 63.11125, 

§ 63.11126, or subpart A of this part.’’ 

This text appears sufficient to exclude 

applicable sources from the General 

Provision requirements to submit 

notifications or reports. 

10. Compliance Testing for GDF 

In the December 15, 2009, proposal, 

we presented the results of our analysis 

of whether Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District Source Test 

Procedure ST–30, a test method for 

static pressure testing of a vapor balance 

system, could be accepted as an 

alternative to the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) 201.3 

procedure required under 40 CFR 

63.11120(a)(2) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC. We found that the 

original version of Bay Area ST–30 did 

not include procedures for testing the 

integrity of p/v valves installed on the 

gasoline storage tanks, and, therefore, 

would not be an acceptable alternative 

to CARB 201.3. However, we also found 

that the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District amended Bay Area 

ST–30 on December 21, 1994, to add the 

p/v valve and p/v valve connections as 

components of the system during the 

testing, and that CARB subsequently 

issued a letter of equivalency stating 

that Bay Area ST–30 was equivalent to 

CARB 201.3. We proposed that Bay Area 

ST–30, as amended on December 21, 

1994, be considered to meet the 

requirements of subpart CCCCCC. 

We did not receive any comments 

regarding our analysis of Bay Area ST– 

30, or our proposal that it be allowed as 

an alternative to CARB 201.3. Therefore, 

in the final rule, we have incorporated 

Bay Area ST–30 by reference as an 

allowable alternative test method, and 

have revised the text of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC accordingly. 

Comment: Commenters believe that 

all sources should be subject to testing 

requirements under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC to ensure the 

equipment is functioning properly, and 

meeting compliance and manufacturer 

specifications to insure equitable 

treatment. One commenter notes that 40 

CFR 63.11120 states: ‘‘The second 

option (compliance under 

§ 63.11118(b)(2)) does not require the 

periodic testing in § 63.11120(a), but 

periodic testing may be required under 

State, local, or Tribal rule or permits.’’ 

The commenter believes this is a 

problem as many GDF located in rural 

areas most likely not affected by existing 

State rules will be subject to expensive 

testing requirements, while those 

regulated in the urban areas and having 

the most impact on sensitive 

populations may not be subject to 

testing requirements, depending upon 

State, local, or Tribal rule. The 

commenter stated that they feel the time 

period for all sources to eventually 

become subject to testing requirements 

as ‘‘new’’ will produce an inequity 

among the industry that may not make 

regulatory nor economic sense. The 

other commenter stated that it is the 

older systems that are more prone to 

leakage because they lack many of the 

leak prevention features, such as 

adaptors, that will not leak when 

loosened or over-tightened, as required 

for the newer systems, yet they may 

never be tested. The commenter stated 

that if periodic testing is needed for 

newer systems to verify the 

effectiveness of the vapor recovery 

system, then it most surely is also 

needed for the older systems. The 

commenter noted that the components 

that most often leak vapors from storage 

systems, such as the vapor adaptors, 

spill containment manhole drain valves, 

and p/v vent valves, are readily 

accessible from grade, and do not 

require excavation to be repaired or 

replaced. The commenter stated that 

keeping older systems vapor tight 

should be no more of a chore than 

keeping the newer systems vapor tight. 

Response: We did not propose any 

change to the periodic testing 

requirements for GDF in the December 

15, 2009, proposal, nor have we made 

any change in the final rule. Many 

facilities that are complying with State, 

local, or Tribal rules or permits, and 

have chosen to comply with the 

compliance option under 40 CFR 

63.11118(b)(2), will be required under 

the State, local, or Tribal rule or permit 

to perform some combination of 

periodic inspection and testing of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

vapor balance systems. We do not want 

to interfere with, or create unnecessary 

duplication of, the operation of these 

State, local, or Tribal programs. 

Additionally, over time, all will perform 

this testing because reconstructed GDF 

or new GDF starting up on or after 

January 10, 2008, will be subject to the 

periodic testing under this rule. 

Comment: We proposed adding a new 

paragraph (e) to 40 CFR 63.11113 in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to specify 

that new sources (installed after 

November 9, 2006) must test within 180 

days after startup, and existing sources 

must conduct all performance tests 

within 180 days after the compliance 

date (if installed on or before December 

15, 2009), or upon installation of the 

complete system (if installed after 

December 15, 2009). We proposed this 

new paragraph because the dates by 

which periodic tests should be 

conducted were not explicitly stated in 

the January 10, 2008, final rule. One 

commenter believes that setting the 

compliance date for existing facilities 

based on the December 15, 2009, date of 

EPA’s proposed amendments adds an 

additional level of confusion and 

complexity for affected GDF, and for 

delegated State agencies implementing 

and enforcing these regulations. The 

commenter believes the performance 

testing deadline for existing facilities 

should be consistent with the NESHAP 

General Provisions, and with other 

NESHAP regulations. The commenter 

recommends that EPA revise the 

proposed amendments for 40 CFR 

63.11113(e)(2) to the following: 

‘‘(2) For an existing affected source, 

the initial compliance test must be 

conducted no later than 180 days after 

the applicable compliance date 

specified in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this 

section.’’ 

Response: The January 10, 2008, final 

rule and the December 15, 2009, 

proposed amendments contain a 

requirement that facilities must test 

their vapor balance systems ‘‘at the time 

of installation.’’ As explained in the 

preamble to the proposal (74 FR 66484, 

third column), the best time to perform 

the initial test of these systems is when 

they are being installed. We recognize, 

however, that many facilities already 

have vapor balance systems installed, 

and that not all of these systems may 

have been tested at the time of 

installation. We proposed that these 

systems must conduct their initial tests 

within 180 days after the compliance 

date because we had failed to specify a 

date in the final rule text, and because 

180 days after the compliance date is 

consistent with 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) in the 

General Provisions that was referenced 

as applicable in the final rule. We 

believe the commenter missed the point 

that the rule requires new sources and 

existing sources that have to install a 

new vapor balance system to test that 

system at the time of installation. We 

continue to believe that is appropriate. 

11. Gasoline, Denatured Ethanol, and 

Transmix 

Several commenters submitted 

comments regarding the relationship 

between the proposed definition of 

gasoline and the proposal that emissions 

from the storage of denatured ethanol 

and transmix be subject to the 

standards. 

Comments Related to the Definition of 

Gasoline 

We proposed adding the definition of 

gasoline to these subparts even though 

the NSPS is cross-referenced in the 

definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts 

BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CCCCCC. The proposed definition is as 

follows: ‘‘Gasoline means any petroleum 

distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol 

blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals or greater, which is 

used as a fuel for internal combustion 

engines.’’ We received no negative 

comments on incorporation of this 

definition, so the final rules include this 

definition. 

Comments Related to Denatured Ethanol 

We stated in the preamble the 

following (74 FR 66485): ‘‘[W]e are 

proposing that any gasoline mixture 

with alcohol should be considered 

gasoline, and be controlled under the 

current control requirements in subpart 

BBBBBB and CCCCCC. We are asking 

for comment on including any mixture, 

on whether this level of control is 

appropriate, and if not, we are 

requesting data on what level of control 

of those emissions is appropriate.’’ We 

proposed that such mixtures should be 

controlled the same as gasoline and 

asked for comment. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

denatured ethanol does not meet the 

definition of gasoline, and that it is not 

appropriate to regulate denatured 

ethanol under any NESHAP because it 

contains only a de minimis 

concentration of HAP. The commenters 

stated that non-gasoline sources in the 

petroleum liquids distribution system 

have been previously evaluated by EPA 

in the Organic Liquids Distribution 

(Non-Gasoline) source category, for 

which EPA determined that an area 

source rule was not warranted. The 

commenters stated that this source 

category was limited to gasoline 

distribution (not ethanol or transmix). 

