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

Toby Baker, Commissioner 

Zak Covar, Commissioner 

Richard A Hyde, P.E., Executive Director 14 NOV I~ PH G: 03 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIIT 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

November 12, 2014 

Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency· Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

Docket No. 2013·1392-RUL 

Rule Project No. 2013·022·11S·AI 

On September 10, 2014, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted 

revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The Commission adopted amended Sections 115.10, 115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229 

of 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic 

Compounds and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan. The amendments 

preserve existing Stage 1 testing requirements in ozone nonattainment counties and specify Stage I 

testing requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the 12 ozone nonattainment and four 

· ozone maintenance counties that will be affected by the decommissioning of the Stage II vapor 

recovery equipment rule revision and in the 95 counties that ar.e subject to the state Stage I rule but 

not Stage II requirements. The adopted revisions also establish testing requirements that are more 

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

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete record of the 

public hearings, and the accompanying order. I look forward to your expeditious approval of these 

SIP revisions. 

Sincerely, ~ 

' \ w·" ~'-'"'-

.Shaw, Ph.D., P.E. 

Chairman 

BWS/ts 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas 

Mr. Nate Hickman, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office of the Governor 

Mr. Richard A. 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 our customer service? tceq. texas.gov jcustomersurvey 
TEXAS CoMMISSION oN ENVIRONMENTAL QuALITY 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF TRAVIS 

Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL 

Rule Project No. 2013-022-115-AI 

This is to certify that the attached electronic file is included and that the electronic file is a 

true and correct copy of documents for a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, 

adopted on September 10, 2014, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations§ 51.104. I am 

the records administrator for the Air Quality Division of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (Commission). 

~ DaviBi"Yffier, Director 

Air Quality Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearings 

April 29, 2014 and 

May 1 and 6, 2014 

Concerning Revisions to 30 T AC 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 of Air 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 of the 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 of the House 

Lieutenant Governor 

Alamo Area Council of Governments 

Capital Area Planning Council 

City of Austin, 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 of Transportation 

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 

of the 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 of Water, 

(512) 239-1375. 

TRD-201401401 

Robert Martinez 

Director, Environmental aw Division 

Texas Commission on E vironmental Quality 

Filed: March 28, 2014 

• • • 

Notice of Public 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 

of Air 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) under the requirements of Texas 

Health and Safety Code, 382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 

2001, Subchapter B; an 40 Code of Federal 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 of MTBE 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 of oral or written comments by interested 

persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in 

order of registration. Ope discussion will not be permitted during the 

hearing; however, comm · sion staff members 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 of LegalS 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 of Public 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 of Texas 

Health and Safety Code, §382.0 17; Texas Govemment 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 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 of the 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 would establish testing requirements 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 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 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 communication 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 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. 

IN ADDITION Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2983 
TRD-201401398 

Robert Martinez 

Director, Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Filed: March 28, 2014 

• • 

Notice of Water 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 Chief Clerk, 

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 of Lake Creek Lake along 

Farm-to-Market Road 1860, a proximately four miles southwest of 

the City of Riesel, McLennan unty, Texas 76682. 

MARC ROGER MEEKER has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQOO 1360 I 001 which authorizes the discharge of treated 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 of the intersection ofHigh ay 75 and Shepard Hill Road in Montgomery 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 of Lake elton Dam, north of Farm-to-Market 

Road 439 and approximately o e mile north of Westcliff Park 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 

of treated 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 of 2,000 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 of the 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 of the intersection of State Highway 362, and St te Highway 529, on the west 

side of State 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 of Farm-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 of poll tants into waters in the State. 

The sewage sludge land application s te is located on the west side 

of Adams Flat Road, approximately 0 7 mile south-southwest of the 

intersection of Adams Flat Road and Farm-to-Market Road 359, in 

Waller County, Texas 77423. 

CITY OF ASPERMONT has applied or a renewal of TCEQ 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 of 46 acr s of non-public access pastureland. This permit will not authorize a ischarge of pollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater trea ment facility and disposal site 

are located approximately 0.75 mile w st of the intersection of Vivian 

Avenue and North Second Street, no h of the City of Aspermont in 

Stonewall County, Texas 79502. 

CITY OF TAHOKA has applied for renewal of TCEQ 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 of pollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater treat ent facility is located approximately two miles south of Highway 38 and 0.25 mile east of Highway 

87. The effluent disposal site is locate approximately 1,200 feet south 

of the plant site, between Highway 8 and the Atchison Topeka and 

Santa Fe Railroad, approximately 2.23 miles south of Highway 380 in 

Lynn County, Texas 79373. 

CITY OF ABERNATHY has applied or a renewal of TCEQ Permit 

No. WQ0010774001 which authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flo not to exceed 380,000 gallons 

per day via surface irrigation of 180 cres of non-public access agriculturalland. This permit will not aut orize a discharge of pollutants 

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 of the 

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 

Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC 

CHAPTER us 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) Chapter us, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic 

Compounds, Sections us.1o, us.221, us.222, us.224- us.227, and us.229, and 

corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements 

of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, 

Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §Sl.102 of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. 

The proposed rulemaking would revise Chapter us, Subchapter C, Division 2, 

concerning 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 of the Stage II vapor recovery equipment rule revision 

and in the 9S counties that are subject to the state Stage I rule but not Stage II 

requirements. The proposed Stage I rule revision would establish testing requirements 

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 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 3S Circle, Building 

E, Room 201S; in Fort Worth at 2:00P.M. on April29, 2014, at the TCEQ Region 4 

Office, 2309 Gravel Road; and in Houston at 2:00P.M. on May 6, 2014, at the TCEQ 

Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, S42S 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 communication or other accommodation needs who are 

planning to attend the hearings should contact Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services at 

(S12) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. 

Written comments may be submitted to Michael Parrish, MC 20S, Office of Legal 

Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 

787U-3087, or faxed to (S12) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: 

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

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.govfgoto/customersurvey 

printed on recycled paper 
http:jjwwws.tceq.texas.govjrulesjecommentsj. 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 ofthe proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjnavjrulesjpropose_adopt.html. For further 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 of the 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 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 the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground level ozone. The purpose of the 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 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-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 of Stage 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 of GDFs in areas that currently 

have different requirements. These proposed revisions would 
eliminate 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 record keeping 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 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 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 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 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 2761 
inner 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 of the 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 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 of the 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 

higher flow 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) 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 of the 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 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 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 of the 

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 of time. 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 of the decommissioning of Stage II equipment as previously discussed in 

this preamble. The commission proposes to combine subparagraphs (B) and (C) to reflect that the record keeping 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 replace 
the 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 

of the 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 of this 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 of the 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 of the administration or enforcement of the 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 I systems 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 of the 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 of Texas are currently 

subject to 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 

125,000 gallons per month. The proposed rules would lower that 

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 lower throughput 

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, approxPROPOSED RULES Aprilll, 2014 39 TexReg 2763 
imately 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 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. 

