April 17, 2014 – Public Workshop Comments

Question #1: How many 250 gallon tanks can you have at one facility?

Response #1: The maximum per facility would be evaluated on a case by case basis to prevent 

purposeful circumvention of the District’s rules.

Question #2: How much does testing cost?

Response #2: About $600.

Question #3: Do you have a list of certified testers?

Response #3: The District has a list of certified testers in the area.

Question #4: Is the list of certified testers available online?

Response #4: Not at this time. Inquire at the District.

Question #5: What happens if there are no records of the installation date?

Response #5: If there are no records of the date the tank was installed, or other agencies that 

can verify installation such as CUPA, then the installation date would be determined on a case 

by case basis using any available means to determine whether the tank was installed prior to 

June 1991.

April 18, 2014 – ARB Comments:

No Comment Letter

May 14, 2014 – EPA Comments:

Comment #1: Rule 3.8 - There is no vapor recovery percentage requirement in section D.2.a as 

there was in the previous rule section b.1. Instead, it is replaced with a reference to CARB's 

Phase I Enhanced Vapor Recovery system. We understand FRAQMD is proposing this change 

out of concern that CARB may change its program. However, this proposed revision to Rule 3.8 

would undermine federal enforceability since CARB's program is not in the SIP. One way to 

address both our objectives would be to revise this provision to read, "The gasoline storage tank 

is equipped with a CARB certified Phase I Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) system that shall 

prevent emission to the atmosphere of at least 95%, by volume, of the gasoline vapors 
displaced from the storage container during the transfer of gasoline into the container." This 

language allows the rule to continue to require that tanks be equipped with CARB certified EVR 

systems, even if they become more stringent than the 95% vapor recovery rate. 

Response #1: The District has incorporated the suggested changes.

Comment #2: Rule 3.8 - Section D.7.a should be revised to specify that gaskets are not 

missing, damaged, or loose and Section D.7.c.1 should include language regarding the spill 

containment drain valve, as in Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

(SMAQMD) Rule 448 section 306.1. 

Response #2: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #3: Rule 3.8 - FRAQMD should consider revising section D.7 to specify how 

equipment defects should be handled. This should include tagouts and removal as in SMAQMD 

Rule 448 Section 306.2 and Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.22, Section 402. 

Response #3: The District considered the suggested change, but decided not to include it as 

the defect protocol is already contained in California Health and Safety Code, Section 41960.2.

Comment #4: Rule 3.9 - Section D.4.b requires that the vapor recovery system be maintained 

in a gas-tight condition, but the rule does not define gas-tight. We recommend FRAQMD use 

the term "vapor tight" to stay consistent with Rule 3.8 and add the term "vapor tight" and its 

definition to Rule 3.9.

Response #4: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

May 30, 2014 – ARB Comments:

Please note that these comments were not included in the Board Package as they were 

received by the District after the 30 day comment period was closed.

Comment #1: Rule 3.8 - General: Several provisions of the proposed rule would be inconsistent 

with a Regulatory Advisory about vapor recovery requirements for aboveground storage tanks 

(AST) that was issued by the Air Resources Board (ARB) on February 28, 2014. ARB staff 

intends to present proposed regulatory amendments to the Board in November 2014 that would 

essentially codify the provisions set forth in that February 2014 Regulatory Advisory. Once this 
anticipated rulemaking process is completed, Rule 3.8 would be inconsistent with state 

regulations. 

In light of the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory related to AST vapor recovery systems, and 

the proposed regulatory amendments that are expected to be considered by the Board later this 

year, ARB staff suggests that district either:

a) Delay taking action on Rule 3.8 until the Board has taken action on the regulatory 

proposal that is expected to be presented for their consideration in November 2014, or

b) Amend the proposed Rule 3.8 to be consistent with the February 2014 Regulatory 

Advisory.

ARB staff has analyzed the AST population in Feather River Air Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) and determined that harmonizing the proposed rule with the February 2014 

Regulatory Advisory would only affect two of the 59 total AST facilities in the district.