The commenters stated that the item in 

the affected source was ‘‘gasoline storage 

tanks,’’ but, through what EPA is 

proposing, it has effectively become 

‘‘tanks storing or processing gasoline or 

any mixture that contains any amount of 

gasoline.’’ The commenters pointed out 

that on page A–27 of EPA’s document, 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List-Final 

Report, EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992, 

EPA clearly defines the Gasoline 

Distribution source category. They 

further stated that EPA has not provided 

adequate notice and comment 

(including a cost- effectiveness 

demonstration) justifying the expansion 

of this source category. The commenters 

also stated that EPA repeatedly 

dismisses the third criterion of the 

‘‘gasoline’’ definition. The commenters 

stated that, specifically, ethanol is not a 

‘‘fuel for internal combustion engines.’’ 

The commenters further stated that 

ethanol (even when denatured) cannot 

be directly consumed in an internal 

combustion engine without true 

gasoline to facilitate its combustion, and 

that these emission sources were not 

included among the emission sources 

for which the determination of a need 

for a gasoline distribution area source 

rule were based, nor were they included 

in the evaluation of control measures for 

this rule. The commenters stated that 

the inclusion of denatured ethanol in 

the definition of gasoline will create 

significant regulatory burdens with little 

to no benefit for reducing the release of 

HAP to the environment. One 

commenter also provided data 

supporting their claim that the proposed 

control of denatured ethanol tanks is not 

cost-effective. 

The commenters further stated that if 

EPA does extend the applicability of 

this rule to tanks storing denatured 

ethanol, then the required control 

measure should be the same as specified 

in the proposed item 3 to Table 1 for 

surge control tanks, in that the 

requirements of Table 1, item 2 would 

not be warranted for the de minimis 

level of HAP involved. The commenters 

also stated that EPA should specify a 

separate compliance period for tanks 

that would become subject to the rule 

solely by virtue of storing denatured 

ethanol—allowing 3 years from the date 

of publication of the final amendments. 

One commenter stated that if EPA 

intended to propose an alternative 

definition for ‘‘gasoline,’’ EPA should 

have included the alternative definition 

in the proposed rule amendments rather 

than simply mentioning its proposal in 

the preamble. The commenter believes 

that EPA should allow stakeholders a 

clear opportunity to comment on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4173 

7We determined that the HAP cost-effectiveness 

of adding a floating roof to a typical tank storing 

denatured ethanol would be about $700,000 per 

ton. 

specific definition or definitions that 

EPA is proposing. Second, the 

commenter believes that it is important 

to ensure consistency among standards 

regulating gasoline (NSPS, major source 

NESHAP, and area source NESHAP) and 

to make certain that only the affected 

source categories are regulated under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. 

Response: As discussed above, we 

have finalized the definition of gasoline 

as proposed. Our intention was not to 

change the definition of gasoline, but 

instead to incorporate the established 

definition into these standards instead 

of simply referring to the definition in 

other standards. 

Commenters provided many reasons 

to support their position that emissions 

from the storage of denatured ethanol 

should not be regulated under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BBBBBB or 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC. We considered the 

comments, and agree that it is not 

appropriate to include the storage of 

denatured ethanol in this source 

category. Denatured ethanol does not 

meet the definition of ‘‘gasoline’’ 

because it typically does not have ‘‘a 

Reid vapor pressure of 27.6 kilopascals 

or greater’’ and it is not ‘‘used as a fuel 

for internal combustion engines.’’ Thus, 

tanks storing denatured ethanol are not 

‘‘gasoline storage tanks,’’ and, therefore, 

not subject to subpart BBBBBB or 

subpart CCCCCC. In addition, we 

determined that the potential 

environmental benefit (HAP reduction) 

is minimal, and that the installation of 

storage tank controls (floating roofs) on 

a tank storing denatured ethanol 

containing 5-percent gasoline is not 

cost-effective.7 For these reasons, we 

concluded that tanks storing denatured 

ethanol should not be included in the 

Gasoline Distribution source category; 

therefore, the final rule does not include 

the storage of denatured ethanol as an 

affected source. 

Comments Related to the Handling of 

Gasoline-Ethanol Blends 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern related to E85. The commenter 

thinks that specifically including E85 

and other gasoline-ethanol blends is 

very good and important. The 

commenter suggested that it be required, 

or at least recommended, that all 

facilities that convert old tanks and 

Stage I systems for E85, or new tanks 

and Stage I systems follow the 

guidelines in the July 2006, Handbook 

for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing 

E85, put out by the United States 

Department of Energy. The commenter 

stated that there can be significant 

problems if the proper materials are not 

used, and if tanks that have been used 

for other petroleum products are not 

properly cleaned and proper 

components are not used. The 

commenter noted that CARB has 

approved a number of Stage I systems 

for E85, including an E85 p/v vent 

valve, and vapor and fill adaptors. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that blends of gasoline and 

ethanol that are used as a fuel, and meet 

the definition of gasoline should be 

subject to regulation when they are 

stored at gasoline distribution facilities. 

We also agree that owners or operators 

should follow appropriate procedures, 

and use appropriate materials when 

storing and handling these blends. The 

purpose of these standards, however, is 

to require the source category to reduce 

HAP emissions to the applicable level. 

The emission standards are based on 

consideration of the level of HAP 

emissions from the affected sources and 

the most appropriate control 

technologies that are available to reduce 

the emissions. These standards are not 

intended to provide specific guidance or 

requirements on handling, storing, or 

dispensing procedures that are 

unrelated to HAP emission reductions. 

Thus, we are not requiring handbook 

guidance in the final rule. 

Comments Related to Transmix 

We proposed in the preamble that 

because transmix contains various 

concentrations of gasoline and other 

products, to the degree that it would not 

be feasible to specify in advance the 

percentage and concentration of 

gasoline in the mixture, it should be 

stored and considered gasoline for the 

purposes of these regulations. 

Comment: Commenters provided 

comments on how the definition of 

gasoline related to transmix. Their 

comments were essentially the same as 

those submitted on the topic of 

denatured ethanol related to the 

definition of gasoline. Additionally, the 

commenters referred to the December 

19, 2007, memorandum, Summary of 

Comments and Responses to Public 

Comments on November 9, 2006 

Proposal for Gasoline Distribution Area 

Sources, Stephen A. Shedd to Kent C. 

Hustvedt (December 2007 EPA Memo), 

in which EPA stated: ‘‘The 

determination of whether transmix 

would or would not meet the definition 

of gasoline would depend on the ratio 

of the individual products included in 

the mixture. According to industry 

sources (ILTA), transmix typically 

contains between 35- and 65-percent 

gasoline and has a vapor pressure of 

about 2.5. Thus, transmix would not 

typically meet the gasoline definition’s 

vapor pressure criteria. However, 

because of the potential variability of 

the mixture, we cannot be sure that all 

transmix will be excluded by the vapor 

pressure criteria of the definition.’’ The 

commenters stated that, given this 

guidance, owners/operators of gasoline 

distribution facilities believed, in good 

faith, that transmix tanks would be 

subject to the rule only if the vapor 

pressure of the mixture stored in the 

transmix tank exceeded the criterion 

specified in the definition of gasoline, 

which is a Reid vapor pressure of 27.6 

kilopascals (4 pounds per square inch). 

The commenters also asserted that, in 

stating that they could not be sure that 

all transmix would be excluded, EPA 

implicitly acknowledged that most 

transmix would be excluded. The 

commenters noted that the preamble to 

the proposed amendments stipulates 

that all transmix should be considered 

gasoline for purposes of the rule. One 

commenter stated that facilities should 

be allowed to test the transmix to 

determine applicability to this rule. 