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 governments 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. 

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 of two tanks. In general, however, 

agency staff does not expect an increase in the number of GDFs 

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 of other 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 that the 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 of the 

regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, 

§2001.0225 and determined that the 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 of the state or a sector of the 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 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-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 of 42 United 

States Code (USC), §7410, which requires states to adopt a SIP 

that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS in each air quality control region of the 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 of emissions 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 order to 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 of 42 USC, §7 410. States are not free to ignore 

the requirements of 42 USC, §7 410, 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 of the economy, productivity, jobs, 

the environment, or the public health and safety of the 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 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 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-1 02 only requires testing the pressure threshold of the 

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 of the 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 of the 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. If each 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 2765 
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 

(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 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 of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225. 

The proposed rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal law or exceed an express requirement of state law. No contract or delegation agreement covers the topic that is the subject 

of this 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 of the 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 of the TCAS. The revisions were 

one element of the new TCAS, which included a variety of options that affected areas could implement to meet the NAAQS for 

ground level ozone. The purpose of the 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 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-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 of Stage 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 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 of the 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 of this rulemaking may be 

submitted to the contact person at the address listed under the 

Submittal of Comments section of this 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 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 hearings; 

however, commission staff members will be available to discuss 

the proposal 30 minutes prior to each hearing. 

Persons who have special communication 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. 

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 of the Texas Clean Air Act. 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 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 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 of the 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 

of this title (relating to Definitions). 

(I) Background--The ambient concentration of volatile organic compounds in the air, determined at least one meter upwind of 

the component to be monitored. Test Method 21 (40 Code of Federal 

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 of VOCs entering a 

capture system and delivered to a control device divided by the weight 

per unit time of total 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 of piping. ductwork, connections, and, 

if necessary, 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 of system consisting of a 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 of equipment, 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--A flanged, screwed, or other joined fitting used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. The term connector does not include joined fittings welded completely around the circumference of the 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 of this chapter will be considered continuous if it can be demonstrated that at least 

95% of the 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, and Wood Counties. 

.QU [~] Dallas-Fort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth] area--

For purposes of Subchapter B, Division 5 of this 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 equipped with 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 upon the liquid being contained and is equipped with a single or double seal to close the space 

between the roof edge and tank shell. A double seal consists of two 

complete and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing 

an enclosed space between them. For the purposes of this chapter, an 

external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be 

considered to be an internal floating roof storage 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 vapor pressure equal to or less than 0.044 pounds per square 

inch absolute (0.3 kilo Pascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (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 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 of the 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--For the purposes of this chapter, an 

enclosed control device that combusts or oxidizes volatile organic compound gases or vapors. 

@ [f2-B] Internal floating cover--A cover or floating roof 

in a fixed roof tank 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 of this 

chapter, an external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a 

self-supporting fixed roof(typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) 

shall be considered to be an internal floating roof storage 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 of liquid or vapors can be detected by sight, sound, 

or smell. Cargo tank closures must meet the applicable rules or regulations of the marine vessel's classification society or flag state. Cargo 

tank pressure/vacuum valves must be operating within the range specified by the marine vessel's classification society or flag state and seated 

when tank pressure is less than 80% of set point pressure such that no 

vapor leaks 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 of this standard. 

@ [~]Light liquid--Volatile organic compounds that 

have a true vapor pressure greater than 0.044 pounds per square inch 

absolute (0.3 kilo Pascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), 

and are a liquid at operating conditions. 

Q12 [tMJ] Liquefied petroleum gas--Any material that is 

composed predominantly of any of the following hydrocarbons or mixtures of hydrocarbons: propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, 

and butylenes. 
@ [(Ut] Low-density polyethylene--A thermoplastic 

polymer or copolymer comprised of at 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, and other loading 

equipment) is considered to be a separate marine loading facility. 

Q_Q)_ [~]Marine loading operation--The transfer of oil, 

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. 

Q12 [~] 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. 

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--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. 

Q12 [~] Petroleum refinery--Any facility engaged in 

producing gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products through distillation of crude oil, or through 

the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or other processing 

of unfinished petroleum derivatives. 

Q1l [~] Polymer or resin manufacturing process--A 

process that produces any of the following polymers or resins: polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and styrenebutadiene latex. 

Q2)_ [~]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 of 

the process equipment. A pressure relief valve or pressure-vacuum relief valve 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 

of no more than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge. 

Q1)_ [fJ41] Printing line--An operation consisting of a series of one 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 [~] Process unit--The smallest set of process 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 of isolating a volatile organic compound from 

the atmosphere or from a downstream pressure relief valve. 

.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 clear process material from a process unit or part 

of a 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 

of a 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 of the unit and start up the unit. 

(B) Operation of a process unit or part of a 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 of a piece of equipment or process unit for the 

purpose of production or waste management. 

.!fl.} [t4Gf] 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. 

111} [(4-8] Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 

process--A process that produces, as intermediates or final products, 

one or more of the chemicals listed in 40 Code of Federal 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 of all volatile organic compounds in a gas stream. 

~ [~] 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. 

8.21 [f%1] Vapor control system or vapor recovery 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 of gases 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 of Petroleum Oils." 

PROPOSED RULES Aprilll, 2014 39 TexReg 2769 
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 of the 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 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 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 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 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 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 §§7 401, 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 of this 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€le fuel] 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) of gasoline transferred; or 

(2) a vapor balance system which is operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of §115.222 of this title (relating to Control Requirements). 

§115.222. Control Requirements. 

A vapor balance system will be assumed to comply with the specified 

emission limitation of§ 115.221 of this title (relating to Emission Specifications) if the following conditions are met: 

(1) the container is equipped with a submerged fill pipe as 

defined in§ 101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions). The path through 

the submerged fill pipe to the bottom of the tank must not be obstructed 

by a screen, grate, or similar device whose presence would preclude the 

determination of the submerged fill 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-half of the 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 covered attainment 

counties, as defined in §115.10 of this title (relating to Definitions), 

the only atmospheric emission during gasoline transfer into the storage 

container is through a storage container vent line equipped with a pressure-vacuum relief valve set to open at a pressure of no more than eight 

ounces per square inch (3.4 kilopascals (kPa) [kPa]) [OF in accordance 

with the fa€.ili.!y's Stage H system as de4ine4 in the 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 set to epeu at a pres-sure ef oo mere than eight eufl€eS per sttuare 

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, or degassing operation and discharged in accordance with the 

control requirements of that operation; 
ill [f&f] the gauge pressure in the tank-truck tank does not 

exceed 18 inches of water ( 4.5 k.Pa) or vacuum exceed six inches of 

water (1.5 k.Pa); 

ill [~]no leak, as defined in §101.1 of this 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 of this title [non coaxial Stage 

l connection]. In addition, any modification to a storage tank existing 

prior to November 15, 1993, requiring excavation of the 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 

Stage H system was fnstalle4 pfl& to November ~ +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 of this title [non coaxial Stage 

l connection]. In addition, any modification to a storage tank existing prior to December 22, 1998, requiring excavation of the 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; and 

.QU [f-bB] any gasoline [meter¥ehielefuel] dispensing facility that no longer meets an exemption in §115.227 of this title (relating to Exemptions) because of an increase in throughput shall have 

120 days to come into compliance with the provisions of this section 

[subsection] and will remain subject to the provisions of this section, 

even ifits gasoline throughput later falls below exemption limits. However, if gasoline 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 of this 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 [Gtmtrel ef¥elatile Grganie 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 with the emission specification and certain control requirements and inspection requirements of§§ 115.221, 115.222 and 115.224 

of this title (relating to Emission Specifications; Control Requirements; 

and Inspection Requirements) shall be determined according to therequirements of 40 Code of Federal 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- Determination of2-Inch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor Recovery Systems of Dispensing Facilities. 

