### Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., 

## Chairman Toby Baker, 

## Commissioner Zak Covar, 

## Commissioner RichardA Hyde, P.E., 

## ExecutiveDirector 

# 14 NOV**I~** 

# PH G: 03 

# TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIIT Protecting Texas by

## Reducing andPreventingPollution



## November 12, 2014

Ron Curry RegionalAdministrator U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency· Region 6 1445 

## RossAvenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

## Dear Mr. Curry: DocketNo. 2013·1392-RUL RuleProjectNo. 2013·022·11S·AI

On September 10, 2014, 

## theTexas CommissiononEnvironmental Quality (Commission) adopted revisions tothe StateImplementation Plan (SIP). The Commission adoptedamended Sections 115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 

## and 115.229 

## of30 

## TexasAdministrative Code Chapter 115, Controlof

## Air Pollution fromVolatile Organic Compounds andcorresponding revisions tothe stateimplementationplan. The amendments preserve existing Stage 1testing requirements inozone nonattainmentcounties and specifyStage I testing requirements for gasoline dispensingfacilities located inthe 12 

## ozone nonattainmentandfour

· ozone maintenance counties thatwillbe affected bythedecommissioningofthe StageIIvapor

recoveryequipmentrule revision andinthe 95 

## countiesthat ar.e subjecttothe state Stage I rulebut notStage II requirements. The adopted revisions 

# also establish testing requirementsthatare more consistentwith federal Stage I testingin 40 

## Code ofFederal Regulations Part63, SubpartCCCCCC. Enclosed aretheproposedrevisions to theSIP, a public hearing certification, a completerecordofthe public hearings, andtheaccompanying order. I lookforward toyour expeditious approval ofthese SIP revisions. Sincerely,

## ~ 

# ' \ w·"**~'-'"'-** .Shaw, Ph.D., P.E. Chairman
BWS/ts Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, GovernorofTexas Mr. Nate Hickman, Office ofBudget, Planning and Policy, Office ofthe Governor Mr. RichardA. 

## Hyde, P.E., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711·3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov 

### How is 

### ourcustomerservice? 

### tceq.texas.gov jcustomersurvey

# TEXAS CoMMISSION oN ENVIRONMENTAL QuALITY



## THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OFTRAVIS DocketNo. 2013-1392-RUL Rule ProjectNo. 2013-022-115-AI

This is to certifythatthe attachedelectronic file is included andthatthe electronicfile is a
true andcorrect copy ofdocuments for a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, adopted on September 10, 2014, 

## pursuantto 40 

## Code ofFederal Regulations§ 51.104. 

## I am the records administrator for theAir Quality Division ofthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission).

# ~ DaviBi"Yffier, Director Air QualityDivision Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality

### Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearings April 29, 2014 and May 1 and 6, 2014 Concerning Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds Stage I Testing Requirements Rule Revision Project No. 2013-022-115-AI

### INTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) scheduled public hearings in
Fort Worth on April 29, 2014; in Austin on May 1, 2014; and in Houston on May 6, 2014, to
receive testimony regarding 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, §§115.1 0, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224-115.227, and 115.229, and corresponding
revisions to the state implementation plan.

The rulemaking revises Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2, concerning the requirements for Stage I vapor recovery testing. The rulemaking specifies Stage I requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the 12 ozone nonattainment and four ozone maintenance
counties that will be affected by the decommissioning ofthe Stage II vapor recovery equipment
rule revision and in the 95 counties that are subject to the state Stage I rule but not Stage II requirements. The proposed Stage I rule revision establishes testing requirements that are

more consistent with federal Stage I testing requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC.

The comment period closed on May 12, 2014. All testimony and comments have been
reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearings and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations/Order

### Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park
35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, please contact Sarah Thomas at (512)
239-4939.

# NOTICE 

# & PROPOSAL

### PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication of notice of public hearings in the following newspapers on the date listed:
Austin American-Statesman: 

### March 28, 2014 Fort Worth Star-Telegram: 

### March 28, 2014 Houston Chronicle: 

### March 28, 2014

2. Publication of the proposed rules in the April 11, 2014, issue of the Texas Register

### (39 TexReg 2760).

3. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in the April 11, 2014, issue of the Texas Register

### (39 TexReg 2983).

4. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies: Speaker ofthe House
Lieutenant Governor
Alamo Area Council of Governments Capital Area Planning Council City ofAustin, Mayor's Office City of Dallas, Department of Environmental Quality City of Dallas, Department of Aviation City of El Paso, Environmental Services City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services



## •

### East Texas Council of Governments
El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal Highway Administration
Galveston County Health District
Harris County Judge
Harris County Pollution Control Services Department
Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services
Houston-Galveston Area Council
North Central Texas Council of Governments
South East Texas Regional Planning Commission
Texas Department ofTransportation
Travis County Judge
Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
New Mexico Environmental Department
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
United States Environmental Protection Agency

## Example of Newspaper Classified Ad
Austin American-Statesman, 

### March 28, 2014

NOTICE OF PUBLIC-HEARINGS ON

. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 1l5 AND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive**t~s.timony** regarding proposed re- VISions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (T AC) Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224 -115.227, and 115.229, and corresponding revisions to the state Implemen- tation plan (SIP) under the re· quirements of Texas Health and Safety

. Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. The proposed rulemaklng would

revise Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2, concerning the re- quirements for Stage 1 vapor recovery testing. The proposed rulemaking would specify Stage I testing requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the 12 ozone nonattainment and 4 

### ozone maintenan-ce counties that will be affected by the decommissioning of the Stage 11 vapor recovery equipment rule revision and in the 95 counties that are subJect to the state Stage I rule but not Stage II requirements. The proposed Stage I rule revision would establish testing**requir~ments** that are more consistent with federal Stage I testing requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The commission will hold public heariligs on this proposal In Austin at 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2014, at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Suilding E, Room 2015; in Fort Worth at 2:00 p.m. on April 29, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road; and in Houston at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 1Z Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 Polk Street. The hearings are structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearing; however, commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Persons who have special commu- nication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services at (512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Written comments may be submit· ted to Michael Parrish, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 7'8711·3087, or faxed to (512) 2.39-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ ecomments/. File size restrictions may apply to**comm~nts** being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should ref· erence Rule Project Number 2013· 022·115-AI. The comment period closes May 12, 2014. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can. be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/**nav/rules/propo~e_adopt.html.** For further Information, please contact Sarah Davis, Air Quality Planning Section, (512) 239-4939.tions may apply to co ments being submitted via the eComments system. All comme s should reference Rule Project Number 2014-010-116-AI. The c mment period closes May 12, 2014. Copies ofthe proposed rulem ing can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www. ceq.texas.gov/nav/ruleslpropose_adopt.html. For further information, lease contact Brian Sierant, Office ofWater, (512) 239-1375. TRD-201401401 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental aw Division Texas Commission on E vironmental Quality Filed: March 28, 2014 

# • • • Notice ofPublic Hea ng on Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative ode Chapter 114 and to the State Implementation Plan The Texas Commission n Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct a public hearin to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 Texas Ad nistrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114, Control ofAir Pollution from M tor Vehicles, amended §§114.301, 114.306, 114.307, 114.309, andre ealed §114.304, and corresponding revisions to the state implementati n plan (SIP) underthe requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, 382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; an 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.102 of the United States Enviro ental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. The proposed rulemaki g would remove the prohibition on the increased use of methyl tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) in gasoline to conform to the low Reid apor pressure (RVP) gasoline requirements; remove the registration requirements for gasoline producers and importers that supply I RVP gasoline to the affected counties; remove the annual repo ing and certification requirements on the use ofMTBE in low R gasoline; and make other non-substantive clarifying changes as ne ded for accuracy and consistency between Chapter 114 and the El Paso Low RVP Gasoline requirements in Chapter 15. The commission will hol a public hearing on this proposal in Austin on May 8, 2014, at 10:00 .m. in Building E, Room 201S, at the commission's central office 1 ated at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing is structured for the recei t oforal or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration. Ope discussion will not be permitted during the hearing; however, comm· sion staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposal 30 min tes prior to the hearing. Persons who have speci 1 communication or other accommodation needs who are planning o attend the hearing should contact Sandy Wong, Office ofLegalS ices, at (512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advanc as possible. Written comments may be submitted to Bruce McAnally, MC 205, Office of Legal rvices, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. B x 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808 Electronic comments may be submitted at: http://www5.tceq.tex s.govlruleslecomments/. File size restrictions may apply to com ents being submitted via the eComments system. All comment should reference Rule Project Number 2014-002-114-Al. The co ment period closes May 12, 2014. Copies of the proposed rulemak· g can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.t eq.texas.govlnavlruleslpropose_adopt.html. For further infor ation, please contact Morris Brown, Air Quality Division, (512) 23 -1438. TRD-201401370 Robert Martinez Director, Environm ntal Law Division Texas Commissio on Environmental Quality Filed: March 28, 14 

# • • • Notice ofPublic Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229, and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, §382.0 17; Texas Govemment Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. The proposed rulemaking would revise Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2, conceming the requirements for Stage I vapor recovery testing. The proposed rulemaking would specifY Stage I testing requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the 12 ozone nonattainment and 4 ozone maintenance counties that will be affected by the decommissioning ofthe Stage II vapor recovery equipment rule revision and in the 95 counties that are subject to the state Stage I rule but not Stage II requirements. The proposed Stage Irule revision would establish testing requirements that are more consistent with federal Stage I testing requirements in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The commission will hold public hearings on this proposal in Austin at 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2014, at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201S; in Fort Worth at 2:00p.m. on April 29, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road; and in Houston at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 Polk Street. The hearings are structured for the receipt oforal or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration. Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearing; however, commission staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact Sandy Wong, Office ofLegal Services, at (512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Written comments may be submitted to Michael Parrish, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/ruleslecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-Al. The comment period closes May 12,2014. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/ruleslpropose_adopt.html. For further information, please contact Sarah Davis, Air Quality Planning Section, (512) 239-4939.



## INADDITION Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2983TRD-201401398 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Filed: March 28, 2014 

# • 

# • Notice ofWater Quality Ap ications 

# •

The following notices were issu don March 21, 2014 through March 28, 2014. The following require the appli ants to publish notice in a newspaper. Public comments, requests for blic meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing may be sub itted to the Office ofthe ChiefClerk, Mail Code 105, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30DAYS OFTHEDATEOFN WSPAPERPUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE. INFORMATION SECTION LUMINANT GENERATION OMPANY LLC which operates the Lake Creek Steam Electric S tion, has applied for a renewal of Texas Pollutant Discharge Eli ination System (TPDES) Permit No. WQ0000954000, which autho izes the discharge of once-through cooling water and previously monitored effluents (cooling tower blowdown, low volume wastes, and metal cleaning wastes) at a daily average flow not to exceed 29 ,000,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001; low volume wastes and stormwater runoff from yard drains and diked oil storage areas on flow-variable basis via Outfall 002; and low volume wastes from ater treatment via Outfall 003 on an intermittent and flow-variable asis. The facility is located at 4278 West Lake Creek Road, on the est shore ofLake Creek Lake along Farm-to-Market Road 1860, a proximately four miles southwest of the City ofRiesel, McLennan unty, Texas 76682. MARC ROGER MEEKER has applied for a renewal ofTPDES PermitNo. WQOO 1360I001 which authorizes the discharge oftreated domestic wastewater at a daily av rage flow not to exceed 8,500 gallons per day. The facility is located o Highway 75, approximately 0.7 mile north ofthe intersectionofHigh ay 75 and ShepardHill Road inMontgomery County, Texas 77378. BELL COUNTY WATER ONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO 1 has applied or a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0010351001 which autho izes the discharge of treated filter backwash effluent from a wat r treatment plant at a daily average flow not to exceed 900,000 ga Ions per day. The facility is located at 5200 Water Works Drive, elton, in Bell County, Texas, three miles west-northwest ofLake elton Dam, north ofFarm-to-Market Road 439 and approximately o e mile north ofWestcliffPark in Bell County, Texas 76543. TOSHIBA INTERNATIONA CORPORATION, which operates Toshiba International, a facili which manufactures electric motors, inverters, and other electrical roducts, has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ00031 3000, which authorizes the discharge oftreated sanitary wastewater nd parts washwater at a daily average flow not to exceed 50,000 gall ns per day via Outfall 001, and recirculated non-contact cooling w er and once-through cooling water at a daily average flow not to exc ed 50,000 gallons per day via Outfall 002. The facility is located at 1 131 West Little York Road, Houston, Harris County, Texas 77041. DUBLIN LIVESTOCK AUC ION LLC has applied for a Major Amendment of TPDES Permit No. WQ0004136000, for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operati n (CAFO), to authorize the applicant to expand an existing Livesto Auction Barn from 1,800 head to a



## 39 TexReg 2984 Aprilll, 2014 ,Texas Register maximum capacity of2,000 head, rec nfigure land management unit (LMU) to remove former LMU #2, a d open lots and remove three wells. The facility is located on the uth side of State Highway 6 approximately four and two tenths (4. miles east ofthe intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 219 and Stat Highway 6 in Erath County, Texas

. K 3 RESOURCES LP has applied for renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQ0004446000, which authorizes t land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use on 45.51 acres This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters n the State. The sludge land application site is located approximat ly 0.9 mile south ofthe intersection of State Highway 362, and St te Highway 529, on the west side ofState Highway 362 in Waller C unty, Texas 77423. K 3 RESOURCES LP has applied for renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQ0004447000, which authorizes t land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use. The curr t permit authorizes land application of sewage sludge for benefi ial use on 89.78 acres. This permit will not authorize a discharge f pollutants into waters in the State. The sludge land application s te is located at the west side of Farm-to-Market Road 362, approx ately 1.3 miles south of the intersection ofFarm-to-Market Road 62 and Farm-to-Market Road 529, in Waller County, Texas 77423. K 3 RESOURCES has applied for a enewal of TCEQ Permit No. WQ0004448000, which authorizes t land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use. The current ermit authorizes land application of sewage sludge for beneficial u e on 73.83 acres. This permit will not authorize a discharge ofpoll tants into waters in the State. The sewage sludge land application s te is located on the west side ofAdams Flat Road, approximately 0 7 mile south-southwest ofthe intersection of Adams Flat Road and Farm-to-Market Road 359, in Waller County, Texas 77423. CITY OF ASPERMONT has applied or a renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQOO!Ol41001, which authorize the disposal oftreated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 150,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of46 acr s ofnon-public access pastureland. This permit will not authorize a ischarge ofpollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater trea ment facility and disposal site are located approximately 0.75 mile w st ofthe intersection ofVivian Avenue and North Second Street, no h ofthe City ofAspermont in Stonewall County, Texas 79502. CITY OF TAHOKA has applied for renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQ0010298002, which authorizes t disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow no to exceed 360,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of209 acres non-public access agricultural land. This permit will not authorize a ischarge ofpollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater treat ent facility is located approximately two miles south ofHighway 38 and 0.25 mile east ofHighway 87. The effluent disposal site is locate approximately 1,200 feet south ofthe plant site, between Highway 8 and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, approximately 2.23 miles south ofHighway 380 in Lynn County, Texas 79373. CITY OF ABERNATHY has applied or a renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQ0010774001 which authorize the disposal oftreated domestic wastewater at a daily average flo not to exceed 380,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 180 cres ofnon-public access agriculturalland. This permit will not aut orize a discharge ofpollutants into waters in the State. The wastewat treatment facility and disposal site are located approximately 1.5 mil s north and 0.2 mile east ofthe intersection oflnterstate Highway 27 nd Farm-to-Market Road 2060 in Hale County, Texas 79311.

### Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., 

### Chairman Toby Baker, 

### Commissioner Zak Covar, 

### Commissioner RichardA. 

### Hyde, P.E., 

### ExecutiveDirector



## TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas 

### byReducing andPreventing Pollution



## NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30TAC CHAPTER usAND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conductpublic hearings to receive testimonyregarding proposedrevisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter) Chapter us, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Sections us.1o, us.221, us.222, us.224- us.227, and us.229, and corresponding revisions tothe state implementationplan (SIP) underthe requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and40 Code ofFederal Regulations §Sl.102 ofthe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) concerning SIPs.
The proposedrulemaking would revise Chapter us, Subchapter C, Division 2, concerning the requirements for Stage I vapor recoverytesting. The proposed rulemaking would specify Stage I testing requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located inthe 12 ozone nonattainment and4 ozone maintenance counties that will be affectedbythe decommissioning ofthe Stage II vapor recovery equipmentrule revision andinthe 9S counties that are subjecttothe state Stage I rule but not Stage II requirements. The proposed Stage I rule revision would establish testing requirements that are more consistentwithfederal Stage I testing requirements in40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The commission will holdpublichearings onthis proposal inAustin at 2:00 P.M. on May 1, 2014, atthe commission's central office located at 12100 Park 3S Circle, Building E, Room 201S; in FortWorth at 2:00P.M. onApril29, 2014, atthe TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road; and in Houston at 2:00P.M. on May 6, 2014, atthe TCEQ Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, S42S Polk Street. The hearings are structuredfor the receipt oforal orwritten commentsbyinterestedpersons. Individuals maypresent oral statements when calledupon in order ofregistration. Open discussion will notbepermittedduring the hearing; however, commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes priortothe hearing.
Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planningto attendthe hearings should contact SandyWong, Office ofLegal Services at (S12) 239-1802. Requests shouldbe made as far in advance as possible.
Written comments maybe submittedto Michael Parrish, MC 20S, Office ofLegal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 787U-3087, orfaxed to (S12) 239-4808. Electronic comments maybe submitted at: P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov How is ourcustomer service? tceq.texas.govfgoto/customersurvey printed on recycled paper

# http:jjwwws.tceq.texas.govjrulesjecommentsj. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submittedvia the 

# eComments system. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-AI. The commentperiod closes May 12, 2014. Copies oftheproposedrulemaking canbe obtained from the commission's Web site at 

# http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjnavjrulesjpropose_adopt.html. Forfurther information, please contact Sarah Davis, Air Quality Planning Section, 512-239-4939.

## CHAPTER 115. CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) proposes amendments to §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224-115.227, and 115.229. If adopted, the commission will submit the amendments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP). Background and Summary ofthe Factual Basis for the Proposed Rules Stage I vapor recovery for filling of gasoline storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) is a reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement for ozone nonattainment areas required under §182 of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the Control Techniques Guideline documents for RACT issued by the EPA. The commission's Stage I rules are included in Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2, Filling of Gasoline Storage Vessels (Stage I) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities. In addition to fulfilling FCAA RACT requirements for nonattainment areas, the commission adopted rule revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage I rules in 1999 implementing the Stage I vapor recovery option ofthe Texas Clean Air Strategy (TCAS) for certain ozone attainment counties. The revisions were one element ofthe new TCAS, which included a variety of options that affected areas could implement to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground level ozone. The purpose ofthe strategy was to reduce overall background levels of ozone in order to assist in keeping ozone attainment areas and near-nonattainment areas in compliance with the federal ozone standards. It was also to help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainment with the ozone NAAQS. The effectiveness of Stage I vapor recovery rules relies on the captured vapors being: 1) effectively contained within the gasoline tank truck during transit; and 2) controlled when the transport vessel is refilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulk plant. Otherwise, the emissions captured at the GDF will simply be emitted at a location other than the gasoline station resulting in no reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) despite the Stage I requirements. The Stage I vapor recovery rules apply to GDFs that have installed Stage II vapor recovery equipment in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties), and Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties). The Beaumont-Port Arthur (Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties), and El Paso county, which is under an ozone nonattainment maintenance plan as part of the 1997 ozone standard are also subject to the Stage I vapor recovery requirements. These rules regulate the filling of gasoline storage tanks at GDFs by tank trucks. To comply with Stage I requirements, a vapor balance system is typically used to capture the vapors from the gasoline storage tanks that would otherwise be displaced to the atmosphere as these tanks are filled with gasoline. The captured vapors are routed to the gasoline tank truck, and the vapors are processed by a vapor control system when the tank truck is subsequently refilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulk plant.



## 39 TexReg 2760 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register Initially, the 1999 amendments to Chapter 115 extended the existing Chapter 115 Stage I vapor recovery and gasoline tank truck leak testing requirements to 95 counties in the eastern half of Texas. These counties included: Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, Mclennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, and Wood. Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties were subsequently designated nonattainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2004, and the Stage I rules were revised to include these counties under the ozone nonattainment area requirements through rulemaking adopted on April 13, 2005. Wise County in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been designated as nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. The executive director has approved a rulemaking project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) that will address applicable RACT requirements, including Stage I requirements, for Wise County that are necessary as a result of the designation. These rules will be proposed at a date determined by the rulemaking project schedule. In 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking (published in the May 16, 2012, issue of the Federal Register(77 FR 28772)) for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, determining that vehicle on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology is in widespread use for the purposes ofcontrolling motorvehicle refueling emissions throughout the motorvehicle fleet. As a result, on October 9, 2013, the commission adopted revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage II rules (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project Number 2013-002-SIPNR) authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs no later than August 31, 2018, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious and above. During the development of these two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-101 and TXP-102, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I petroleum storage tanks' (PST) vapor recovery system. With the decommissioning ofStage II vapor recovery controls, therequirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no longer apply. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties from the Stage II rules, the commission is proposing revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. Research was done on the Stage I testing requirements that facilities in ozone nonattainment areas would have to comply with once Stage II vapor recovery equipment has been decommissioned. The commission determined that additional revisions related to testing requirements were necessary to improve clarity and consistency in compliance and program administration for the affected industry and the agency. The proposed revisions would improve the consistency of required equipment and testing for owners ofGDFs in areas that currently have different requirements. These proposed revisions wouldeliminate confusion concerning testing requirements within the industry by improving consistency between the state Stage I rules in Chapter 115 and federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Stage I rules. The commission incorporated the NESHAP Stage I rules by reference in 30 TAC §113.1380 on July 26, 2013. The federal Stage I rules require GDFs that have a monthly throughput at or above 100,000 gallons to operate a vapor balance system to capture and return vapors to the tank-truck tank so the vapors can be disposed of properly. GDFs subject to the federal Stage I rule must also meet certain testing and recordkeeping requirements. The commission also held informal stakeholder meetings on potential revisions to the Stage I testing requirements on April 24, 2013, in Arlington, April 25, 2013, in Longview, April 29, 2013, in Corpus Christi, April 30, 2013, in Houston, May 1, 2013, in Austin, and May 2, 2013, in El Paso. Commenters present agreed that Stage I testing requirements needed to be uniform across the affected East Texas areas in the state and that federally required testing procedures and methods were generally accepted by the industry. Commenters also agreed that testing of Stage I equipment should be performed more frequently than once every three years to better detect potential issues with the system and improve compliance with testing requirements. Counties in West Texas would continue to comply with federal requirements and would not be affected by this rulemaking. The commission proposes these revisions to Chapter 115 to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located in the 16 counties (Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller Counties) that will be affected by the Stage II decommissioning rule revision, preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in the currently affected 95 counties, and establish testing requirements in Chapter 115 that are more consistent with the federal Stage I rule for all 254 counties. Compliance with Stage I vapor recovery rules is dependent on the geographical location of the GDF within the state. GDFs within counties located in the eastern part ofthe state must comply with state requirements found in Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. The federal Stage I rule in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC applies to all 254 counties; therefore, GDFs located within any county not covered by the state Stage I requirements are covered under the federal Stage I requirements. The gallons of gasoline dispensed per month and the county where the GDF is located determines if the owner or operator of a GDF is required to install Stage I equipment and subject to either the state or federal Stage I regulations. Owners of GDFs with multiple locations throughout the state with similar monthly gasoline throughput amounts could be subject to different equipment and testing requirements depending on their geographical location. Additionally, owners or operators of GDFs that have implemented Stage II in the 16 affected counties are required to complete the TXP-101 and the TXP-102 test procedures at the time of installation of Stage II vapor recovery equipment and at least once a year thereafter. This testing requirement will no longer be applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs at the GDF, which may result in decreased effectiveness of the Stage I equipment installed at these facilities. The owners or operators of GDFs in the remaining 90 counties in the eastern half of Texas and identified under the term covered attainment counties that fall under the state Stage I rule are only required to inspect for liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transport vessel to the PST. All GDFs in the state subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC must comply with the federal Stage I testing requirements and are required to perform the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Vapor Recovery Test Procedures TP-201.3 and TP-201.1 E. These CARB testing requirements are similar to the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1 E test is more stringent than the TXP-1 02 test because the CARB TP-201.1 E test requires testing the pressure and vacuum thresholds of the pressure-vacuum relief valve while the TXP-102 only requires testing the pressure threshold of the pressure-vacuum relief valve. Additionally, the proposed revisions would reduce the throughput level for exemption from Stage I implementation from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month for GDFs in the 90 covered attainment counties, except for those covered attainment counties in the Austin/San Antonio area (Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Coma!, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis, Williamson, and Wilson) that currently have an applicability threshold of 25,000 gallons per month. This proposed change would establish consistency with the NESHAP requirements and provide owners and operators of GDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment and testing requirements. The lowering of the throughput level is not anticipated to affect owners and operators of GDFs in the covered attainment counties because these facilities have already been subject to NESHAP requirements, which were incorporated by reference by the commission on July 26, 2013, or as is the case for those counties in the Austin/San Antonio area, are already subject to a state-required lower throughput. Section by Section Discussion In addition to the proposed revisions regarding testing and other Stage I requirements discussed elsewhere in this preamble, various stylistic, non-substantive changes are included to update the rule language to current Texas Register style and format requirements. Such changes include appropriate and consistent use of acronyms, section references, rule structure, and certain terminology. These minor revisions include updating the formatting of geographic area terms used in the rules to be consistent with the formatting of the terms as defined in §115.10 (e.g., Beaumont-Port Arthur in lieu of Beaumont/Port Arthur). These changes are non-substantive and generally are not specifically discussed in this preamble. Additionally, the commission proposes to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" in multiple portions ofthe Stage I rules with a new defined term "gasoline dispensing facility" for clarity and consistency with the terminology found in requirements for the Chapter 115 Stage II rules. 