The commenters also stated that, 

given that this change in guidance has 

the effect of extending the applicability 

of the rule to a population of transmix 

tanks that were previously understood 

to not be subject to the rule, the fact that 

there had not been fair notice of this 

change, and the resulting requirement 

for many of these tanks to be equipped 

with internal floating roofs, EPA should 

specify a separate compliance period for 

transmix tanks—allowing 3 years from 

the date of publication of the final 

amendments. 

Response: As in the case of denatured 

ethanol discussed above, we received 

numerous comments regarding the 

question of whether transmix should be 

included in the Gasoline Distribution 

Area Source category and should be 

subject to these standards. After 

considering these comments, we 

concluded that, while transmix does 

contain gasoline, the mixture itself does 

not meet all of the criteria specified in 

the final definition of ‘‘gasoline,’’ which 

is the focus of the source category. 

Transmix is a mixture of gasoline and 

other petroleum distillates that typically 

contain between 35- and 65-percent 

gasoline, and, with the higher 

concentrations of gasoline, may have a 

vapor pressure above the 27.6 kilopascal 

threshold in the definition of ‘‘gasoline.’’ 

However, transmix is not ‘‘used as a fuel 

for internal combustion engines;’’ 

therefore, transmix does not meet the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

definition of ‘‘gasoline.’’ For these 

reasons, we concluded that tanks storing 

transmix should not be included in the 

gasoline distribution area source 

category; therefore, the final rule does 

not include the tanks storing transmix 

as an affected source. 

12. Table 1 Requirements for ‘‘New’’ 

Storage Tanks 

We proposed rule text in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CCCCCC to clarify that 

‘‘new’’ GDF storage tanks were those 

constructed after the November 9, 2006, 

publication of the proposed rule. We 

received no comments related to the 

proposed clarification and have 

incorporated it into the final rule. 

13. Requirements for Gasoline 

Containers 

We proposed to add paragraph (d) to 

40 CFR 63.11116 in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC stating that ‘‘Portable 

gasoline containers that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 59, subpart 

F, are considered acceptable for 

compliance with paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section.’’ We received no comments 

related to the proposed clarification, 

and have incorporated it into the final 

rule. 

14. Cargo Tank Testing and 

Documentation 

We proposed revising the definition 

of ‘‘vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank’’ in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB (and 

including the same definition in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CCCCCC) to change the 

reference to the vapor tightness test 

requirements from those found in 40 

CFR 60.501 (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

XX) to those found in 40 CFR 

63.11092(f). The proposed definition 

reads as follows: ‘‘vapor-tight gasoline 

cargo tank means a gasoline cargo tank 

which has demonstrated within the 12 

preceding months that it meets the 

annual certification test requirements in 

§ 63.11092(f).’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the most obvious and reasonable place 

to look for the testing requirements for 

vapor tightness testing of cargo tanks at 

GDF would be in 40 CFR 63.11120. The 

commenter pointed out that 40 CFR 

63.11120, which addresses all other 

testing and monitoring requirements, 

fails to include anything about the vapor 

tightness testing for cargo tanks. The 

commenter stated that, for clarity, the 

vapor tightness testing requirements for 

cargo tanks should be added to 40 CFR 

63.11120. The commenter also pointed 

out a typographical error in proposed 40 

CFR 63.11125(c). The commenter stated 

that the citation included in the 

paragraph should be to 

‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(2)(i) through (viii)’’ rather 

than to ‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(i) through (viii)’’ 

as it appears in the proposal. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that it is reasonable to 

expect that the vapor tightness testing 

requirements for cargo tanks at GDF 

would be included in 40 CFR 63.11120, 

‘‘What testing and monitoring 

requirements must I meet?’’ We have 

revised 40 CFR 63.11120 to include a 

new paragraph (d) that cross-references 

the vapor tightness testing requirements 

found in 40 CFR 63.11092(f). 

We also agree with the commenter 

that proposed 40 CFR 63.11125(c) 

contains a typographical error. The 

citation included in the paragraph 

should be to ‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(2)(i) through 

(viii)’’ rather than to ‘‘§ 63.11094(b)(i) 

through (viii)’’ as it appears in the 

proposal. We have corrected this error 

in the final rule. 

Comment: Commenters requested 

clarification of the requirements for 

vapor tightness testing of gasoline cargo 

tanks. The commenters stated that the 

annual vapor tightness test specified in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB is 

nominally the same as that specified in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. They 

further stated that each of these rules is 

understood to require pressurizing the 

tank to 18 inches of water column, and 

each rule requires that the pressure drop 

in 5 minutes shall not exceed 3 inches 

of water column. However, the 

commenters stated that in subpart XX, 

the 18-inch water column pressure is 

approximated as 450 millimeter (mm) of 

water, but in subpart BBBBBB it is 

approximated as 460 mm of water. The 

commenters further stated that subpart 

XX specifies the limit on pressure drop 

as 75 mm of water, whereas subpart 

BBBBBB specifies 3 inches of water. 

The commenters stated that the 

preamble to the proposed amendments 

characterize the subpart BBBBBB vapor 

tightness test requirements as being 

different than the requirements 

specified in subpart XX, and the 

proposed amendments change the cited 

requirements in the definition of a 

vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank from 

those in 40 CFR 60.501 to those in 40 

CFR 63.11092(f). The commenters stated 

that many facilities, however, will be 

subject to both regulations and there is 

no apparent benefit to testing a gasoline 

cargo tank twice for essentially the same 

criteria. The commenters request that 

EPA stipulate in subpart BBBBBB that 

compliance with the annual vapor 

tightness testing specified in subpart 

BBBBBB satisfies the annual vapor 

tightness testing requirement of subpart 

XX. 

Response: We considered the 

commenter’s recommendation and agree 

that there is no reason to have two sets 

of testing criteria that use nearly the 

same pressure test. However, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BBBBBB (at 40 CFR 

63.11092(f)) also requires a test under 

vacuum, while 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

XX does not. We also agree that there 

would be no benefit to requiring that a 

cargo tank be tested twice to satisfy the 

testing requirements in subpart XX and 

subpart BBBBBB (these requirements 

are also referenced in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC). We have added text 

to 40 CFR 63.11092(f) specifying that 

‘‘facilities that are subject to subpart XX 

of 40 CFR part 60 may elect, after 

notification to the subpart XX delegated 

authority, to comply with paragraphs 

(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.’’ 

D. Comments Addressing Other 

Provisions That Were Not Proposed To 

Be Amended 

Comment: Commenters request that 

the language of item 1(c) in Table 2 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB be 

edited to clarify the intent. A similar 

provision in the Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading MACT rule specifies that the 

vapor collection system shall be 

designed to ‘‘prevent HAP vapors 

collected at one loading berth from 

passing through another loading berth to 

the atmosphere.’’ Commenters assert 

that similar clarity could be brought to 

this rule by editing this item to read as 

follows: ‘‘Design and operate the vapor 

collection system to prevent any TOC 

vapors collected at one loading rack or 

lane from passing through another 

loading rack or lane to the atmosphere.’’ 

Response: We have revised item 1(c) 

in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB, as recommended by the 

commenter. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification that the analyzer for 

conducting monthly measurements of 

the carbon outlet VOC concentration 

(from a carbon bed) can be permanently 

mounted (i.e., it need not be portable, as 

stated in the rule at 40 CFR 

63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)(iii)). The 

commenter stated that the subject 

sentence in the final rule currently 

reads: ‘‘Measurements shall be made 

using a portable analyzer, in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–7, 

EPA Method 21 for open-ended lines.’’ 