Areas where the proposed rule is inconsistent with the Regulatory Advisory are identified in 

specific comments below:

Response #1: The District is specifically amending Rule 3.8 to be consistent with EPA’s 1975 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Gasoline Service Stations. The District is required to 

make this change to meet its obligations to EPA under the Ozone RACT SIP. The District is 

specifically not amending Rule 3.8 to comply with ARB’s rule changes which are actively under 

development. The District may consider changes once ARB has completed the full rule adoption 

process. Furthermore, the District strongly feels it is inappropriate to amend a District rule to 

comply with an ARB staff issued advisory that did not undergo the full public rule development 

process. 

Comment #2: Rule 3.8 - Section (B.2.a): Rule 3.8 includes an exemption from Phase I vapor 

recovery for any AST installed prior to 1991, whereas the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory 

does not provide exemptions for tanks based on their installation date. ARB staff sees no 

technical reason why a Phase I vapor recovery system would not work properly on a tank 

installed before 1991. Staff notes that some of these tanks would likely be exempt from 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) upgrades under Executive Order G-70-216 since they 

wouldn’t have enough tank top openings to accommodate an approved Phase I EVR system. 

However, such tanks should still be fitted with pre-EVR Phase I systems. 

Response #2: Please see Response #1. In addition, while technically feasible, and perhaps 

desirable, the District is not aware of any law or regulation that mandates existing small nonretail tanks to be retrofitted with Phase I hardware. 

Comment #3: Rule 3.8 - Section (B.2.b): This section exempts any tank with gasoline 

throughput of less than 10,000 gallons per month from installing any Phase I system. To be 

consistent with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory the proposed 10,000 gallons per month 

exemption criteria should be changed to 5,000 gallons per month. In addition, tanks with 

monthly throughputs below 5,000 gallons should be required to maintain their currently installed 

pre-EVR Phase I systems.
Response #3: Please see Response #1. This comment is in error. Phase I hardware would be 

required for any new or replacement aboveground tanks installed at non-retail sites in the 

District. However, existing non-retail tanks installed prior to June 1991 would not be required to 

upgrade until they exceeded the throughput limits in the rule. 

Comment #4: Rule 3.8 - Section (B.3): This section includes an exemption from Phase I EVR 

for non-retail facilities. No such exemption is included in the February 2014 Regulatory

Advisory. This exemption should be removed from the proposed rule in order to be consistent 

with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory. Further, ARB staff notes that the emissions 

reductions associated with upgrading to a Phase I EVR system are equally important and costeffective regardless of whether the tank is used for retail or non-retail fueling.

Response #4: Please see Response #1. Additionally, the District is not aware of the legal 

authority by which ARB can regulate non-retail gasoline tanks. These tanks are clearly not 

subject to CCR Title 17, Section 93101 (Benzene ATCM for Retail Service Stations). While the 

District is clearly obligated to enforce ATCMs adopted by the State Board, the District is not 

aware of any legal requirement that mandates that the District enforce a “Regulatory Advisory” 

issued by ARB staff. 

Comment #5: Rule 3.8 - Section (F.2): As written this section implies that equivalent test 

procedures other those specified by Executive Order may be approved by the APCO and EPA. 

State law (Section 41954(h) of the Health and Safety Code) prohibits districts from requiring 

gasoline vapor recovery test procedures other than those adopted by ARB or those have been 

deemed by ARB to be equivalent to the adopted test procedures. 

Response #5: This comment is in error. The section in the proposed rule does not state or 

imply that the APCO may approve equivalent test procedures. The section does clearly state 

that EPA may approve different test methods, which the District believes is appropriate, given 

EPA’s national jurisdiction, oversight authority over the state air program, and adopted 

NESHAPs relating to gasoline storage. 

Comment #6: Rule 3.9 - Section (D.5): This section requires that any transfer of gasoline into 

delivery vessels at loading facilities shall control at least 90 percent of displaced gasoline vapor. 

Such loading facilities are typically bulk plants or terminals. Any gasoline vapor recovery 

systems installed at bulk plants or terminals must certified by ARB as provided by ARB 

regulations for bulk plants and terminals (Section 94012 or 94013, Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations). Once ARB certified the bulk plant or terminal vapor recovery system, the district 

is responsible for ensuring on going compliance. ARB would need to conduct recertification test 

when the vapor recovery system is modified or when bulk plant or terminal throughput is 

increased.

Response #6: Comment noted. The District is aware of the ARB certification procedures for 

bulk plants and terminals.