(3) Alternate test methods other than those specified in 

paragraphs (1)- (2) of this section may be used if validated by 40 CFR 

§63.7(Q. 

lf4 Flew~ :rest MetOOds !-4 (4{) GOOe of Fedeml RegulatioHs fGFRj ~ Appendil< Aj are used fuf determining flow rate, as 

necessary.] 

~ Concentration ef -volatile organie compounds.] 

£fA) :rest Me-thOO ~ (4{) GFR 6{},- Appendil< At is used 

fuf determining gaseous organie compound emissions by gas ehromatography.] 

«Bt :rest Me-thOO ~ (4{) GFR 6{},- Appendix Aj is 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 At fuf determining volatile organie 

compound leak&] 

«41 Minor modifications. Minor modifications to these test 

methods may Be used, if approved by the executive director.] 

§115.226. Recordkeeping Requirements. 

The owner or operator of each gasoline [meter ¥ehiele fuel] dispensing 

facility in the Beaumont-Port Arthur [Bea~o~montPort ArtH-ur], DallasFort Worth [Dallas/Fort Werth], El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria [Houston/Galveston] areas and in the covered attainment counties 

as defined in § 115.10 of this title (relating to Definitions) shall maintain the following records and make them available at the site during 

inspection upon request to representatives of the executive director, the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], or any local 

air pollution control program with jurisdiction. 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 identification number and date of the last leak testing, required by§ 115.224(2) 

of this 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 of two years; and 

(2) maintain for a period of two years: 

(A) a record of the results of any testing conducted at 

the gasoline [meter ¥ehiele fuel] dispensing facility in accordance with 

PROPOSED RULES Apri/11, 2014 39 TexReg 2771 
the provisions specified in § 115.225 of this 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 .2 4 1 - 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 of gasoline 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 of this 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 with j 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 ttf Gaseline Sterage ¥essels (Stage 11 

fuF Met& -Vehie-le Fuel Dispensing Faeilities) ], except for: 

(A) § 115.222(3) [§ 115.222(7)] of this 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) of this 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 of this division, except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] of this 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) of this 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 

of this division, except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] of this title as it applies 

to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) § 115.222(6) [§ 115.222(3)] of this title [as it awHes 

t6 lli}uiti gawline leaks l; 

(C) §115.224(1) of this 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 [fllffler veftie1e fuel] dispensing facility which has dispensed no more than 25,000 gallons of gasoline in any 

calendar month after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements of this division [ ~ te Filling ttf Gasoline Sterage ¥essels 

(Stage 11 fuF Met& ¥ehlele Fuel Dispensing Faeilities)], except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) [§115.222(7)] of this title as it applies 

to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) [§115.222(3)] of this 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 of this division: 

(A) containers used exclusively for the fueling of implements of agriculture; and 

(B) storage tanks equipped with external floating roofs, 

internal floating roofs, or their equivalent. 

§ 115.229. Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

(a) The owner or operator of each gasoline [fllfflerveftiele fuel] 

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,-

FBrt Bend;- Galveston, Hartiin;-Harris, Jefferson, btberty,- Montgomery, 

Grange, +arrant, and Waldtw Geunti-es] shall continue to comply with 

this division[~ te Filling ttf Gaseline Sterage ¥essels (Stage 11 

fuF Met&¥ehlele Fuel Dispensing Faeilities)] as required by § 115.930 

of this 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 of this 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 of gasoline 

but less than 125,000 gallons of gasoline 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 of the 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 of a 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 director to 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 director to 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 com posting 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 of the 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, Required Authorizations 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 Protection Agency 
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 of Air 

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· of the food and 

petroleum Industries In Texas. Our members own, operate or supply over 10,000 retail outlets In the 

state. Our members are comprised of small to large businesses that distribute the vast majority of 

petroleum sold to consumers In the state. 

We appreciate the opportunity to 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 by Section 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 support the revisions to these sections. 

§115.225. Testing Requirements- While we are generally supportive of changing to the federally 

required test method for testing for consistency 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 of the 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 of the 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 requirement found In §115.226(2). 

As a matter 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 of these products are routinely n:JOved by truck d urlng the night to avoid needless traffic 

congestion and make deliveries during the least busy hours of the store operation. While some of our 

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 of these facilities. The 

vast majority of the 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 oflading which does contain the traller(tan k) number but It 

does not lnd lcate whether the tank has been tested for certification. The only way to comply with the 

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 potentially very expensive recordkeeplng provision when the 

same exact records are being kept by the owner/operator of the 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 addltion1 while we are not aware of exact number, it would be a safe estimate that less than 1000 

companies operate transport trucks 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 support the revisions 

Draft Regulatory Impact Analysls Determination 

We shall not comment on the conclusions outltried In Impact Analysis Determination since It Is not a 

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. 

If you have any questions, please contact Scott B. Fisher, Vice President of Polley & Public Affairs 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 of Legal 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 of Wise 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 I requirements for Wise County that are necessary as a result of designations 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 5.1 0(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 of the 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 of my staff at 214-665-6521, if you 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 of the comment that was submitted for the referenced rulemaking. 

First Name: Carrie 

Last Name: Paige 

Company/Organization: US Environmental Protection Agency E-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 ORAL TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THIS RULE REVISION. 
- 1 -

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality I 

Public Hearing Reg1istration 

April29, 2014 

2:ooPM. 

Rule Project No.: 2013-022-115-AI 

Short Title: Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds 

Location: Fort Worth- TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road I 

Concerning: Requirements for Stage I vapor recovery testing 

Name I Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) q:ircle One) 

' !)t ' lfi2.k..... A 7 Ll'~~ . ~b./M-e 1#. ~@ l 

-r:f:=t5T4tl A- VC1.4!~ 5At--LT1-<.l LL. /J1/C. 

tJ..ts.b 83C7~~bc~ J6bA L·~ 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 

7J~!t:) ~STA/l/} Yes ~ ., 

~~s ~~'L~ T~~Cf vQ 

Lcs-Te??'" tJ Jll!IT )'fl'l5 -:T~5 _:_I 

/&"Sf'IU& Ye~ 

..... -· -···· .. 