### §115. 10, Definitions The commission proposes revisions to §115.10 by adding the definitions for "Dual-point vapor balance system," "Coaxial system," and "Gasoline dispensing facility." The term "Dual-point vapor balance system" would be incorporated from 40 CFR §63. 11132 to describe a type of system that should be installed at a facility. A dual-point vapor balance system allows for separate connections for the loading of gasoline and the transfer of gasoline vapors to a tank-truck tank. The term "Coaxial system" would be added to describe a type of vapor control system consisting of a tube within a tube that requires only one tank opening allowing fuel to flow through the inner tube while vapors are displaced through the annular space between the



## PROPOSED 

## RULES Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2761inner and outer tubes. This type of system is often found at GDFs. The term "Gasoline dispensing facility" would be added to replace the term "Motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" used in the Stage I rules for consistency with recent revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage II rules and defined for clarification. The definition for "Pressure relief valve" would be updated to also apply to "Pressure-vacuum relief valves" to keep the wording within the rule consistent and with the general use ofthe term to cover relief valves by the industry. The other definitions in this section would be re-numbered as needed. §115.221, Emission Specifications As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to §115.221 to update the formatting of the geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. §115.222, Control Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to §115.222 to update the formatting of the geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. The proposed revisions to §115.222 would also delete the language allowing facilities with a Stage II vapor recovery system to establish a pressure rate atwhich a pressure-vacuum reliefvalve is set that meets GARB requirements or has a third-party certification because the Stage II requirements will no longer be required due to the commission's adoption ofthe decommissioning of Stage II equipment. The proposed language would incorporate the use of "Dual-point vapor balance system" as defined in §115.10 and would remove the language for non-coaxial Stage I connections. Dual-point vapor balance systems are more effective than single-point coaxial systems in controlling vapors during the loading of gasoline because two separate hoses for loading the fuel and recovering fuel vapors are connected to the delivery truck and storage tank which allow less back pressure and higherflow rates. Dual-pointvapor balance systems are the only non-coaxial Stage I connection used in Texas and have been required at all applicable facilities since January 10, 2011. Additionally, the information in paragraph (6) would be incorporated into paragraph (5). After removal of the provision regarding Stage II, the requirements for covered attainment counties in paragraph (6) would be identical to the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas under paragraph (5). Therefore, combining the two paragraphs would eliminate redundant rule language. The other paragraphs in this section would be re-numbered as appropriate. §115.224, Inspection Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to§115.224 to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, paragraph (1) would be revised to specify that gasoline transfer must be discontinued immediately when any liquid leak, visible vapor, or significant odor is observed to prevent further potential discharges. This proposed revision would provide additional clarity within the rule language by providing more descriptive terms for the types of potential discharges that would result in a discontinuation ofthe transfer of gasoline. §115.225, Testing Requirements



## 39 TexReg 2762 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register The commission proposes to amend §115.225 to remove the current test procedures and require all affected GDFs to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR §63.11120. All affected GDFs will be required to annually comply with the GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.1 E and TP-201.3, found in 40 CFR §63.11120. Additionally, use ofalternative test methods and procedures shall be allowed in accordance with the alternative test method requirements found in 40 CFR §63.7(f). These proposed revisions would make the testing requirements for affected East Texas facilities under Chapter 115 consistent with the federal Stage I rule except for the annual inspection requirement. This revision would minimize confusion within the industry of which test is required in which area in East Texas, the frequency ofthe tests, and would provide for improved consistency in compliance and enforcement by the commission due to a more defined testing schedule and testing procedures. Owners and operators of GDFs in West Texas would continue to comply with federal requirements and would not be affected by this rulemaking. The GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP-201.1 E would be required for GDFs to demonstrate compliance with the leak rate and cracking pressure requirements for pressure-vacuum vent valves installed on the gasoline tanks at the facility. The GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP-201.3 would be required to demonstrate compliance with the static pressure performance requirement for a vapor balance system by conducting a static pressure test on the gasoline tanks at the facility. Annual testing of Stage I systems would provide additional benefit to the industry by identifying issues sooner and addressing expensive repair costs experienced by systems that are not tested annually where faulty equipment and parts are allowed to operate for longer periods oftime. Affected areas could also benefit by having emissions issues at these facilities addressed earlier resulting in minimal impact to the environment. §115.226, Recordkeeping Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to §115.226 to update the formatting of the geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, the proposed revisions would revise the provision in the introduction of §115.226 that all records must be made available upon request to also specify that the records must be made available at the site during inspection. The recordkeeping requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) include similar language; therefore, this revision does not substantively change the requirements. The proposed revisions to §115.226(2)(B) would also delete the language requiring facilities with Stage II vapor recovery systems to perform Stage I testing because the requirements would no longer be necessary due to the commission's adoption ofthe decommissioning of Stage II equipment as previously discussed in this preamble. The commission proposes to combine subparagraphs (B) and (C) to reflect thatthe recordkeeping requirements would become uniform in the counties listed as the Stage II vapor control requirements are repealed. The requirement to keep the records for gasoline throughput for each calendar month would be updated to clarify that the records shall be kept for the previous 24 months. §115.227, Exemptions As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to §115.227 to update the formatting of the geographic areas listed and replacethe term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. Additionally, the proposed revisions would reorder provisions that cross-reference to §115.222 to reflect the proper order ofthe provisions in that section and update the cross-references to reflect changes to §§115.222, 115.224, and 115.226 proposed in this rulemaking. The proposed revisions to §115.227 would reduce the throughput level for exemption from Stage I vapor control requirements from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month in paragraph (3) to provide GDF owners and operators with clearer applicability requirements and ensure consistency with throughput limits between the state and the federal Stage I requirements. The lowering of the throughput limit in this proposed rulemaking would provide owners and operators with one standard of throughput for both state and federal Stage I requirements in the majority of the covered attainment counties. The proposed revision would also provide the commission with one throughput standard for assessing applicability and compliance of GDFs in the covered attainment counties that currently have an applicability threshold of 125,000 gallons per month under the Chapter 115 rule. The proposed revisions to §115.227 would also update the date in paragraph (3) to October 2, 2014, to reflect the expected effective date ofthis rulemaking. §115.229, Counties and Compliance Schedules As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission proposes minor revisions to §115.229 to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, the commission proposes to update the list of ozone nonattainment counties in subsection (a) using the geographic area terms for the Beaumont-Port Arthur, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas to be consistent with the other sections ofthe Stage I rule. Fiscal Note: Costs to State and Local Government Jeffrey Horvath, Analyst in the Chief Financial Officer Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed rules are in effect, no significant fiscal implications are anticipated for the agency or for other units of state or local government as a result ofthe administration orenforcement ofthe proposed rules. The proposed rules relate to the Stage I vapor recovery requirements for GDF owners and operators which is, in part, necessary to fulfill FCM RACT requirements. The proposed rules would revise the Chapter 115 Stage I rules to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDF owners and operators and the minimum gasoline throughput level for exemption from Stage I requirements. Stage I vapor recovery is a control strategy to capture gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered to a storage tank. The proposed rules would preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in the 21 counties (Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Johnson, Kaufman, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Waller) that are no longer required by the EPA to have Stage II vapor recovery rules. The proposed rules would also establish testing requirements in Chapter 115 that are more consistent with the federal Stage I testing requirements. Because the EPA no longer requires Stage II vapor recovery controls, certain testing requirements for Stage Isystems on affected facilities will no longer apply. The commission is proposing this rulemaking in order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties. In addition, the rules are intended to improve the uniformity of testing requirements for GDF equipment in different areas ofthe state as well as improve the uniformity between the state and federal Stage I rules. The proposed rules would affect the 90 counties in the eastern half of Texas that fall under the current state Stage I rule. The remaining 143 counties in the western half ofTexas are currently subjectto the federal Stage I rules, and the proposed rules would not affect facilities in these counties. There is no anticipated impact on the 21 nonattainment counties in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas. These counties currently have annual testing requirements at a comparable cost to the proposed testing requirements. The proposed rules would require all affected owners and operators of GDFs to comply with the GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures TP-201.1 E and TP-201.3 found in 40 CFR, with the exception that all tests would be required on an annual basis for the eastern counties. These proposed testing requirements would make the testing requirements uniform across the state for all affected facilities except for the fact that the eastern counties would have to conduct their testing on an annual basis and the western counties would maintain the current testing every three years. The annual testing requirements may result in additional costs for facilities in the 90 eastern covered attainment counties, though additional costs are not anticipated to be significant. The proposed rules would reduce the throughput level for exemption from the Stage I requirements from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month in covered attainment counties throughout the state. This proposed change is expected to provide consistency with NESHAP requirements as well as provide owners and operators of GDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment and testing requirements. The lowering of the throughput level is not anticipated to affect owners and operators of GDFs that have already been subject to federal requirements. The 90 covered attainment counties with facilities in East Texas currently are subject to the state Stage I requirements of 125,000gallons per month. The proposed rules would lowerthat throughput level to 100,000 gallons per month and could bring additional GDFs under the Chapter 115 Stage I rules. Owner or operators of GDFs that meet the monthly dispensing requirements must install a vapor balance system that captures vapors from PSTs that would otherwise be displaced to the atmosphere when these tanks are filled with gasoline. The captured vapors are routed back to the transport vessel and processed by a vapor control system when the transport vessel is subsequently refilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulk plant. Agency staff does not expect an increase in the number of GDFs subject to Stage I requirements due to the reduced throughput requirements because most GDFs should be complying with the lowerthroughput limit as required by the NESHAP regulations. Even though the proposed rules would require annual testing at Stage I facilities currently conducting inspections once every three years, the rules are not anticipated to result in a significant increase in workload for agency inspectors. The additional duties would be included in current inspection activities conducted at GDFs. As of December 19, 2013, agency staff estimates that there are currently 5,925 facilities that have active underground storage tanks at GDFs in the 90 eastern covered attainment counties. According to the TCEQ's PST Registration information, approx

## PROPOSED RULES Aprilll, 2014 39 TexReg 2763imately 1,793 governmental entities own or operate facilities included in this amount and may be affected by the rulemaking. It is not known how many state agencies or units of local government may be affected by the proposed rules, but ifthere are any that own or operate GDFs that exceed the proposed throughput levels, they may be required to install a vapor-balance system. This equipment may have an average cost of up to $490 per tank for a total cost of approximately $980 for a station with an average of two tanks. In general, however, agency staff does not expect an increase in the number of GDFs subject to Stage I requirements, as most GDFs are required to meet the lower throughput limit as required by the NESHAP regulations. State agencies or local governmentsthat currently have Stage I attheir GDFs would be affected by the proposed annual testing requirements and would have to perform annual system tests estimated to cost approximately $250 to $275 a year. Public Benefits and Costs Mr. Horvath has also determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed rules are in effect, the public benefit anticipated from the changes seen in the proposed rules would be the continued protection of public health and safety through control of air pollution with anticipated ozone reductions in much of east and central Texas. The proposed rules are not expected to have significant fiscal implications for individuals and businesses during the first five years the proposed rules are implemented. According to agency staff, there are currently 5,925 facilities that have active underground storage tanks at GDFs in the 90 eastern covered attainment counties. It is not known how many businesses may be affected by the proposed rules, but if there are any that own or operate GDFs that exceed the proposed throughput levels, they may be required to install a vapor-balance system that captures vapors from PSTs. This equipment may have an average cost of up to $490 per tank for a total cost of approximately $980 for a station with an average oftwo tanks. In general, however, agency staff does not expect an increase in the number ofGDFs subject to Stage I requirements due to the reduced throughput limit, as most GDFs are required to meet the lower throughput limit required by the NESHAP regulations. Businesses that currently have Stage I at their GDFs would be affected by the proposed annual testing requirements and would have to perform annual system tests estimated to cost approximately $250 to $275 a year. There is no anticipated fiscal impact on the 21 affected counties in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso county, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas. These counties currently have annual testing requirements at a comparable cost to the proposed testing requirements. The proposed rules are not expected to impact the counties of Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis, Williamson, and Wilson because these counties are already subject to Stage I testing requirements if a GDF's throughput is 25,000 gallons or more per month. This throughput requirement is different than the requirements ofother areas in the state and those counties identified as covered attainment counties. Small Business and Micro-Business Assessment No significant adverse fiscal implications are anticipated for small or micro-businesses as a result of the administration or enforcement of the proposed rules. The proposed rules would make the testing requirements uniform across the state for all affected GDFs except for the fact that the eastern counties



## 39 TexReg 2764 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register would have to conduct their testing on an annual basis. The annual testing requirements may result in additional costs for facilities in the 90 eastern covered attainment counties. Small or micro-businesses would have to perform annual system tests estimated to be approximately $250 to $275 a year. It is not known how many affected GDFs are small or micro-businesses. Small or micro-businesses that do not have a throughput level of 100,000 gallons per month would not be affected by the proposed rules. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The commission has reviewed this proposed rulemaking and determined that a small business regulatory flexibility analysis is not required because the proposed rules do not adversely affect a small or micro-business in a significant material way for the first five years thatthe proposed rules are in effect and are necessary for the continued protection of public health and safety through improved control of air pollution in Texas. Local Employment Impact Statement The commission has reviewed this proposed rulemaking and determined that a local employment impact statement is not required because the proposed rules do not adversely affect a local economy in a material way for the first five years that the proposed rules are in effect. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination The commission reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light ofthe regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 and determined thatthe proposed rules do not meet the definition of a major environmental rule as defined in the statute. According to Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, a major environmental rule means "a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector ofthe state." Additionally, the rulemaking does not meet any of the four applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis for a major environmental rule, which are listed in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a). Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 applies only to a major environmental rule, the result of which is to: 1) exceed a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; 2) exceed an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law; 3) exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program; or 4) adopt a rule solely under the general powers of the agency instead of under a specific state law. The proposed rulemaking would amend §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224

- 115.227, and 115.229. The revisions to Chapter 115 would facilitate compliance with agency rules and testing requirements that have changed due to changes to the Stage II vapor recovery program. These changes occurred after the EPA finalized a rulemaking (published in the May 16, 2012, issue of the Federal Register (77 FR 28772)) for 40 CFR Part 51, determining that vehicle ORVR technology is in widespread use for the purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development of these two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-1 01 and TXP-1 02, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the vapor recovery Stage I PSTs. With the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no longer apply. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment and ozone maintenance counties, the commission is proposing revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. The revisions to Chapter 115 would facilitate compliance with these testing requirements by making the requirements consistent across this sector of the industry. As a result, compliance with the rules would be easier and more consistent. The proposed revisions would improve the consistency of required equipment and testing for owners of GDFs in areas that currently have different requirements. These proposed revisions would also eliminate confusion with testing requirements by members of the industry by improving consistency between the state and federal Stage I rules. The proposed rulemaking implements requirements of42 United States Code (USC), §7410, which requires states to adopt a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe NAAQS in each air quality control region ofthe state. While 42 USC, §7410 generally does not require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the standard, the SIP must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions ofemissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter (42 USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control). The ·provisions of the FCAA recognize that states are in the best position to determine what programs and controls are necessary or appropriate in orderto meet the NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected industry, and the public to collaborate on the best methods for attaining the NAAQS for the specific regions in the state. Even though the FCAA allows states to develop their own programs, this flexibility does not relieve a state from developing a program that meets the requirements of42 USC, §7410. States are notfree to ignore the requirements of42 USC, §7410, and must develop programs to assure that their contributions to nonattainment areas are reduced so that these areas can be brought into attainment on schedule. The purpose of this rulemaking is to increase protection of the environment and reduce risk to human health; it is not expected that this proposed rulemaking would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector of the state. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required. This rulemaking would allow the commission to make uniform Stage I testing requirements within the state program areas or between the state and federal program. Currently, owners or operators of GDFs that have implemented Stage II in the 16 participating counties are required to complete the TXP-101 and the TXP-102 test procedures at the time of installation of Stage II vapor recovery equipment and at least once a year thereafter. This testing requirement will no longer be applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs at GDFs, which may result in decreased effectiveness ofthe Stage I equipment installed at these facilities. The owners or operators of GDFs in the 95 counties that do not have Stage II, but fall under the state Stage I rule, are required to inspect for liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transport vessel to the PST. The remaining 143 counties must comply with the federal Stage I testing requirements and are required to perform the CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.3 and TP-201.1 E. These CARB testing requirements are similar to the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1 E test is more stringent than the TXP-1 02 test because the CARB TP-201.1 Etest requires testing the pressure and vacuum thresholds ofthe pressure-vacuum reliefvalve while the TXP-1 02 only requires testing the pressure threshold ofthe pressure-vacuum relief valve. The requirement to provide a fiscal analysis of proposed regulations in the Texas Government Code was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 633 during the 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent of SB 633 was to require agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of extraordinary rules. These rules are identified in the statutory language as major environmental rules that will have a material adverse impact and will exceed a requirement of state law, federal law, or a delegated federal program, or are adopted solely under the general powers of the agency. With the understanding that this requirement would seldom apply, the commission provided a cost estimate for SB 633 concluding that "based on an assessment of rules adopted by the agency in the past, it is not anticipated that the bill will have significant fiscal implications for the agency due to its limited application." The commission also noted that the number of rules that would require assessment under the provisions ofthe bill was not large. This conclusion was based, in part, on the criteria set forth in the bill that exempted proposed rules from the full analysis unless the rule was a major environmental rule that exceeds a federal law. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the FCAA does not always require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each area contributing to nonattainment to help ensure that those areas will meet the attainment deadlines. Because ofthe ongoing need to address nonattainment issues and to meet the requirements of 42 USC, §7410, the commission routinely proposes and adopts SIP rules. The legislature is presumed to understand this federal scheme. Ifeach rule proposed for inclusion in the SIP was considered to be a major environmental rule that exceeds federal law, then every SIP revision would require the full regulatory impact analysis contemplated by SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the commission in its cost estimate and by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since the legislature is presumed to understand the fiscal impacts of the bills it passes, and that presumption is based on information provided by state agencies and the LBB, the commission believes that the intent of SB 633 was only to require the full regulatory impact analysis for rules that are extraordinary in nature. While the SIP revision will have a broad impact, the impact is no greater than is necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the FCAA. For these reasons, rules adopted for inclusion in the SIP fall under the exception in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), because they are required by and do not exceed, federal law. The commission has consistently applied this construction to its rules since this statute was enacted in 1997. Since that time, the legislature has revised the Texas Government Code but left this provision substantially unamended. It is presumed



## PROPOSED RULES Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2765that "when an agency interpretation is in effect at the time the legislature amends the laws without making substantial change in the statute, the legislature is deemed to have accepted the agency's interpretation." 

### Central Power 

### & Light Co. 

### v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex. App. Austin 1995), 

### writ denied with per curiam opinion respecting another issue, 960 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1997); 

### Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. App. Austin 1990, 

### no writ). Cf Humble Oil & 

### Refining Co. 

### v. Calvert, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1967); 

### Dudney v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 2000); 

### Southwestern Life Ins. Co. 

### v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App. Austin 2000, 

### pet. denied); and 

### Coastallndust. Water Auth. v. Trinity Portland Cement Div., 563 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1978). The commission's interpretation of the regulatory impact analysis requirements is also supported by a change made to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by the legislature in 1999. In an attempt to limit the number of rule challenges based upon APA requirements, the legislature clarified that state agencies are required to meet these sections ofthe APA against the standard of "substantial compliance." The legislature specifically identified Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 as falling under this standard. The commission has substantially complied with the requirements ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225. The proposed rulemaking does not exceed astandard set by federal law or exceed an express requirement ofstate law. No contract or delegation agreement covers the topic that is the subject ofthis proposed rulemaking. Therefore, this proposed rulemaking is not subject to the regulatory analysis provisions of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(b) because although the rulemaking meets the definition of a "major environmental rule," it does not meet any ofthe four applicability criteria for a major environmental rule. The commission invites public comment on the draft regulatory impact analysis determination. Written comments on the draft regulatory impact analysis determination may be submitted to the contact person at the address listed under the Submittal of Comments section of this preamble. Takings Impact Assessment The commission evaluated the proposed rulemaking and performed an assessment of whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 is applicable. The specific purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located in the 16 counties that will be affected by the Stage II rule revision (decommissioning Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI), preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in currently affected counties, and establish testing requirements that are uniform throughout the state. As mentioned previously in the preamble, in 1999 the commission adopted rule revisions to Chapter 115 implementing the Stage I vapor recovery option ofthe TCAS. The revisions were one element of the new TCAS, which included a variety of options that affected areas could implementto meetthe NAAQS for ground level ozone. The purpose ofthe strategy was to reduce overall background levels of ozone in order to assist in keeping ozone attainment areas and near-nonattainment areas in compliance with the federal ozone standards and to help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainment with the ozone NAAQS. On May 16, 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 51, determining that vehicle ORVR technology is in widespread



## 39 TexReg 2766 Aprilll, 2014 Texas Register use for the purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number2013-001- 115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013- 002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development ofthese two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-1 01 and TXP-1 02, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I PST vapor recovery. With the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no longer apply. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties, the commission is proposing revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. This rulemaking is necessary to ensure that Stage I equipment is functioning properly and to be consistent with the federal rule revision authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II requirements. Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), provides that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to rulemakings that are actions reasonablytaken to fulfill an obligation mandated by federal law. Since this rulemaking is such an action, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply. In addition, the commission's assessment indicates that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to these proposed rules because this action is taken in response to a real and substantial threat to public health and safety; that is designed to significantly advance the health and safety purpose; and that does not impose a greater burden than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose. Thus, this action is exempt under Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(13). Consequently, the proposed rulemaking meets the exemption criteria in Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4) and (13). For these reasons, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to this rulemaking. The commission evaluated the proposed rulemaking and performed an assessment of whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007, is applicable. Therefore, Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), provides that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to this proposed rulemaking because it is an action reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by federal law. Consistency with the Coastal Management Program The commission reviewed the proposed rulemaking and found the proposal is a rulemaking identified in the Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.11(b)(2) (or §505.11(b)(4), whichever is applicable) relating to rules subject to the Coastal Management Program (CMP), and will, therefore, require that goals and policies ofthe Texas CMP be considered during the rulemaking process. Section 505.11 (b)(2) applies only to air pollutant emissions, on-site sewage disposal systems, and underground storage tanks. Section 505.11 (b)(4) applies to all other actions. The commission reviewed this rulemaking for consistency with the CMP goals and policies in accordance with the regulations of the Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee and determined that the rulemaking is administrative and procedural in nature and will have no substantive effect on commission actions subject to the CMP and is, therefore, consistent with CMP goals and policies.Written comments on the consistency ofthis rulemaking may be submitted to the contact person at the address listed under the Submittal of Comments section ofthis preamble. Effect on Sites Subject to the Federal Operating Permits Program Chapter 115 contains applicable requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 122, Federal Operating Permits; therefore, owners or operators subject to the Federal Operating Permit Program must, consistent with the revision process in Chapter 122, revise their operating permits to include the revised Chapter 115 requirements for each emission unit at their sites affected by the revisions to Chapter 115. Announcement of Hearings The commission will hold public hearings on this proposal in Fort Worth at 2:00p.m. on April29, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road; in Austin at 2:00p.m. on May 1, 2014, at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201 S; and in Houston at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 Polk Street. The hearings are structured for the receipt of oral orwritten comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearings; however, commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to each hearing. Persons who have special communication orother accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services, at (512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Submittal of Comments Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Michael Parrish, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: http:llwww5.tceq.texas.govlru/es/ecommentsl File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-AI. The comment period closes May 12, 2014. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.govlnavlruleslpropose_adopt.html. For further information, please contact Sarah Davis, Air Quality Planning Section, (512) 239-4939. 

## SUBCHAPTER A. 

## DEFINITIONS 30 TAC §115.10 Statutory Authority The amendment is proposed under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, concerning General Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 03, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 05, concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commission by rule to establish and approve all general policy of the commission; and under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe Texas Clean AirAct. The amendment is also proposed under THSC, §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning State Air Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the proper control of the state's air; and THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. The amendment is also proposed under THSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination of Records, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring and monitoring of air contaminant emissions. The amendment is also proposed under Federal Clean Air Act, 42 United States Code §§7401, et seq., which requires states to submit state implementation plan revisions that specify the manner in which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region ofthe state. The proposed amendment implements THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. §

### 115.10. Definitions. Unless specifically defined in Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, (also known as the Texas Clean Air Act) or in the rules of the commission, the terms used by the commission have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field of air pollution control. In addition to the terms which are defined by the Texas Clean Air Act, the following terms, when used in this chapter (relating to Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds), have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Additional definitions for terms used in this chapter are found in §3.2 and §101.1 ofthis title (relating to Definitions). (I) Background--The ambient concentration ofvolatile organic compounds in the air, determined at least one meter upwind of the component to be monitored. Test Method 21 (40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 60, Appendix A) shall be used to determine the background. (2) Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumont/Port Arthuf] area-- Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. (3) Capture efficiency--The amount of volatile organic compounds (VOC) collected by a capture system that is expressed as a percentage derived from the weight per unit time ofVOCs entering a capture system and delivered to a control device divided by the weight per unit time oftotal VOCs generated by a source ofVOCs. (4) Carbon adsorption system--A carbon adsorber with an inlet and outlet for exhaust gases and a system to regenerate the saturated adsorbent. (5) Closed-vent system--A system that: (A) is not open to the atmosphere; (B) is composed ofpiping. ductwork, connections, and, ifnecessary, flow-inducing devices; and (C) transports gas or vapor from a piece or pieces of equipment directly to a control device.



## PROPOSED RULES Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2767(6) Coaxial system--A type ofsystem consisting ofa tube within a tube that requires only one tank opening. The tank opening allows fuel to flow through the inner tube while vapors are displaced through the annular space between the inner and outer tubes. 

## ill [fet] Component--A piece ofequipment, including, but not limited to, pumps, valves, compressors, connectors, and pressure relief valves, which has the potential to leak volatile organic compounds. 

## ill [f+:t] Connector--Aflanged, screwed, orother joinedfitting used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece ofequipment. The term connectordoes not includejoinedfittings welded completely around the circumference ofthe interface. A union connecting two pipes is considered to be one connector. {21 [fSj] Continuous monitoring--Any monitoring device used to comply with a continuous monitoring requirement ofthis chapter will be considered continuous ifit can be demonstrated that at least 95% ofthe required data is captured. 

### QQl [fl)j] Covered ozone attainment counties--Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, BelL Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Coma!, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Kames, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, McLennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, andWood Counties. 

### .QU**[~]** Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth] area-- For purposes of Subchapter B, Division 5 ofthis chapter (relating to Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) 

### [ffithls eflapter,- Geflefal 

### ::veiat-ile Grgruti£ Compound OOurees, 

### D-ivisioo &; Munieipal SelM Waste bandH-lls-;-] Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. For all other divisions, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties. (12) Dual-point vapor balance system--A type of vapor balance system in which the storage tank is equippedwith an entry port for a gasoline fill pipe and a separate exit port for vapor connection. .{11)_ [fHj] EI Paso [area]--EI Paso County. 

## f.!1l**[~]** Emergency flare--A flare that only receives emissions during an upset event. 

### Q1l**[~]** External floating roof--A cover or roof in an open-top tank which rests upon or is floated uponthe liquid being contained and is equipped with a single or double seal to close the space between the roofedge and tank shell. A double seal consists oftwo complete and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing an enclosed space between them. For the purposes ofthis chapter, an external floating roofstorage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be an internal floating roofstorage tank. 

## f.!!D. [fl-4j] Fugitive emission--Any volatile organic compound entering the atmosphere that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening designed to direct or control its flow. Q12 [fl-S-)] Gasoline bulk plant--A gasoline loading and/or unloading facility, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput less than 20,000 gallons (75,708 liters) per day, averaged



## 39 TexReg 2768 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register over each consecutive 30-day period. A motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility is not a gasoline bulk plant. (18) Gasoline dispensing facility--A location that dispenses gasoline to motor vehicles and includes retail, private, and commercial outlets. (19) 

### [fl-61] Gasoline terminal--A gasoline loading and/or unloading facility, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput equal to or greater than 20,000 gallons (75,708 liters) per day, averaged over each consecutive 30-day period. (20)**[~]Heavy** liquid--Volatile organic compounds that have a true vaporpressure equalto orlessthan 0.044 poundsper square inch absolute (0.3 kiloPascal) at 68 degreesFahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius). @ 

### [f-1-81] Highly-reactive volatile organic compound--As follows. (A) In Harris County, one or more of the following volatile organic compounds (VOC) [f¥0Gsj]: 1,3-butadiene; all isomers ofbutene (e.g., isobutene (2-methylpropene or isobutylene), alpha-butylene (ethylethylene), and beta-butylene (dimethylethylene, including both cis- and trans-isomers)); ethylene; and propylene. (B) In Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties, one or more ofthe following VOC emissions 

### [:v:GGs]: ethylene and propylene. @ 

### [f-l-9t] Houston-Galveston [Houston/Galveston] or Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston/Brazoria] area--Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties. @ [fMj] Incinerator--Forthe purposes ofthis chapter, an enclosed control device that combusts oroxidizes volatile organic compound gases or vapors. @ 

### [f2-B] Internal floating cover--A cover orfloating roof in a fixed rooftank that rests upon or is floated upon the liquid being contained, and is equipped with a closure seal or seals to close the space between the cover edge and tank shell. For the purposes ofthis chapter, an external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a self-supportingfixed roof(typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be an internal floating roofstorage tank. @**[~]** Leak-free marine vessel--A marine vessel with cargo tank closures (hatch covers, expansion domes, ullage openings, butterworth covers, and gauging covers) that were inspected prior to cargo transfer operations and all such closures were properly secured such that no leaks ofliquid or vapors can be detected by sight, sound, or smell. Cargo tank closures must meet the applicable rules or regulations ofthe marine vessel's classification society or flag state. Cargo tankpressure/vacuum valves must be operating within the range specified by the marine vessel's classification society orflag state and seated when tank pressure is less than 80% ofset point pressure such that no vaporleaks can be detected by sight, sound, or smell. As an alternative, a marine vessel operated at negative pressure is assumed to be leak-free for the purpose ofthis standard. @**[~]Light** liquid--Volatile organic compounds that have a true vapor pressure greater than 0.044 pounds per square inch absolute (0.3 kiloPascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), and are a liquid at operating conditions. Q12 [tMJ] Liquefied petroleum gas--Any material that is composedpredominantly ofany ofthe following hydrocarbons ormixtures ofhydrocarbons: propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, and butylenes.@ [(Ut] Low-density polyethylene--A thermoplastic polymer or copolymer comprised ofat least 50% ethylene by weight and having a density of0.940 grams per cubic centimeter or less. @**[~]** Marine loading facility--The loading arm(s), pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves that are part of a single system used to fill a marine vessel at a single geographic site. Loading equipment that is physically separate (i.e., does not share common piping, valves, andother loading equipment) is considered to be a separate marine loading facility. Q_Q)_**[~]Marine** loading operation--The transfer of oil, gasoline, orother volatile organic liquids at any affected marine terminal, beginning withthe connectionsmadeto a marine vessel and ending with the disconnection from the marine vessel. 

### Q12**[~]** Marine terminal--Any marine facility or structure constructedto transferoil, gasoline, orothervolatile organic liquid bulk cargo to or from a marine vessel. A marine terminal may include one or more marine loading facilities. 

### Qn**[~]** Metal-to-metal seal--A connection formed by a swage ring that exerts an elastic, radial preload on narrow sealing lands, plastically deforming the pipe being connected, and maintaining sealing pressure indefinitely. Ql}**[~]Natural** gas/gasoline processing--Aprocessthat extracts condensate from gases obtained from natural gas production and/orfractionates naturalgas liquids into componentproducts, suchas ethane, propane, butane, and natural gasoline. The following facilities shall be included in this definition if, and only if, located on the same property as a natural gas/gasoline processing operation previously defined: compressor stations, dehydration units, sweetening units, field treatment, underground storage, liquefied**[~]** natural gas units, and field gas gathering systems. 