The commenter suggested that the 

phrase ‘‘or a permanently mounted 

analyzer’’ be inserted into the current 

rule language. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that it is not necessary that 

the analyzer be portable and have made 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4175 

the recommended revision in the final 

rule. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The final 

amendments clarify, but do not add 

requirements that increase the 

collection burden. The information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC were sent to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. OMB approved Information 

Collection Request (ICR) 2237.02— 

NESHAP for Source Categories: 

Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, 

Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CCCCCC) (Final Rule) 

and assigned OMB control number 

2060–0620. This ICR was approved by 

OMB without change. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA regulations in 40 CFR 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9. We are 

amending 40 CFR part 9 to add the OMB 

control numbers for these rules. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, or any 

other statute unless the Agency certifies 

that the rule 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 the final amendments on small 

entities, 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; or (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 these final amendments on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The final amendments do not 

impose any new requirement on small 

entities that are not currently required 

by the final rules (i.e., minimizing 

gasoline spills and evaporation). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

These final amendments do not 

contain 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. These 

final amendments clarify certain 

provisions and correct typographical 

errors in the rule text for a rule EPA 

previously determined did not include 

a Federal mandate that may result in an 

estimated cost of $100 million or more 

(69 FR 5061, February 3, 2004). Thus, 

the final amendments are not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of UMRA. 

The final amendments are also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because they contain no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The final amendments 

clarify certain provisions and correct 

typographical errors in the rule text; 

thus, they should not affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

These final amendments do not have 

federalism implications. They will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. They provide 

clarification and correct typographical 

errors. These changes do not modify 

existing, or create new responsibilities 

among EPA Regional Offices, States, or 

local enforcement agencies. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to these final amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

These final amendments do not have 

Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). They will not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to these final amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These final amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

18355, May 22, 2001) because they are 

not a significant energy action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

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, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

The final amendments involve 

technical standards. In the final rule 

promulgated on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 

1916), we considered NTTAA. Since 

then, an additional standard was 

presented by stakeholders. The EPA has 

decided to use that additional standard, 

as discussed in section IV.C.10 of this 

preamble, entitled ‘‘Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District Source 

Test Procedure ST–30—Static Pressure 

Integrity Test, Underground Storage 

Tanks,’’ adopted November 30, 1983, 

and amended December 21, 1994. The 

test method will be incorporated by 

reference (see 40 CFR 63.14). This 

method is available at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BA/CURHTML/ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ST/st30.pdf, or from the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District, 939 Ellis 

Street, San Francisco, California 94109. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 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 these final 

amendments will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because they do not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. These final 

amendments do not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

rule and will not cause emissions 

increases from these sources. 

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 these final 

amendments and other required 

information to the United States Senate, 

the United States House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the final amendments in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final 

amendments will be effective on 

January 24, 2011. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 10, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251, et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 

1326, 1330, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 

11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 

300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 

300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j– 

4, 300j–9, 1857, et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401– 

7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023, 11048. 

■ 2. The table in § 9.1 is amended by 

adding the following entries in 

numerical order under the undesignated 

center heading ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control No. 

*******

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3

* * * * * * * 

63.11080–63.11100 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2060–0620 

63.11110–63.11132 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2060–0620 

* * * * * * * 

3The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the applicable General Provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, which 

are not independent information collection requirements. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 4. Section 63.14 is amended by adding 

new paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available 

from the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD), 939 

Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 

94109, and is also available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BA/CURHTML/ 

ST/st30.pdf. 

(1) ‘‘BAAQMD Source Test Procedure 

ST–30—Static Pressure Integrity Test, 

Underground Storage Tanks,’’ adopted 

November 30, 1983, and amended 

December 21, 1994, IBR approved for 

§ 63.11120(a)(2)(iii). 

(2) [Reserved] 

Subpart BBBBBB—[AMENDED] 

■ 5. Section 63.11081 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c) through (j) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11081 Am I subject to the 

requirements in this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) Gasoline storage tanks that are 

located at affected sources identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section, and that are used only for 

dispensing gasoline in a manner 

consistent with tanks located at a 

gasoline dispensing facility as defined 

in § 63.11132, are not subject to any of 

the requirements in this subpart. These 

tanks must comply with subpart 

CCCCCC of this part. 

(d) The loading of aviation gasoline 

into storage tanks at airports, and the 

subsequent transfer of aviation gasoline 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4177 

within the airport, is not subject to this 

subpart. 

(e) The loading of gasoline into 

marine tank vessels at bulk facilities is 

not subject to this subpart. 

(f) If your affected source’s throughput 

ever exceeds an applicable throughput 

threshold in the definition of ‘‘bulk 

gasoline terminal’’ or in item 1 in Table 

2 to this subpart, the affected source 

will remain subject to the requirements 

for sources above the threshold, even if 

the affected source throughput later falls 

below the applicable throughput 

threshold. 

(g) For the purpose of determining 

gasoline throughput, as used in the 

definition of bulk gasoline plant and 

bulk gasoline terminal, the 20,000 

gallons per day threshold throughput is 

the maximum calculated design 

throughout for any day, and is not an 

average. An enforceable State, local, or 

Tribal permit limitation on throughput, 

established prior to the applicable 

compliance date, may be used in lieu of 

the 20,000 gallons per day design 

capacity throughput threshold to 

determine whether the facility is a bulk 

gasoline plant or a bulk gasoline 

terminal. 

(h) Storage tanks that are used to load 

gasoline into a cargo tank for the on-site 

redistribution of gasoline to another 

storage tank are subject to this subpart. 

(i) For any affected source subject to 

the provisions of this subpart and 

another Federal rule, you may elect to 

comply only with the more stringent 

provisions of the applicable subparts. 

You must consider all provisions of the 

rules, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. You must 

identify the affected source and 

provisions with which you will comply 

in your Notification of Compliance 

Status required under § 63.11093. You 

also must demonstrate in your 

Notification of Compliance Status that 

each provision with which you will 

comply is at least as stringent as the 

otherwise applicable requirements in 

this subpart. You are responsible for 

making accurate determinations 

concerning the more stringent 

provisions; noncompliance with this 

rule is not excused if it is later 

determined that your determination was 

in error, and, as a result, you are 

violating this subpart. Compliance with 

this rule is your responsibility, and the 

Notification of Compliance Status does 

not alter or affect that responsibility. 

(j) For new or reconstructed affected 

sources, as specified in § 63.11082(b) 

and (c), recordkeeping to document 

applicable throughput must begin upon 

startup of the affected source. For 

existing sources, as specified in 

§ 63.11082(d), recordkeeping to 

document applicable throughput must 

begin on January 10, 2008. Records 

required under this paragraph shall be 

kept for a period of 5 years. 

■ 6. Section 63.11083 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11083 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) If you have an existing affected 

source that becomes subject to the 

control requirements in this subpart 

because of an increase in the daily 

throughput, as specified in option 1 of 

Table 2 to this subpart, you must 

comply with the standards in this 

subpart no later than 3 years after the 

affected source becomes subject to the 

control requirements in this subpart. 

■ 7. A new § 63.11085 is added 

following the Emission Limitations and 

Management Practices heading to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11085 What are my general duties to 

minimize emissions? 

Each owner or operator of an affected 

source under this subpart must comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) You must, at all times, operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator, which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

(b) You must keep applicable records 

and submit reports as specified in 

§ 63.11094(g) and § 63.11095(d). 

■ 8. Section 63.11086 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11086 What requirements must I meet 

if my facility is a bulk gasoline plant? 

* * * * * 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, you must only load 

gasoline into storage tanks and cargo 

tanks at your facility by utilizing 

submerged filling, as defined in 

§ 63.11100, and as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this 

section. The applicable distances in 

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

shall be measured from the point in the 

opening of the submerged fill pipe that 

is the greatest distance from the bottom 

of the storage tank. 

(1) Submerged fill pipes installed on 

or before November 9, 2006, must be no 

more than 12 inches from the bottom of 

the tank. 

(2) Submerged fill pipes installed after 

November 9, 2006, must be no more 

than 6 inches from the bottom of the 

tank. 