. .... 
- 1 -

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

April29, 2014 

2:ooPM. 

Rule Project No.: 2013-022-115-AI 

Short Title: Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds 

Location: Fort Worth- TCEQ Region 4 Office, 2309 Gravel Road 

Concerning: Requirements for Stage I vapor recovery testing 

Name I Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(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 .:,/. 
HEARING OFFICER REPORT 

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding 

proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, Control 

of Air 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 Fort Worth. 

At 1:30 P.M., the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to 

discuss the proposal. At 2:00P.M., TCEQ staff and 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 not formally opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 
I 

I 

-11 - I 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: May 1, 2014 

Time: 2:oop.m. 

Rule Project No.: 2013-022-115-AI 

Short Title: Stage I Testing Requirements Rule Revision 

Location: 12100 Park 35 Circle, Bldge. E, Austin, TX 78753 I 

Concerning: I 

I 

! 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimont? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

R, 1-h i ~ (\ 

. t 

~ v ;ro-Il MCLl+~ J ., . Yes~ v - ~ \~ ,-1 cl''~+ • OclysS<-7 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 assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding Chapter 

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

115-AI). 

A public hearing was scheduled in Austin, Texas, on May 1, 2014, at 2:oop.m., in 

Building E, at 12100 Park 35 Circle. TCEQ staff and a court reporter were 

present for the public hearing. 

At 1:30 p.m., the room was opened and TCEQ staff was available to the public for 

an informal question and answer period. At 15 minutes after the start of the 

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 

opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 

~~ S-l- Pi 

Date signed 

1 
-3-

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

May 6,2014 

2:ooPM. 

Ru1e Project No.: 2013-022-115-AI 

Short Title: Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds 

Location: Houston - the TCEQ Region 12 Office, Conference Room 3C-3F, 5425 Polk Street 

Concerning: Requirements for Stage I vapor recovery testing 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (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. Ldlfi eYL 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 
HEARING OFFICER REPORT 

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding 

proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, Control 

of Air 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 Street in 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 staff and 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 not formally opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 

Hearing Officer 

Date signed 
EVALUATION 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Interoffice Memorandum 

To: 

Thru: 

From: 

Commissioners 

Bridget C. Bohac, Chief Clerk 

Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director 

Steve Hagle, P.E., Deputy Director 

Office of Air 

Date: August 22, 2014 

Docket No.: 2013-1392-RUL 

Subject: Commission Approval for Rulemaking Adoption 

Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds 

Stage I Testing Requirements Rule Revision 

Rule Project No. 2013-022-115-AI 

Background and reason(s) for the rulemaking: 

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 United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The commission's Stage I rules are included in 

30 Texas Administrative Code 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) from Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities. 

In addition to 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 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 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. 

In 2012, the EPA finalized a rulemaking (published in the May 16, 2012, Federal Register 

(77 FR 28772)) for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, determining that vehicle 

on-board refueling vapor recovery 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 state implementation plan (SIP) revision 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-102, in the 

Stage II rules that are necessary to ensure there are no leaks in the Stage I petroleum 

storage tank's (PST) vapor recovery system. With the decommissioning of Stage II vapor 
Commissioners 

Page 2 

August 22, 2014 

Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL 

recovery controls, the rules requiring testing the Stage I system on these PSTs would no 

longer apply. To preserve existing Stage I testing requirements in ozone nonattainment 

and ozone maintenance counties, the commission proposed revisions to the Stage I testing 

requirements. 

Currently, the Stage I testing requirement will no longer be applicable when Stage II 

decommissioning occurs at the GDF. The owners or operators of GDFs in the 95 counties, 

including the ozone nonattainment counties of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and 

Rockwall that do not have Stage II but are subject to the state Stage I rule requirements 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 

California Air Resource Board (CARE) Vapor Recovery Test Procedures TP-201.3 and TP201.1E. These CARE testing requirements are similar to the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing 

requirements. However, the CARE TP 201.1E test is more stringent than the TXP-102 test 

because the CARE TP-201.1E test requires testing the pressure and vacuum thresholds of 

the pressure/vacuum (P /V) valve while the TXP-102 only requires testing the pressure 

threshold of the P /V valve. 

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, and Waller Counties), and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area 

(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 are under ozone nonattainment maintenance plans as part ofthe 1997 

ozone standard are also subject to the Stage I vapor recovery 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, and Waller) of these 21 counties; Stage II is not required in Ellis, 

Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties of the DFW area. 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. 

Compliance with Stage I vapor recovery rules is currently dependent on the geographical 

location of the GDF within the state and the volume of fuel dispensed. GDFs within the 95 

counties that are located in the eastern part of the state must comply with state 

requirements found in Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 2. GDFs located within any 

county not covered by the state Stage I requirements are covered under the federal 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Stage I 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. For both the state and federal Stage I 
Commissioners 

Page3 

August 22, 2014 

Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL 

regulations, 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. Owners of GDFs with multiple locations throughout an area in the state with 

similar monthly gasoline throughput amounts could be subject to different equipment and 

testing requirements depending on their geographical location. 

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 or gasoline 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. 

Scope of the rulemaking: 

In researching the Stage I testing requirements that facilities in ozone nonattainment areas 

will 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 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 concerning testing requirements within the industry by improving 

consistency between the state and federal Stage I rules. 

The adopted rule revision will revise Chapter 115 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 in 

Chapter 115 that are more consistent with the testing required in the federal Stage I rule in 

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC. 

The adopted rule revision will address issues of Stage I testing requirements not being 

uniform within the state program areas or between the state and federal programs. 

Currently, owners or operators of GDFs in the 16 counties that have implemented Stage II 

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. 

The adopted rule revision will apply only to the GDFs located in the 16 counties subject to 

Stage II requirements and in the 95 counties that are only subject to the Stage I rule. 

Wise County in the DFW area has been designated as nonattainment for the 2008 eighthour ozone standard. The executive director has approved initiation of a rulemaking 

project (Rule Project No. 2013-048-115-AI) to address VOC 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 of the 

designation. These rules are tentatively scheduled for proposal in December 2014. 

A.) Summary of what the rulemaking will 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-point vapor balance system," "coaxial system," and 

"gasoline dispensing facility"; 

• remove language regarding Stage II vapor recovery systems, which are required to 

be decommissioned; 

• require owners and operators of affected GDFs to comply with new testing and 

inspection procedures for their Stage I vapor recovery system that are consistent 

with the federal Stage I rule; 

• require owners and operators of affected GDFs to maintain compliance with the 

Stage I vapor recovery requirements through annual testing; 

• reduce the throughput level for exemption from Stage I in the 95 affected counties 

from 125,000 gallons per month to 100,000 gallons per month in covered 

attainment counties to ensure consistency with the NESHAP requirements and 

provide owners and operators of GDFs with clarity on compliance with equipment 

and testing requirements; and 

• include minor changes to language such as changing "leak" to "liquid leak, visible 

vapors, and significant odors" to provide more clarity within the rule language. 