### Q12**[~]** Petroleum refinery--Any facility engaged in producing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products through distillation ofcrude oil, or through the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or other processing ofunfinished petroleum derivatives. 

### Q1l**[~]** Polymer or resin manufacturing process--A process that produces any ofthe following polymers or resins: polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and styrenebutadiene latex. Q2)_**[~]Pressure** reliefvalve or pressure-vacuum relief valve--A safety device used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum and minimum allowable working pressure of the process equipment. A pressure reliefvalve or pressure-vacuum reliefvalve is automatically actuated by the static pressure upstream of the valve[,] but does not include: (A) a rupture disk; or (B) a conservation vent or other device on an atmospheric storage tank that is actuated either by a vacuum or a pressure ofno more than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge. Q1)_ [fJ41] Printing line--An operation consisting ofa series ofone or more printing processes and including associated drying areas. 

### QID_**[~]** Process drain--Any opening (including a covered or controlled opening) that is installed or used to receive or convey wastewater into the wastewater system. 

### Q2l**[~]** Processunit--The smallest set ofprocess equipment that can operate independently and includes all operations necessary to achieve its process objective. 

### {iQl [fJ+j] Rupture disk--A diaphragm held between flanges for the purpose ofisolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a downstream pressure reliefvalve. 

## .c±!2**[~]** Shutdown or turnaround--For the purposes of this chapter, a work practice or operational procedure that stops production from a process unit or part of a unit during which time it is technically feasible to clearprocess material from a process unit orpart ofa unit consistent with safety constraints, and repairs can be accomplished. (A) The term shutdown or turnaround does not include a work practice that would stop production from a process unit or part ofa unit: (i) for less than 24 hours; or (ii) for a shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process unit or part ofthe unit and start up the unit. (B) Operation ofa process unit orpart ofa unit in recycle mode (i.e., process material is circulated, but production does not occur) is not considered shutdown. .(1D.**[~]** Startup--For the purposes of this chapter, the setting into operation ofa piece ofequipment or process unit for the purpose ofproduction or waste management. .!fl.} [t4Gf] Strippable volatile organic compound (VOC)-- Any VOC in cooling towerheat exchange system waterthat is emitted to the atmosphere when the water passes through the cooling tower. 111} [(4-8] Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing process--A process that produces, as intermediates or final products, one or more ofthe chemicals listed in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §60.489 (October 17, 2000). 

## ®**[~]** Tank-truck tank--Any storage tank having a capacity greater than 1,000 gallons, mounted on a tank-truck or trailer. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not considered to be tank-truck tanks.**~ [~]**  Transport vessel--Any land-based mode of transportation (truck or rail) equipped with a storage tank having a capacity greater than 1,000 gallons that is used to transport oil, gasoline, or other volatile organic liquid bulk cargo. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not considered to be transport vessels. 

## B.Zl**[~]** True partial pressure--The absolute aggregate partial pressure ofall volatile organic compounds in a gas stream.**~ [~]**  Vapor balance system--A system that provides for containment ofhydrocarbon vapors by returning displaced vapors from the receiving vessel back to the originating vessel. 

## 8.21 [f%1] Vapor control system orvaporrecovery system- -Any control system that utilizes vapor collection equipment to route volatile organic compounds (VOC) to a control device that reduces VOC emissions.**~** [f47t] Vapor-tight--Not capable of allowing the passage ofgases at the pressures encountered except where other acceptable leak-tight conditions are prescribed in this chapter. 

## li!2 [t48:)] Waxy, high pour point crude oil--A crude oil with a pour point of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) or higher as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D97-66, "Test for Pour Point ofPetroleum Oils."



## PROPOSED RULES Aprilll, 2014 39 TexReg 2769The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the proposal and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office ofthe Secretary of State on March 28, 2014. TRD-201401396 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Earliest possible date of adoption: May 11, 2014 For further information, please call: (512) 239-2548 

# • SUBCHAPTER C. 

# • • VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND TRANSFER OPERATIONS DIVISION 2. FILLING OF GASOLINE STORAGE VESSELS (STAGE I) FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DISPENSING FACILITIES 30 TAC §§115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 115.229 Statutory Authority The amendments are proposed underTexas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, concerning General Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 03, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.105, concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commission by rule to establish and approve all general policy of the commission; and under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistentwith the policy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act. The amendments are also proposed under THSC, §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning State Air Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the proper control ofthe state's air; and THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motorvehicles. The amendments are also proposed under THSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination of Records, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring and monitoring of air contaminant emissions. The amendments are also proposed under Federal Clean Air Act, 42 United States Code §§7401, 

### et seq., which requires states to submit state implementation plan revisions that specify the manner in which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region of the state. The proposed amendments implement THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other



## 39 TexReg 2770 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. 

### §115.221. Emission Specifications. No person in the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumont/Port Artlmf], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Wefth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas or in the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions), shall transfer, or allow the transfer of, gasoline from any tank-truck tank into a stationary storage container which is located at a gasoline [meteF ¥elH€lefuel] dispensing facility, unless the displaced vapors from the gasoline storage container are controlled by one of the following: (1) a vapor control system which reduces the emissions of VOC to the atmosphere to not more than 0.8 pound per 1,000 gallons (93 mg/liter) ofgasoline transferred; or (2) a vapor balance system which is operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of §115.222 ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements). 

### §115.222. Control Requirements. A vapor balance system will be assumed to comply with the specified emissionlimitation of§ 115.221 of this title (relating to Emission Specifications) ifthe following conditions are met: (1) the container is equipped with a submerged fill pipe as defined in§101.1 ofthis title (relating to Definitions). Thepath through the submergedfill pipe to the bottom ofthe tankmustnot be obstructed by a screen, grate, or similardevice whose presence wouldpreclude the determination ofthe submergedfill pipe's proximity to the tank bottom while the submerged fill tube is properly installed; (2) a vapor-tight return line is connected before gasoline can be transferred into the storage container; (3) no avoidable gasoline leaks, as detected by sight, sound, or smell, exist anywhere in the liquid transfer or vapor balance systems; (4) the vapor return line's cross-sectional area is at least one-halfofthe product drop line's cross-sectional area; (5) in the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumont/Port Artlmf], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Wtmft], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas and in the coveredattainment counties, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions), the only atmospheric emission during gasoline transferinto the storage container is through a storage container vent line equipped with a pressure-vacuumreliefvalve setto open at a pressure ofnomore than eight ounces per square inch (3.4 kilopascals (kPa) [kPa]) [OF in accordance with the fa€.ili.!y'sStage H system as de4ine4 inthe CalifOrnia Air Resoorees BeaFd**~** Executive Gffierfs:} Of third party certification 

### fuT the fu€.iltty];**~** in the eevered attainmeut couuties, as de4ine4 in**~** ef this title frelatiug to Defiuitious), the enly atmospheric emissten ffilriug gaseliue trausfer 

### into the stOFage eoutainer is throBgh a storage contaiuer ¥ent line equipped with a pressure vacuum relief val¥e settoepeuata pres-sure efoomerethan eight eufl€eS persttuare inch

### fM- 

### kPahl i§l [f+}] after unloading, the tank-truck tank is kept vaportight until the vapors in the tank-truck tank are returned to a loading, cleaning, ordegassing operation and discharged in accordance with the control requirements ofthat operation;

## ill [f&f] the gauge pressure in the tank-truck tank does not exceed 18 inches ofwater (4.5 k.Pa) or vacuum exceed six inches of water (1.5 k.Pa); 

## ill**[~]no** leak, as defined in §101.1 ofthis title, exists from potential leak sources when measured with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer; 

## i22. [f-Wi] in the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumoat/Port Afthuf], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas, any storage tank installed after November 15, 1993, which is required to install Stage I control equipment must be equipped with a dual-point vapor balance system, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title [non coaxial Stage l connection]. In addition, any modification to a storage tank existing prior to November 15, 1993, requiring excavation ofthe top of the storage tank must be equipped with a dual-point vapor balance system [non coaxial Stage l connection], even if the original installation utilized coaxial Stage I**connections[~** At any faeility fuf whi€h a StageH system was fnstalle4 pfl&toNovember**~** 

### +9W,- the Stage l**system~** fffil5t 

### Be consistent with the 

### re.J.e¥ant requirements ef the GARB El<ecutive Greer fuf the Stage H system fnstalle4 at that faetl.i.ty]; 

### QQ2 [fl-I-t] in the covered attainment counties, any storage tank installed after December 22, 1998, which is required to install Stage I control equipment must be equipped with a dual-point vapor balance system, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title [non coaxial Stage l connection]. In addition, any modification to a storage tank existing prior to December 22, 1998, requiring excavation ofthe top ofthe storage tank must be equipped with a dual-point vapor balance system [non coaxial Stage l connection], even ifthe original installation utilized coaxial Stage I connections; and 

### .QU [f-bB] any gasoline [meter¥ehielefuel] dispensing facility that no longer meets an exemption in §115.227 ofthis title (relating to Exemptions) because ofan increase in throughput shall have 120 days to come into compliance with the provisions ofthis section [subsection] and will remain subject to the provisions ofthis section, evenifits gasolinethroughputlater falls belowexemption limits. However, ifgasoline throughput exceeds the exemption limit due to a natural disaster or emergency condition for a period not to exceed one month, upon written request, the executive director may grant a facility continued exempt status. 

### §115.224. Inspection Requirements. In the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumontiport 

### ArtH-ur], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas, and in the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions), the following inspection requirements shall apply. (1) Inspections for liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer shall be conducted at gasoline [meter ¥ehiele fuel] dispensing facilities. Gasoline transfer shall be discontinued immediately when any liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors are [a leak is] observed and shall not be resumed until the observed issue [leak] is repaired. (2) The gasoline tank-truck tank must have been inspected for leaks within one year in accordance with the requirements of §§115.234- 115.237 ofthis title (relating to Inspection Requirements; Approved Test Methods; Recordkeeping Requirements; and Exemptions, respectively [Gtmtrelef¥elatileGrganie Compound

### beaks 4fflm Transport ¥essels]), as evidenced by a prominently displayed certification affixed near the United States Department of Transportation certification plate. 

### §115.225. Testing Requirements. Compliance withtheemission specification and certain control requirements and inspection requirements of§§ 115.221, 115.222 and 115.224 ofthis title (relatingto Emission Specifications; Control Requirements; and Inspection Requirements) shall be determined according to therequirements of40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §63.11120 [by applying ene eF fllefe efthe following test methods, as appropriate]. Additionally, all affected gasoline dispensing facilities are required to annually comply with the following testing requirements found in 40 CFR §63.11120: (1) California Air Resources Board Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP 201.1E

- Leak Rate and Cracking Pressure of PressureNacuum Vent Valves. (2) California Air Resources Board Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP-20 1.3- Determinationof2-InchWC Static PressurePerformance ofVapor Recovery Systems ofDispensing Facilities. (3) Alternate test methods other than those specified in paragraphs (1)- (2) ofthis section may be used ifvalidated by 40 CFR §63.7(Q. 

### lf4**Flew~** 

### :rest MetOOds !-4(4{) GOOe ofFedeml RegulatioHsfGFRj**~** Appendil< Ajare used fuf determining flow rate, as necessary.]**~** Concentration ef-volatile organie compounds.] £fA) 

### :rest Me-thOO**~** (4{) GFR 6{},- Appendil<

### Atisused fuf determining gaseous organie compound emissions by 

### gas ehromatography.]

### «Bt :rest Me-thOO**~** (4{) GFR 6{},- AppendixAjis used fuf determining total gaseous nonmethane organie emissions as ear00&.-] 

## ffGt :rest Me-thOO**~** eF**~** (4{) GFR 6{},- Appendix 

### At is used fuf determining total gaseous organie concentrations us-ing flame ionization eF nondispersive iffifared analysis.] ft3j :beak determination by instrument rnetho4 Yse 

### :rest Method U (4{) GFR 6{},- Appendix

### Atfuf determining volatile organie compound leak&] 

## «41 Minormodifications. Minormodificationstothesetest methodsmay

### Be used, ifapproved by the executive director.] 

### §115.226. Recordkeeping Requirements. The owneroroperatorofeachgasoline [meter¥ehielefuel] dispensing facility in the Beaumont-Port Arthur**[Bea~o~montPort** 

### ArtH-ur], DallasFort Worth [Dallas/FortWerth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas and in the covered attainment counties as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions) shall maintain the following records and make them available at the site during inspectionupon request to representatives ofthe executive director, the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], or any local air pollution control program withjurisdiction. The owner or operator shall: (1) maintain a record at the facility site of the dates on which gasoline was deliveredto the dispensing facility andthe identification number and date ofthe last leaktesting, required by§ 115.224(2) ofthis title (relating to Inspection Requirements), of each tank-truck tank from which gasoline was transferred to the facility. The records shall be kept for a period oftwo years; and (2) maintain for a period oftwo years: (A) a record ofthe results of any testing conducted at the gasoline [meter¥ehielefuel] dispensing facility in accordance with



## PROPOSED RULES Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2771the provisions specified in §115.225 ofthis title (relating to Testing Requirements); and (B) in the Beaumont-Port Arthur**[Beat~mont!Port** Artht!f], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas, a record of the gasoline throughput for each calendar month for the previous 24 months since January 1, 1991 [until stleh time as the fae.ility ffistall.s a Stage 

### II -vaper reetWefJ' system as retj:Uired by- §§

### 115.241 - 249 ttf this title**~** te Goo-trel ttf¥ehlele Refueling Emissions (Stage 

### llf at Met& -Vehie-le Fuel Dispensing Faeilities)]. In addition, in the covered attainment counties, a record ofgasoline throughput for each calendar month for the previous 24 months beginning January 1, 1999 should be maintained at the facilitv, until the facility is in compliance with §115.221 and §115.222 ofthis title (relating to Emission Specifications; and Control Requirements). The records must contain the calendar month and year, and the total facility gasoline throughput for each calendar**monthJ~** and] 

### «Gt in the oovered attainment ooooties, a reooffi ttf gase1ine throughput fuF eaeh ealerulaF menth beginning J-anuaey- 

### +, +99-9, tifttil the fae.ility i;; in eolllfllianee with §115.221 and §115.222 ef this title**~** te Emission Speeifieations; and Goo-trel ReEJltirements). +he reooffis fflUSt eefttain the ealentlaf menth and year, and the tetal fa€.i.lity gase1ine throughput fuF eaeh ealentlaf mentft. +hese reooffis fflUSt be Hlilt'le available at the site ffitflng inspeetion by- representatives ttf the exeeutive dire€tef, EPA, er any !eea1 air pollution eentro1 program withj urisdietion.] 

### §115.227. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply: (1) In the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Beaumont/Port Artht!f], Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas, transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after January 1, 1991, and for which construction began prior to November 15, 1992, are exempt from the requirements of this division**[~** te Filling ttfGaseline Sterage ¥essels (Stage 

## 11 fuF Met& -Vehie-le Fuel Dispensing Faeilities)], except for: (A) §115.222(3) [§ 115.222(7)] ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements) as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) [§115.222(3)] ofthis title [asitawlies telli}uiti gase1ine leaks 

## l; (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title (relating to Inspection Requirements) as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) of this title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements). (2) In the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 of this title (relating to Definitions), stationary gasoline storage containers with a nominal capacity less than or equal to 1,000 gallons at gasoline [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facilities are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) [§115.222(3)] ofthis title [asitawlies telli}uiti gase1ine leaks]; and (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors.



## 39 TexReg 2772 Apri/11, 2014 Texas Register (3) In the covered attainment counties other than Bexar, Coma!, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson, transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facility which has dispensed less than 100,000**[~]** gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after October 2, 2014 [J-anuaey- 

### +, +999] are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) § 115.222(6) [§ 115.222(3)] ofthis title [asit

## awHes t6 lli}uiti gawline leaks 

## l; (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) [§115.226(2)(C)] ofthis title. (4) In Bexar, Coma!, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline [fllfflerveftie1e fuel] dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 25,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements ofthis division [**~** te Filling ttfGasoline Sterage ¥essels (Stage 

## 11 fuF Met&¥ehleleFuel Dispensing Faeilities)], except for: (A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) [§115.222(3)] ofthis title [asitawlies telli}uiti gawline leaks]; (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) [§115.226(2)(C)] ofthis title. (5) Transfers to the following stationary receiving containers are exempt from the requirements ofthis division: (A) containers used exclusively for the fueling of implements ofagriculture; and (B) storage tanks equipped with external floating roofs, internal floating roofs, or their equivalent. 

### §115.229. Counties and Compliance Schedules. (a) The owneroroperatorofeachgasoline [fllfflerveftielefuel] dispensing facility in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas and in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties [Braz:oria, Chambers, G&llin;- :Dallas, Iknten, E1 

### J!ase,- 

### FBrtBend;- Galveston, Hartiin;- Harris,Jefferson, btberty,- Montgomery, Grange, 

### +arrant, and Waldtw Geunti-es] shall continue to comply with this**division[~** te Filling ttfGaseline Sterage¥essels (Stage 

## 11 fuF Met&¥ehleleFuel Dispensing Faeilities)] as required by §115.930 ofthis title (relating to Compliance Dates). (b) The owner or operator of each gasoline [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facility in the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 of this title (relating to Definitions), shall continue to comply with this division as required by §115.930 ofthis title. (c) The owner or operator of each gasoline [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facility in Bexar, Coma!, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties that has dispensed at least 25,000 gallons of gasoline but less than 125,000 gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after December 31, 2004 shall comply with this division as soon as practicable, but no later than December 31,2005.(d) The owner or operator of each gasoline 

### [me-tef veftisle 

### fue-l] dispensing facility in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties that has dispensed at least 10,000 gallons ofgasoline but less than 125,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month after April 30, 2005, shall comply with this division as soon as practicable, but no later than June 15, 2007. 

### The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the proposal and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority to adopt. Filed with the Office ofthe Secretary of State on March 28, 2014. TRD-201401397 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Earliest possible date of adoption: May 11, 2014 For further information, please call: (512) 239-2548 

# • CHAPTER 312. AND TRANSPORTATIO 

# • E USE, DISPOSAL,

The Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) is prop sing to amend §§312.4, 312.8, 312.10

- 312.13, 312.41, 31 .42, 312.44, 312.45, 312.47, 312.50, 312.65, and 312.81

- 3 2.83. Background and Summary ofth Factual Basis for the Proposed Rules On May 13, 2013, the TCEQ re eived a petition from Mr. Cole Turner (petitioner), on behalf of the landowners and citizens of Ellis County (Project Number 2 13-033-PET-NR). The petitioner requested that TC Q amend Chapter 312 in order to prohibit the land application f sewage sludge in, or within, three miles ofa city limit in a cou ty with a population of 140,000 or more that is located adjace to a county with a population between 2,000,000 and 4,000, 0. On June 18, 2013, the commis ion instructed the executive directorto examine the issues rais d in the petition and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to addre s nuisance odor issues at bulk sewage sludge land application sites on a statewide basis. As part of this rulemaking procee ng, the commission instructed the executive directorto engage stakeholders and to report back to the commission with finding and recommended actions, if any, within five months. The Water Quality Division and Regional office staff conducted site visits at various wastewa r treatment plants (WWTPs), sewage sludge processing fac lities and bulk sewage sludge land application sites througho t the state. The objective was to evaluate different types of ulk sewage sludge treatment processes and evaluate odors t several sewage sludge processing and land application sit s. Staff concluded that sewage sludge facilities that use more dvanced treatment processes such heat drying or composting end to have more typical odors than those that do not. The executive director held sta eholder meetings in Parker, Ellis, Waller, and Travis Counties. The comments received at the stakeholder meetings and in riting included support for and against the petition. At the November 20, 2013, Co missioners Agenda, the executive director recommended in tiating a state-wide rulemaking rather than the three-mile pro ibition requested in the petition. This recommendation to mo forward with the rulemaking process was based upon stakeh der comments requesting relief from odors, vectors, unauthor ed discharges from land application sites, tracking of materi I on roadways and staff observations during site visits. The ommissioners instructed the executive director to proceed wit releasing draft rule concepts and draft rule language to stakeh lders. The executive director's concept r rulemaking includes separating existing Class A into two c tegories, Class A and Class AB, and including additional man ement provisions to address odor. The management provisio s for each category become more stringent as the treatment rocesses used for pathogen reduction used are less advanc d. This approach provides additional incentives for permitte s to select more advanced pathogen treatment processes hich tend to reduce odors (composting, heat drying, pasteu ization, and other equivalent processes) and to promote land pplication through incorporation into the soil, when feasible. A concern provided during the stakeholder meetings was TCEQ's inability to respond qui kly to odor complaints and prevent recurrences. Therefore in addition to the changes to sludge classification, the rule would clarify the executive director's existing ability to inclu e additional, more stringent requirements to any Class A, A or B site such as requiring an Odor Control Plan with meas able goals, as needed. This would allow TCEQ investigators determine compliance with specific permit conditions design d to address odor and other compliance issues at a specific sit and aid in addressing recurrent issues. In addition, staff ev luated existing requirements within Chapter 312 for Class B si s, which could be applied to all sites to address odor. On January 7, 2014, the Water uality Division conducted its final stakeholder meeting to prese t concepts and draft rule language for informal comment. Section by Section Discussion The commission is proposing to dd new Class AB where appropriate throughout the entire ru emaking. Exceptions to this are in §312.4(a)(1), since Class A is a new category, and is not currently an existing type of regist ation and in instances where the Class A and Class AB pathog requirements are described in §312.82(a), Pathogen Reductio

. Additionally, throughout this rule aking proposal the commission is proposing to add the wo "sewage" before the word "sludge" to be consistent with th definitions since the current rules only state "sludge" after Cia A or Class B in certain sections ofthe rule. Since the definitio s of Class A, proposed Class AB and Class B include the word sewage" before "sludge" it is appropriate to be consistent with ach term. Instances where sewage sludge is already mentio ed in the same sentence do not include sewage or sludge a r the Class A, Class AB or Class B again. 

### §312. 4, RequiredAuthorizations Notifications The commission is proposing to mend §312.4(b), (b)(1) and (4) to include "Class AB" due to ts applicability to notice and reporting requirements. The commission is proposing t amend §312.4(b)(2) to replace "Land Application Team" wi "Water Quality Division" for



## PROPOSED RULES Aprilll, 2014 39 TexReg 2773

# TESTIMONY

## Reference Number
W-1


### W-2 

## INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Submitted by
Chris Newton, Texas Food & 

## Fuel Association Guy Donaldson, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency

# l From:TPCA 512 477 4239 05/09/2014 17:22 #823 P.002/004 

# l

# ~------~--~------·-1-

May9,2014

Mr. Bruce McAnally MC205 

### Office of 

### Legal Services 

## Texas Commission on l::n,vlronmental Quality 

### P.o. 

### Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# W-1

Re: Proposed Amendments 

## to Chapter 115. Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile 

### Organic Compounds 

### §§115.10, 115.221, 

### 115.2221 115.224- 115.227 and 115.229


### Dear Mr. McAnally: 

## The Texas Food & 

### Fuel Association 

## represents the wholesale 

## and retail segments· 

## ofthe food and petroleum 

### Industries In Texas. Our members 

## own, operate or

### supply over 10,000 retail 

### outlets 

## In the 

### state. 

## Our members are comprised ofsmall to 

## large businesses 

## that distribute 

## thevast majority of petroleum 

## soldto consumers 

## In the state.
We appreciate 

## the opportunityto comment on these 

## proposed changes as well as the 

## commentary provided 

## in the preamble 

## published In the Aprlll1, 2014 

### Texas

## Register.
While 

## the proposed changes 

### are supported 

### by the association,

# we have some specific concerns that need to be 

## addressed.
Sectfon bySection Comments 

## §115,10, Definitions- We support the 

## revisions to this section for the 

## additional defined terms of "Gasoline Dispensing Facilty", "Dual point

## vapor balance system" and "Coaxial 

## System". §115.221, 115.222, 

### 115.224- We supportthe revisions to these sections. §115.225. Testing 

## Requirements- While we are generally supportive of

## changing to the 

## federally required test 

## method fortesting forconsistency and ease of

## complfance issues, we do 

## question the benefits as outlined in the preamble. Our historic concerns have 

## centered on the SIP 

## benefit and 

## the credit the state or non-attainment counties are recelving. The

## justification given for moving to a**~ontrol** 

### measure outside ofthe**non~attainment** 

### areas was to keep those areas from reaching hon-attalnment.



### ----TEXAS FOOD & 

### FUELASSOCIATION

- 401 West 15th Street, Suite 510 •Austin, T.:xas 78701 • (512)**476~9547** 

### • fax {512)**477~42.39**

# From:TPCA

Mr, Bruce McAnally May9,2014 Page 2 

## 512 477 4239 05/09/2014 17:22 

## #823 P.003/004

Our 

### concern is more 

### about what 

### Isn't said 

### In this description 

### than the characterization 

### ofthe benefit 

### to the industry. 

### 115.226. Recordkeeplng Requirements- 

### We do not support

### the proposed 

### revisions to require 

### that records must be kept on-site, nor do we support the 

### current requirementfound In §115.226(2).
As amatter of background, retail petroleum 

### facilities are regulated by no less than 27 state and federal 

### agencies. This 

### does not include the multitude of local government permits, Inspections, 

### and postlngs that 

### our Industry ls challenged 

### with managing on 

### a dally basis. 

### TCEQ within Its PST 

### program, Texas Department of Agriculture, the Comptroller's 

### office 

## all have a

### need to access our member's 

### records. These agencies 

### and the PST program within 

### the TCEQ have adopted recordl<eeplng requirements 

### that recognize the large volume of

### records cannot be 

### kept on 

### site when tha retalnage requirements are often 1, 2 or even 

### 4 years. In all cases, 

### records are required to 

### maintained for the period the agency needs, 

### however, they are made 

### available 

### upon request and have a 72 hour time limitation for

### the owner

### to compty 

### wrth the request. Thus, 

### ·we would 

### suggest the air program within the 

### confines of 

### regulating Gasoline 

### Dispensing Facilities, follow

## tne same protocol as established 

### in Chapter 

### 934.10(C).
Petroleum products are managed as a

### hazardous and flammable or combustible materials. The movement ofthese products are routinely 

### n:JOved by 

### truck durlng the night to avoid needless traffic congestion 

### and make deliveries 

### during 

### the least 

### busy hours ofthe 

### store operation. While some ofour members operate stores on a

### 24 hour 

### basis, the vast majority do not. Currently, 115.226(1) requires 

### the owner/operlltor of

### the Gasoline 

### Dispensing Facility to keep a record of

### each delivery,**t~nk** 

### truck 

### Identification number and 

### the certification of.the vapor 

### leak test as required 

### rn 115.234 This requirement 

### Is 

### already an 

### unwarranted for owners/operators ofthese facilities. The vast majority ofthe fuel being 

### delivered Is done 

### so during the hours 

### of 12 midnight and 

### 6 a.m., and many of

### the facilities are closed.
The owner

## ofthe GDF does receive a Bill 

### ofladingwhich does contain the traller(tank) number but It does not lnd lcate whether the 

### tank has 

## been tested for 

### certification. The only 

### way to comply

### withthe provision ls to have a person present at 

### the GDF during delivery to

### witness

### the certification plate affixed to the side of

### the trailer.
The agency has placed an unjustified and potentiallyvery expensive recordkeeplng provision 

### when the same exact records 

### are being kept 

### by the owner/operator ofthe tank 

### truck and the petroleum 

### product pipeline terminal 

### where the truck ls loaded. 

# ! 

# T !

# From:TPCA 512 477 4239 05/09/2014 

## 17:23 

## #823 P.004/004

In addltion 1 

### while we are not aware ofexact number, 

### it would be a safe estimate that less than 1000 

### companies operate transporttrucks that would haul petroleum to a gasoline 

### dispensing facility.
We urge the Commission to remove the entire provision of§115.226(1) and 

## not to adopt the revision to 

### §115.226(2)(6) requiring records 

### be immediately available on-site. 

### §115.227. Exemptions- 

### We supportthe revisions 

### Draft Regulatory Impact Analysls Determination

We shall not comment on the conclusions outltried In Impact Analysis Determination 

### since It Is nota 

### substantive portion to the rule proposal. We reserve our right to always review the agency's actions upon Its merits in any future rule proposals.