(3) Submerged fill pipes not meeting 

the specifications of paragraphs (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section are allowed if the 

owner or operator can demonstrate that 

the liquid level in the gasoline storage 

tank is always above the entire opening 

of the fill pipe. Documentation 

providing such demonstration must be 

made available for inspection by the 

Administrator’s delegated representative 

during the course of a site visit. 

(b) Gasoline storage tanks with a 

capacity of less than 250 gallons are not 

required to comply with the control 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section, but must comply only with the 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.11092 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Revising paragraph 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)(iii); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii); 

■ f. Revising paragraph 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(iii); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1); 

■ h. Revising paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii); 

■ i. Revising paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(iii); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (f) introductory 

text; and 

■ k. Adding a new paragraph (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11092 What testing and monitoring 

requirements must I meet? 

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk 

gasoline terminal subject to the 

emission standard in item 1(b) of Table 

2 to this subpart must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each owner or operator of a bulk 

gasoline terminal subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall install, 

calibrate, certify, operate, and maintain, 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications, a continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) while gasoline vapors are 

displaced to the vapor processor 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

systems, as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (5) of this section. For 

each facility conducting a performance 

test under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, and for each facility utilizing 

the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) or 

(a)(3) of this section, the CMS must be 

installed by January 10, 2011. 

(1) For each performance test 

conducted under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall 

determine a monitored operating 

parameter value for the vapor 

processing system using the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. During the 

performance test, continuously record 

the operating parameter as specified 

under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 

this section. 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Conduct monthly measurements 

of the carbon bed outlet volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) concentration over 

the last 5 minutes of an adsorption cycle 

for each carbon bed, documenting the 

highest measured VOC concentration. 

Measurements shall be made using a 

portable analyzer, or a permanently 

mounted analyzer, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–7, EPA 

Method 21 for open-ended lines. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The owner or operator shall verify, 

during each day of operation of the 

loading rack, the proper valve 

sequencing, cycle time, gasoline flow, 

purge air flow, and operating 

temperatures. Verification shall be 

through visual observation, or through 

an automated alarm or shutdown system 

that monitors system operation. A 

manual or electronic record of the start 

and end of a shutdown event may be 

used. 

(iii) The owner or operator shall 

perform semi-annual preventive 

maintenance inspections of the carbon 

adsorption system, including the 

automated alarm or shutdown system 

for those units so equipped, according 

to the recommendations of the 

manufacturer of the system. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(1) The presence of a thermal 

oxidation system pilot flame shall be 

monitored using a heat-sensing device, 

such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or a 

thermocouple, installed in proximity of 

the pilot light, to indicate the presence 

of a flame. The heat-sensing device shall 

send a positive parameter value to 

indicate that the pilot flame is on, or a 

negative parameter value to indicate 

that the pilot flame is off. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The owner or operator shall verify, 

during each day of operation of the 

loading rack, the proper operation of the 

assist-air blower and the vapor line 

valve. Verification shall be through 

visual observation, or through an 

automated alarm or shutdown system 

that monitors system operation. A 

manual or electronic record of the start 

and end of a shutdown event may be 

used. 

(iii) The owner or operator shall 

perform semi-annual preventive 

maintenance inspections of the thermal 

oxidation system, including the 

automated alarm or shutdown system 

for those units so equipped, according 

to the recommendations of the 

manufacturer of the system. 

* * * * * 

(f) The annual certification test for 

gasoline cargo tanks shall consist of the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. Affected 

facilities that are subject to subpart XX 

of 40 CFR part 60 may elect, after 

notification to the subpart XX delegated 

authority, to comply with paragraphs 

(f)(1) and (2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) Conduct of performance tests. 

Performance tests conducted for this 

subpart shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator, based 

on representative performance (i.e., 

performance based on normal operating 

conditions) of the affected source. Upon 

request, the owner or operator shall 

make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

■ 10. Section 63.11094 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11094 What are my recordkeeping 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(g) Each owner or operator of an 

affected source under this subpart shall 

keep records as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(2) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.11085(a), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

■ 11. Section 63.11095 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(4) and a 

new paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11095 What are my reporting 

requirements? 

(a) * * * 

(4) For storage vessels complying with 

§ 63.11087(b) after January 10, 2011, the 

storage vessel’s Notice of Compliance 

Status information can be included in 

the next semi-annual compliance report 

in lieu of filing a separate Notification 

of Compliance Status report under 

§ 63.11093. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each owner or operator of an 

affected source under this subpart shall 

submit a semiannual report including 

the number, duration, and a brief 

description of each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.11085(a), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. The report may be 

submitted as a part of the semiannual 

compliance report, if one is required. 

Owners or operators of affected bulk 

plants and pipeline pumping stations 

are not required to submit reports for 

periods during which no malfunctions 

occurred. 

■ 12. Section 63.11100 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new 

definitions of ‘‘gasoline,’’ ‘‘gasoline 

storage tank or vessel,’’ and ‘‘surge 

control tank or vessel’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definitions of ‘‘bulk 

gasoline plant,’’ ‘‘pipeline pumping 

station,’’ and ‘‘vapor-tight gasoline cargo 

tank’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.11100 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Bulk gasoline plant means any 

gasoline storage and distribution facility 

that receives gasoline by pipeline, ship 

or barge, or cargo tank, and 

subsequently loads the gasoline into 

gasoline cargo tanks for transport to 

gasoline dispensing facilities, and has a 

gasoline throughput of less than 20,000 

gallons per day. Gasoline throughput 

shall be the maximum calculated design 

throughput as may be limited by 

compliance with an enforceable 

condition under Federal, State, or local 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4179 

law, and discoverable by the 

Administrator and any other person. 

* * * * * 

Gasoline means any petroleum 

distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol 

blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals or greater, which is 

used as a fuel for internal combustion 

engines. 

* * * * * 

Gasoline storage tank or vessel means 

each tank, vessel, reservoir, or container 

used for the storage of gasoline, but does 

not include: 

(1) Frames, housing, auxiliary 

supports, or other components that are 

not directly involved in the containment 

of gasoline or gasoline vapors; 

(2) Subsurface caverns or porous rock 

reservoirs; 

(3) Oil/water separators and sumps, 

including butane blending sample 

recovery tanks, used to collect drained 

material such that it can be pumped to 

storage or back into a process; or 

(4) Tanks or vessels permanently 

attached to mobile sources such as 

trucks, railcars, barges, or ships. 

* * * * * 

Pipeline pumping station means a 

facility along a pipeline containing 

pumps to maintain the desired pressure 

and flow of product through the 

pipeline, and not containing gasoline 

storage tanks other than surge control 

tanks. 

* * * * * 

Surge control tank or vessel means, 

for the purposes of this subpart, those 

tanks or vessels used only for 

controlling pressure in a pipeline 

system during surges or other variations 

from normal operations. 

* * * * * 

Vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank means 

a gasoline cargo tank which has 

demonstrated within the 12 preceding 

months that it meets the annual 

certification test requirements in 

§ 63.11092(f). 

■ 13. Table 1 to Subpart BBBBBB of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART BBBBBB OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY CRITERIA, EMISSION LIMITS, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

FOR STORAGE TANKS

If you own or operate . . . Then you must . . . 

1. A gasoline storage tank meeting either of the following conditions: 

(i) a capacity of less than 75 cubic meters (m3); or 

(ii) a capacity of less than 151 m3 and a gasoline throughput of 480 

gallons per day or less. Gallons per day is calculated by summing the 

current day’s throughput, plus the throughput for the previous 364 

days, and then dividing that sum by 365.

Equip each gasoline storage tank with a fixed roof that is mounted to 

the storage tank in a stationary manner, and maintain all openings in 

a closed position at all times when not in use. 

2. A gasoline storage tank with a capacity of greater than or equal to 

75 m3 and not meeting any of the criteria specified in item 1 of this 

Table.