B.) Scope required by federal regulations or state statutes: 

None. 

C.) Additional staff recommendations that are not required by federal rule or 

state statute: 

The adopted rulemaking is recommended by staff to ensure Stage I compliance continues 

at GDFs subject to current Stage II requirements, to provide consistency and clarity, and to 

help provide administrative consistency throughout the affected industry in areas subject 

to both the state and federal Stage I rules. 

Statutory authority: 

The revisions are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, concerning General 

Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under 

the TWC; TWC, §5.103, 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 
Commissioners 

Pages 

August 22, 2014 

Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL 

and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act. The revisions 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 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 revisions 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 revisions are also adopted under FCAA, 42 United States Code (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 of 

the state. 

The adopted revisions implement THSC, §§382.002, 382.011, 382.012, 382.016, 382.017, 

382.208 and FCAA, 42 USC, §§7401, et seq. 

Effect on the: 

A.) Regulated community: 

The adopted rule revision will have an effect on the current owners of the GDFs and 

licensed contractors who install, test, and monitor the Stage I equipment. Owners and 

operators of affected GDFs may experience an increased cost due to testing being required 

on an annual basis. Testing costs for the Stage I system range from $250 to $275 for 

annual inspections. Contractors who test the Stage I equipment in the affected areas may 

be impacted by the tests being required on an annual basis. 

B.) Public: 

No direct impact is anticipated. 

C.) Agency programs: 

The TCEQ's Office of Compliance and Enforcement's (OCE) Field Operations Division has 

investigators that currently monitor and inspect equipment and installations at affected 

GDFs. The OCE may see its workload change as owners or operators of GDFs make the 

necessary changes to meet the annual Stage I testing and inspection requirements at 

facilities that currently are only required to test once every three years. 

Stakeholder meetings: 

Informal stakeholder meetings on potential revisions to the Stage I testing requirements 

were held on April 24, 2013 in Arlington, 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 in Austin, and May 2, 2013 in El 

Paso. Commenters present agreed that Stage I testing requirements needed to be uniform 

across 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 to better detect potential issues with the system and 

improve compliance with testing requirements. 

Public comment: 

The commission scheduled public hearings in Austin on May 1, 2014, in Fort Worth on 

April 29, 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 Texas Food 

and Fuels Association (TFFA). The EPA and the TFFA expressed overall support for the 

proposed rule change, and changes to the rule were suggested by the TFF A. Significant 

public comments are summarized as follows. 

• The EPA expressed concern that the rule revision does not account for the 

designation of Wise County as nonattainment within the DFW ozone nonattainment 

area under the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. The EPA also commented that 

there is a non-substantive variation between the proposed revisions to the first 

sentence of §115.10(11) submitted to the EPA in letter form and those posted on the 

TCEQ website. Wise County in the DFW 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 DFW nonattainment area 

for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. There is no anticipated impact on the 

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 DFW 

RACT Rulemaking, which is tentatively scheduled for proposal in December 2014. 

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

• The TFF A commented that it questions the benefits of the change to the federally 

required test method in §115.225 for testing consistency and ease of compliance 

issues as outlined 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 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 cannot address them. No changes to the rule have been made in 

response to this comment. 

• The TFFA also commented that it does not support the proposed revisions to 

§115.226 that require records to be kept on site, nor does it support the current 

requirement to do so found in §115.226(2). The TFFA urges the commission to 

remove the entire provision of §115.226(1) and requests that the commission not 

adopt the revision to §115.226(2)(B) requiring records to be immediately available 

on site. The TFF A 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. 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. 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 has revised the rule language to clarify that 

no additional records are being proposed to be kept on site but instead clarifying 

that records must be provided on site during an inspection. 

Significant changes from proposal: 

The commission has revised the rule language to clarify that no additional records are 

being proposed to be kept on site but instead clarifying that records must be 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 and legislative interest: 

No controversial concerns or legislative interests are anticipated. 

Does this rulemaking affect any current policies or require development of 

new policies? 

This adopted rulemaking is not anticipated to affect any current policies or require 

development of new policies. 

What are the consequences if this rule making does not go forward? Are there 

alternatives to rulemaking? 

Owners or operators of GDFs subject to Stage II will no longer be required to perform the 

annual inspection procedures after the Stage II equipment has been decommissioned, 

which may result in decreased effectiveness of the Stage I equipment. Additionally, owners 
Commissioners 

PageS 

August 22, 2014 

Re: Docket No. 2013-1392-RUL 

or operators of GDFs in counties subject to the Chapter 115 Stage I rule will continue to 

have requirements that are inconsistent with the federal Stage I rule. 

Key points in the adoption rulemaking schedule: 

Texas Register proposal publication date: Aprilu, 2014 

Anticipated Texas Register adoption publication date: September 26, 2014 

Anticipated effective date: October 2, 2014 

Six-month Texas Register filing deadline: October 13, 2014 

Agency contacts: 

Sarah Thomas, Rule Project Manager, (512) 239-4939, Air Quality Division 

Terry Salem, Staff Attorney, (512) 239-0469 

Becky Petty, Staff Attorney, (512) 239-1088 

Derek Baxter, Texas Register Coordinator, (512) 239-2613 

Attachments 

cc: Chief Clerk, 2 copies 

Executive Director's Office 

Marshall Coover 

Tucker Royall 

Pattie Burnett 

Office of General Counsel 

Sarah Thomas 

Derek Baxter 
EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY 

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 Apri111, 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 of the 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 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 of the Texas Clean Air 

1 
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 

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 

effectively contained within the gasoline tank truck during transit and 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 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 

2 
trucks. To comply with Stage I requirements, a vapor balance system is typically used to 

capture the vapors from the gasoline storage tanks that will 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, VanZandt, 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 

April13, 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 

3 
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. 

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 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 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 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 Stage II rules, the 

commission is adopting revisions to the Stage I testing requirements. 

Upon the adoption of Stage II decommissioning requirements, a review was done on the 

4 
Stage I testing requirements that facilities in ozone nonattainment areas will 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 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 eliminate 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 at these stakeholder meetings 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 

5 
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 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. 

Applicability of, and 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 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 all254 counties; therefore, GDFs located within any county not covered by the 

Stage I requirements documented in Chapter 115, Subchapter 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 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. 

6 
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 TP201.3 and TP-201.1E. These CARB testing requirements are similar to the TXP-101 and 

TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1E test is more stringent 

than the TXP-102 test because the CARB TP-201.1E test requires testing the pressure 

and vacuum thresholds of the pressure/vacuum (P /V) valve while the TXP-102 only 

requires testing the pressure threshold of the P /V 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 the 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 threshold of 

7 
25,000 gallons per month. This adopted change will 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 staterequired lower throughput. 