Ifyou have any questions, please contact Scott B. Fisher, Vice President of Polley 

### & PublicAffairs at (512) 

### 617·4308 

### Sincerely,

Chris Newton President ·

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202·2733



## Michael Parrish MC205 Office ofLegal Services Texas Commission on Environmental Quality PO Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087
Re: Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-AI
Dear Mr. Parrish: 

# W-2

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed revisions to 30 T AC Chapter 115 that address Stage I Vapor Recovery, identified as Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-AI, within which the State proposes revisions to sections 115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224-227, and 115.229. We have reviewed the proposed revisions and appreciate the amendments that re-establish and strengthen the test procedures for petroleum storage tanks. We agree with the proposed revisions that make the Texas rules consistent with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stage I at 40 CFR 63, Subpart CCCCCC. We have the following additional comments:
We are concerned that the revisions proposed for 115.10(10), 115.10(11), and 115.229(d) do not account for the designation ofWise County as nonattainment within the DFW ozone nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). We understand the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is developing a rule that will address applicable RACT requirements, including Stage Irequirements for Wise County that are necessary as aresult ofdesignations under the 2008 ozone standard. However, that rule has not been proposed and as such, we do not know how it may impact the proposed revisions before us in Rule Project Number 2013-022-115-AI.
The proposed revisions to the first sentence in 30 TAC 1 1 5.10(11) vary between those submitted to us in letter fonn, via the US Postal Service, and those posted on the TCEQ website at · www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/legal/rules/rule lib/proposals/13022115 pro.pdf. The difference between the two versions ofthe proposal is not substantive, but thought it appropriate to mention that there are two different versions.
We look forward to working with the TCEQ to resolve our expressed concerns. Please contact me, or Ms. Carrie Paige ofmy staffat 214-665-6521, ifyou have any questions. Sincerely yours,

Guy Donaldson Chief Air Planning Section (6PD-L)

R&eycled/Recyc!able • Prtnted with Vegetable Oil Basad Inks on 100% RecyCled Paper (40% Postoonsumer)

## Kathe Boothby

From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Attachments:



## 05/12/2014 12:40 PM paige.carrie@epa.gov Monday, May 12, 2014 12:40 PM paige.carrie@epa.gov 2013-022-115-AI EPA comments RPN 2013-022-115-AI.pdf



## This email is a confinnation ofthe commentthat was submitted for the referenced rulemaking.
First Name: Carrie Last Name: Paige Company/Organization: US Environmental Protection AgencyE-mail Address: paige.carrie@epa.gov Street Address: 1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200 

## Gty: Dallas State: 

# TX Zip Code: 75202 Phone Number: 214-665-6521 Fax Number: 214-665-6762
Rule: 2013-022-115-AI
Comments:

1

## INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY



## NO ORALTESTIMONYWAS RECEIVED PERTAININGTO THIS RULE REVISION.

## - 1 - 

# Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality I 

# Public Hearing Reg 1

# istration April29,2014 2:ooPM.
Rule ProjectNo.: 2013-022-115-AI 

## ShortTitle: Control ofAir Pollutionfrom Volatile OrganicCompounds Location: FortWorth- TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 

## Gravel Road I 

## Concerning: Requirementsfor Stage I vaporrecoverytesting

Name 

# I Representing Presenting OralTestimony? (PleasePrint) q:ircle One) 

# !)t 

# A

. ' ' lfi2.k..... 7

## Ll'~~

# ~b./M-e 

# 1#.**~@** l 

# -r:f:=t5T4tl 

# A- tJ..ts.b**83C7~~bc~** J6bA

# L·~**VC1.4!~** 5At--LT1-<.l LL. 

# /J1/C. s 0**~** 

# ;4lrrn/ 

# OJy:-r_s 18£ 

# 1--d- 

# Yes€

. _



### _) 

# /?2 l/]vt1(_**u~** 

# s**r~E** 

# t-d· 

# Yesf<

-**Glrlo~ h·~vtlf~** **j-es\,~k** 

# :r i/1....(. 

# Yes@ 1{/Z'.Ad v

# ~STA/l/}**7J~!t:)** Yes

## ~ 

## .,

# ~~'L~ 

# vQ**~~s T~~Cf**  

# Lcs-Te??'" tJ Jll!IT )'fl'l5

## -:T~5 

# _:_I /&"Sf'IU&**Ye~**

..... -· -···· ..



### . 

# ....

## - 1 - 

# Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality Public Hearing Registration April29, 2014 

## 2:ooPM. 

## Rule ProjectNo.: 2013-022-115-AI 

## ShortTitle: Control ofAir

## Pollutionfrom Volatile OrganicCompounds Location: FortWorth- TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 GravelRoad Concerning: Requirementsfor StageI vaporrecoverytesting

Name 

# I Representing Presenting OralTestimony? 

### (Please Print) 

### (Circle One) 

# -1tFf**r~**

# J-1~J1)a;t1v**~.** Yes

### ~ 

# \?vt55_9.L

# ?o~.-17' v

# '0~-J. fhArt?1Cf\

# ~

# ~DA**f{Q:~**

# A Yes



# " .,. 

# _, ' \ 

# .. . 

# . Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No

-· ·-
I .:,/.

## HEARINGOFFICERREPORT



## I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Rule Project No.**2013~022-** 

## 115·AI. A public hearing was scheduled for April 29, 2014, 2:00 P.M., at the TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road in FortWorth. At 1:30 P.M., the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to discuss the proposal. At 2:00P.M., TCEQ staffand a court reporter were present and ready to open the hearing for public comment. After waiting for 10 

## minutes, no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was notformallyopenedfor commentand a transcript was notprepared.I 

# I -11

-

I 

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public Hearing Registration

Date:May 1, 2014

Time: 2:oop.m.


### Rule ProjectNo.: 2013-022-115-AI ShortTitle: 

## Stage I 

## Testing Requirements Rule Revision 

# I Location: 12100

### Park35Circle, Bldge. E, Austin, TX78753 Concerning: 

# I I ! 

### Name Representing Presenting OralTestimont? (PleasePrint) (Circle One) 

# R, 1-h

i

# ~ (\ 

## . t

# ~ v

# ;ro-Il

# MCLl+~J

# Yes~ ., 

# . OclysS<-7



## -**~** 

## ,-1**cl''~+** v**\~** • f 

# I

# :/~-rr**r:rs~~** - /

# ~~**~[J~r:ve-c** 

# A-sew, Yes® 

# Ji. J(

# v·k.. 

# Q/lc..-?**%~**

# l,.") CJ'; 

## Yes@

Yes 

## No I 

## Yes No 

# I

Yes 

## No

Yes 

## No



## Yes No

# I

I

## r1 

## I I 

## ! i ' 

## i**------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-** 

## HEARING OFFICER REPORT



## I am the hearing officer assignedto conductthepublic hearing regarding Chapter 115, 

## Stage I Testing Requirements Ru]e Revision. (Rule Project No. 2013-022- 

## 115-AI). 

## Apublichearing was scheduledin

## Austin, Texas, on

## May 1, 2014, 

## at2:oop.m., 

## in 

## Building E, at 12100 

## Park 35 Circle. TCEQ staff and a court reporter were presentfor thepublic hearing. At 1:30p.m., 

## the room was opened and TCEQ staffwas available tothepublicfor an informal question and answer period. At 15 

# minutes after the start ofthe Public 

## Hearing, it was determined that those that were present did not want to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was not formally openedfor comment and atranscriptwas not prepared.

# ~~ S-l- Pi Datesigned 1

# -3- 

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmental Quality Public Hearing Registration May 6,2014

2:ooPM. Ru1e ProjectNo.: 2013-022-115-AI 

## ShortTitle: Control ofAirPollutionfromVolatile Organic Compounds Location: Houston

- theTCEQ Region 12 

## Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 

## PolkStreet Concerning: Requirementsfor Stage I vaporrecoverytesting

Name 

### Representing Presenting

## Oral Testimony? 

## (PleasePrint) 

### (Circle One)

# \)~"c...**M~~-y-ct..AF**

# eo~~k\**((J.__l-~.fe~~'x-** Yes 

# @

.., 

# ....:!6lAJ**~tf#s~;J** tC t**~** 

## Yes€>

# £t;~i:)dY\**t:oN"'.~C\**

# \\.t._ 

# TeE&

- 

# {2.\2 Yes 

# Q 

# c/J.

# LdlfieYL 

# S ek:f

# f5 

# TcEQ**-Pt~** Yes@ 

# l;-",..U 

# f>k 

# -=-r\A**~** v

..

# ~..fhfJ'JA. 

# - t-c£4,**et~** Yes@; '\..IVW' 

# '"

... I ' 

# \

# ~**Ba_~_v-**

# \~**\'2-.~tL** Yes

## ~



# . _.-!,.--'



# J ouC\.a.**C-~~** 

# \CEQ \2-\L- Yes 

# f!fj}

Yes 

## No

## HEARINGOFFICERREPORT



## I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Rule Project No. 2013-022- 115-AI. A public hearing was scheduled for May 6, 2014, at 2:00 P.M., at the TCEQ Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 Polk Streetin Houston. At 1:30 P.M., the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to discuss the proposal. At 2:00P.M., TCEQ staffand a court reporter were present and readyto openthehearing for public comment. After waiting for 10 minutes, no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was notformally opened for comment and atranscriptwas notprepared.

Hearing Officer

Date signed

# EVALUATION

# Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Interoffice Memorandum
To: Thru:

From: Commissioners Bridget C. Bohac, ChiefClerk Richard A. 

## Hyde, P.E., Executive Director
Steve Hagle, P.E., Deputy Director Office ofAir 

## Date: August 22, 2014



## DocketNo.: 2013-1392-RUL 

## Subject: CommissionApproval for RulemakingAdoption Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds Stage I Testing Requirements Rule Revision Rule Project No. 2013-022-115-AI


## Backgroundand reason(s) for the rulemaking: Stage I vapor recovery for filling ofgasoline storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) is a reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirementfor ozone nonattainment areas, required under §182 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) andthe Control Techniques Guideline documents for RACT issuedbythe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The commission's Stage I rules are included in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter C, Volatile Organic CompoundTransfer Operations, Division 2, Filling ofGasoline Storage Vessels (Stage I) 

## from MotorVehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities. In additionto fulfilling FCAA RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, the commission adopted rule revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage I rules in 1999 implementing the Stage I vapor recovery option oftheTexas Clean Air Strategy (TCAS) for certain ozone attainment counties. The revisions were one element ofthe newTCAS, which included a variety ofoptions that affected areas could implementto meet or maintainthe National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The purpose ofthe strategywas to reduce overall backgroundlevels ofozone in orderto assist inkeeping ozone attainment areas and near-nonattainment areas in compliance with the federal ozone standards andto help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainmentwiththe ozone NAAQS.
In 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking (published inthe May 16, 2012, 

## FederalRegister (77 FR 28772)) for 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, determining thatvehicle on-boardrefueling vapor recovery technology is inwidespread use for the purposes of controlling motorvehicle refueling emissions throughoutthe motorvehicle fleet. As 

## a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying state implementation plan (SIP) revision authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development of these two projects, staffidentified testing requirements, TXP-101 andTXP-102, inthe Stage II rules that are necessaryto ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I petroleum storagetank's (PST) vapor recovery system. With the decommissioning ofStage II vapor

## Commissioners Page 2 August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL

recovery controls, the rules requiring testing the Stage I system onthese PSTs would no longer apply. To preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment and ozone maintenance counties, the commissionproposed revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. Currently, the Stage I testing requirement will no longerbe applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs at the GDF. The owners or operators ofGDFs inthe 95 counties, including the ozone nonattainment counties ofEllis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall that do not have Stage II but are subjecttothe state Stage I rule requirements are required to inspectfor liquidleaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transportvessel to the PST. The remaining 143 counties must complywith thefederal Stage I testing requirements and are requiredto performthe CaliforniaAir Resource Board (CARE) Vapor Recovery Test Procedures TP-201.3 andTP201.1E. These CARE testing requirements are similarto the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARE TP 201.1E test is more stringentthan the TXP-102 test because the CARE TP-201.1E test requires testingthe pressure andvacuumthresholds of the pressure/vacuum (P /V) valve while theTXP-102 only requires testing the pressure threshold ofthe P /Vvalve. The Stage I vapor recovery rule ozone nonattainment area requirements apply to GDFs in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties), and Dallas-FortWorth (DFW) area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, andTarrant Counties). The Beaumont-PortArthur area (Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties), and El Paso County, which are under ozone nonattainment maintenance plans as part ofthe 1997 ozone standard are also subjectto the Stage I vaporrecovery requirements. Chapter 115 Stage II vapor recovery requirements also apply in 16 (Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, andWaller) ofthese 21 counties; Stage II is notrequiredin Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties ofthe DFW area. These rules regulate the filling ofgasoline storage tanks at GDFs bytanktrucks. To comply with Stage I requirements, a vaporbalance system is typically used to capture thevapors from the gasoline storage tanks thatwould otherwise be displaced to the atmosphere as these tanks are filled with gasoline. The capturedvapors areroutedto the gasoline tanktruck, andthe vapors are processedbya vapor control system when the tanktruck is subsequentlyrefilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulkplant. Compliance with Stage I vapor recovery rules is currently dependent onthe geographical location ofthe GDF within the state and thevolume offuel dispensed. GDFs within the 95 counties that are locatedinthe eastern part ofthe state must comply with state requirements found in Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. GDFs locatedwithin any county not coveredbythe state Stage I requirements are covered underthe federal National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Stage I requirements in40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. Forboth the state andfederal Stage I

## Commissioners Page3 August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL
regulations, the gallons ofgasoline dispensed per month andthe countywhere the GDF is located determines ifthe owner or operator ofa GDF is required to install Stage I equipment. Owners ofGDFs with multiple locations throughout an area inthe statewith similar monthlygasoline throughput amounts couldbe subjectto different equipment and testing requirements depending ontheir geographical location. The effectiveness ofStage I vapor recovery rules relies onthe capturedvapors being: effectively containedwithin the gasoline tanktruck during transit; and controlled when the transportvessel is refilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulkplant. Otherwise, the emissions captured atthe GDF will simplybe emitted during transit orwhen the transport vessel is refilled, resulting in no reduction involatile organic compound (VOC) emissions despite the Stage I requirements. 

## Scope ofthe rulemaking: In researching the Stage I testing requirements thatfacilities in ozone nonattainment areas will have to complywith once Stage II vapor recovery equipment hasbeen decommissioned, the commission determinedthat additional revisions related to testing requirements were necessaryto improve clarity and consistencyin compliance and program administrationfor the affected industry andthe agency. The adopted revisions will improve the consistency ofrequired equipment andtesting for owners ofGDFs in areas that currentlyhave different requirements. These adopted revisions will also eliminate confusion concerning testing requirements within the industrybyimproving consistencybetween the state andfederal Stage I rules. The adopted rule revision will revise Chapter 115 to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs locatedinthe 16 counties thatwill be affectedbythe Stage II rule revision (decommissioning Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI), preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in currently affected counties, and establish testing requirements in Chapter 115 that are more consistentwith the testing required inthe federal Stage I rule in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The adoptedrule revision will address issues ofStage I testing requirements notbeing uniform within the state program areas orbetweenthe state andfederal programs. Currently, owners or operators ofGDFs inthe 16 counties that have implemented Stage II are required to complete theTXP-101 andthe TXP-102 test procedures atthe time of installation ofStage II vapor recovery equipment and atleast once a year thereafter.
The adopted rule revision will apply onlyto the GDFs located inthe 16 counties subject to Stage II requirements and in the 95 counties that are only subject tothe Stage I rule. Wise Countyinthe DFW area has been designated as nonattainmentfor the 2008 eighthour ozone standard. The executive director has approved initiation ofa rulemaking project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) to addressVOC RACT requirements, including

## Commissioners Page4 August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL
Stage I requirements, for Wise County that are necessary as a result ofthe designation. These rules are tentatively scheduledfor proposal in December 2014.

A.) 

## Summaryofwhat the rulemakingwill do: The adopted rule revision will revise Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. The adopted rulemaking will amend §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224

- 115.227, and 115.229. The adopted rulemaking will: • add definitions for "dual-pointvaporbalance system," "coaxial system," and "gasoline dispensing facility"; • remove language regarding Stage II vapor recovery systems, which are required to be decommissioned; • require owners andoperators ofaffected GDFs to complywith new testing and inspection procedures for their Stage I vapor recovery systemthat are consistent with thefederal Stage I rule; • require owners andoperators ofaffected GDFs to maintain compliance with the Stage I vapor recovery requirements through annual testing; • reduce the throughputlevel for exemptionfrom Stage I inthe 95 affected counties from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per monthin covered attainment counties to ensure consistencywith the NESHAP requirements and provide owners and operators ofGDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment andtesting requirements; and • include minor changes to language such as changing "leak" to "liquidleak, visible vapors, and significant odors" to provide more claritywithin the rule language. 

## B.) Scope required

# byfederal regulations or state statutes: None. C.) 

## Additional staffrecommendationsthat arenotrequired

# byfederal rule or state statute: The adoptedrulemaking is recommendedby staffto ensure Stage I compliance continues at GDFs subjectto current Stage II requirements, to provide consistency and clarity, andto help provide administrative consistencythroughout the affected industryin areas subject toboththe state andfederal Stage I rules. 

## Statutoryauthority: The revisions are adopted underTexas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, concerning General Powers, thatprovides the commission withthe general powers to carry outits duties under theTWC; TWC, §5.103, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessaryto carry outits powers and duties underthe TWC; TWC, §5.105, concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commissionby rule to establish and approve all general policy ofthe commission; andunderTexas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistentwith thepolicy

## Commissioners Pages August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL

andpurposes ofthe Texas CleanAir Act. The revisions are also adoptedunderTHSC, §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguardthe state's air resources, consistent with the protection ofpublic health, general welfare, andphysical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning StateAir Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive planfor the proper control ofthe state's air; andTHSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commissionto develop and implementtransportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the publicfrom exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. The revisions are also adopted underTHSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination ofRecords, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring and monitoring ofair contaminant emissions. The revisions are also adoptedunder FCAA, 42 United States Code (USC), §§7401, 

## etseq., which requires states to submit SIP revisions that specify the mannerin which the NAAQS will be achieved and maintainedwithin each air quality control region of the state. The adopted revisions implementTHSC, §§382.002, 382.011, 382.012, 382.016, 382.017, 382.208 and FCAA, 42 USC, §§7401, 

## etseq. 

## Effectonthe: A.) Regulatedcommunity: The adopted rule revision will have an effect onthe current owners ofthe GDFs and licensed contractors who install, test, and monitorthe Stage I equipment. Owners and operators ofaffected GDFs may experience an increased cost due to testing being required on an annualbasis. Testing costs for the Stage I system range from $250 to $275 for annual inspections. Contractors who testthe Stage I equipmentinthe affected areas may be impactedbythe testsbeing required on an annualbasis. 

## B.) Public: No direct impact is anticipated. 

## C.) Agencyprograms: The TCEQ's Office ofCompliance and Enforcement's (OCE) Field Operations Division has investigators that currentlymonitor and inspect equipment andinstallations at affected GDFs. The OCE may see its workload change as owners or operators ofGDFs make the necessary changes to meetthe annual Stage I testing and inspection requirements at facilities that currently are only requiredto test once everythreeyears. 

## Stakeholdermeetings: Informal stakeholder meetings onpotential revisions to the Stage I testing requirements were held onApril 24, 2013 inArlington, April 25, 2013 in Longview, April 29, 2013 in

## Commissioners Page6 August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL
Corpus Christi, April30, 2013 in Houston, May 1, 2013 inAustin, and May 2, 2013 in El Paso. Commenters present agreed that Stage I testing requirements needed tobeuniform across the state andthat federally requiredtesting procedures and methods were generally acceptedbythe industry. Commenters also agreed thattesting ofStage I equipment should be performed more frequently tobetter detect potential issues with the system and improve compliance with testing requirements. 

## Publiccomment: The commission scheduledpublic hearings inAustin on May 1, 2014, in FortWorth on April 29, 2014, and in Houston on May 6, 2014. The hearings were not officially opened because no oneregistered to provide oral comments. The comment period closed on May 12, 2014. The commission received written commentsfrom the EPA andthe Texas Food and Fuels Association (TFFA). The EPA andthe TFFA expressed overall supportfor the proposed rule change, andchanges tothe rule were suggestedbytheTFF A. 

## Significant public comments are summarized as follows.

• The EPA expressed concern thatthe rule revision does not account for the designation ofWise County as nonattainmentwithinthe DFW ozone nonattainment area underthe 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. The EPA also commentedthat there is a non-substantive variationbetween the proposed revisions to the first sentence of§115.10(11) submittedto the EPA inletter form andthose posted onthe TCEQ website. 

## Wise County in the DFWarea has been designated nonattainment for the 2008 

## eight-hour ozone standard. The executive director has approved

initiation of a separate rulemakingproject (Rule ProjectNo. 2013-048-115-AI) 

## to address VOCRACTrequirements including StageI requirements for Wise County thatare necessary as a result of the nonattainmentdesignation. The commission has determined thatincluding all applicable RACTrequirements for Wise County in one rulemaking wouldprovide the bestnotice to thepublic of additional requirements in Wise County due to its inclusion in the DFWnonattainmentarea for the 2008 

## eight-hour ozone standard. There is no anticipated impacton the

revisions in this currentrulemaking as a result of the future RuleProjectNo. 2013- 048-115-AI. 

## In addition, this current rulemaking will be adopted before the DFW RACTRulemaking, which is tentatively scheduled forproposal in December 2014. 

## No change to the rule has been made in response to this comment.

• The TFF Acommented that it questions thebenefits ofthe change to the federally requiredtest method in §115.225 for testing consistency and ease ofcompliance issues as outlinedinthe preamble. 

## This revision will minimize confusion within the industry regarding the type of test required in differentgeographical areas of East Texas and the frequency of the tests. The revision wouldalsoprovide consistency in compliance and enforcementactivities by the commission by more clearly defining the testing schedule and testingprocedures. The improvementof consistency in compliance requirements is a benefit for the state andaffected stakeholders andstrengthens the benefits of this clean air strategy included in the

## Commissioners Page7 August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL



## SIP. Without further information regarding the TFFA's specific concerns, the commission cannotaddress them. No changes to the rule have been made in response to this comment.

• The TFFA also commentedthat it does not supportthe proposed revisions to §115.226 that require records tobekept on site, nor does it support the current requirementto do so found in §115.226(2). The TFFA urges the commissionto remove the entire provision of§115.226(1) andrequests thatthe commission not adoptthe revision to §115.226(2)(B) requiring records to be immediately available on site. The TFF Acommentedthat the commission has placed an unjustified and expensive recordkeeping provision onthe GDFbecause the same records are being keptbythe owner or operator ofthe tanktruck. 

## The commission acknowledges that theproposed language may be confusing as to the records thatshall be kepton site atthe affected GDF. The commission did notintend topropose thatany additional records be kepton site other than those records already required in current §115.226. 

## Paragraph (1) 

## specifies records thatmustbe maintainedatthe facility site. Records required underparagraph (2) 

## mustbe made available at the site during an inspection already applies to all the records required under §115.226(2) 

## via subparagraph (C). The commission's intentwith the change was to streamline rule language butretain this requirement because subparagraph (C) was proposed for deletion. The commission has revised the rule language to clarify that no additional records are beingproposed to be kept on site butinstead clarifying that records mustbeprovidedon site during an inspection. 

## Significantchangesfrom proposal: The commission has revisedthe rule language to clarifythat no additional records are being proposedto be kept on site butinstead clarifying thatrecords mustbe provided on site during an inspection. The commission has made this change in response to the TFFA's concern regarding recordkeeping requirements found in §115.226. 

## Potential controversial concerns andlegislativeinterest: No controversial concerns orlegislative interests are anticipated. 

## Does this rulemaking affect anycurrentpolicies orrequire development of newpolicies? This adopted rulemaking is not anticipated to affect any currentpolicies or require development ofnewpolicies. 

## Whatarethe consequences ifthis rule making doesnotgoforward? Are there alternatives to rulemaking? Owners or operators ofGDFs subject to Stage II will no longerbe required to performthe annual inspection procedures after the Stage II equipment has been decommissioned, which may result in decreased effectiveness ofthe Stage I equipment. Additionally, owners

## Commissioners PageS August 22, 2014
Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL

or operators ofGDFs in counties subjectto the Chapter 115 Stage I rule will continueto have requirements that are inconsistentwiththe federal Stage I rule. 

## Keypoints inthe adoption rulemakingschedule: Texas Registerproposal publication date: Aprilu, 2014 Anticipated 

## Texas Register adoption publication date: September 26, 2014 Anticipated effective date: October 2, 2014 Six-month 

## Texas Registerfiling deadline: October 13, 2014 

## Agencycontacts: SarahThomas, Rule Project Manager, (512) 239-4939, Air Quality Division Terry Salem, StaffAttorney, (512) 239-0469 Becky Petty, StaffAttorney, (512) 239-1088 Derek Baxter, Texas Register Coordinator, (512) 239-2613 

## Attachments

cc: ChiefClerk, 2 copies Executive Director's Office Marshall Coover Tucker Royall Pattie Burnett Office ofGeneral Counsel Sarah Thomas Derek Baxter

## EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY



## The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) adoptsthe amendmentsto §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229.

Sections 115.10, 115.226, and 115.227 are adopted

# with changes tothe proposedtext as publishedintheApri111, 2014, issue ofthe 

# Texas Register (39 TexReg 2760). Sections 115.221, 115.222, 115.224, 115.225, and 115.229 are adopted 

# withoutchanges tothe proposedtext and, therefore, will notbe republished.

The adopted amendments will be submittedto the United States Environmental
ProtectionAgency (EPA) as a revision tothe state implementationplan (SIP).



# Background and Summaryofthe Factual Basisfor theAdopted Rules Stage I vapor recovery for filling ofgasoline storage tanks atgasoline dispensing
facilities (GDF) is a reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement for

ozone nonattainment areas requiredunder §182 ofthe Federal CleanAir Act (FCAA)
andthe Control Techniques Guideline documents for RACT issuedbythe EPA. The
commission's Stage I rules are includedin Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from
Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter C, Volatile Organic CompoundTransfer Operations, Division 2, Filling ofGasoline StorageVessels (Stage I) 

## for MotorVehicle
Fuel Dispensing Facilities. In additiontofulfilling FCAA RACT requirements for
nonattainment areas, the commission adoptedrule revisions tothe Chapter 115 Stage I
rules in 1999 implementingthe Stage I vapor recovery option ofthe Texas CleanAir

1

## Strategy (TCAS) for certain ozone attainment counties. The revisions were one element
ofthe newTCAS, which included a variety ofoptionsthat affected areas could implementto meet or maintainthe NationalAmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) for groundlevel ozone. The purpose ofthe strategywas to reduce overall backgroundlevels ofozone in order to assist inkeeping ozone attainment areas andnear-nonattainment

areas in compliance withthefederal ozone standards. It

## was also to help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainmentwiththe ozone NAAQS.

The effectiveness ofStage I vapor recovery rules relies onthe capturedvapors being effectively containedwithin the gasoline tanktruck duringtransit and controlledwhen
thetransportvessel is refilled at a gasoline terminal orgasoline bulkplant. Otherwise, the emissions captured atthe GDF will simplybe emittedduring transit orwhen the transportvessel is refilled, resulting in no reduction involatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions despite the Stage I requirements.

The Stage I vapor recovery rules applyto GDFs thathave installed Stage II vapor
recovery equipmentinthe Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties), and Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, andTarrant Counties). The Beaumont-PortArthurArea (Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties), and El Paso County, which is under an ozone nonattainment maintenance plan as part ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, are also subjecttothe Stage I vapor recovery requirements. These rules regulate thefilling ofgasoline storage tanks at GDFs bytank

2

## trucks. To complywith Stage I requirements, a vaporbalance system is typicallyusedto capture the vapors from the gasoline storage tanksthatwill otherwisebe displaced to the atmosphere as thesetanks are filled with gasoline. The capturedvapors are routedto the gasoline tanktruck, andthevapors are processedby a vapor control system when thetanktruckis subsequentlyrefilled at a gasolineterminal orgasolinebulkplant.

Initially, the 1999 amendments to Chapter 115 extendedthe existing Chapter 115 Stage I
vapor recovery and gasoline tanktruckleaktesting requirements to 95 counties in the

easternhalfofTexas. These counties included: Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, McLennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk, Sabine, SanAugustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, VanZandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, andWood. Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties were subsequently designated nonattainmentfor the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard onJune 15, 2004, andthe Stage I rules were revised to include these counties underthe ozone nonattainment area requirements through rulemaking adopted on April13, 2005. Wise Countyin the Dallas-FortWorth area has been designated as nonattainmentfor the 2008 eight-hour ozone standardbuthas notbeen includedinthis
3

## rule revision as a countyinwhich Stage I applies. The executive directorhas approved initiation ofa future rulemaking project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) to address VOC RACT requirements, including Stage I requirements, for Wise Countythat are
necessary as a result ofthe designation. These rules are tentatively scheduledfor proposal in December 2014.

In 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking publishedin the May 16, 2012, issue ofthe
FederalRegister 

## (77 FR 28772) for 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, determining thatvehicle on-boardrefueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology is in widespreaduse for the purposes ofcontrolling motorvehicle refueling emissions throughoutthe motorvehicle fleet. As 

## a result, on October 9, 2013, the commission adopted revisions tothe Chapter 115 Stage II rules (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115- AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project Number 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs no laterthan August 31, 2018, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious and above. During the development ofthese two projects, staffidentifiedtesting requirements, TXP-101 andTXP-102, inthe Stage II rules that are necessaryto ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I petroleum storage tanks' (PST) vapor recovery system. With the decommissioning ofStage II vapor recovery controls, the requirementfor testingthe Stage I system onthese PSTs will no longer apply. In orderto preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties from the Stage II rules, the commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I testing requirements.