Do the following: 

(a) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP or TOC by 95 weight-percent with a closed vent system and control device, as specified in 

§ 60.112b(a)(3) of this chapter; or 

(b) Equip each internal floating roof gasoline storage tank according 

to the requirements in § 60.112b(a)(1) of this chapter, except for the 

secondary seal requirements under § 60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and the requirements in § 60.112b(a)(1)(iv) through (ix) of this chapter; and 

(c) Equip each external floating roof gasoline storage tank according 

to the requirements in § 60.112b(a)(2) of this chapter, except that the 

requirements of § 60.112b(a)(2)(ii) of this chapter shall only be required 

if such storage tank does not currently meet the requirements of 

§ 60.112b(a)(2)(i) of this chapter; or 

(d) Equip and operate each internal and external floating roof gasoline storage tank according to the applicable requirements in 

§ 63.1063(a)(1) and (b), except for the secondary seal requirements 

under § 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D), and equip each external floating 

roof gasoline storage tank according to the requirements of 

§ 63.1063(a)(2) if such storage tank does not currently meet the requirements of § 63.1063(a)(1). 

3. A surge control tank ............................................................................. Equip each tank with a fixed roof that is mounted to the tank in a stationary manner and with a pressure/vacuum vent with a positive 

cracking pressure of no less than 0.50 inches of water. Maintain all 

openings in a closed position at all times when not in use. 

■ 14. Table 2 to Subpart BBBBBB of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART BBBBBB OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY CRITERIA, EMISSION LIMITS, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

FOR LOADING RACKS

If you own or operate . . . Then you must . . . 

1. A bulk gasoline terminal loading rack(s) with a gasoline throughput 

(total of all racks) of 250,000 gallons per day, or greater. Gallons per 

day is calculated by summing the current day’s throughput, plus the 

throughput for the previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 

365.

(a) Equip your loading rack(s) with a vapor collection system designed 

to collect the TOC vapors displaced from cargo tanks during product 

loading; and 

(b) Reduce emissions of TOC to less than or equal to 80 mg/l of gasoline loaded into gasoline cargo tanks at the loading rack; and 

(c) Design and operate the vapor collection system to prevent any 

TOC vapors collected at one loading rack or lane from passing 

through another loading rack or lane to the atmosphere; and 

(d) Limit the loading of gasoline into gasoline cargo tanks that are 

vapor tight using the procedures specified in § 60.502(e) through (j) 

of this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘tank 

truck’’ as used in § 60.502(e) through (j) of this chapter means 

‘‘cargo tank’’ as defined in § 63.11100. 

2. A bulk gasoline terminal loading rack(s) with a gasoline throughput 

(total of all racks) of less than 250,000 gallons per day. Gallons per 

day is calculated by summing the current day’s throughput, plus the 

throughput for the previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 

365.

(a) Use submerged filling with a submerged fill pipe that is no more 

than 6 inches from the bottom of the cargo tank; and 

(b) Make records available within 24 hours of a request by the Administrator to document your gasoline throughput. 

■ 15. Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB of Part 

63 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing entry 63.6(e)(1); 

■ b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

■ c. Revising entry 63.7(e)(1); 

■ d. Revising entry 63.7(e)(3); 

■ e. Removing entry 63.8(c)(1)(i)–(iii); 

■ f. Adding entries 63.8(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii) 

and 63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

■ g. Revising entry 63.9(h)(1)-(6); 

■ h. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv); 

■ i. Adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i), 

63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 

63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v); and 

■ j. Revising entry 63.10(d)(5) to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART BBBBBB OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart BBBBBB 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) .......... General duty to minimize 

emissions.

Operate to minimize emissions at all times; 

information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met.

No. See § 63.11085 for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ......... Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible.Owner or operator must correct malfunctions 

as soon as possible.

No. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) ............. Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Performance test must be conducted under 

representative conditions.

No, § 63.11092(g) specifies conditions for 

conducting performance tests. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(3) ........... Test Run Duration ................. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each; compliance is based on arithmetic 

mean of three runs; conditions when data 

from an additional test run can be used.

Yes, except for testing conducted under 

§ 63.11092(a). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ........ Operation and Maintenance 

of CMS.

Must maintain and operate each CMS as 

specified in § 63.6(e)(1).

No. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ....... Operation and Maintenance 

of CMS.

Must keep parts for routine repairs readily 

available.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...... Operation and Maintenance 

of CMS.

Requirement to develop SSM Plan for CMS No. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) .... Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Contents due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, which are due 

30 days after; when to submit to Federal 

vs. State authority.

Yes, except as specified in § 63.11095(a)(4); 

also, there are no opacity standards. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ..... Records related to SSM ........ Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration 

of startups and shutdowns.

No. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4181 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART BBBBBB OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart BBBBBB 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..... Records related to SSM ........ Recordkeeping of malfunctions ..................... No. See § 63.11094(g) for recordkeeping of 

(1) occurrence and duration and (2) actions taken during malfunction. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .... Maintenance records ............. Recordkeeping of maintenance on air pollution control and monitoring equipment.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) .... Records Related to SSM ...... Actions taken to minimize emissions during 

SSM.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) .... Records Related to SSM ...... Actions taken to minimize emissions during 

SSM.

No. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ......... SSM Reports ......................... Contents and submission .............................. No. See § 63.11095(d) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart CCCCCC—[AMENDED] 

■ 16. Section 63.11111 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (e); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (g); and 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (h) through 

(k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11111 Am I subject to the 

requirements in this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(e) An affected source shall, upon 

request by the Administrator, 

demonstrate that their monthly 

throughput is less than the 10,000- 

gallon or the 100,000-gallon threshold 

level, as applicable. For new or 

reconstructed affected sources, as 

specified in § 63.11112(b) and (c), 

recordkeeping to document monthly 

throughput must begin upon startup of 

the affected source. For existing sources, 

as specified in § 63.11112(d), 

recordkeeping to document monthly 

throughput must begin on January 10, 

2008. For existing sources that are 

subject to this subpart only because they 

load gasoline into fuel tanks other than 

those in motor vehicles, as defined in 

§ 63.11132, recordkeeping to document 

monthly throughput must begin on 

January 24, 2011. Records required 

under this paragraph shall be kept for a 

period of 5 years. 

* * * * * 

(g) The loading of aviation gasoline 

into storage tanks at airports, and the 

subsequent transfer of aviation gasoline 

within the airport, is not subject to this 

subpart. 

(h) Monthly throughput is the total 

volume of gasoline loaded into, or 

dispensed from, all the gasoline storage 

tanks located at a single affected GDF. 

If an area source has two or more GDF 

at separate locations within the area 

source, each GDF is treated as a separate 

affected source. 

(i) If your affected source’s throughput 

ever exceeds an applicable throughput 

threshold, the affected source will 

remain subject to the requirements for 

sources above the threshold, even if the 

affected source throughput later falls 

below the applicable throughput 

threshold. 

(j) The dispensing of gasoline from a 

fixed gasoline storage tank at a GDF into 

a portable gasoline tank for the on-site 

delivery and subsequent dispensing of 

the gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor 

vehicle or other gasoline-fueled engine 

or equipment used within the area 

source is only subject to § 63.11116 of 

this subpart. 

(k) For any affected source subject to 

the provisions of this subpart and 

another Federal rule, you may elect to 

comply only with the more stringent 

provisions of the applicable subparts. 

You must consider all provisions of the 

rules, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. You must 

identify the affected source and 

provisions with which you will comply 

in your Notification of Compliance 

Status required under § 63.11124. You 

also must demonstrate in your 

Notification of Compliance Status that 

each provision with which you will 

comply is at least as stringent as the 

otherwise applicable requirements in 

this subpart. You are responsible for 

making accurate determinations 

concerning the more stringent 

provisions, and noncompliance with 

this rule is not excused if it is later 

determined that your determination was 

in error, and, as a result, you are 

violating this subpart. Compliance with 

this rule is your responsibility and the 

Notification of Compliance Status does 

not alter or affect that responsibility. 