The commission has also found that swivel-type of adapters that allows for the 

connection of hoses from the tank truck to the stationary tank and prevent overtightening are readily in use by GDFs. These adapters are CARE 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 of 

the 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 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 

8 
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 of system 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 of the term to cover 

relief valves by the industry. The other definitions in this section are re-numbered as 

9 
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 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 adopts 

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 adopted revisions to §115.222 also delete the language allowing facilities with a 

10 
Stage II vapor recovery system to establish a pressure rate at which a pressure-vacuum 

relief valve is set that meets CARB requirements or has a third-party certification 

because the Stage II requirements will no longer be required due to the commission's 

adoption of the decommissioning of Stage II equipment. The adopted language 

incorporates the use of "dual-point vapor balance system" as defined in §115.10 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 higher flow 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 of the 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 

11 
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 of the transfer of gasoline. 

§115.225, Testing Requirements 

The commission adopts the amendment to §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 CARB Vapor 

Recovery Test Procedures, TP-201.1E 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(±). 

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 of 

which test is required in which area in East Texas, the frequency of the 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-201.1E 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 

12 
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 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 impact to 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 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 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 requirement to keep the records for gasoline throughput for each calendar 

13 
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 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. Additionally, the adopted 

revisions reorder provisions that cross-reference to §115.222 to reflect the proper order 

of the 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 of the 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. 

14 
§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 HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 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 of the 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 of the state or a sector of the 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 

15 
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 rule making (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-102, 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 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 of the industry. As a result, 

16 
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 of the 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 of the NAAQS in each air quality control region of the 

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 of emissions 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 order to 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 of 42 USC, 

§7410. States are not free to ignore the requirements of 42 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. 

17 
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 of the 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-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 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 CARB Vapor Recovery Test 

Procedures, TP-201.3 and TP-201.1E. These CARB testing requirements are similar to 

the TXP-101 and TXP-102 testing requirements. However, the CARB TP-201.1E test is 

more stringent than the TXP-102 test because the CARB TP-201.1E test requires testing 

the pressure and vacuum thresholds of the P /V valve while the TXP-102 only requires 

testing the pressure threshold of the P /V valve. 

18 
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 of the 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 of the 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. If each rule proposed for inclusion in the SIP was considered to be a 

major environmental rule that exceeds federal law, then every SIP revision would 

19 
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 (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 Coastal Indust. Water Auth. v. Trinity Portland Cement 

20 
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 (AP A) 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 AP A 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 of Texas 

Government Code, §2001.0225. 

The adopted rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal law or exceed an 

express requirement of state law. No contract or delegation agreement covers the topic 

that is the subject of this adopted rulemaking. Therefore, this adopted rulemaking is not 

subject to the regulatory analysis provisions of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(b) 

because although the rule making meets the definition of a "major environmental rule," 

it does not meet any of the 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 

21 
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 of the TCAS. 

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 NAAQS for ground level 

ozone. The purpose of the 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 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-102, in the 

22 
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 of 

Stage 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. 

23 
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 

§sos.n(b)(2) (or §sos.n(b)(4), whichever is applicable) relating to rules subject to the 

Coastal Management Program, and will, therefore, require that goals and policies of the 

Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) be considered during the rulemaking 

process. Section sos.n(b)(2) applies only to air pollutant emissions, on-site sewage 

disposal systems, and underground storage tanks. Section sos.n(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. 

No comments were received regarding the consistency with the CMP during the public 

comment period. 

24 
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 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 Fort Worth on Apri129, 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 TFF A. 

The EPA and the TFF A expressed overall support for the proposed rule making change. 

Changes to the rule were suggested by the TFF A. 

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 

25 
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 account for the designation 

of Wise County as nonattainment within the Dallas-Fort Worth 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 rule making 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 

26 
impact on the proposed revisions in this current rulemaking as a result of 

the future Rule Project No. 2013-048-ns-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 §115.10(11) submitted to the EPA in letter form and 

those posted on the TCEQ website. 

Response 

The commission appreciates the EPA's mention of the non-substantive 

difference between the versions regarding proposed revisions to 

§115.10(11). To comply with Texas Register formatting, 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. 

27 
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 TFF A 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 TFF A 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 

28 
and strengthens the benefits of this 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, nor does it support the current requirement to do so 

found in §115.226(2). The 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)(B) 

requiring records to be immediately available on site. The TFF A 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 

request within 72 hours. The TFF A suggested that the commission follow the 

recordkeeping protocol established in 30 TAC §334.10. The TFF A 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 

29 
truck. 

Response 

The commission appreciates the TFF A'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. 

30 
Response 

The commission acknowledges TFF A's mention of the RIA. No changes to 

the rule have been made in response to this comment. 

31 
RECOMMENDATION 
Statutory Authority 

SUBCHAPTERA: DEFINITIONS 

§115.10 

The amendment is adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, concerning General 

Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties 

under the TWC; TWC, §5.103, 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 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 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 adopted under THSC, §382.016, concerning Monitoring 

Requirements; Examination of Records, that authorizes the commission to prescribe 

1 
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 of the 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 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 , 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 of this title (relating to Definitions). 

(1) Background--The ambient concentration of volatile organic compounds 

in the air, determined at least one meter upwind of the component to be monitored. Test 

Method 21 (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 6o, Appendix A) shall be used to 

determine the background. 

2 
(2) Beaumont-Port Arthur 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 of total VOCs generated by a source of VOCs. 

(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 of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, 

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 of system consisting of a tube within a tube that 

requires only one tank opening. The tank opening allows fuel to flow through the inner 

3 
tube while vapors are displaced through the annular space between the inner and outer 

tubes. 

(7) Component--A piece of equipment, 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 other joined fitting used to connect 

two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. The term connector does not 

include joined fittings welded completely around the circumference of the interface. A 

union connecting two pipes is considered to be one connector. 

(9) Continuous monitoring--Any monitoring device used to comply with a 

continuous monitoring requirement of this chapter will be considered continuous if it 

can be demonstrated that at least 95% of the 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, and Wood Counties. 

(u) Dallas-Fort Worth area--For purposes of Subchapter B, Division 5 of 

this 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 roof in 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 roof edge and tank shell. A double seal 

consists of two complete and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing an 

enclosed space between them. For the purposes of this chapter, an external floating roof 

storage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted 

5 
aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be an internal floating roof storage 

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, 

excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput less than 20,000 gallons 

(75,708liters) 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 greater than 

20,000 gallons (75,708liters) 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. 

6 
(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 of the 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 of this chapter, an enclosed control 

device that com busts or oxidizes volatile organic compound gases or vapors. 