Upon the adoption ofStage II decommissioning requirements, a review was done onthe
4

# Stage I testing requirements thatfacilities in ozone nonattainment areas will have to complywith once Stage II vapor recovery equipmenthas been decommissioned. The commission determinedthat additional revisions relatedto testing requirements were
necessaryto improve clarity and consistencyin compliance andprogram administration for the affected industry andthe agency. The adopted revisions will improve the consistency ofrequired equipment andtestingfor owners ofGDFs in areas that currentlyhave different requirements. These adopted revisions will eliminate confusion concerning testing requirements within the industrybyimproving consistencybetween the state Stage I rules in Chapter 115 

# andfederal National Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAP) Stage I rules. The commission incorporatedthe NESHAP Stage I rules byreference in 30

# TAC §113.1380 

# onJuly 26, 2013. 

# The federal Stage I rules require GDFs thathave a monthlythroughput at orabove 100,000 

# gallons
to operate a vaporbalance system to capture andreturnvapors tothe tank-trucktank so the vapors canbe disposed ofproperly. GDFs subjectto the federal Stage I rule must also meet certaintesting andrecordkeeping requirements.

The commission also held informal stakeholder meetings on potential revisions tothe Stage I testing requirements onApril 24, 2013 

# inArlington, April 25, 2013 

# in Longview, April 29, 2013 

# in Corpus Christi, April 30, 2013 

# in Houston, May 1, 2013 

# inAustin, and May 2, 2013 

# in El Paso. Commenters present atthese stakeholder meetings agreed that Stage I testing requirements needed to be uniform across the affected East Texas areas in the state andthatfederally requiredtesting procedures and methods were generally acceptedbythe industry. Commenters also agreedthattesting ofStage I equipment shouldbe performed more frequently than once every three years tobetter detect
5

## potential issues withthe system andimprove compliance withtesting requirements. Counties inWestTexas will continueto complywith federal requirements only andwill

notbe affectedbythis rulemaking.

The commission adopts these revisions to Chapter 115 to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located inthe 16 

## counties (Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, andWaller Counties) thatwill be affectedbythe Stage II decommissioning rule revision, preserve existing Stage I testing requirements inthe currentlyaffected 95 counties, andestablishtesting requirements in Chapter 115 that

are more consistentwith thefederal Stage I rule for all 254 counties.

Applicability of, and compliance with Stage I vapor recovery rules is dependent onthe geographical location ofthe GDF withinthe state. GDFs within counties located in the

eastern partofthe state mustcomply with state requirements found in Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. The federal Stage I rule in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC applies to all254 counties; therefore, GDFs locatedwithin any county not coveredbythe Stage I requirements documentedin Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2 are covered underthe federal Stage I requirements. The gallons ofgasoline dispensed per month
andthe countywhere the GDF is located determines ifthe owner or operator ofa GDF is requiredto install Stage I equipment and subjectto eitherthe state orfederal Stage I regulations. Owners ofGDFs with multiplelocations throughoutthe state with similar monthly gasoline throughput amounts couldbe subjectto different equipment and testing requirements depending ontheir geographical location.


# 6

## Additionally, owners or operators ofGDFs thathave implemented Stage II in the 16 affected counties are requiredto complete theTXP-101 andtheTXP-102 testprocedures

atthetime ofinstallation ofStage II vapor recovery equipment and atleast once a year thereafter. This testing requirementwill no longerbe applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs atthe GDF, which may result in decreased effectiveness ofthe Stage I equipmentinstalled atthese facilities. The owners or operators ofGDFs inthe remaining 90 counties inthe easternhalfofTexas and identifiedundertheterm covered attainment counties thatfall underthe state Stage I rule are only requiredtoinspect for liquidleaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transferfrom the transportvessel to the PST. All GDFs inthe state subjectto 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
CCCCCC must comply withthefederal Stage I testing requirements and are requiredto perform the CaliforniaAir Resource Board (CARB) Vapor Recovery Test Procedures TP201.3 andTP-201.1E. These CARB testing requirements are similartothe TXP-101 and
TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1E testis more stringent
thantheTXP-102 testbecause the CARB TP-201.1E test requires testing the pressure andvacuum thresholds ofthe pressure/vacuum (P/V) valve while the TXP-102 only requires testing the pressure threshold ofthe P /Vvalve.

Additionally, the adopted revisions will reduce the throughputlevel for exemption from Stage I implementationfrom 125,000 gallons per monthto 100,000 gallons permonth
for GDFs in the 90 covered attainment counties, except for those covered attainment counties intheAustin/SanAntonio area (Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis, Williamson, andWilson) that currentlyhave an applicabilitythreshold of

7

### 25,000 

# gallons permonth. This adopted change will establish consistencywiththe NESHAP requirements andprovide owners and operators ofGDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment andtesting requirements. The lowering ofthe throughput level is not anticipatedto affect owners and operators ofGDFs inthe covered attainment counties because these facilities have alreadybeen subjectto NESHAP requirements, which were incorporatedby referencebythe commission onJuly 26, 2013, 

# or as is the

case for those counties intheAustin/SanAntonio area, are already subject to a staterequiredlowerthroughput.

The commission has also found that swivel-type ofadapters that allows for the connection ofhoses from thetanktrucktothe stationarytankandprevent overtightening are readily in use by GDFs. These adapters are CARE certified and approved for use throughthe NESHAP rules. The commission has incorporatedthe use of approved adapters including swivel adapters inthe Emissions Specifications section of the rule.

Section

# bySection Discussion
In additiontothe adopted revisions regarding testing and other Stage I requirements discussed elsewhere in this preamble, various stylistic, non-substantive changes were includedtoupdatethe rule language to current 

# Texas Register style andformat requirements. Such changes include appropriate and consistent use ofacronyms, section references, rule structure, and certain terminology. These minor revisions include updatingthe formatting ofgeographic areaterms used inthe rules to be consistentwiththe formatting ofthe terms as defined in §115.10 

# (e.g., Beaumont-Port
8

## Arthur in lieu ofBeaumont/PortArthur). These changes are non-substantive and generally are not specifically discussed in this preamble.

Additionally, the commission replaces theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility"
in multiple portions ofthe Stage I rules with a newdefinedterm "gasoline dispensing facility" for clarity and consistencywith theterminologyfound in requirements for the Chapter 115 

## Stage II rules.

§115.10, 

# Definitions
The commission adopts revisions to §115.10 

## by addingthe definitions for "dual-point
vaporbalance system," "coaxial system," and "gasoline dispensing facility." The term "dual-pointvaporbalance system" is incorporatedfrom 40 

## CFR §63.11132 

## to describe a type ofsystem that shouldbe installed at a facility. A dual-pointvaporbalance system allows for separate connections for theloading ofgasoline andthetransfer ofgasoline
vapors to a tank-trucktank. The term "coaxial system" is addedto describe a type of
vapor control system consisting ofa tube within a tubethat requires only onetank opening allowing fuel to flow throughthe innertube while vapors are displacedthrough the annular spacebetween the inner and outertubes. This type ofsystem is often found

at GDFs. The term "gasoline dispensing facility" is addedto replace theterm "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" used inthe Stage I rules for consistency with recent revisions tothe Chapter 115 

## Stage II rules and defined for clarification. The definition for "pressure reliefvalve" is updated to also applyto "pressure-vacuum reliefvalves" to keep thewording withinthe rule consistent andwiththe general use ofthetermto cover reliefvalves bythe industry. The other definitions inthis section are re-numbered as
9

## needed.

Additionally, the commission hadproposed to make a non-substantive revision tothe definition ofhighly-reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOC) by addingthe word "emissions" in subparagraph (B). However, when used in Chapter 115, 

## Subchapter H, theterm HRVOC is notusedexclusively in the context ofemissions. Theterm HRVOC is also usedin certain contexts concerning process fluids invessels andpiping, e.g., HRVOC contentlevels inprocess fluids for meeting exemption criteria. Including the word "emissions" in the definition in §115.10 

## couldinadvertentlycreate confusion in such contexts. Therefore, the commission is not adoptingthis proposed change.

§115.221, 

# EmissionSpecifications
As 

## discussed elsewhere inthis Sectionby Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.221

## to updatetheformatting ofthe geographic areas listed andreplace theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 

## Stage II rules.

§115.222, 

# ControlRequirements
As 

## discussed elsewhere inthis Sectionby Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.222 

## to update theformatting ofthe geographic areas listed andreplace theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 

## Stage II rules.

The adopted revisions to §115.222 

## also delete thelanguage allowing facilities with a

10

# Stage II vapor recovery system to establish a pressure rate atwhich a pressure-vacuum reliefvalve is setthat meets CARB requirements orhas a third-party certification becausethe Stage II requirements will no longerberequired due to the commission's adoption ofthe decommissioning ofStage II equipment. The adoptedlanguage incorporates theuse of"dual-pointvaporbalance system" as defined in §115.10 

# and

removes the language for non-coaxial Stage I connections. Dual-pointvaporbalance systems are more effective than single-point coaxial systems in controllingvapors during the loading ofgasoline becausetwo separatehoses for loadingthefuel and recovering fuel vapors are connectedto the deliverytruck and storage tankwhich allow less backpressure andhigher flow rates. Dual-pointvaporbalance systems are the only non-coaxial Stage I connection used in Texas andhavebeen required at all applicable facilities since January 10, 2011.



# Additionally, the information in paragraph (6) is incorporated into paragraph (5). After removal ofthe provision regarding Stage II, the requirements for covered attainment counties in paragraph (6) are identical to the requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas under paragraph (5). Therefore, combiningthetwo paragraphs will eliminate redundant rulelanguage. The other paragraphs inthis section are re-numbered as appropriate.

§115.224, InspectionRequirements
As 

# discussed elsewhere inthis Sectionby Section Discussion, the commission adopts minor revisions to §115.224

# to replace the term "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 

# Stage II rules. In

11

## addition, paragraph (1) is revised to specifythat gasoline transfer mustbe discontinued immediatelywhen any liquidleak, visible vapor, or significant odor is observedto preventfurther potential discharges. This adoptedrevision will provide additional claritywithinthe rule languagebyproviding more descriptive terms for thetypes of potential discharges thatwould result in a discontinuation ofthetransfer ofgasoline.

§115.225, 

## TestingRequirements The commission adopts the amendmentto §115.225 to remove the currenttest procedures andrequire all affected GDFs to complywith the requirements of40 CFR §63.11120. All affected GDFs will berequiredto annually complywith the CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.1E andTP-201.3, found in 40 CFR §63.11120. Additionally, use ofalternative testmethods andprocedures shallbe allowed in
accordance with the alternative test methodrequirements found in 40 CFR §63.7(±). These adoptedrevisions will make thetesting requirements for affected East Texas facilities under Chapter 115 consistentwith thefederal Stage I rule except for the annual inspection requirement. This revision will minimize confusion within the industryof which testis required inwhich area in East Texas, thefrequency ofthetests, andwill provide for improved consistency in compliance andenforcementbythe commission dueto a more defined testing schedule andtesting procedures. Owners and operators of
GDFs inWestTexas will continue to complywith federal requirements andwould notbe
affected by this rulemaking. The CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure-201.1E will be requiredfor GDFs to demonstrate compliance with the leak rate and cracking pressure requirements for pressure-vacuum ventvalves installed onthe gasoline tanks atthe facility. The CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure-201.3 will be requiredto
12

## demonstrate compliance with the static pressureperformance requirementfor a vapor balance systembyconducting a staticpressuretest onthe gasoline tanks atthe facility.
Annual testing ofStage I systemswill provide additional benefittotheindustryby identifying issues sooner and addressing expensive repair costs experiencedby systems that are nottested annuallywhere faulty equipment andparts are allowed to operate for longer periods oftime. Affected areas will also benefitbyhaving emissions issues at these facilities addressed earlierresulting in minimal impacttothe environment.

§115.226, 

# RecordkeepingRequirements
As 

## discussed elsewhere inthis Sectionby Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.226 

## toupdatethe formatting ofthe geographic areas listed andreplace
theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 

## Stage II rules. In addition, the adoptedrevisions revise the provision inthe introduction of§115.226 

## to clarifythe records that shall be maintained
andto specifythat all records mustbe made available atthe site during aninvestigation
upon request.

The adoptedrevisions to §115.226(2)(B) 

## also delete the language requiring facilities with Stage II vaporrecovery systems to perform Stage I testingbecausethe requirements
would no longerbe necessary due tothe commission's adoption ofthe decommissioning
ofStage II equipment as previously discussedinthis preamble. The commission
combines subparagraphs (B) and (C) to reflectthatthe recordkeeping requirements will
become uniform inthe countieslisted as the Stage II vapor control requirements are repealed. The requirementtokeep the records for gasoline throughputfor each calendar
13

# month is updatedto clarifythatthe records shall bekeptfor the previous 24 

# months.

§115.227, 

# Exemptions
As 

# discussed elsewhere inthis Sectionby Section Discussion, the commission adopts minor revisions to §115.227

# toupdatethe formatting ofthe geographic areaslisted and replace theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 

# Stage II rules. Additionally, the adopted revisions reorderprovisions thatcross-reference to §115.222

# to reflect the proper order ofthe provisions in that section andupdate the cross-references to reflect changes to
§§115.222, 115.224, 

# and 115.226 

# adoptedin this rulemaking.

The adoptedrevisions to §115.227

# reduce the throughputlevel for exemption from Stage
I vapor control requirements from 125,000 

# gallons per monthto 100,000 

# gallons per month in paragraph (3) to provide GDF owners and operators with clearer applicability requirements and ensure consistencywith throughputlimitsbetween the state andthe federal Stage I requirements. The lowering ofthe throughput limit inthis adopted rulemaking will provide owners and operators with one standardofthroughput for both
state andfederal Stage I requirements inthe majority ofthe covered attainment counties. The adopted revision will also provide the commission with one throughput standardfor assessing applicability andcompliance ofGDFs inthe covered attainment counties thatcurrentlyhave an applicabilitythreshold of 125,000 

# gallons per month underthe Chapter 115 

# rule. The adopted revisions to §115.227

# also update the date in paragraph (3) to reflect thatthe exemption from the requirements ofthis division begin
after October 31, 2014.

14

### §115.229, 

# CountiesandComplianceSchedules
As 

# discussed elsewhere inthis Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts minorrevisions to §115.229 to replace theterm "motorvehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, the commission adoptsthe revisions tothelist ofcounties in subsection (a) usingthe geographic areatermsfor the Beaumont-PortArthur, El Paso, and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria areas tobe consistentwith the other sections ofthe Stage I rules.

Final RegulatoryImpact Determination The commission reviewed the adoptedrulemaking inlight ofthe regulatory analysis requirements ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225 and determinedthatthe adopted rules do not meetthe definition ofa major environmental rule as defined inthe statute. According to Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, a major environmental rule means "a rule the specific intent ofwhich is to protectthe environment or reduce risks to humanhealth from environmental exposure andthat may adversely affect in a material
waythe economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition,jobs, the environment, or the publichealth and safety ofthe state ora sector ofthe state." Additionally, the rulemaking does notmeet any ofthefour applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis for a major environmental rule, which are listed
inTexas Government Code, §2001.0225(a). Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 applies onlyto a major environmental rule, the result ofwhich is to: 1) 

# exceed a standard setbyfederal law, unless the rule is specifically requiredby statelaw; 2) exceed

an express requirement ofstate law, unless the rule is specifically requiredbyfederal

15

## law; 3) exceed a requirement ofa delegation agreement or contractbetween the state and an agency orrepresentative ofthefederal governmentto implement a state and federal program; or4) adopt a rule solelyunderthe general powers ofthe agency instead ofunder a specific statelaw.

The adoptedrulemaking amends §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229. The revisions to Chapter 115 will facilitate compliance with agency rules and testing requirementsthathave changed dueto changes tothe Stage II vapor recovery
program. These changes occurred afterthe EPA finalized a rulemaking (publishedin the May 16, 2012, 

# FederalRegister, 77 FR 28772) for 40 CFR Part51, determining that vehicle ORVRtechnology is inwidespread use for the purposes ofcontrolling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughoutthe motorvehicle fleet. As 

## a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment

areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. Duringthe development of these two projects, staffidentifiedtesting requirements, TXP-101 andTXP-102, in the Stage II rules that are necessaryto ensure there are no leaks in the vaporrecovery Stage
I PSTs. Withthe decommissioning ofStage II vaporrecovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system onthese PSTs would no longer apply. In orderto preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment and ozone maintenance counties, the commission is adopting revisions tothe Stage I testing requirements. The
revisions to Chapter 115 will facilitate compliance withthese testing requirements by makingtherequirements consistent across this sector ofthe industry. As 

## a result,
16

# compliance withthe rules will be easier andmore consistent. The adoptedrevisions will improve the consistency ofrequired equipment andtesting for owners ofGDFs in areas thatcurrentlyhave different requirements. These adoptedrevisions will also eliminate confusion with testing requirementsby members ofthe industrybyimproving consistencybetween the state andfederal Stage I rules.

The adopted rulemaking implements requirements of42 

# United States Code (USC), §7410, 

# which requires statesto adopt a SIP thatprovides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe NAAQS in each air quality control region ofthe
state. While 42 

# USC, §7410 

# generally does notrequire specific programs, methods, or reductions in orderto meetthe standard, the SIP mustinclude enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, ortechniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions ofemissions rights), as well as schedules andtimetables for compliance as maybe necessary orappropriate to meet the applicable requirements ofthis chapter (42 

# USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control). The provisions ofthe FCAA recognize that states are inthebestposition to determine what programs and controls are necessary orappropriate in orderto meet the NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected industry, andthe public to collaborate on thebest methods for attainingthe NAAQS for the specific regions in the state. Even thoughthe FCAA allows states to develop their own programs, this flexibility does not relieve a statefrom developing a program that meets the requirements of42 

# USC, §7410. 

# States are notfree to ignore the requirements of42 

# USC, §7410, 

# and must develop programs to assurethattheir contributions to nonattainment areas are reduced

so thatthese areas canbebroughtinto attainment on schedule.

17

## The purpose ofthis rulemaking is to increase protection ofthe environment andreduce riskto humanhealth; itis not expectedthatthis adoptedrulemaking would adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity,jobs, the environment, orthe publichealth and safety ofthe state or a sector ofthe state. Therefore, no regulatoryimpact analysis is required.

This rulemaking will allowthe commission to make uniform Stage I testing requirements withinthe state program areas orbetweenthe state andfederal program. Currently, owners or operators ofGDFs inthe 16 countiesthathave implemented Stage
II are requiredto complete theTXP-101 andtheTXP-102 testprocedures atthetime of
installation ofStage II vapor recovery equipment and atleast once a year thereafter. This testing requirementwill no longerbe applicable when Stage II decommissioning

occurs at GDFs, which may resultin decreased effectiveness ofthe Stage I equipment
installed atthese facilities. The owners or operators ofGDFs inthe 95 counties that do

nothave Stage II, butfall underthe state Stage I rule, are requiredto inspectfor liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transportvessel tothe PST. The remaining 143 counties mustcomplywith the federal Stage I testing requirements and are requiredto perform the CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.3 andTP-201.1E. These CARB testing requirements are similarto theTXP-101 andTXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1E testis

more stringentthantheTXP-102 testbecause the CARB TP-201.1E testrequires testing the pressure andvacuum thresholds ofthe P/Vvalve while the TXP-102 onlyrequires testing the pressurethreshold ofthe P/Vvalve.
18

# The requirementto provide a fiscal analysis ofproposedregulations intheTexas Government Code was amendedby Senate Bill (SB) 633 during the 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent ofSB 633 was to require agencies to conduct a regulatoryimpact analysis ofextraordinaryrules. These rules are identifiedinthe statutorylanguage as major environmental rules thatwill 

# have a material adverse impact andwill 

# exceed a requirement ofstatelaw, federal law, or a delegatedfederal program, orare adopted solely underthe general powers ofthe agency. With the understanding thatthis requirementwould seldom apply, the commission provided a cost estimatefor SB 633 concluding that "based on an assessment ofrules adoptedbythe agency inthe past, itis
not anticipatedthatthebill will 

# have significant fiscal implications for the agency due to its limited application." The commission also notedthatthe number ofrules thatwould require assessment undertheprovisions ofthebill was notlarge. This conclusion was based, in part, on the criteria set forth in thebill thatexempted proposedrules from the
full 

# analysis unless the rule was a major environmental rule that exceeds a federal law.

As 

# discussed earlier in this preamble, the FCAA does not always require specific
programs, methods, or reductions in orderto meetthe NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each area contributingto nonattainmentto help ensure thatthose

areas will 

# meetthe attainment deadlines. Because ofthe ongoing needto address nonattainmentissues andto meetthe requirements of42 USC, §7410, the commission routinely proposes and adopts SIP rules. The legislature is presumedto understandthis federal scheme. Ifeach rule proposedfor inclusion inthe SIP was consideredtobe a major environmental rule thatexceeds federal law, then every SIP revision would
19

## requirethefull regulatoryimpact analysis contemplatedby SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions reachedbythe commission in its cost estimate andby the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since thelegislature is presumed

to understandthefiscal impacts ofthebills itpasses, andthatpresumption is basedon informationprovidedby state agencies andthe LBB, the commissionbelieves thatthe intent ofSB 633 was onlyto requirethefull regulatory impact analysis for rules that are extraordinaryin nature. While the SIP revision will have a broadimpact, the impactis

no greaterthan is necessary or appropriate to meetthe requirements ofthe FCAA. For these reasons, rules adoptedfor inclusion in the SIP fall underthe exception inTexas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), becausethey are requiredbyand do not exceed,
federal law.

The commission has consistently appliedthis construction to its rules since this statute

was enactedin 1997. Since thattime, thelegislature has revisedthe Texas Government Code butleftthis provision substantiallyunamended. It

## is presumedthat "when an
agency interpretationis in effect atthetime thelegislature amends thelaws without making substantial change inthe statute, thelegislature is deemedtohave acceptedthe agency's interpretation." 

# CentralPower & 

# LightCo. 

# v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex. App. Austin 1995), 

# writdenied withpercuriam opinion respecting another issue,
960 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1997); 

# Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. App. Austin 1990, 

# no writ). CfHumble Oil & 

# Refining Co. v. Calvert, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1967); 

# Dudney v. StateFarmMut.AutoIns. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 2000); 

# Southwestern LifeIns. Co. v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App.
Austin 2000,

# pet. denied); and 

# CoastalIndust. WaterAuth. v. Trinity Portland Cement
20

## Div., 

# 563 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1978).

The commission's interpretation ofthe regulatory impact analysis requirements is also supportedbya change made totheTexas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) bythe legislature in 1999. In an attemptto limitthe number ofrule challengesbaseduponAPA requirements, the legislature clarifiedthat state agencies are requiredto meetthese sections oftheAPAagainstthe standardof"substantial compliance." The legislature specifically identifiedTexas Government Code, §2001.0225 as falling underthis standard. The commissionhas substantiallycompliedwith the requirements ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225.

The adoptedrulemaking does not exceed a standard setbyfederal law orexceed an
express requirement ofstatelaw. No contract or delegation agreement covers thetopic thatis the subject ofthis adopted rulemaking. Therefore, this adopted rulemaking is not subject tothe regulatory analysis provisions ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225(b) because althoughthe rulemaking meets the definition ofa "major environmental rule," itdoes not meet any ofthe four applicability criteriafor a major environmental rule.

The commission invitedpublic comment on the draft regulatory impact analysis determination. The Texas Food and Fuels Association (TFFA) indicatedthattheyhave

no comment onthe regulatory impact analysis determination.

Takings ImpactAssessment 

# The commission evaluatedthe adopted rulemaking andperformed an assessment of
21

## whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007is applicable. The specificpurpose of the adoptedrulemaking is to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located in the 16 counties thatwill be affectedbythe Stage II rule revision (decommissioning Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI), preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in currentlyaffected counties, and establish testing requirements that are uniform throughoutthe state.

As 

## mentionedpreviouslyin the preamble, in 1999 the commission adoptedrule revisions to Chapter 115 implementingthe Stage I vaporrecovery option oftheTCAS. The revisions were one element ofthe newTCAS, which included a variety ofoptions that affected areas could implementto meet ormaintainthe NAAQS for groundlevel

ozone. The purpose ofthe strategywas to reduce overallbackgroundlevels ofozone in orderto assist inkeeping ozone attainment areas andnear-nonattainment areas in compliance with thefederal ozone standards andtohelp the ozone nonattainment areas

move closerto ultimately reaching attainmentwiththe ozone NAAQS.

On May 16, 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 51, determiningthat vehicle ORVR technology is inwidespreaduse for the purposes ofcontrolling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motorvehicle fleet. As 

## a result, the
commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment

areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development of
thesetwo projects, staffidentifiedtesting requirements, TXP-101 andTXP-102, inthe
22

# Stage II rules that are necessaryto ensure there are no leaks inthe Stage I PST vapor
recovery. With the decommissioning ofStage II vapor recovery controls, the requirementfor testing the Stage I system onthese PSTs would no longer apply dueto these testing requirements residing within the Stage II control regulations. In orderto
preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainmentcounties, the commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I testing requirements.

This rulemaking is necessaryto ensure that Stage I equipmentis functioning properly andtobe consistent with thefederal rule revision authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II requirements. Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), 

# provides thatTexas Government Code, Chapter 2007

# does not applyto rulemakings that are actions reasonablytakentofulfill an obligation mandatedby federal law. Since this rulemaking is such an action, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007

# does not apply.

In addition, the commission's assessment indicates thatTexas Government Code, Chapter 2007

# does not applyto these adopted rules because this action is taken in
response to a real and substantial threatto publichealth and safety; thatis designedto significantly advance the health and safetypurpose; andthat does not impose a greater burdenthanis necessaryto achieve the health and safety purpose. Thus, this action is exempt under Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(13). 

# Consequently, the adopted rulemaking meets the exemption criteria in Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4) 

# and (13). 

# For these reasons, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 

# does not applyto this rulemaking.

23

## The commission evaluatedthe adoptedrulemaking andperformed an assessment of
whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007, 

## is applicable. Therefore, Texas
Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), 

## provides thatTexas Government Code, Chapter
2007

## does not applyto this adoptedrulemakingbecause itis an action reasonablytaken

to fulfill an obligation mandatedbyfederal law.



## Consistencywiththe CoastalManagement Program
The commission reviewedthe adoptedrulemaking andfound the adoption is a rulemaking identifiedinthe Coastal CoordinationAct Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §sos.n(b)(2) 

## (or §sos.n(b)(4), 

## whichever is applicable) relatingto rules subjectto the
Coastal Management Program, andwill, therefore, requirethat goals andpolicies ofthe
Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) be considered duringthe rulemaking
process. Section sos.n(b)(2) 

## applies onlyto air pollutant emissions, on-site sewage disposal systems, andunderground storage tanks. Section sos.n(b)(4) 

## applies to all
other actions.

The commission reviewed this rulemaking for consistencywiththe CMP goals and policies in accordance withthe regulations ofthe Coastal CoordinationAdvisory
Committee and determinedthatthe rulemaking is administrative andproceduralin

nature andwill have no substantive effect on commission actions subjectto the CMP
andis, therefore, consistentwith CMP goals andpolicies.

No commentswere received regarding the consistencywith the CMP duringthepublic

commentperiod.

24

## Effect on Sites Subjecttothe Federal OperatingPermits Program Chapter 115 

## contains applicable requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 122, Federal Operating Permits; therefore, owners or operators subjectto the Federal Operating Permit Program must, consistentwith the revision process in Chapter 122, revise their operating permitsto include the adopted Chapter 115 

## requirements for each emission unit attheir sites affectedbythe revisions to Chapter 115.



## Public Comment
The commission scheduledpublic hearings in FortWorth onApri129, 2014, inAustin

on May 1, 2014, andin Houston on May 6, 2014. The hearings were not officially opened because no one registeredtoprovide oral comments. The commentperiod closed on May 12, 2014. The commission received written comments from the EPA andtheTFF A.



## The EPA andtheTFF A expressed overall supportfor the proposedrulemaking change. Changes to the rule were suggestedbytheTFF A.



## Response to Comments 

# Comment The EPA expressed appreciation ofthe rule revision for re-establishing and strengthening thetestprocedures for petroleum storage tanks andfor makingthe Texas rules consistentwiththe NESHAP for Stage I in40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC.



# Response


# 25

# The commission appreciatesthe EPA's support andwill continuetowork withthe EPAinthefuture. No changetotherulehasbeen madeinresponse
to this comment.