■ 17. Section 63.11113 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding new 

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11113 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) If you have an existing affected 

source that becomes subject to the 

control requirements in this subpart 

because of an increase in the monthly 

throughput, as specified in § 63.11111(c) 

or § 63.11111(d), you must comply with 

the standards in this subpart no later 

than 3 years after the affected source 

becomes subject to the control 

requirements in this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(e) The initial compliance 

demonstration test required under 

§ 63.11120(a)(1) and (2) must be 

conducted as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) If you have a new or reconstructed 

affected source, you must conduct the 

initial compliance test upon installation 

of the complete vapor balance system. 

(2) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must conduct the initial 

compliance test as specified in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For vapor balance systems installed 

on or before December 15, 2009, you 

must test no later than 180 days after the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

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

(ii) For vapor balance systems 

installed after December 15, 2009, you 

must test upon installation of the 

complete vapor balance system. 

(f) If your GDF is subject to the control 

requirements in this subpart only 

because it loads gasoline into fuel tanks 

other than those in motor vehicles, as 

defined in § 63.11132, you must comply 

with the standards in this subpart as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) If your GDF is an existing facility, 

you must comply by January 24, 2014. 

(2) If your GDF is a new or 

reconstructed facility, you must comply 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

by the dates specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) If you start up your GDF after 

December 15, 2009, but before January 

24, 2011, you must comply no later than 

January 24, 2011. 

(ii) If you start up your GDF after 

January 24, 2011, you must comply 

upon startup of your GDF. 

■ 18. A new § 63.11115 is added 

following the Emission Limitations and 

Management Practices heading to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11115 What are my general duties to 

minimize emissions? 

Each owner or operator of an affected 

source under this subpart must comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) You must, at all times, operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

(b) You must keep applicable records 

and submit reports as specified in 

§ 63.11125(d) and § 63.11126(b). 

■ 19. Section 63.11116 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11116 Requirements for facilities with 

monthly throughput of less than 10,000 

gallons of gasoline. 

* * * * * 

(b) You are not required to submit 

notifications or reports as specified in 

§ 63.11125, § 63.11126, or subpart A of 

this part, but you must have records 

available within 24 hours of a request by 

the Administrator to document your 

gasoline throughput. 

* * * * * 

(d) Portable gasoline containers that 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 

59, subpart F, are considered acceptable 

for compliance with paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. 

■ 20. Section 63.11117 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11117 Requirements for facilities with 

monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of 

gasoline or more. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, you must only load 

gasoline into storage tanks at your 

facility by utilizing submerged filling, as 

defined in § 63.11132, and as specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of 

this section. The applicable distances in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) shall be 

measured from the point in the opening 

of the submerged fill pipe that is the 

greatest distance from the bottom of the 

storage tank. 

(1) Submerged fill pipes installed on 

or before November 9, 2006, must be no 

more than 12 inches from the bottom of 

the tank. 

(2) Submerged fill pipes installed after 

November 9, 2006, must be no more 

than 6 inches from the bottom of the 

tank. 

(3) Submerged fill pipes not meeting 

the specifications of paragraphs (b)(1) or 

(b)(2) of this section are allowed if the 

owner or operator can demonstrate that 

the liquid level in the tank is always 

above the entire opening of the fill pipe. 

Documentation providing such 

demonstration must be made available 

for inspection by the Administrator’s 

delegated representative during the 

course of a site visit. 

* * * * * 

■ 21. Section 63.11120 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(iii); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c); and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11120 What testing and monitoring 

requirements must I meet? 

(a) Each owner or operator, at the time 

of installation, as specified in 

§ 63.11113(e), of a vapor balance system 

required under § 63.11118(b)(1), and 

every 3 years thereafter, must comply 

with the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) You must demonstrate compliance 

with the static pressure performance 

requirement specified in item 1(h) of 

Table 1 to this subpart for your vapor 

balance system by conducting a static 

pressure test on your gasoline storage 

tanks using the test methods identified 

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or 

(a)(2)(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District Source Test 

Procedure ST–30—Static Pressure 

Integrity Test—Underground Storage 

Tanks, adopted November 30, 1983, and 

amended December 21, 1994 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

* * * * * 

(c) Conduct of performance tests. 

Performance tests conducted for this 

subpart shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance (i.e., 

performance based on normal operating 

conditions) of the affected source. Upon 

request, the owner or operator shall 

make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(d) Owners and operators of gasoline 

cargo tanks subject to the provisions of 

Table 2 to this subpart must conduct 

annual certification testing according to 

the vapor tightness testing requirements 

found in § 63.11092(f). 

■ 22. Section 63.11124 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising the first two sentences in 

paragraph (a)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text; and 

■ d. Revising the first two sentences in 

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11124 What notifications must I 

submit and when? 

(a) * * * 

(1) You must submit an Initial 

Notification that you are subject to this 

subpart by May 9, 2008, or at the time 

you become subject to the control 

requirements in § 63.11117, unless you 

meet the requirements in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. If your affected 

source is subject to the control 

requirements in § 63.11117 only because 

it loads gasoline into fuel tanks other 

than those in motor vehicles, as defined 

in § 63.11132, you must submit the 

Initial Notification by May 24, 2011. 

The Initial Notification must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The 

notification must be submitted to the 

applicable EPA Regional Office and 

delegated State authority as specified in 

§ 63.13. 

* * * * * 

(2) You must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status to the applicable 

EPA Regional Office and the delegated 

State authority, as specified in § 63.13, 

within 60 days of the applicable 

compliance date specified in § 63.11113, 

unless you meet the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The 

Notification of Compliance Status must 

be signed by a responsible official who 

must certify its accuracy, must indicate 

whether the source has complied with 

the requirements of this subpart, and 

must indicate whether the facilities’ 

monthly throughput is calculated based 

on the volume of gasoline loaded into 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4183 

all storage tanks or on the volume of 

gasoline dispensed from all storage 

tanks.* * * 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) You must submit an Initial 

Notification that you are subject to this 

subpart by May 9, 2008, or at the time 

you become subject to the control 

requirements in § 63.11118. If your 

affected source is subject to the control 

requirements in § 63.11118 only because 

it loads gasoline into fuel tanks other 

than those in motor vehicles, as defined 

in § 63.11132, you must submit the 

Initial Notification by May 24, 2011. 

The Initial Notification must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The 

notification must be submitted to the 

applicable EPA Regional Office and 

delegated State authority as specified in 

§ 63.13. 

* * * * * 

(2) You must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status to the applicable 

EPA Regional Office and the delegated 

State authority, as specified in § 63.13, 

in accordance with the schedule 

specified in § 63.9(h). The Notification 

of Compliance Status must be signed by 

a responsible official who must certify 

its accuracy, must indicate whether the 

source has complied with the 

requirements of this subpart, and must 

indicate whether the facility’s 

throughput is determined based on the 

volume of gasoline loaded into all 

storage tanks or on the volume of 

gasoline dispensed from all storage 

tanks. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 63.11125 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (c) and a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11125 What are my recordkeeping 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(c) Each owner or operator of a 

gasoline cargo tank subject to the 

management practices in Table 2 to this 

subpart must keep records documenting 

vapor tightness testing for a period of 

5 years. Documentation must include 

each of the items specified in 

§ 63.11094(b)(2)(i) through (viii). 

Records of vapor tightness testing must 

be retained as specified in either 

paragraph (c)(1) or paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) The owner or operator must keep 

all vapor tightness testing records with 

the cargo tank. 

(2) As an alternative to keeping all 

records with the cargo tank, the owner 

or operator may comply with the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

(i) The owner or operator may keep 

records of only the most recent vapor 

tightness test with the cargo tank, and 

keep records for the previous 4 years at 

their office or another central location. 