(24) Internal floating cover--A cover or floating roof in a fixed roof tank 

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 of this chapter, an external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a 

self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be 

considered to be an internal floating roof storage tank. 

7 
(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 of liquid or vapors can be detected by sight, sound, 

or smell. Cargo tank closures must meet the applicable rules or regulations of the 

marine vessel's classification society or flag state. Cargo tank pressure/vacuum valves 

must be operating within the range specified by the marine vessel's classification society 

or flag state and seated when tank pressure is less than 8o% of set point pressure such 

that no vapor leaks 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 of this 

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 composed 

predominantly of any of the following hydrocarbons or mixtures of hydrocarbons: 

propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, and butylenes. 

(28) Low-density polyethylene--A thermoplastic polymer or copolymer 

comprised of at least so% ethylene by weight and having a density of 0.940 grams per 

cubic centimeter or less. 

8 
(29) 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, and other loading equipment) is 

considered to be a separate marine loading facility. 

(30) Marine loading operation--The transfer of oil, 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 

9 
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 of crude oil, or through the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or 

other processing of unfinished petroleum derivatives. 

(35) Polymer or resin manufacturing process--A process that produces any 

of the 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 of the process equipment. A pressure relief valve or 

pressure-vacuum relief valve 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 of no more than 2.5 pounds per 

square inch gauge. 

10 
(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 or used to receive or convey wastewater into the wastewater 

system. 

(39) Process unit--The smallest set of process 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 of 

isolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a downstream 

pressure relief valve. 

(41) 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 clear process material from a process 

unit or part of a 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 of a unit: 

(i) for less than 24 hours; or 

11 
(ii) for a shorter period of time than would be required to 

clear the process unit or part of the unit and start up the unit. 

(B) Operation of a process unit or part of a unit in recycle mode 

(i.e., process material is circulated, but production does not occur) is not considered 

shutdown. 

(42) Startup--For the purposes of this chapter, the setting into operation 

of a piece of equipment or process unit for the purpose of production 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 of the chemicals listed in 40 

Code of Federal 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 or trailer. Vacuum trucks used exclusively for 

maintenance and spill response are not considered to be tank-truck tanks. 

12 
(46) 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. 

(47) True partial pressure--The absolute aggregate partial pressure of all 

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 equipment to route volatile organic compounds (VOC) to a 

control device that reduces VOC emissions. 

(so) Vapor-tight--Not capable of allowing the passage of gases at the 

pressures encountered except where other acceptable leak-tight conditions are 

prescribed in this chapter. 

(S1) Waxy, high pour point crude oil--A crude oil with a pour point of so 

degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) or higher as determined by the American 

13 
Society for Testing and Materials Standard D97-66, "Test for Pour Point of Petroleum 

Oils." 

14 
SUBCHAPTER C: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND TRANSFER 

OPERATIONS 

DIVISION 2: FILLING OF GASOLINE STORAGE VESSELS (STAGE I) FOR 

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DISPENSING FACILITIES 

§§115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, 115.229 

Statutory Authority 

The amendments are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, concerning 

General Powers, that provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its 

duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.103, 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 of the state's air; and THSC, §382.208, concerning Attainment 

Program, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation 

15 
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 NAAQS will be achieved and maintained 

within each air quality control region of the 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. 

§115.221. Emission Specifications. 

No person in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas or in the covered attainment counties, as defined in 

§115.10 of this 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 dispensing facility, unless the displaced vapors from the gasoline storage 

container are controlled by one of the following: 

16 
(1) a vapor control system which reduces the emissions ofVOC to the 

atmosphere to not more than 0.8 pound per 1,000 gallons (93 mg/liter) of gasoline 

transferred; or 

(2) a vapor balance system which is operated and maintained in 

accordance with the provisions of §115.222 of this title (relating to Control 

Requirements). 

§115.222. Control Requirements. 

A vapor balance system will be assumed to comply with the specified emission 

limitation of §115.221 of this title (relating to Emission Specifications) if the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) the container is equipped with a submerged fill pipe as defined in 

§101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions). The path through the submerged fill pipe to 

the bottom of the tank must not be obstructed by a screen, grate, or similar device 

whose presence would preclude the determination of the submerged fill 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; 

17 
(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-half of the 

product drop line's cross-sectional area; 

(5) 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 of this title (relating to Definitions), the only atmospheric emission during 

gasoline transfer into the storage container is through a storage container vent line 

equipped with a pressure-vacuum relief valve set to open at a pressure of no more than 

eight ounces per square inch (3-4 kilopascals (kPa)); 

(6) after unloading, the tank-truck tank is kept vapor-tight until the vapors 

in the tank-truck tank are returned to a loading, cleaning, or degassing operation and 

discharged in accordance with the control requirements of that operation; 

(7) the gauge pressure in the tank-truck tank does not exceed 18 inches of 

water (4.5 kPa) or vacuum exceed six inches of water (1.5 kPa); 

(8) no leak, as defined in §101.1 of this title, exists from potential leak 

sources when measured with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer; 

18 
(9) in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, any storage tank installed after November 15, 1993, 

which is required to install Stage I control equipment must be equipped with a dualpoint vapor balance system, as defined in §115.10 of this title. In addition, any 

modification to a storage tank existing prior to November 15, 1993, requiring excavation 

of the top of the storage tank must be equipped with a dual-point vapor balance system, 

even if the original installation utilized coaxial Stage I connections; 

(10) 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 of this title. In 

addition, any modification to a storage tank existing prior to December 22, 1998, 

requiring excavation of the top of the storage tank must be equipped with a dual-point 

vapor balance system, even if the original installation utilized coaxial Stage I 

connections; and 

(11) any gasoline dispensing facility that no longer meets an exemption in 

§115.227 of this title (relating to Exemptions) because of an increase in throughput shall 

have 120 days to come into compliance with the provisions of this section and will 

remain subject to the provisions of this section, even if its gasoline throughput later falls 

below exemption limits. However, if gasoline 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. 

19 
§115.224. Inspection Requirements. 

In the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria areas, and in the covered attainment counties, as defined in §115.10 

of this 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 dispensing facilities. 

Gasoline transfer shall be discontinued immediately when any liquid leaks, visible 

vapors, or significant odors are observed and shall not be resumed until the observed 

issue 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 of this title (relating 

to Inspection Requirements; Approved Test Methods; Recordkeeping Requirements; 

and Exemptions, respectively), as evidenced by a prominently displayed certification 

affixed near the United States Department of Transportation certification plate. 

§115.225. Testing Requirements. 

Compliance with the emission specification and certain control requirements and 

inspection requirements of §§115.221, 115.222 and 115.224 of this title (relating to 

Emission Specifications; Control Requirements; and Inspection Requirements) shall be 

20 
determined according to the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

§63.11120. 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 Pressure/Vacuum Vent Valves. 

(2) California Air Resources Board Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP201.3- Determination of 2-Inch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor Recovery 

Systems of Dispensing Facilities. 