Comment The EPA expressed concernthatthe rule revision does not account for the designation ofWise County as nonattainmentwithin the Dallas-FortWorth ozone nonattainment

area underthe 2008 

## eight-hour ozone standard.



# Response The commission appreciatesthe EPA's concernthatthe changesproposed for this revisedrule didnotinclude applicabilityinWise County. As 

# stated intheproposalpreamble ofthis rule making andreiteratedinthis adoption preamble,Wise Countyinthe Dallas-FortWorth areahasbeen designated nonattainmentfor the 2008 

# eight-hour ozone standard. The Executive Directorhas approvedinitiation ofa separaterulemakingproject (Rule ProjectNo. 2013-048-115-AI) 

# to addressVOC RACT requirementsincluding Stage I requirementsforWise Countythat are necessaryas a result ofthe nonattainment designation. The commissionhas determinedthatincluding all applicable RACT requirementsforWise Countyin one rulemaking wouldprovidethebestnotice to thepublic ofadditionalrequirements in Wise Countyduetoitsinclusioninthe Dallas-FortWorthnonattainment

areafor the 2008 

# eight-hourozone standard. Thereis no anticipated


# 26

# impact ontheproposedrevisions inthis currentrulemaking as a result of thefuture Rule ProjectNo. 2013-048-ns-AI. 

# In addition, this current rulemakingwillbe adoptedbeforethe Dallas-FortWorth RACT rulemaking, whichistentatively scheduledforproposalin December 2014. 

# No changetotherulehasbeen madein responsetothis comment.



# Comment
The EPA commentedthatthere is a non-substantive variationbetweenthe proposed
revisions tothefirst sentence of §115.10(11) 

## submittedtothe EPA inletterform and
those postedontheTCEQ website.



# Response The commission appreciatesthe EPA's mention ofthe non-substantive differencebetweentheversionsregardingproposedrevisions to §115.10(11). 

# To complywith 

# TexasRegisterformatting, a non-substantive editorialchangewas madeto ensurethatthe correctcitationwas referencedbeforepublication. This change didnot modifythe applicability ofthe definition. No changeto the rulehasbeen madeinresponseto this
comment.



# Comment
The TFFA expressed supportfor most aspects ofthe rule revisions, specifically §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 

## and 115.224.


## 27

# Response The commission appreciatestheTFFA's support andwill continuetowork with all stakeholdersto ensure successfulimplementation. No changeto the rulehasbeen madeinresponseto this comment.



# Comment The TFF Acommentedthatitis generally supportive ofthe change to the federally requiredtest method in §115.225 

# for testing consistency andease ofcompliance issues; however, it questions thebenefits as outlinedinthepreamble. The TFFA's historic

concerns have centered onthe SIP benefit andthe creditthe state or nonattainment counties are receiving byexpandingthe control measure outside ofthe nonattainment

areas. The TFF Aexpressedthatits concern was more aboutwhatis notbeing saidinthe preamblethanthe characterization ofthebenefitto the industry.



# Response The commission appreciates the TFFA's concernregardingtesting requirementsfound in §115.225. 

## As 

# statedinthepreamble, thisrevisionwill minimize confusionwithinthe industryregardingthetype oftestrequired
in differentgeographical areas ofEastTexas andthe frequency ofthe tests. Therevisionwould alsoprovide consistencyin compliance and enforcement activitiesbythe commissionbymore clearlydefiningthe testing schedule andtestingprocedures. The improvement ofconsistencyin compliancerequirementsis a benefitfor the state and affected stakeholders

28

# and strengthensthebenefits ofthis clean air strategyincludedinthe SIP. WhileTFFAdidnot specificallyidentifyits concernregardingthebenefits inthepreamblebeyondthose associatedwithharmonizingtesting requirementswiththefederal requirements, the air qualitybenefits discussedinthepreamblewereprovidedforhistoricalreference only. The
scope ofthis rulemakingisto address testingissuesresultingfrom the decommissioning ofStage II andto establishtestingrequirementsthat are

more consistentwithfederal Stage I testingin40 

# CFRPart 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The commissionwill continueto workwith stakeholdersto ensure successfulimplementation ofStageI testingrequirements. No changesto the rulehavebeen madeinresponsetothis comment.



# Comment
The TFFA commentedthat it does not supportthe proposed revisions to §115.226 

## that require recordstobe kept on site, nor does it supportthe current requirementto do so found in §115.226(2). 

## The TFFAurgedthe commissionto remove the entire provision of §115.226(1) 

## andrequestedthatthe commission not adoptthe revision to §115.226(2)(B) 

## requiring records tobe immediately available on site. The TFF A statedthatthe
commission has already adoptedrecordkeeping requirementsthat recognize thatlarge
volumes ofrecords cannotbekept on site andthatrecords mustbe made available upon requestwithin 72 hours. TheTFF A suggestedthatthe commission follow the recordkeeping protocol establishedin 30TAC §334.10. The TFF A also commentedthat
the commissionhas placed anunjustified and expensive recordkeeping provision onthe
GDF becausethe same records are being keptbythe owner or operator ofthe tank


# 29

## truck.



# Response Thecommission appreciatestheTFF A's concernregardingrecordkeeping requirementsfoundin §115.226. 

# Paragraph (1) 

# specifies records that must bemaintained atthefacility site. Records requiredunderparagraph (2)


# mustbemade available atthe site during aninspection alreadyapplies to alltherecords requiredunder §115.226(2) 

# via subparagraph (C). The commission'sintentwiththe changewasto streamlinerule languagebut retainthis requirementbecause subparagraph (C) wasproposedfor deletion. The commission acknowledgesthattheproposedlanguagemaybe confusingas to the recordsthat shallbekept on site atthe affectedGDF. The commission didnotintendtoproposethat any additionalrecordsbe kept on site otherthanthoserecords alreadyrequiredin current §115.226. 

# The commissionhasrevisedthe rulelanguageto clarifythatno additional records arebeingproposedtobekept on site, insteadclarifyingthat records mustbeprovided on site during aninspection. The commissionwill continuetoworkwith stakeholdersto ensure successful implementation of Stage I recordkeepingrequirements.

Comment
The TFAA indicatedithas no comment onthe Regulatory ImpactAnalysis (RIA). No
other comments were received regarding the RIA.

30

# Response 

# The commission acknowledgesTFF A's mention ofthe RIA. No changesto therulehavebeen madeinresponse tothis comment.

31

# RECOMMENDATION

## StatutoryAuthority SUBCHAPTERA: DEFINITIONS
§115.10



# The amendmentis adoptedunderTexas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, 

# concerning General Powers, thatprovides the commission with the general powers to carry outits duties undertheTWC; TWC, §5.103, 

# concerning Rules, that authorizes the commissionto adoptrules necessaryto carry outits powers andduties undertheTWC; TWC, §5.105, 

# concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commissionby rule to establish and
approve all general policy ofthe commission; andunderTexas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, 

# concerning Rules, that authorizes the commissionto adopt rules consistentwith the policy andpurposes oftheTexas Clean Air Act. The amendmentis also adoptedunder THSC, §382.002, 

# concerning Policy andPurpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguardthe state's air resources, consistentwiththe protection ofpublic health, general welfare, andphysical property; THSC, §382.011, 

# concerning General Powers andDuties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe state's air; THSC, §382.012, 

# concerning StateAir Control Plan, that authorizes the commissionto prepare anddevelop a general, comprehensive planfor thepropercontrol ofthe state's air; andTHSC, §382.208, 

# concerningAttainment Program, which authorizes the commissionto develop andimplementtransportation
programs and other measures necessaryto demonstrate attainment and protectthe publicfrom exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motorvehicles. The amendmentis also adoptedunderTHSC, §382.016, 

# concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination ofRecords, that authorizes the commission to prescribe

1

## reasonable requirements for the measuring andmonitoring ofair contaminant
emissions. The amendmentis also adoptedunder FCAA, 42 

## USC, §§7401, 

# etseq., which requires statesto submit SIP revisions that specifythe mannerinwhich the NAAQS will
be achieved andmaintainedwithin each air quality control region ofthe state.

The adopted amendmentimplementsTHSC, §382.208, 

## concerningAttainment Program, which authorizes the commissionto develop andimplementtransportation
programs and othermeasures necessary to demonstrate attainment andprotectthe publicfrom exposure to hazardous air contaminantsfrom motorvehicles.

§115.10. 

## Definitions.



## Unless specifically definedinTexas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382 

## (also known as theTexas Clean Air Act) orinthe rules ofthe commission, theterms usedby the commission have the meanings commonly ascribedto them in thefield ofair pollution control. In addition to theterms which are definedbythe Texas Clean Air Act, thefollowing terms, whenusedinthis chapter , havethefollowing meanings, unless the

context clearly indicates otherwise. Additional definitions for terms usedinthis chapter

are found in §3.2 

## and §101.1 

## ofthis title (relatingto Definitions).

(1) 

## Background--The ambient concentration ofvolatile organic compounds
inthe air, determined atleast one meterupwind ofthe componenttobe monitored. Test Method 21 (40 

## Code ofFederal Regulations Part 6o, AppendixA) shallbeusedto determine thebackground.

2

## (2) 

## Beaumont-PortArthur area--Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties.

(3) Capture efficiency--The amount ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) collectedby a capture system thatis expressed as a percentage derivedfrom theweight
perunittime ofVOCs entering a capture system and delivered to a control device dividedbythe weight perunittime oftotalVOCs generatedbya source ofVOCs.

(4) Carbon adsorption system--Acarbon adsorberwith an inlet and outlet for exhaust gases and a systemto regenerate the saturated adsorbent.

(5) Closed-vent system--A system that:

(A) is not opento the atmosphere;

(B) is composed ofpiping, ductwork, connections, and, ifnecessary, flow-inducing devices; and

(C) transports gas orvapor from a piece orpieces ofequipment directlyto a control device.

(6) Coaxial system--Atype ofsystem consisting ofa tube within a tube that requires only one tank opening. The tankopening allows fuel toflow through the inner

3

## tubewhile vapors are displacedthrough the annular spacebetweenthe inner and outer tubes.

(7) Component--Apiece ofequipment, including, butnotlimitedto,
pumps, valves, compressors, connectors, and pressure reliefvalves, which has the potential to leakvolatile organic compounds.

(8) Connector--Aflanged, screwed, or otherjoinedfitting usedto connect
two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece ofequipment. The term connector does not includejoinedfittings welded completely aroundthe circumference ofthe interface. A union connectingtwo pipes is consideredtobe one connector.

(9) Continuous monitoring--Any monitoring device usedto comply with a continuous monitoring requirement ofthis chapterwill be considered continuous ifit

canbe demonstratedthat atleast 95% ofthe required data is captured.

(10) 

## Covered ozone attainment counties--Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Coma}, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Karnes, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, McLennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto,


## 4

## San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, VanZandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, andWood Counties.

(u) 

## Dallas-FortWorth area--For purposes ofSubchapter B, Division 5 of this chapter (relatingto Municipal SolidWaste Landfills) Collin, Dallas, Denton, and
Tarrant Counties. For all otherdivisions, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, andTarrant Counties.

(12) 

## Dual-pointvaporbalance system--Atype ofvaporbalance system in which the storage tankis equippedwith an entryportfor a gasoline fill pipe and a separate exit portfor vapor connection.

(13) 

## El Paso--El Paso County.

(14) 

## Emergency flare--A flare that only receives emissions during an upset
event.

(15) 

## External floating roof--A cover orroofin an open-top tankwhich rests
upon oris floated upontheliquidbeing contained andis equippedwith a single or double seal to close the spacebetweenthe roofedge andtank shell. A double seal consists oftwo complete and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing an enclosed space betweenthem. Forthepurposes ofthis chapter, an external floating roof storage tankthatis equipped with a self-supportingfixed roof(typically a bolted



# 5

# aluminum geodesic dome) shall be consideredtobe an internalfloating roofstorage tank.

(16) Fugitive emission--Anyvolatile organic compound enteringthe atmosphere thatcould notreasonablypass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening designed to direct orcontrol its flow.

(17) Gasoline bulkplant--A gasoline loading and/orunloading facility, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughputless than 20,000 gallons (75,708liters) perday, averaged over each consecutive 30-dayperiod. Amotorvehicle fuel dispensing facility is not a gasoline bulkplant.

(18) Gasoline dispensing facility--A location that dispenses gasoline to
motorvehicles andincludes retail, private, andcommercial outlets.

(19) Gasoline terminal--A gasoline loading and/orunloading facility, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput equal to or greaterthan 20,000 gallons (75,708liters) per day, averaged over each consecutive 30-dayperiod.

(20) Heavy liquid--Volatile organic compounds thathave a true vapor
pressure equal to orless than 0.044 pounds per square inch absolute (0.3 kiloPascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius).

(21) Highly-reactive volatile organic compound--As follows.
6

## (A) In Harris County, one or more ofthefollowing volatile organic compounds (VOC): 1,3-butadiene; all isomers ofbutene (e.g., isobutene (2- methylpropene orisobutylene), alpha-butylene (ethylethylene), andbeta-butylene (dimethylethylene, includingboth cis- andtrans-isomers)); ethylene; andpropylene.

(B) In Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties, one ormore ofthefollowing VOC: ethylene and propylene.

(22) Houston-Galveston or Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area--Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties.

(23) Incinerator--Forthe purposes ofthis chapter, an enclosed control
device that com busts or oxidizes volatile organic compound gases orvapors.

(24) Internal floating cover--A cover orfloating roofin a fixed rooftank
thatrests upon oris floated upontheliquidbeing contained, andis equippedwith a closure seal or seals to close the spacebetweenthe cover edge andtank shell. Forthe
purposes ofthis chapter, an external floating roofstorage tankthat is equippedwith a self-supporting fixed roof(typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered tobe an internal floating roofstorage tank.

7

## (25) 

# Leak-free marine vessel--A marinevessel with cargo tankclosures (hatch covers, expansion domes, ullage openings, butterworthcovers, and gauging covers) thatwere inspected priorto cargo transfer operations and all such closures were properly secured suchthatno leaks ofliquid orvapors canbe detectedby sight, sound,

or smell. Cargo tankclosures must meetthe applicable rules orregulations ofthe marinevessel's classification society orflag state. Cargo tankpressure/vacuumvalves
mustbe operatingwithinthe range specifiedbythe marinevessel's classification society

orflag state and seatedwhen tankpressure is less than 8o% 

# ofset pointpressure such thatno vapor leaks canbe detectedby sight, sound, or smell. As 

# an alternative, a marine vessel operated atnegative pressure is assumedtobeleak-free for the purpose ofthis standard.

(26) 

# Lightliquid--Volatile organic compounds thathave a truevapor
pressure greater than 0.044

# pounds per square inch absolute (0.3 

# kiloPascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 

# degrees Celsius), and are a liquid at operating conditions.

(27) 

# Liquefied petroleum gas--Any material thatis composed predominantlyofany ofthe following hydrocarbons or mixtures ofhydrocarbons:
propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, andbutylenes.

(28) 

# Low-density polyethylene--Athermoplastic polymer or copolymer comprised ofatleast so% 

# ethylene byweight andhaving a density of0.940 

# grams per cubic centimeter orless.

8

## (29) 

## Marine loading facility--The loading arm(s), pumps, meters, shutoff valves, reliefvalves, and otherpiping andvalves that are partofa single system usedto fill a marinevessel at a single geographic site. Loading equipmentthatis physically separate (i.e., does not share commonpiping, valves, and otherloading equipment) is consideredtobe a separate marine loading facility.

(30) Marineloading operation--The transfer ofoil, gasoline, orother volatile organicliquids at any affected marine terminal, beginning with the connections made to a marinevessel andendingwith the disconnection from the marinevessel.

(31) 

## Marine terminal--Any marinefacility or structure constructedto transfer oil, gasoline, or othervolatile organicliquidbulkcargo to orfrom a marine vessel. Amarine terminal mayinclude one or more marine loading facilities.

(32) 

## Metal-to-metal seal--A connection formed by a swage ring that exerts

an elastic, radial preload on narrowsealinglands, plastically deformingthe pipebeing connected, andmaintaining sealing pressure indefinitely.

(33) Natural gas/gasoline processing--Aprocess that extracts condensate from gases obtainedfrom natural gas production and/orfractionates natural gas liquids into componentproducts, such as ethane, propane, butane, andnatural gasoline. The following facilities shall beincluded in this definition if, and only if, located on the same propertyas a natural gas/gasoline processing operation previously defined: compressor

9

# stations, dehydration units, sweetening units, field treatment, underground storage, liquefied natural gas units, andfield gas gathering systems.

(34) Petroleum refinery--Any facility engaged inproducing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or otherproducts through distillation ofcrude oil, orthrough the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or otherprocessing ofunfinished petroleum derivatives.

(35) Polymer orresin manufacturing process--Aprocess thatproduces any ofthe following polymers orresins: polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and styrenebutadiene latex.

(36) Pressure reliefvalve orpressure-vacuum reliefvalve--A safety device usedto prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum andminimum allowable working pressure oftheprocess equipment. Apressure reliefvalve or
pressure-vacuum reliefvalve is automatically actuatedbythe static pressureupstream ofthevalve butdoes notinclude:

(A) a rupture disk; or

(B) a conservation vent orotherdevice on an atmospheric storage tankthatis actuated eitherby a vacuum ora pressure ofno more than 2.5 

# pounds per
square inch gauge.

10

## (37) Printingline--An operation consisting ofa series ofone or more printingprocesses andincluding associated drying areas.

(38) Process drain--Any opening (including a covered or controlled opening) thatis installed orusedto receive orconvey wastewater into the wastewater system.

(39) Process unit--The smallest set ofprocess equipmentthatcan operate independently andincludes all operations necessaryto achieve its process objective.

(40) 

## Rupture disk--A diaphragm heldbetween flanges for the purpose of isolating a volatile organic compoundfrom the atmosphere orfrom a downstream
pressure reliefvalve.

(41) 

## Shutdown orturnaround--Forthepurposes ofthis chapter, a work practice oroperational procedure that stops productionfrom a process unit orpartofa unit during which time it is technically feasible to clear process material from a process unit orpartofa unitconsistentwith safetyconstraints, andrepairs canbe accomplished.

(A) The term shutdown orturnaround does notinclude a work practice that would stop production from a process unit or partofa unit:

(i) 

## for less than 24 hours; or

11

# (ii) for a shorterperiod oftime than wouldbe requiredto clear the process unit orpartoftheunit and startupthe unit.

(B) Operation ofa process unit orpart ofa unit in recycle mode (i.e., process material is circulated, butproduction does not occur) is not considered shutdown.

(42) 

# Startup--Forthe purposes ofthis chapter, the setting into operation ofa piece ofequipment orprocess unitfor thepurpose ofproduction orwaste management.

(43) Strippablevolatile organic compound (VOC)--Any VOC in cooling
towerheatexchange system waterthatis emittedto the atmosphere when the water
passes through the cooling tower.

(44) 

# Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing process--A process that produces, as intermediates orfinal products, one or more ofthe chemicals listed in 40 

# Code ofFederal Regulations §60-489 

# (October 17, 2000).



# (45) Tank-trucktank--Any storage tankhaving a capacity greaterthan
1,000 

# gallons, mounted on a tank-truckortrailer. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not consideredtobetank-trucktanks.

12

## (46) Transportvessel--Anyland-based mode oftransportation (truck or rail) equippedwith a storage tankhaving a capacity greaterthan 1,000 

## gallons thatis usedto transport oil, gasoline, orothervolatile organic liquidbulkcargo. Vacuum trucks
used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not consideredtobetransport vessels.

(47) True partial pressure--The absolute aggregate partial pressure ofall volatile organic compounds in a gas stream.

(48) Vaporbalance system--A system thatprovides for containment of hydrocarbon vaporsbyreturning displacedvapors from the receiving vessel backtothe originatingvessel.

(49) Vapor control system orvapor recovery system--Any control system thatutilizes vapor collection equipmentto route volatile organic compounds (VOC) to a control device thatreduces VOC emissions.

(so) 

## Vapor-tight--Not capable ofallowing the passage ofgases atthe
pressures encounteredexcept where other acceptable leak-tight conditions are prescribedinthis chapter.

(S1) 

## Waxy, 

## high pourpointcrude oil--A crude oil with a pourpoint ofso 

## degrees Fahrenheit (10 

## degrees Celsius) orhigher as determinedbytheAmerican

13

## Society for Testing and Materials Standard D97-66, "Testfor Pour Point ofPetroleum Oils."

14

## SUBCHAPTERC: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND TRANSFER OPERATIONS DIVISION 2: 

## FILLING OF GASOLINE STORAGEVESSELS (STAGE I) 

## FOR MOTORVEHICLE FUEL DISPENSINGFACILITIES
§§115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 115.229



## StatutoryAuthority The amendments are adoptedunderTexas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, 

## concerning General Powers, thatprovides the commissionwith the general powers to carry outits duties undertheTWC; TWC, §5.103, 

## concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission

to adopt rules necessaryto carry outits powers and duties underthe TWC; TWC, §5.105, 

## concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commissionby rule to establish and
approve all general policy ofthe commission; andunderTexas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, 

## concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistentwiththe policy andpurposes oftheTexas Clean Air Act. The amendments are also adoptedunderTHSC, §382.002, 

## concerning Policy andPurpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguardthe state's airresources, consistent withthe protection ofpublichealth, general welfare, andphysical property; THSC, §382.011, 

## concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commissionto control the quality ofthe state's air; THSC, §382.012, 

## concerning StateAir Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for
the proper control ofthe state's air; andTHSC, §382.208, 

## concerningAttainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop andimplementtransportation

15

# programs and othermeasures necessary to demonstrate attainment andprotectthe publicfrom exposure tohazardous air contaminants from motorvehicles. The amendments are also adoptedunderTHSC, §382.016, 

# concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination ofRecords, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring andmonitoring ofair contaminant emissions. The amendments are also adoptedunder Federal Clean Air Act, 42 

# United States Code, §§7401, 

# etseq., which requires states to submit state implementation plan revisions that specifythe mannerin which the NAAQS will be achieved andmaintained within each air quality control region ofthe state.

The adopted amendments implementTHSC, §382.208, 

# concerningAttainment Program, which authorizes the commissionto develop andimplementtransportation
programs and other measures necessaryto demonstrate attainment andprotectthe publicfrom exposure to hazardous air contaminantsfrom motorvehicles.

§115.221. 

# Emission Specifications.

No person in the Beaumont-PortArthur, Dallas-FortWorth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas orin the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 

# ofthis title (relating to Definitions), shall transfer, or allowthetransfer of, gasoline from anytank-trucktankinto a stationary storage container which is located at

a gasoline dispensing facility, unless the displacedvapors from the gasoline storage container are controlledby one ofthe following:

16

## (1) 

## a vapor control system which reduces the emissions ofVOCto the atmosphereto not morethan 0.8 

## poundper 1,000

## gallons (93 mg/liter) ofgasoline transferred; or

(2) 

## a vaporbalance system which is operated and maintainedin
accordance withthe provisions of §115.222 

## ofthis title (relatingto Control Requirements).

§115.222. 

## Control Requirements.

Avaporbalance system will be assumedto complywith the specified emission
limitation of §115.221 

## ofthis title (relatingto Emission Specifications) ifthe following
conditions are met:

(1) 

## the containeris equippedwith a submergedfill pipe as definedin
§101.1 

## ofthis title (relatingto Definitions). Thepaththroughthe submergedfill pipe to thebottom ofthetankmust notbe obstructedby a screen, grate, or similar device
whose presence would preclude the determination ofthe submergedfill pipe's proximity

tothetankbottom while the submergedfill tube is properlyinstalled;

(2) 

## a vapor-tight returnline is connectedbefore gasoline canbe
transferredinto the storage container;

17

## (3) no avoidable gasoline leaks, as detectedby sight, sound, or smell, exist anywhere intheliquidtransfer orvaporbalance systems;

(4) the vapor returnline's cross-sectional areais atleast one-halfofthe product drop line's cross-sectional area;

(5) inthe Beaumont-PortArthur, Dallas-FortWorth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas andinthe covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 

## ofthis title (relatingto Definitions), the only atmospheric emission during gasoline transferintothe storage container is through a storage containerventline equippedwith a pressure-vacuum reliefvalve setto open at a pressure ofno more than eight ounces per squareinch (3-4 kilopascals (kPa));

(6) after unloading, thetank-trucktankis keptvapor-tight until thevapors inthetank-trucktankare returnedto a loading, cleaning, or degassing operation and dischargedin accordance withthe control requirements ofthat operation;

(7) the gauge pressure inthetank-trucktankdoes not exceed 18 inches of

water (4.5 

## kPa) orvacuum exceed six inches ofwater (1.5 

## kPa);

(8) no leak, as defined in §101.1 

## ofthis title, exists from potentialleak

sources when measuredwith a hydrocarbon gas analyzer;

18

# (9) inthe Beaumont-PortArthur, Dallas-FortWorth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, any storage tankinstalled after November 15, 1993, 

# which is required to install Stage I control equipment mustbe equippedwith a dualpointvaporbalance system, as defined in §115.10 

# ofthistitle. In addition, any modification to a storage tankexisting prior to November 15, 1993, 

# requiring excavation ofthetop ofthe storage tankmustbe equippedwith a dual-pointvaporbalance system,

even ifthe original installation utilized coaxial Stage I connections;

(10) 

# in the covered attainment counties, any storage tankinstalled after December 22, 1998, 

# which is requiredto install Stage I control equipment mustbe equippedwith a dual-pointvaporbalance system, as defined in §115.10 

# ofthis title. In addition, any modification to a storagetankexisting priorto December 22, 1998, 

# requiring excavation ofthetop ofthe storage tankmustbe equippedwith a dual-point
vaporbalance system, even ifthe original installation utilized coaxial Stage I connections; and

(11) 

# any gasoline dispensing facility that no longer meets an exemption in §115.227 

# ofthis title (relating to Exemptions) because ofan increase in throughput shall have 120 

# days to come into compliance with the provisions ofthis section andwill remain subjectto the provisions ofthis section, even ifits gasoline throughputlaterfalls below exemptionlimits. However, ifgasoline throughput exceeds the exemption limit due to a natural disaster oremergency condition for a period notto exceed one month,
upon written request, the executive director may grant a facility continued exempt
status.
19

## §115.224. Inspection Requirements.



# Inthe Beaumont-PortArthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria areas, andinthe covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 

# ofthis title (relating to Definitions), thefollowing inspection requirements shall apply.

(1) 

# Inspections for liquidleaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer shallbe conducted atgasoline dispensing facilities. Gasoline transfer shall be discontinued immediatelywhen anyliquidleaks, visible
vapors, or significant odors are observed and shall notberesumeduntil the observed issue is repaired.

(2) 

# The gasoline tank-trucktankmusthave beeninspectedfor leaks within

oneyear in accordance with the requirements of §§115.234

- 115.237

# ofthis title (relating
to Inspection Requirements; Approved Test Methods; Recordkeeping Requirements; andExemptions, respectively), as evidencedby a prominently displayed certification affixed near the United States Department ofTransportation certification plate.

§115.225. Testing Requirements.



# Compliance with the emission specification andcertain control requirements and inspection requirements of §§115.221, 115.222 

# and 115.224

# ofthis title (relatingto Emission Specifications; Control Requirements; and Inspection Requirements) shall be

20

## determined according tothe requirements of40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §63.11120. Additionally, all affected gasoline dispensing facilities are requiredto annually complywith thefollowing testing requirements found in 40 CFR §63.11120:

(1) CaliforniaAir Resources BoardVapor Recovery Test ProcedureTP
201.1E

- Leak Rate and Cracking Pressure ofPressure/VacuumVentValves.

(2) CaliforniaAir Resources BoardVapor Recovery Test ProcedureTP201.3- Determination of2-InchWC Static Pressure Performance ofVapor Recovery Systems ofDispensing Facilities.

(3) Alternate testmethods otherthanthose specified in paragraphs (1)

- (2) ofthis section maybeusedifvalidatedby40 CFR §63.7(f).

§115.226. 

# Recordkeeping Requirements.

The owner or operator ofeach gasoline dispensing facility in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-FortWorth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas andin the covered attainment counties as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions)
shall maintain thefollowing records and during aninspection make the records available atthe site uponrequestto representatives ofthe executive director, the United
States Environmental ProtectionAgency, or anylocal airpollution control program with jurisdiction. The owner oroperator shall:

21

## (1) 

# maintain a record atthefacility site ofthe dates on which gasoline was deliveredtothe dispensing facility andthe identification number and date ofthelast leaktesting, requiredby §115.224(2) ofthis title (relatingto Inspection Requirements), ofeachtank-trucktankfrom which gasoline was transferredtothefacility. The records shallbe keptfor a period oftwo years; and

(2) maintain for a periodoftwo years:

(A) a record ofthe results ofanytesting conducted atthe gasoline dispensing facility in accordance withthe provisions specifiedin §115.225 ofthis title (relatingto Testing Requirements); and

(B) a record ofthe gasoline throughputfor a 24-month rolling calendarperiodbeginning January 1, 1991. 

# The records must contain the calendar month andyear, andthetotal facility gasoline throughput for each calendar month.

§115.227. 