(ii) Vapor tightness testing records 

that are kept at a location other than 

with the cargo tank must be instantly 

available (e.g., via e-mail or facsimile) to 

the Administrator’s delegated 

representative during the course of a site 

visit or within a mutually agreeable time 

frame. Such records must be an exact 

duplicate image of the original paper 

copy record with certifying signatures. 

(d) Each owner or operator of an 

affected source under this subpart shall 

keep records as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(2) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.11115(a), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

■ 24. Section 63.11126 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.11126 What are my reporting 

requirements? 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to 

the management practices in § 63.11118 

shall report to the Administrator the 

results of all volumetric efficiency tests 

required under § 63.11120(b). Reports 

submitted under this paragraph must be 

submitted within 180 days of the 

completion of the performance testing. 

(b) Each owner or operator of an 

affected source under this subpart shall 

report, by March 15 of each year, the 

number, duration, and a brief 

description of each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the previous 

calendar year and which caused or may 

have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.11115(a), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. No report is necessary for 

a calendar year in which no 

malfunctions occurred. 

■ 25. Section 63.11132 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

the definitions of ‘‘gasoline,’’ ‘‘motor 

vehicle,’’ ‘‘nonroad engine,’’ ‘‘nonroad 

vehicle,’’ and ‘‘vapor-tight gasoline cargo 

tank’’; and 

■ b. By revising, in alphabetical order, 

the definitions of ‘‘gasoline cargo tank,’’ 

‘‘gasoline dispensing facility,’’ and 

‘‘monthly throughput’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11132 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Gasoline means any petroleum 

distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol 

blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals or greater, which is 

used as a fuel for internal combustion 

engines. 

Gasoline cargo tank means a delivery 

tank truck or railcar which is loading or 

unloading gasoline, or which has loaded 

or unloaded gasoline on the 

immediately previous load. 

Gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) 

means any stationary facility which 

dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of 

a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, 

nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine, 

including a nonroad vehicle or nonroad 

engine used solely for competition. 

These facilities include, but are not 

limited to, facilities that dispense 

gasoline into on- and off-road, street, or 

highway motor vehicles, lawn 

equipment, boats, test engines, 

landscaping equipment, generators, 

pumps, and other gasoline-fueled 

engines and equipment. 

Monthly throughput means the total 

volume of gasoline that is loaded into, 

or dispensed from, all gasoline storage 

tanks at each GDF during a month. 

Monthly throughput is calculated by 

summing the volume of gasoline loaded 

into, or dispensed from, all gasoline 

storage tanks at each GDF during the 

current day, plus the total volume of 

gasoline loaded into, or dispensed from, 

all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF 

during the previous 364 days, and then 

dividing that sum by 12. 

Motor vehicle means any selfpropelled vehicle designed for 

transporting persons or property on a 

street or highway. 

Nonroad engine means an internal 

combustion engine (including the fuel 

system) that is not used in a motor 

vehicle or a vehicle used solely for 

competition, or that is not subject to 

standards promulgated under section 

7411 of this title or section 7521 of this 

title. 

Nonroad vehicle means a vehicle that 

is powered by a nonroad engine, and 

that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle 

used solely for competition. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

4184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank means 

a gasoline cargo tank which has 

demonstrated within the 12 preceding 

months that it meets the annual 

certification test requirements in 

§ 63.11092(f) of this part. 

■ 26. Table 1 to subpart CCCCCC of part 

63 is amended by adding a footnote 1, 

and by revising entry 2 to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CCCCCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY CRITERIA AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GASOLINE

DISPENSING FACILITIES WITH MONTHLY THROUGHPUT OF 100,000 GALLONS OF GASOLINE OR MORE 1

If you own or operate . . . Then you must . . . 

*******

2. A new or reconstructed GDF, or any storage tank(s) constructed 

after November 9, 2006, at an existing affected facility subject to 

§ 63.11118.

Equip your gasoline storage tanks with a dual-point vapor balance system, as defined in § 63.11132, and comply with the requirements of 

item 1 in this Table. 

1The management practices specified in this Table are not applicable if you are complying with the requirements in § 63.11118(b)(2), except 

that if you are complying with the requirements in § 63.11118(b)(2)(i)(B), you must operate using management practices at least as stringent as 

those listed in this Table. 

■ 27. Table 2 to Subpart CCCCCC of Part 

63 is amended by revising entry (vi) to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART CCCCCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY CRITERIA AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GASOLINE

CARGO TANKS UNLOADING AT GASOLINE DISPENSING FACILITIES WITH MONTHLY THROUGHPUT OF 100,000 GALLONS OF GASOLINE OR MORE

If you own or operate . . . Then you must . . . 

*******

(vi) The filling of storage tanks at GDF shall be limited to unloading 

from vapor-tight gasoline cargo tanks. Documentation that the cargo 

tank has met the specifications of EPA Method 27 shall be carried 

with the cargo tank, as specified in § 63.11125(c). 

■ 28. Table 3 to Subpart CCCCCC of Part 

63 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising entry 63.5; 

■ b. Removing entry 63.6(e)(1); 

■ c. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

■ d. Revising entry 63.7(e)(1); 

■ e. Revising entry 63.8(c)(1)(i)–(iii); 

■ f. Revising entry 63.8(c)(2)–(8); 

■ g. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv); 

■ h. Adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i), 

63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 

63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v); 

■ i. Revising entry 63.10(d)(5); 

■ j. Revising entry 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii); 

and 

■ k. Revising entry 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART CCCCCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

CCCCCC 

*******

§ 63.5 .................................. Construction/Reconstruction.Applicability; applications; approvals ............................. Yes, except that these notifications are not required 

for facilities subject to 

§ 63.11116. 

* * * * * * * 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ........................ General duty to minimize 

emissions.

Operate to minimize emissions at all times; information 

Administrator will use to determine if operation and 

maintenance requirements were met. 

No. See § 63.11115 for 

general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........................ Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

Owner or operator must correct malfunctions as soon 

as possible. 

No. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) ............................ Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Performance test must be conducted under representative conditions.No, § 63.11120(c) specifies 

conditions for conducting 

performance tests. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4185 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART CCCCCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

CCCCCC 

*******

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i)–(iii) ............... Operation and Maintenance of Continuous 

Monitoring Systems 

(CMS).

Must maintain and operate each CMS as specified in 

§ 63.6(e)(1); must keep parts for routine repairs 

readily available; must develop a written SSM plan 

for CMS, as specified in § 63.6(e)(3).

No. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(8) ................... CMS Requirements ........... Must install to get representative emission or parameter measurements; must verify operational status 

before or at performance test.

No. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... Records related to SSM .... Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................... Records related to SSM .... Recordkeeping of malfunctions ...................................... No. See § 63.11125(d) for 

recordkeeping of (1) occurrence and duration 

and (2) actions taken 

during malfunction. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .................. Maintenance records ......... Recordkeeping of maintenance on air pollution control 

and monitoring equipment.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b) ...........................

(2)(iv) ..................................

Records Related to SSM ... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ......... No. 

§ 63.10(b) ...........................

(2)(v) ...................................

Records Related to SSM ... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ......... No. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ....................... SSM Reports ..................... Contents and submission ............................................... No. See § 63.11126(b) for 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii) ............. Reports .............................. Schedule for reporting excess emissions ...................... No. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) ............ Excess Emissions Reports Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there 

is an excess emissions and parameter monitor 

exceedances (now defined as deviations); provision 

to request semiannual reporting after compliance for 

1 year; submit report by 30th day following end of 

quarter or calendar half; if there has not been an exceedance or excess emissions (now defined as deviations), report contents in a statement that there 

have been no deviations; must submit report containing all of the information in §§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) and 

63.10(c)(5)–(13).

No. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–906 Filed 1–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2