## Exemptions.



# The following exemptions apply:

(1) 

# Inthe Beaumont-PortArthur, Dallas-FortWorth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 10,000 

# gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after January 1, 1991, 

# andfor which constructionbegan
22

# priorto November 15, 1992, 

# are exemptfrom the requirements ofthis division, except for:

(A) §115.222(3) 

# ofthis title (relatingto Control Requirements) as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors;

(B) §115.222(6) 

# ofthistitle;

(C) §115.224(1) 

# ofthis title (relatingto Inspection Requirements) as it applies toliquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and

(D) §115.226(2)(B) 

# ofthis title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements).

(2) 

# Inthe covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 

# ofthistitle (relating to Definitions), stationarygasoline storage containers with a nominal capacity less than orequal to 1,000 

# gallons at gasoline dispensing facilities are exemptfrom the requirements ofthis division, except for:

(A) §115.222(3) 

# ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors;

(B) §115.222(6) 

# ofthistitle; and

23

## (C) §115.224(1) ofthistitle as it applies toliquidgasoline leaks,
visible vapors, or significant odors.

(3) Inthe covered attainmentcounties otherthan Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, andWilliamson, transfers to stationary storage tankslocated at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed less than 100,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month after October 31, 2014 are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for:

(A) §115.222(3) ofthis title as it applies toliquidgasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors;

(B) §115.222(6) ofthistitle;

(C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies toliquidgasoline leaks,
visible vapors, or significant odors; and

(D) §115.226(2)(B) ofthistitle.

(4) In Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis,
andWilliamson Counties transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed no morethan 25,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, exceptfor:
24

## (A) §115.222(3) ofthistitle as it applies toliquidgasoline leaks, visible**vapor~,** 

## or significant odors;

(B) §115.222(6) ofthistitle;

(C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies toliquidgasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and

(D) §115.226(2)(B) ofthis title.

(5) Transfers to the following stationaryreceiving containers are exempt from the requirements ofthis division:

(A) 

## containers used exclusivelyfor thefueling ofimplements of

· agriculture; and

(B) storagetanks equippedwith external floating roofs, internal floating roofs, ortheir equivalent.

§115.229. 

## Counties and Compliance Schedules.



## (a) The owner or operator ofeach gasoline dispensing facility in the BeaumontPortArthur, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas andin Collin, Dallas,
25

## Denton, andTarrant Counties shall continue to complywiththis division as requiredby §115.930 ofthis title (relatingto Compliance Dates).

(b) 

## The owner or operator ofeach gasoline dispensing facility inthe covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relatingto Definitions), shall continue to complywith this division as requiredby §115.930 ofthis title.

(c) The owner or operator ofeach gasoline dispensingfacility in Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, andWilliamson Counties thathas dispensed atleast 25,000 gallons ofgasolinebutless than 125,000 gallons ofgasoline in
any calendar month after December 31, 2004 shall complywiththis division as soon as practicable, but nolaterthan December 31, 2005.

(d) The owner or operator ofeach gasoline dispensing facility in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Countiesthathas dispensed atleast 10,000 gallons of gasolinebutless than 125,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month afterApril30, 2005, shall complywiththis division as soon as practicable, butno laterthanJune 15,
2007.



# 26

## TEXAs CoMMissioN oN

# ENVIRONMEN:~~·**Qu~rrY** 

# ..

ORDERADOPTINGAMENDED RULESAND REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• IO:,;i.:... _,_,___**,~-·** ••· ·-· 

## Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL Rule ProjectNo. 2013-022-115-AI



# On September 10, 2014, 

# theTexas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission), during a public meeting, considered adoption ofamended Sections 115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 

# and 115.229 

# of30

# Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, 

# Control ofAir Pollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds and corresponding revisions to the stateimplementationplan (SIP). The Commission adopts these amendments in Chapter 115, 

# Control ofAir Pollution fromVolatile Organic Compounds, SubchapterA, Definitions and Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2, 

# Filling ofGasoline StorageVessels (Stage I) for MotorVehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities; and

. correspondingrevisions to the SIP. The amendmentspreserve existing Stage I testing

requirements in ozone nonattainment counties and specify Stage I testing requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the 12 

# ozone nonattainment andfour ozone maintenance counties thatwill be affectedbythe decommissioning ofthe Stage II vapor recovery equipmentrule reilision andinthe 95 

# counties that are subjectto the state Stage I rule but not Stage II requirements. The adoptedrevisions also establishtesting requirements that are more consistentwith federal Stage I testing in 40 

# Code ofFederal Regulations Part 63, 

# Subpart CCCCCC. Under Tex. Health & 

# Safety Code Ann.§§ 382.011, 382.012, 

# and 382.023 

# (Vernon 2010), 

# the Commission has the authorityto control the quality ofthe state's air andto issue orders consistent with the policies andpurposes ofthe Texas CleanAir Act, Chapter 382 

# of theTex. Health & 

# Safety Code. The proposedrules were publishedfor comment inthe April 11, 2014

# issue ofthe Texas Register (39 

# TexReg 2760). 

# Pursuantto Tex. Health &

# Safety Code Ann.§ 382.017 

# (Vernon 2010), 

# Tex. Gov't Code Chapter 2001 

# (Vernon 2008), 

# and 40 

# Code ofFederal Regulations§ 51.102, 

# and after proper notice, the Commission conducted a publichearings to considerthe amended rules and revisions to the SIP. Proper notice includedprominent advertisement in the areas affected at least 30 

# days priorto the dates ofthe hearings. Public hearings were offered inAustin on May 1, 2014, 

# in FortWorth on April 29, 2014, 

# and in Houston on May 6, 2014. 

# The hearings were not officially openedbecause no one registeredto provide oral comments. The Commission circulatedhearingnotices ofits intended action to the public, including interestedpersons, the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA, and all applicable local C).ir pollution control agencies. The public was imlited to submit data, views, and

# recommendations ontheproposed amendedrules and SIP revisions, either orally orin v.rriting, 

# at thehearings or during the commentperiod. Priortothe scheduledhearings, copies oftheproposed amendedrules and SIP revisions were available for public inspection atthe Commission's central office and onthe Commission's Web site. Data, views, andrecommendations ofinterestedpersons regarding theproposed amendedrules and SIP revisions were submittedto the Commission during the comment period, andwere consideredbythe Commission as reflected inthe analysis oftestimony incorporatedbyreferenceto this Order. The Commissionfinds thatthe analysis oftestimony includes the names ofall interestedgroups or**associat~ons** 

# offering comment on the proposed amendedrules andthe SIP revisions andtheirposition concerningthe same. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BYTHE COMMISSION thatthe amended rules and revisions to the SIPincorporatedby reference tothis Order are hereby adopted. The Commissionfurther authorizes staffto make any non-substantive revisions tothe rules necessaryto complyvvith 

# Texas Registerrequirements. The adoptedrules andthepreamble to the adoptedrules andtherevisions tothe SIP are incorporatedbyreference inthis Order as ifsetforth atlengthverbatim inthis Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BYTHE COMMISSION that onbehalfofthe Commission, the Chairman shouldtransmit a copy ofthis Order, togetherwith the adopted rules andrevisions tothe SIP, tothe Regional Administrator ofEPA as a proposedrevisionto the Texas SIP pursuantto the Federal CleanAir Act, codified at42 U.S. Code Ann. §§ 7401- 7671q, as amended. This Order constitutes the Order ofthe Commission requiredbytheAdministrative ProcedureAct, Tex. Gov't Code,§ 2001.033 (Vernon 2008). Ifanyportion ofthis Order is for anyreason heldtobeinvalidby a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, the invalidity ofanyportion shall not affect thevalidity ofthe remaining portions.

Issued date: 

# S E P

# ·1 92014

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY



# . Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., ChairmanTHSC, §382.017, concerning R les, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules consiste t with the policy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act; an THSC, §382.202, concerning Vehicle Emissions Inspection a d Maintenance Program, which authorizes the commission toe ablish vehicle fuel content standards after January 1, 2004. The adopted repeal implemen s THSC, §§382.002, 382.011, 382.012, 382.017, and 382.20 The agency certifies that legal ounsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid e ercise ofthe agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office ofthe Seer tary of State on September 12, 2014. TRD-201404379 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Divisi n Texas Commission on Environmen I Quality Effective date: October 2, 2014 Proposal publication date: April 11, 2014 For further information, please call: (512) 239-2141 

# • CHAPTER 115. 

# • CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) adopts the amendments to §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224-115.227, and 115.229. Sections 115.10, 115.226, and 115.227 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 11, 2014, issue of the Texas Register (39 TexReg 2760). Sections 115.221, 115.222, 115.224, 115.225, and 115.229 are adopted without changes to the proposed text and, therefore, will not be republished. The adopted amendments will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP). Background and Summary ofthe Factual Basis for the Adopted Rules Stage I vapor recovery for filling of gasoline storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) is a reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement for ozone nonattainment areas required under §182 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the Control Techniques Guideline documents for RACT issued by the EPA. The commission's Stage I rules are included in Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2, Filling of Gasoline Storage Vessels (Stage I) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities. In addition to fulfilling FCAA RACT requirements for nonattainment areas, the commission adopted rule revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage I rules in 1999 implementing the Stage I vapor recovery option of the Texas Clean Air Strategy (TCAS) for certain ozone attainment counties. The revisions were one element of the new TCAS, which included a variety of options that affected areas could implement to meet or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground level ozone. The purpose of the strategy was to reduce overall background levels ofozone in orderto assist in keeping ozone attainment areas and near-nonattainment areas in compliance with the federal ozone standards. It was also to help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainment with the ozone NAAQS. The effectiveness of Stage I vapor recovery rules relies on the captured vapors being effectively contained within the gasoline tank truck during transit and controlled when the transport vessel is refilled at a gasoline terminal orgasoline bulk plant. Otherwise, the emissions captured at the GDF will simply be emitted during transit or when the transport vessel is refilled, resulting in no reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions despite the Stage I requirements. The Stage I vapor recovery rules apply to GDFs that have installed Stage II vapor recovery equipment in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties), and Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties). The Beaumont-Port Arthur Area (Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties), and El Paso County, which is under an ozone nonattainment maintenance plan as part of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, are also subject to the Stage I vapor recovery requirements. These rules regulate the filling of gasoline storage tanks at GDFs by tank trucks. To comply with Stage I requirements, a vapor balance system is typically used to capture the vapors from the gasoline storage tanks thatwill otherwise be displaced to the atmosphere as these tanks are filled with gasoline. The captured vapors are routed to the gasoline tank truck, and the vapors are processed by a vapor control system when the tank truck is subsequently refilled at a gasoline terminal or gasoline bulk plant. Initially, the 1999 amendments to Chapter 115 extended the existing Chapter 115 Stage I vapor recovery and gasoline tank truck leak testing requirements to 95 counties in the eastern half of Texas. These counties included: Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, Mclennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, and Wood. Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties were subsequently designated nonattainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2004, and the Stage I rules were revised to include these counties under the ozone nonattainment area requirements through rulemaking adopted on April 13, 2005. Wise County in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been designated as nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard but has not been included in this rule revision as a county in which Stage I applies. The executive director has approved initiation of a future rulemaking project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) to address VOC RACT requirements, including Stage I requirements, for Wise County that are necessary as a result of the designation. These rules are tentatively scheduled for proposal in December 2014.



## ADOPTEDRULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7745In 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking published in the May 16 2012 issue of the Federal Register (77 FR 28772) for 40

### C~de of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, determining that vehicle on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology is in widespread use for the purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As a result, on October 9, 2013, the commission adopted revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage II rules (Rule Project Number 2013- 001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project Number 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs n?.later**tha~** August 31 2018 in ozone nonattainment areas class1f1ed as senous and

### ab~ve. During the development ofthese two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-101 and TXP-102, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I petroleum storage tanks' (PST) vapor recovery system. With the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs will no longer apply. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties from the**Stag~** II rules, the commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I test1ng requirements. Upon the adoption of Stage II decommissioning requirements, a review was done on the Stage I testing requirements that facilities in ozone nonattainment areas will have to comply with once Stage II vapor recovery equipment has**b~.en deco'!'~is**  sioned. The commission determined that add1t1onal rev1s1ons related to testing requirements were necessary to**imp.r~ve** cl_arity and consistency in compliance and program**adm1mst:~t1on** for the affected industry and the agency. The adopted rev1s1ons will improve the consistency of required equipment**~nd** testing for owners of GDFs in areas that currently have different requirements. These adopted**revisi~:m_s** will**~liminate** confusion concerning testing requirements w1th1n the Industry by Improving consistency between the state Stage I rules in**Chapt~r** 115 and federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous A1r Pollutants (NESHAP) Stage I rules. The commission incorporated the NESHAP Stage I rules by reference in 30 TAG §113.1380 on July 26, 2013. The federal Stage I rules require GDFs that have a monthly throughput at or above 100,000 gallons to operate a vapor balance system to capture and return vapors to the tank-truck tank so the vapors can be disposed ofproperly. GDFs subject to the federal Stage I rule must also meet certain testing and recordkeeping requirements. The commission also held informal stakeholder meetings on potential revisions to the Stage I testing requirements on April 24, 2013 in Arlington, April 25, 2013 in Longview, April 29, 201_3 in Corpus Christi, April 30, 2013 in Houston, May 1, 2013 1n Austin, and May 2, 2013 in El Paso. Commenters**presen~** at these stakeholder meetings agreed that Stage I test1ng requirements needed to be uniform across the affected East Texas areas in the state and that federally required testing procedures and methods were generally accepted by the industry. Commenters also agreed that testing of Stage I equipment should be performed more frequently than once every**~hree** years to**~etter** detect potential issues with the system and Improve compliance with testing requirements. Counties in West Texas will continue to comply with federal requirements only and will not be affected by this rulemaking. The commission adopts these revisions to Chapter 115 to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located in the 16 counties (Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller Counties) that will be**aff~ct~d** by the Stage II decommissioning rule revision, preserve ex1st1ng Stage I testing requirements in the currently affected 95 count1es, and establish testing requirements in Chapter 115 that are more consistent with the federal Stage I rule for all 254 counties. Applicability of, and compliance with Stage Ivapor**recov~ry.** rules is dependent on the geographical location ofthe GDF w1thm the state. GDFs within counties located in the eastern part of the state must comply with state requirements found in Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. The federal Stage I rule in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC applies to all 254 counties; therefore, GDFs located within any county not covered by the**St~g~** 

### 1requirements documented in Chapter 115,**Subc~apter** C, DIVIsion 2 are covered under the federal Stage I requirements. The gallons of gasoline dispensed per month and the county where the GDF is located determines ifthe owner or operator ofa GDF is required to install Stage I equipment and subject to e.ither**th~** state or federal Stage I regulations. Owners of GDFs w1th multiple locations throughout the state with similar monthly gasoline throughput amounts could be subject to different e9uipment. and testing requirements depending on their geograph1callocat1on. Additionally, owners or operators of GDFs that have

.implemented Stage II in the 16 affected counties are requ1red to complete the TXP-101 and the TXP-102 test**pro~edures** at the time of installation of Stage II vapor recovery equipment and at least once a year thereafter. This testing requirement will no longer be applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs at the GDF, which may result in decreased effectiveness of the Stage I equipment installed at these facilities.**~he** owners or operators of GDFs in the remaining 90 counties m the**~astern** half of Texas and identified under the term covered attainment counties that fall under the state Stage I rule are only required to inspect for liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transport vessel to the PST. All GDFs in the state subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC must comply with the federal Stage I testing requirements and are required to perform the California Air Resource Board (GARB) Vapor Recovery Test Pr?cedures**TP-2~1._3** and TP-201.1 E. These GARB testing requirements are s1m1lar to the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the GARB TP-201.1 E test is more stringent than the TXP-1 02 test because the GARB TP-201.1 E test requires testing the pressure and vacuum thresholds of the pressure/vacuum (PN) valve while the TXP-1 02 only requires testing the pressure threshold of the PN valve. Additionally, the adopted revisions will reduce the throughput level for exemption from Stage I implementation from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month for GDFs in**t~e** 90 covered attainment counties, except for those covered attainment counties in the Austin/San Antonio area (Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis, Williamson, and Wilson) that currently have an applicability**~hreshol?** of25,0.00 gallons per month. This adopted change w111 establish consistency with the NESHAP requirements and provide owners and operators ofGDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment and testing requirements. The lowering ofthe throughput level is not anticipated to affect owners and operators of GDFs in the covered attainment counties because these facilities have already been subject to NESHAP requirements, which were incorporated by reference by the commission on July 26, 2013, or as IS the case for those counties in the Austin/San Antonio area, are already subject to a state-required lower throughput.



## 39 TexReg 7746 September 26, 2014 Texas RegisterThe commission has also found that swivel-type ofadapters that allows for the connection of hoses from the tank truck to the stationary tank and prevent over-tightening are readily in use by GDFs. These adapters are GARB certified and approved for use through the NESHAP rules. The commission has incorporated the use of approved adapters including swivel adapters in the Emissions Specifications section ofthe rule. Section by Section Discussion In addition to the adopted revisions regarding testing and other Stage I requirements discussed elsewhere in this preamble, various stylistic, non-substantive changes were included to update the rule language to current Texas Registerstyle and format requirements. Such changes include appropriate and consistent use of acronyms, section references, rule structure, and certain terminology. These minor revisions include updating the formatting of geographic area terms used in the rules to be consistent with the formatting ofthe terms as defined in §115.10 (e.g., Beaumont-Port Arthur in lieu of Beaumont/Port Arthur). These changes are non-substantive and generally are not specifically discussed in this preamble. Additionally, the commission replaces the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" in multiple portions of the Stage I rules with a new defined term "gasoline dispensing facility" for clarity and consistency with the terminology found in requirements for the Chapter 115 Stage II rules. § 115. 10, Definitions The commission adopts revisions to §115.10 by adding the definitions for "dual-point vapor balance system," "coaxial system," and "gasoline dispensing facility." The term "dual-point vapor balance system" is incorporated from 40 CFR §63.11132 to describe a type of system that should be installed at a facility. A dual-point vapor balance system allows for separate connections for the loading of gasoline and the transfer of gasoline vapors to a tank-truck tank. The term "coaxial system" is added to describe a type of vapor control system consisting of a tube within a tube that requires only one tank opening allowing fuel to flow through the inner tube while vapors are displaced through the annular space between the inner and outer tubes. This type ofsystem is often found at GDFs. The term "gasoline dispensing facility" is added to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" used in the Stage I rules for consistency with recent revisions to the Chapter 115 Stage II rules and defined for clarification. The definition for "pressure relief valve" is updated to also apply to "pressure-vacuum relief valves" to keep the wording within the rule consistent and with the general use ofthe term to cover reliefvalves by the industry. The other definitions in this section are re-numbered as needed. Additionally, the commission had proposed to make a non-substantive revision to the definition of highly-reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOC) by adding the word "emissions" in subparagraph (B). However, when used in Chapter 115, Subchapter H, the term HRVOC is not used exclusively in the context of emissions. The term HRVOC is also used in certain contexts concerning process fluids in vessels and piping, e.g., HRVOC content levels in process fluids for meeting exemption criteria. Including the word "emissions" in the definition in §115.10 could inadvertently create confusion in such contexts. Therefore, the commission is not adopting this proposed change. §115.221, Emission Specifications As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.221 to update the formatting ofthe geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. §115.222, Control Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.222 to update the formatting ofthe geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. The adopted revisions to §115.222 also delete the language allowing facilities with a Stage II vapor recovery system to establish a pressure rate at which a pressure-vacuum relief valve is set that meets GARB requirements or has a third-party certification because the Stage II requirements will no longer be required due to the commission's adoption ofthe decommissioning of Stage II equipment. The adopted language incorporates the use of "dual-point vapor balance system" as defined in §115.1 0 and removes the language for non-coaxial Stage I connections. Dual-point vapor balance systems are more effective than single-point coaxial systems in controlling vapors during the loading of gasoline because two separate hoses for loading the fuel and recovering fuel vapors are connected to the delivery truck and storage tank which allow less back pressure and higherflow rates. Dual-point vapor balance systems are the only non-coaxial Stage I connection used in Texas and have been required at all applicable facilities since January 10, 2011. Additionally, the information in paragraph (6) is incorporated into paragraph (5). After removal ofthe provision regarding Stage II, the requirements for covered attainment counties in paragraph (6) are identical to the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas under paragraph (5). Therefore, combining the two paragraphs will eliminate redundant rule language. The other paragraphs in this section are re-numbered as appropriate. §115.224, Inspection Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts minor revisions to §115.224 to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, paragraph (1) is revised to specify that gasoline transfer must be discontinued immediately when any liquid leak, visible vapor, or significant odor is observed to prevent further potential discharges. This adopted revision will provide additional clarity within the rule language by providing more descriptive terms for the types of potential discharges that would result in a discontinuation ofthe transfer of gasoline. §115.225, Testing Requirements The commission adopts the amendment to §115.225 to remove the currenttest procedures and require all affected GDFs to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR §63.11120. All affected GDFs will be required to annually comply with the GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.1 E and TP-201.3, found in 40 CFR §63.11120. Additionally, use of alternative test methods and procedures shall be allowed in accordance with the alternative test method requirements found in 40 CFR §63.7(f). These adopted revisions will make the testing requirements for affected East Texas facilities under Chapter 115 consistent with the federal Stage I rule except for the annual inspection requirement. This revision will minimize confusion within the industry



## ADOPTEDRULES 

## September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7747of which test is required in which area in East Texas, the frequency ofthe tests, and will provide for improved consistency in compliance and enforcement by the commission due to a more defined testing schedule and testing procedures. Owners and operators of GDFs in West Texas will continue to comply with federal requirements and would not be affected by this rulemaking. The CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure-201.1 E will be required for GDFs to demonstrate compliance with the leak rate and cracking pressure requirements for pressure-vacuum vent valves installed on the gasoline tanks at the facility. The CARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedure-201.3 will be required to demonstrate compliance with the static pressure performance requirementfor a vapor balance system by conducting a static pressure test on the gasoline tanks at the facility. Annual testing of Stage I systems will provide additional benefit to the industry by identifying issues sooner and addressing expensive repair costs experienced by systems that are not tested annually where faulty equipment and parts are allowed to operate for longer periods of time. Affected areas will also benefit by having emissions issues at these facilities addressed earlier resulting in minimal impactto the environment. §115.226, Recordkeeping Requirements As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts revisions to §115.226 to update the formatting ofthe geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistencywith Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, the adopted revisions revise the provision in the introduction of §115.226 to clarify the records that shall be maintained and to specify that all records must be made available at the site during an investigation upon request. The adopted revisions to §115.226(2)(B) also delete the language requiring facilities with Stage II vapor recovery systems to perform Stage I testing because the requirements would no longer be necessary due to the commission's adoption of the decommissioning of Stage II equipment as previously discussed in this preamble. The commission combines subparagraphs (B) and (C) to reflect that the recordkeeping requirements will become uniform in the counties listed as the Stage II vapor control requirements are repealed. The requirementto keep the records for gasoline throughput for each calendar month is updated to clarify that the records shall be kept for the previous 24 months. §115.227, Exemptions As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts minor revisions to §115.227 to updatethe formatting of the geographic areas listed and replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. Additionally, the adopted revisions reorder provisions that cross-reference to §115.222 to reflect the proper order ofthe provisions in that section and update the cross-references to reflect changes to §§115.222, 115.224, and 115.226 adopted in this rulemaking. The adopted revisions to §115.227 reduce the throughput level for exemption from Stage I vapor control requirements from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month in paragraph (3) to provide GDF owners and operators with clearer applicability requirements and ensure consistency with throughput limits between the state and the federal Stage I requirements. The lowering of the throughput limit in this adopted rulemaking will provide owners and operators with one standard of throughput for both state and federal Stage I requirements in the majority ofthe covered attainment counties. The adopted revision will also provide the commission with one throughput standard for assessing applicability and compliance of GDFs in the covered attainment counties that currently have an applicability threshold of 125,000 gallons per month under the Chapter 115 rule. The adopted revisions to §115.227 also update the date in paragraph (3) to reflect that the exemption from the requirements of this division begin after October 31, 2014. §115.229, Counties and Compliance Schedules As discussed elsewhere in this Section by Section Discussion, the commission adopts minor revisions to §115.229 to replace the term "motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility" with "gasoline dispensing facility" for consistency with Chapter 115 Stage II rules. In addition, the commission adopts the revisions to the list of counties in subsection (a) using the geographic area terms for the Beaumont-Port Arthur, El Paso, and Houston-GalvestonBrazoria areas to be consistent with the other sections of the Stage I rules. Final Regulatory Impact Determination The commission reviewed the adopted rulemaking in light ofthe regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 and determined that the adopted rules do not meet the definition of a major environmental rule as defined in the statute. According to Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, a major environmental rule means "a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector ofthe state." Additionally, the rulemaking does not meet any of the four applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis for a major environmental rule, which are listed in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a). Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 applies only to a major environmental rule, the result of which is to: 1) exceed a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; 2) exceed an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law; 3) exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program; or 4) adopt a rule solely under the general powers of the agency instead of under a specific state law. The adopted rulemaking amends §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229. The revisions to Chapter 115 will facilitate compliance with agency rules and testing requirements that have changed due to changes to the Stage II vapor recovery program. These changes occurred after the EPA finalized a rulemaking (published in the May 16, 2012, Federal Register, 77 FR 28772) for 40 CFR Part 51, determining that vehicle ORVR technology is in widespread use for the purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013-002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development of these two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-101 and TXP-1 02, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the vapor recovery Stage I PSTs. With the decom

## 39 TexReg 7748 September 26, 2014 Texas Registermissioning of Stage II vapor recovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no longer apply. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment and ozone maintenance counties, the commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. The revisions to Chapter 115 will facilitate compliance with these testing requirements by making the requirements consistent across this sector ofthe industry. As a result, compliance with the rules will be easier and more consistent. The adopted revisions will improve the consistency of required equipment and testing for owners of GDFs in areas that currently have different requirements. These adopted revisions will also eliminate confusion with testing requirements by members ofthe industry by improving consistency between the state and federal Stage I rules. The adopted rulemaking implements requirements of 42 United States Code (USC), §7410, which requires states to adopt a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe NAAQS in each air quality control region ofthe state. While 42 USC, §7410 generally does not require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the standard, the SIP must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, ortechniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions ofemissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter (42 USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control). The provisions of the FCAA recognize that states are in the best position to determine what programs and controls are necessary orappropriate in orderto meet the NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected industry, and the public to collaborate on the best methods for attaining the NAAQS for the specific regions in the state. Even though the FCAA allows states to develop their own programs, this flexibility does not relieve a state from developing a program that meets the requirements of42 USC, §7410. States are notfree to ignore the requirements of42 USC, §7410, and mustdevelop programs to assure that their contributions to nonattainment areas are reduced so that these areas can be brought into attainment on schedule. The purpose of this rulemaking is to increase protection of the environment and reduce risk to human health; it is not expected that this adopted rulemaking would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector of the state. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required. This rulemaking will allow the commission to make uniform Stage I testing requirements within the state program areas or between the state and federal program. Currently, owners or operators of GDFs in the 16 counties that have implemented Stage II are required to complete the TXP-1 01 and the TXP-1 02 test procedures at the time of installation of Stage II vapor recovery equipment and at least once a year thereafter. This testing requirement will no longer be applicable when Stage II decommissioning occurs at GDFs, which may result in decreased effectiveness of the Stage I equipment installed at these facilities. The owners or operators of GDFs in the 95 counties that do not have Stage II, but fall under the state Stage I rule, are required to inspect for liquid leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors resulting from gasoline transfer from the transport vessel to the PST. The remaining 143 counties must comply with the federal Stage I testing requirements and are required to perform the GARB Vapor Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.3 and TP-201.1 

### E. These GARB testing requirements are similar to the TXP-101 and TXP-1 02 testing requirements. However, the GARB TP-201.1 E test is more stringent than the TXP-1 02 test because the GARB TP-201.1 E test requires testing the pressure and vacuum thresholds of the PN valve while the TXP-1 02 only requires testing the pressure threshold of the PN valve. The requirement to provide a fiscal analysis of proposed regulations in the Texas Government Code was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 633 during the 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent of SB 633 was to require agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of extraordinary rules. These rules are identified in the statutory language as major environmental rules that will have a material adverse impact and will exceed a requirement of state law, federal law, or a delegated federal program, or are adopted solely under the general powers of the agency. With the understanding that this requirement would seldom apply, the commission provided a cost estimate for SB 633 concluding that "based on an assessment of rules adopted by the agency in the past, it is not anticipated that the bill will have significant fiscal implications for the agency due to its limited application." The commission also noted that the number of rules that would require assessment under the provisions ofthe bill was not large. This conclusion was based, in part, on the criteria set forth in the bill that exempted proposed rules from the full analysis unless the rule was a major environmental rule that exceeds a federal law. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the FCAA does not always require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each area contributing to nonattainment to help ensure that those areas will meet the attainment deadlines. Because ofthe ongoing need to address nonattainment issues and to meet the requirements of 42 USC, §7410, the commission routinely proposes and adopts SIP rules. The legislature is presumed to understand this federal scheme. Ifeach rule proposed for inclusion in the SIP was considered to be a major environmental rule that exceeds federal law, then every SIP revision would require the full regulatory impact analysis contemplated by SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the commission in its cost estimate and by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since the legislature is presumed to understand the fiscal impacts of the bills it passes, and that presumption is based on information provided by state agencies and the LBB, the commission believes that the intent of SB 633 was only to require the full regulatory impact analysis for rules that are extraordinary in nature. While the SIP revision will have a broad impact, the impact is no greater than is necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the FCAA. For these reasons, rules adopted for inclusion in the SIP fall under the exception in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), because they are required by and do not exceed, federal law. The commission has consistently applied this construction to its rules since this statute was enacted in 1997. Since that time, the legislature has revised the Texas Government Code but left this provision substantially unamended. It is presumed that "when an agency interpretation is in effect at the time the legislature amends the laws without making substantial change in the statute, the legislature is deemed to have accepted the agency's interpretation." Central Power 

### & Light Co. v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex. App. Austin 1995), writ denied with per curiam opinion respecting another issue, 960 S.W.2d 617



## ADOPTEDRULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7749(Tex. 1997); 

### Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. App. Austin 1990, 

### no writ). Cf. Humble Oil & 

### Refining Co. 

### v. Calverl, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1967); 

### Dudney v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 2000); 

### Southwestern Life Ins. Co. 

### v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App. Austin 2000, 

### pet. denied). and 

### Coastallndust. Water Auth. v. Trinity Porlland Cement Div., 563 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1978). The commission's interpretation of the regulatory impact analysis requirements is also supported by a change made to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by the legislature in 1999. In an attempt to limit the number of rule challenges based upon APA requirements, the legislature clarified that state agencies are required to meet these sections of the APA against the standard of "substantial compliance." The legislature specifically identified Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 as falling under this standard. The commission has substantially complied with the requirements ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225. The adopted rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal law or exceed an express requirement ofstate law. No contract or delegation agreement covers the topic that is the subject ofthis adopted rulemaking. Therefore, this adopted rulemaking is not subject to the regulatory analysis provisions ofTexas Government Code, §2001.0225(b) because although the rulemaking meets the definition of a "major environmental rule," it does not meet any ofthe four applicability criteria for a major environmental rule. The commission invited public comment on the draft regulatory impact analysis determination. The Texas Food and Fuels Association (TFFA) indicated that they have no comment on the regulatory impact analysis determination. Takings Impact Assessment The commission evaluated the adopted rulemaking and performed an assessment of whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 is applicable. The specific purpose of the adopted rulemaking is to specify Stage I testing requirements for GDFs located in the 16 counties that will be affected by the Stage II rule revision (decommissioning Rule Project Number 2013-001-115-AI), preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in currently affected counties, and establish testing requirements that are uniform throughout the state. As mentioned previously in the preamble, in 1999 the commission adopted rule revisions to Chapter 115 implementing the Stage I vapor recovery option ofthe TCAS. The revisions were one element of the new TCAS, which included a variety of options that affected areas could implementto meet or maintain the NAAQS for ground level ozone. The purpose ofthe strategy was to reduce overall background levels ofozone in order to assist in keeping ozone attainment areas and near-nonattainment areas in compliance with the federal ozone standards and to help the ozone nonattainment areas move closer to ultimately reaching attainment with the ozone NAAQS. On May 16, 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking for40 CFR Part 51, determining that vehicle ORVR technology is in widespread use for the purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As a result, the commission adopted a rule revision (Rule Project Number 2013-001- 115-AI) and an accompanying SIP revision (Project No. 2013- 002-SIP-NR) authorizing the decommissioning of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. During the development ofthese two projects, staff identified testing requirements, TXP-1 01 and TXP-1 02, in the Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I PST vapor recovery. With the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery controls, the requirement for testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no longer apply due to these testing requirements residing within the Stage II control regulations. In order to preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties, the commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. This rulemaking is necessary to ensure that Stage I equipment is functioning properly and to be consistent with the federal rule revision authorizing the decommissioning ofStage II requirements. Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), provides that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to rulemakings that are actions reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by federal law. Since this rulemaking is such an action, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply. In addition, the commission's assessment indicates that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to these adopted rules because this action is taken in response to a real and substantial threat to public health and safety; that is designed to significantly advance the health and safety purpose; and that does not impose a greater burden than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose. Thus, this action is exempt under Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(13). Consequently, the adopted rulemaking meets the exemption criteria in Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4) and (13). For these reasons, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to this rulemaking. The commission evaluated the adopted rulemaking and performed an assessment of whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007, is applicable. Therefore, Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b)(4), provides that Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply to this adopted rulemaking because it is an action reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by federal law. Consistency with the Coastal Management Program The commission reviewed the adopted rulemaking and found the adoption is a rulemaking identified in the Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.11 (b)(2) (or §505.11(b)(4), whichever is applicable) relating to rules subject to the Coastal Management Program, and will, therefore, require that goals and policies ofthe Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) be considered during the rulemaking process. Section 505.11 (b)(2) applies only to air pollutant emissions, on-site sewage disposal systems, and underground storage tanks. Section 505.11 (b)(4) applies to all other actions. The commission reviewed this rulemaking for consistency with the CMP goals and policies in accordance with the regulations of the Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee and determined that the rulemaking is administrative and procedural in nature and will have no substantive effect on commission actions subjectto the CMP and is, therefore, consistentwith CMP goals and policies. No comments were received regarding the consistency with the CMP during the public comment period. Effect on Sites Subject to the Federal Operating Permits Program



## 39 TexReg 7750 September 26, 2014 Texas RegisterChapter 115 contains applicable requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 122, Federal Operating Permits; therefore, owners or operators subject to the Federal Operating Permit Program must, consistent with the revision process in Chapter 122, revise their operating permits to include the adopted Chapter 115 requirements for each emission unit at their sites affected by the revisions to Chapter 115. Public Comment The commission scheduled public hearings in FortWorth on April 29, 2014, in Austin on May 1, 2014, and in Houston on May 6, 2014. The hearings were not officially opened because no one registered to provide oral comments. The comment period closed on May 12, 2014. The commission received written comments from the EPA and the TFFA. The EPA and the TFFA expressed overall support for the proposed rulemaking change. Changes to the rule were suggested by the TFFA. Response to Comments Comment The EPA expressed appreciation of the rule revision for re-establishing and strengthening the test procedures for petroleum storage tanks and for making the Texas rules consistent with the NESHAP for Stage I in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. Response The commission appreciates the EPA's support and will continue to work with the EPA in the future. No change to the rule has been made in response to this comment. Comment The EPA expressed concern that the rule revision does not accountfor the designation ofWise County as nonattainmentwithin the Dallas-FortWorth ozone nonattainment area under the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. Response The commission appreciates the EPA's concern that the changes proposed for this revised rule did not include applicability in Wise County. As stated in the proposal preamble of this rulemaking and reiterated in this adoption preamble, Wise County in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been designated nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. The Executive Director has approved initiation of a separate rulemaking project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) to address VOC RACT requirements including Stage I requirements for Wise County that are necessary as a result of the nonattainment designation. The commission has determined that including all applicable RACT requirements for Wise County in one rulemaking would provide the best notice to the public of additional requirements in Wise County due to its inclusion in the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. There is no anticipated impact on the proposed revisions in this current rulemaking as a result of the future Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI. In addition, this current rulemaking will be adopted before the Dallas-Fort Worth RACT rulemaking, which is tentatively scheduled for proposal in December 2014. No change to the rule has been made in response to this comment. Comment The EPA commented that there is a non-substantive variation between the proposed revisions to the first sentence of §115.1 0(11) submitted to the EPA in letter form and those posted on the TCEQ website. Response The commission appreciates the EPA's mention ofthe non-substantive difference between the versions regarding proposed revisions to §115.10(11). To comply with Texas Registerformatting, a non-substantive editorial change was made to ensure that the correct citation was referenced before publication. This change did not modify the applicability of the definition. No change to the rule has been made in response to this comment. Comment The TFFA expressed support for most aspects of the rule revisions, specifically §§115.10, 115.221, 115.222, and 115.224. Response The commission appreciates the TFFA's support and will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure successful implementation. No change to the rule has been made in response to this comment. Comment The TFFA commented that it is generally supportive of the change to the federally required test method in §115.225 for testing consistency and ease of compliance issues; however, it questions the benefits as outlined in the preamble. The TFFA's historic concerns have centered on the SIP benefit and the credit the state or nonattainment counties are receiving by expanding the control measure outside of the nonattainment areas. The TFFA expressed that its concern was more about what is not being said in the preamble than the characterization of the benefit to the industry. Response The commission appreciates the TFFA's concern regarding testing requirements found in §115.225. As stated in the preamble, this revision will minimize confusion within the industry regarding the type of test required in different geographical areas of East Texas and the frequency of the tests. The revision would also provide consistency in compliance and enforcement activities by the commission by more clearly defining the testing schedule and testing procedures. The improvement of consistency in compliance requirements is a benefit for the state and affected stakeholders and strengthens the benefits ofthis clean air strategy included in the SIP. While TFFA did not specifically identify its concern regarding the benefits in the preamble beyond those associated with harmonizing testing requirements with the federal requirements, the air quality benefits discussed in the preamble were provided for historical reference only. The scope of this rulemaking is to address testing issues resulting from the decommissioning of Stage II and to establish testing requirements that are more consistent with federal Stage I testing in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. The commission will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure successful implementation of Stage I testing requirements. No changes to the rule have been made in response to this comment. Comment The TFFA commented that it does not support the proposed revisions to §115.226 that require records to be kept on site, nordoes it support the current requirement to do so found in §115.226(2).



## ADOPTEDRULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7751The TFFA urged the commission to remove the entire provision of§115.226(1) and requested that the commission not adopt the revision to §115.226(2)(8) requiring records to be immediately available on site. The TFFA stated that the commission has already adopted recordkeeping requirements that recognize that large volumes of records cannot be kept on site and that records must be made available upon requestwithin 72 hours. The TFFA suggested that the commission follow the recordkeeping protocol established in 30 TAC §334.10. The TFFA also commented that the commission has placed an unjustified and expensive recordkeeping provision on the GDF because the same records are being kept by the owner or operator of the tank truck. Response The commission appreciates the TFFA's concern regarding recordkeeping requirements found in §115.226. Paragraph (1) specifies records that must be maintained at the facility site. Records required under paragraph (2) must be made available at the site during an inspection already applies to all the records required under §115.226(2) via subparagraph (C). The commission's intent with the change was to streamline rule language but retain this requirement because subparagraph (C) was proposed for deletion. The commission acknowledges that the proposed language may be confusing as to the records that shall be kept on site at the affected GDF. The commission did not intend to propose that any additional records be kept on site other than those records already required in current §115.226. The commission has revised the rule language to clarify that no additional records are being proposed to be kept on site, instead clarifying that records must be provided on site during an inspection. The commission will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure successful implementation of Stage I recordkeeping requirements. Comment The TFAA indicated it has no comment on the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). No other comments were received regarding the RIA. Response The commission acknowledges TFFA's mention of the RIA. No changes to the rule have been made in response to this comment. 

## SUBCHAPTER A. 

## DEFINITIONS 30 TAC 

### §115.10 Statutory Authority The amendment is adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, concerning General Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 03, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 05, concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commission by rule to establish and approve all general policy of the commission; and under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act. The amendment is also adopted under THSC, §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning State Air Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the proper control ofthe state's air; and THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. The amendment is also adopted underTHSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination of Records, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring and monitoring of air contaminant emissions. The amendment is also adopted under FCAA, 42 USC, §§7401, et seq., which requires states to submit SIP revisions that specify the manner in which the NAAQS will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region ofthe state. The adopted amendment implements THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. 

### §115.10. Definitions. Unless specifically defined in Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382 (also known as the Texas Clean AirAct) or in the rules ofthe commission, the terms used by the commission have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field ofair pollution control. In addition to the terms which are defined by the Texas Clean Air Act, the following terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Additional definitions for terms used in this chapter are found in §3.2 and §101.1 ofthis title (relating to Definitions). (1) Background--The ambient concentration ofvolatile organic compounds in the air, determined at least one meter upwind of the component to be monitored. Test Method 21 (40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 60, Appendix A) shall be used to determine the background. (2) Beaumont-PortArthur area--Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. (3) Capture efficiency--The amount of volatile organic compounds (VOC) collected by a capture system that is expressed as a percentage derived from the weight per unit time ofVOCs entering a capture system and delivered to a control device divided by the weight per unit time oftotal VOCs generated by a source ofVOCs. (4) Carbon adsorption system--A carbon adsorber with an inlet and outlet for exhaust gases and a system to regenerate the saturated adsorbent. (5) Closed-vent system--A system that: (A) is not open to the atmosphere; (B) is composed ofpiping, ductwork, connections, and, ifnecessary, flow-inducing devices; and (C) transports gas or vapor from a piece or pieces of equipment directly to a control device. (6) Coaxial system--A type ofsystem consisting ofa tube within a tube that requires only one tank opening. The tank opening allows fuel to flow through the inner tube while vapors are displaced through the annular space between the inner and outer tubes.



## 39 TexReg 7752 September 26,2014 Texas Register(7) Component--A piece ofequipment, including, but not limited to, pumps, valves, compressors, connectors, and pressure relief valves, which has the potential to leak volatile organic compounds. (8) Connector--A flanged, screwed, or otherjoined fitting used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece ofequipment. The term connector does not includejoinedfittings welded completely around the circumference of the interface. A union c01mecting two pipes is considered to be one connector. (9) Continuous monitoring--Any monitoring device used to comply with a continuous monitoring requirement ofthis chapter will be considered continuous if it can be demonstrated that at least 95% ofthe required data is captured. (10) Covered ozone attainment counties--Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, Coma!, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Karnes, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, McLennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, Panola, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, and Wood Counties. (11) Dallas-Fort Worth area--For purposes of Subchapter B, Division 5 ofthis chapter (relating to Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. For all other divisions, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties. (12) Dual-point vapor balance system--A type of vapor balance system in which the storage tank is equipped with an entry port for a gasoline fill pipe and a separate exit port for vapor connection. (13) El Paso--El Paso County. (14) Emergency flare--A flare that only receives emissions during an upset event. ( 15) External floating roof--A cover or roofin an open-top tank which rests upon or is floated upon the liquid being contained and is equipped with a single or double seal to close the space between the roofedge and tank shell. A double seal consists oftwo complete and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing an enclosed space between them. Forthe purposes of this chapter, an externalfloating roofstorage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be an internal floating roofstorage tank. (16) Fugitive emission--Any volatile organic compound entering the atmosphere that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening designed to direct or control its flow. (17) Gasoline bulk plant--A gasoline loading and/or unloading facility, excludingmarineterminals, having agasolinethroughput less than 20,000 gallons (75,708 liters) per day, averaged over each consecutive 30-day period. A motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility is not a gasoline bulk plant. (18) Gasoline dispensing facility--A location that dispenses gasoline to motor vehicles and includes retail, private, and commercial outlets. (19) Gasoline terminal--A gasoline loading and/or unloading facility, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput equal to or greaterthan 20,000 gallons (75,708 liters) per day, averaged over each consecutive 30-day period. (20) Heavy liquid--Volatile organic compounds that have a true vapor pressure equal to or less than 0.044 pounds per square inch absolute (0.3 kiloPascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius). (21) Highly-reactive volatile organic compound--As follows. (A) In Harris County, one or more of the following volatile organic compounds (VOC): 1,3-butadiene; all isomers of butene (e.g., isobutene (2-methylpropene or isobutylene), alpha-butylene (ethylethylene), and beta-butylene (dimethylethylene, including both cis- and trans-isomers)); ethylene; and propylene. (B) In Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties, one or more ofthe following VOC: ethylene and propylene. (22) Houston-Galveston or Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area--Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties. (23) Incinerator--For the purposes ofthis chapter, an enclosed control device that combusts or oxidizes volatile organic compound gases or vapors. (24) Internal floating cover--A cover or floating roof in a fixed rooftank that rests upon or is floated upon the liquid being contained, and is equipped with a closure seal or seals to close the space betweenthe coveredge and tank shell. Forthe purposes ofthis chapter, an external floating roofstorage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be an internal floating roofstorage tank. (25) Leak-free marine vessel--A marine vessel with cargo tank closures (hatch covers, expansion domes, ullage openings, butterworth covers, and gauging covers) that were inspected prior to cargo transfer operations and all such closures were properly secured such that no leaks ofliquid or vapors can be detected by sight, sound, or smell. Cargo tank closures must meet the applicable rules or regulations ofthe marine vessel's classification society or flag state. Cargo tank pressure/vacuum valves mustbe operating within the range specified by the marine vessel's classification society orflag state and seated when tank pressure is less than 80% ofset point pressure such that no vapor leaks canbe detected by sight, sound, or smell. As an alternative, amarine vessel operated at negative pressure is assumed to be leak-free for the purpose ofthis standard. (26) Light liquid--Volatile organic compounds that have a true vapor pressure greater than 0.044 pounds per square inch absolute (0.3 kiloPascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), and are a liquid at operating conditions. (27) Liquefied petroleum gas--Any material that is composedpredominantly ofany ofthe following hydrocarbons or mixtures ofhydrocarbons: propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, and butylenes.(28) Low-density polyethylene--A thermoplastic polymer or copolymer comprised ofat least 50% ethylene by weight and having a density of0.940 grams per cubic centimeter or less. (29) Marine loading facility--The loading arm(s), pumps, meters, shutoffvalves, reliefvalves, and other piping and valves that are part ofa single system used to fill a marine vessel at a single geographic site. Loading equipment that is physically separate (i.e., does



## ADOPTEDRULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7753not share commonpiping, valves, and other loading equipment) is considered to be a separate marine loading facility. (30) Marine loading operation--The transfer ofoil, gasoline, or other volatile organic liquids at any affected marine terminal, beginning with the connections made to a marine vessel and ending with the disconnection from the marine vessel. (31) Marine terminal--Any marine facility or structure constructed to transfer oil, gasoline, or other volatile organic liquid bulk cargo to or from a marine vessel. A marine terminal may include one or more marine loading facilities. (32) Metal-to-metal seal--A connection formed by a swage ring that exerts an elastic, radial preload on narrow sealing lands, plastically deforming the pipe being connected, and maintaining sealing pressure indefinitely. (33) Natural gas/gasoline processing--A process that extracts condensate from gases obtained from natural gas production and/or fractionates natural gas liquids into component products, such as ethane, propane, butane, and natural gasoline. The following facilities shall be included in this definition if, and only if, located on the same property as a natural gas/ gasoline processing operation previously defined: compressor stations, dehydration units, sweetening units, field treatment, underground storage, liquefied natural gas units, and field gas gathering systems. (34) Petroleum refinery--Any facility engaged in producing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products through distillation ofcrude oil, or through the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or other processing ofunfinished petroleum derivatives. (35) Polymer or resin manufacturing process--A process that produces any ofthe following polymers or resins: polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and styrenebutadiene latex. (36) Pressure relief valve or pressure-vacuum relief valve--A safety device used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum and minimum allowable working pressure ofthe process equipment. A pressure reliefvalve or pressure-vacuum relief valve is automatically actuated by the static pressure upstream ofthe valve but does not include: (A) a rupture disk; or (B) a conservation vent or other device on an atmospheric storage tank that is actuated either by a vacuum or a pressure ofno more than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge. (37) Printing line--An operation consisting of a series of one or more printing processes and including associated drying areas. (38) Process drain--Any opening (including a covered or controlled opening) that is installed orused to receive or convey wastewater into the wastewater system. (39) Process unit--The smallest set ofprocess equipment that can operate independently and includes all operations necessary to achieve its process objective. (40) Rupture disk--A diaphragm held between flanges for the purpose ofisolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a downstream pressure reliefvalve. (41) Shutdown or turnaround--For the purposes of this chapter, a work practice oroperational procedure that stops production from a process unit orpart ofa unit during which time it is technically feasible to clear process material from a process unit or part ofa unit consistent with safety constraints, and repairs can be accomplished. (A) The term shutdown or turnaround does not include a work practice that would stop production from a process unit or part ofa unit: (i) for less than 24 hours; or (ii) for a shorter period oftime than would be required to clear the process unit or part ofthe unit and start up the unit. (B) Operation ofa process unit or part ofa unit in recycle mode (i.e., process material is circulated, but production does not occur) is not considered shutdown. (42) Startup--For the purposes ofthis chapter, the setting into operation ofa piece ofequipment or process unit for the purpose ofproduction or waste management. (43) Strippable volatile organic compound (VOC)--Any VOC in cooling tower heat exchange system water that is emitted to the atmosphere when the water passes through the cooling tower. (44) Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing process--A process that produces, as intermediates or final products, one or more ofthe chemicals listed in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §60.489 (October 17, 2000). (45) Tank-truck tank--Any storage tank having a capacity greater than 1,000 gallons, mounted on a tank-truck ortrailer. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not considered to be tank-truck tanks. (46) Transportvessel--Any land-basedmode oftransporta· tion (truck or rail) equipped with a storage tank having a capacity greaterthan 1,000 gallons that is used to transport oil, gasoline, orother volatile organic liquid bulk cargo. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not considered to be transport vessels. ( 47) True partial pressure--The absolute aggregate partial pressure ofall volatile organic compounds in a gas stream. (48) Vapor balance system--A system that provides for containment of hydrocarbon vapors by returning displaced vapors from the receiving vessel back to the originating vessel. (49) Vapor control system or vapor recovery system--Any control system that utilizes vapor collection equipmentto route volatile organic compounds (VOC) to a control device that reduces VOC emissions. (50) Vapor-tight--Not capable of allowing the passage of gases at the pressures encountered except where other acceptable leaktight conditions are prescribed in this chapter. (51) Waxy, high pour point crude oil--A crude oil with a pour point of50 degrees Fahrenheit (1 0 degrees Celsius) or higher as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials Stan· dard D97-66, "Test for Pour Point ofPetroleum Oils." The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise ofthe agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office ofthe Secretary of State on September 12, 2014. TRD-201404374



## 39 TexReg 7754 September 26, 2014 Texas RegisterRobert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Effective date: October 2, 2014 Proposal publication date: April11, 2014 For further information, please call: (512) 239-2613 

# • SUBCHAPTER C. 

# • • VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND TRANSFER OPERATIONS DIVISION 2. FILLING OF GASOLINE STORAGE VESSELS (STAGE I) FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DISPENSING FACILITIES 30 TAC §§115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 115.229 Statutory Authority The amendments are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, concerning General Powers. that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.1 03, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; TWC. §5.105, concerning General Policy, that authorizes the commission by rule to establish and approve all general policy of the commission; and under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, concerning Rules, that authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act. The amendments are also adopted under THSC, §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, that establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, that authorizes the commission to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning State Air Control Plan, that authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the proper control ofthe state's air; and THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. The amendments are also adopted under THSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring Requirements; Examination of Records, that authorizes the commission to prescribe reasonable requirements for the measuring and monitoring of air contaminant emissions. The amendments are also adopted under Federal Clean Air Act, 42 United States Code, §§7401, et seq., 

### which requires states to submit state implementation plan revisions that specify the manner in which the NMQS will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region ofthe state. The adopted amendments implement THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. 

### §115.226. RecordkeepingRequirements. The owner oroperator ofeach gasoline dispensing facility in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas and in the covered attainment counties as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions) shall maintain the following records and during an inspection make the records available at the site upon request to representatives ofthe executive director, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or any local air pollution control program withjurisdiction. The owner or operator shall: (1) maintain a record at the facility site of the dates on which gasoline was delivered to the dispensing facility and the identificationnumber and date ofthe last leaktesting, required by §115.224(2) ofthis title (relating to Inspection Requirements), ofeach tank-truck tank from which gasoline was transferred to the facility. The records shall be kept for a period oftwo years; and (2) maintain for a period oftwo years: (A) a record ofthe results ofany testing conducted at the gasoline dispensing facility in accordance withthe provisions specified in §115.225 ofthis title (relating to Testing Requirements); and (B) a record ofthe gasoline throughput for a 24-month rolling calendar period beginning January 1, 1991. The records must contain the calendar month and year, and the total facility gasoline throughput for each calendar month. 

### §115.227. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply: (1) In the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after January 1, 1991, and for which construction began prior to November 15, 1992, are exempt from the requirements of this division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) of this title (relating to Control Requirements) as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) ofthis title; (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title (relating to Inspection Requirements) as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) of this title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements). (2) In the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 of this title (relating to Definitions), stationary gasoline storage containers with a nominal capacity less than or equal to 1,000 gallons at gasoline dispensing facilities are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) ofthis title; and (C) §115.224(1) ofthistitle as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors. (3) In the covered attainment counties other than Bexar, Coma!, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson, transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed less than 100,000 gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after October 31, 2014 are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) ofthis title;



## ADOPTEDRULES September 26, 2014 39 TexReg 7755(C) §115.224(1) ofthistitle as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) ofthis title. (4) In Bexar, Coma!, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties transfers to stationary storage tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 25,000 gallons ofgasoline in any calendar month after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements ofthis division, except for: (A) §115.222(3) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; (B) §115.222(6) ofthis title; (C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and (D) §115.226(2)(B) ofthis title. (5) Transfers to the following stationary receiving containers are exempt from the requirements ofthis division: (A) containers used exclusively for the fueling of implements ofagriculture; and (B) storage tanks equipped with external floating roofs, internal floating roofs, or their equivalent. 

### The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise ofthe agency's legal authority. Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 12, 2014. TRD-201404375 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Effective date: October 2, 2014 Proposal publication date: April 11, 2014 For further information, please call: (512) 239-2613 

# • • CHAPTER 312. E USE, DISPOSAL, AND TRANSPORTATIO The Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) adopt the amendments to §§312.4, 312.8, 312.10-312.13,312.41, 12.42, 312.44, 312.45, 312.47, 312.50, 312.65, and 312.81-3 2.83. The commission adopts the a endments to §§312.4, 312.8, 312.10, 312.11, 312.41, 312.4 , 312.44, 312.47, 312.50, and 312.82 with changes 

### to the pr posed text as published in the April 11, 2014, issue of the Te as Register 

### (39 TexReg 2773). The commission also adopts he amendments to §§312.12, 312.13, 312.45, 312.65, 312.81 and 312.83 without changes 

### to the proposed text, and therefor , will not be republished. Background and Summary oft Factual Basis for the Adopted Rules On May 13, 2013, the TCEQ r eived a petition from Mr. Cole Turner (petitioner), on behalf o the landowners and citizens of Ellis County (Project Number 2 13-033-PET-NR). The petitioner requested that TCE amend Chapter 312 in order to prohibit the land application of sewage sludge in, or within, three miles of a city limit in a count with a population of 140,000 or more that is located adjacent a county with a population between 2,000,000 and 4,000,00

. On June 18, 2013, the commissi ers instructed the executive directorto examine the issues rais din the petition and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to add res nuisance odor issues at bulk sewage sludge land application s es on a statewide basis. As part of this rulemaking proceedin , the commission instructed the executive directorto engage s keholders and to report back to the commission with findings nd recommended actions, if any, within five months. The Water Quality Division and gional office staff conducted site visits at various wastewate treatment plants (WWTPs), sewage sludge processing facili es and bulk sewage sludge land application sites throughout he state. The objective was to evaluate different types of b lk sewage sludge treatment processes and evaluate odors a several sewage sludge processing and land application sites Staff concluded that sewage sludge facilities that use more a vanced treatment processes such as heat drying or composti g tend to have more typical odors than those that do not. The executive director held stake older meetings in Parker, Ellis, Waller, and Travis Counties. he comments received at the stakeholder meetings and in wri ing included support for and against the petition. At the November 20, 2013, Co missioners Agenda, the executive director recommended i itiating a state-wide rulemaking rather than the three-mile pr hibition requested in the petition. This recommendation to mo e forward with the rulemaking process was based upon stakeh lder comments requesting relief from odors, vectors, unautho ized discharges from land application sites, tracking of mater al on roadways and staff observations during site visits. Th commissioners instructed the executive director to proceed wit releasing draft rule concepts and draft rule language to stake olders. The executive director's concept for rulemaking includes separating existing Class A into two ategories, Class A and Class AB, and including additional man gement provisions to address odor. The management provisi ns for each category become more stringent as the treatment processes used for pathogen reduction are less advanced. Thi approach provides additional incentives for permittees to sel ct more advanced pathogen treatment processes which tend to reduce odors (composting, heat drying, pasteurization, an other equivalent processes) and to promote land application through incorporation into the soil, when feasible. A concern provided during th stakeholder meetings was TCEQ's inability to respond q ickly to odor complaints and prevent recurrences. Therefor , in addition to the changes to sludge classification, the rul s would clarify the executive director's existing ability to inc! de additional, more stringent requirements to any Class A, B, or B site such as requiring an Odor Control Plan with mea urable goals, as needed. This would allow TCEQ investigator to determine compliance with specific permit conditions desig ed to address odor and other compliance issues at a specific ite and aid in addressing recurrent issues. In addition, staff e aluated existing requirements within Chapter 312 for Class B ites, which could be applied to all sites to address odor.



## 39 TexReg 7756 September 26, 2014 Texas Register