(3) Alternate test methods other than those specified in paragraphs (1) -

(2) of this section may be used if validated by 40 CFR §63. 7(f). 

§115.226. Recordkeeping Requirements. 

The owner or operator of each 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 of this title (relating to Definitions) 

shall maintain the following records and during an inspection make the records 

available at the site upon request to representatives of the executive director, the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, or any local air pollution control program with 

jurisdiction. The owner or operator shall: 

21 
(1) maintain a record at the facility site of the dates on which gasoline was 

delivered to the dispensing facility and the identification number and date of the last 

leak testing, required by §115.224(2) of this 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 of two years; and 

(2) maintain for a period of two years: 

(A) a record of the results of any testing conducted at the gasoline 

dispensing facility in accordance with the provisions specified in §115.225 of this title 

(relating to Testing Requirements); and 

(B) a record of the 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 

22 
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) of this 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 ofthis 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 of this division, except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this title; and 

23 
(C) §115.224(1) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapors, or significant odors. 

(3) In the covered attainment counties other than Bexar, Comal, 

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 of this division, except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this title; 

(C) §115.224(1) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapors, or significant odors; and 

(D) §115.226(2)(B) of this title. 

(4) In Bexar, Comal, 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 of gasoline in any 

calendar month after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements of this 

division, except for: 

24 
(A) §115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapor~, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this title; 

(C) §115.224(1) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, 

visible vapors, or significant odors; and 

(D) §115.226(2)(B) of this title. 

(5) Transfers to the following stationary receiving containers are exempt 

from the requirements of this division: 

(A) containers used exclusively for the fueling of implements of 

· agriculture; and 

(B) storage tanks equipped with external floating roofs, internal 

floating roofs, or their equivalent. 

§115.229. Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

(a) The owner or operator of each gasoline dispensing facility in the BeaumontPort Arthur, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas and in Collin, Dallas, 

25 
Denton, and Tarrant Counties shall continue to comply with this division as required by 

§115.930 of this title (relating to Compliance Dates). 

(b) The owner or operator of each gasoline 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 of this title. 

(c) The owner or operator of each gasoline dispensing facility in Bexar, Comal, 

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 dispensing facility in Ellis, Johnson, 

Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties that has dispensed at least 10,000 gallons of 

gasoline but less than 125,000 gallons of gasoline in any calendar month after April30, 

2005, shall comply with this division as soon as practicable, but no later than June 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 Project No. 2013-022-115-AI 

On September 10, 2014, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(Commission), during a public meeting, considered adoption of amended Sections 115.10, 

115.221, 115.222, 115.224- 115.227, and 115.229 of 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 

115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds and corresponding revisions 

to the state implementation plan (SIP). The Commission adopts these amendments in 

Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter A, 

Definitions and Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2, 

Filling of Gasoline Storage Vessels (Stage I) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities; and 

. corresponding revisions to the SIP. The amendments preserve 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 and four ozone 

maintenance counties that will be affected by the decommissioning of the Stage II vapor 

recovery equipment rule reilision and in the 95 counties that are subject to the state Stage I 

rule but not Stage II requirements. The adopted revisions also establish testing requirements 

that are more consistent with federal Stage I testing in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

63, Subpart CCCCCC. 

Under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.§§ 382.011, 382.012, and 382.023 (Vernon 

2010), the Commission has the authority to control the quality of the state's air and to issue 

orders consistent with the policies and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act, Chapter 382 of 

the Tex. Health & Safety Code. The proposed rules were published for comment in the April 

11, 2014 issue of the Texas Register (39 TexReg 2760). 

Pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.§ 382.017 (Vernon 2010), Tex. Gov't Code 

Chapter 2001 (Vernon 2008), and 40 Code of Federal Regulations§ 51.102, and after proper 

notice, the Commission conducted a public hearings to consider the amended rules and 

revisions to the SIP. Proper notice included prominent advertisement in the areas affected at 

least 30 days prior to the dates of the hearings. Public hearings were offered in Austin on 

May 1, 2014, in Fort Worth on April 29, 2014, and in Houston on May 6, 2014. The hearings 

were not officially opened because no one registered to provide oral comments. 

The Commission circulated hearing notices of its intended action to the public, 

including interested persons, the Regional Administrator of the EPA, and all applicable local 

C).ir pollution control agencies. The public was imlited to submit data, views, and 
recommendations on the proposed amended rules and SIP revisions, either orally or in 

v.rriting, at the hearings or during the comment period. Prior to the scheduled hearings, 

copies of the proposed amended rules and SIP revisions were available for public inspection 

at the Commission's central office and on the Commission's Web site. 

Data, views, and recommendations of interested persons regarding the proposed 

amended rules and SIP revisions were submitted to the Commission during the comment 

period, and were considered by the Commission as reflected in the analysis of testimony 

incorporated by reference to this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis of testimony 

includes the names of all interested groups or associat~ons offering comment on the proposed 

amended rules and the SIP revisions and their position concerning the same. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the amended rules and 

revisions to the SIP incorporated by reference to this Order are hereby adopted. The 

Commission further authorizes staff to make any non-substantive revisions to the rules 

necessary to comply vvith Texas Register requirements. The adopted rules and the preamble 

to the adopted rules and the revisions to the SIP are incorporated by reference in this Order 

as if set forth at length verbatim in this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that on behalf of the 

Commission, the Chairman should transmit a copy of this Order, together with the adopted 

rules and revisions to the SIP, to the Regional Administrator of EPA as a proposed revision to 

the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code Ann. §§ 7401-

7671q, as amended. 

This Order constitutes the Order of the Commission required by the Administrative 

Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't Code,§ 2001.033 (Vernon 2008). 

If any portion of this Order is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent 

jurisdiction, the invalidity of any portion shall not affect the validity of the remaining 

portions. 

Issued date: S E P ·1 9 2014 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY 

. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman 
THSC, §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 of the agency's legal authority. 

Filed with the Office of the 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 of the 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 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 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 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 effectively contained within the gasoline 

tank truck during transit and 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 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 that will 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. 

ADOPTED RULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7745 
In 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 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 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'!'~issioned. 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 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, 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 I vapor recov~ry. rules 

is dependent on the geographical location of the 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~ 

1 requirements 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 if the owner or operator of a 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? of 25,0.00 gallons per month. This adopted change w111 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. 

39 TexReg 7746 September 26, 2014 Texas Register 
The commission has also found that swivel-type of adapters 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 of the 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 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 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 

of system 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 of the term 

to cover relief valves 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 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 adopts 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 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 of the 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 higher flow 

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 of the 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 of the transfer of gasoline. 

§115.225, Testing Requirements 

The commission adopts the amendment to §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 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 

ADOPTED RULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7747 
of which test is required in which area in East Texas, the frequency of the 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 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 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 impact to 

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 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 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 requirement to 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 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. 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 of the 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 of the 

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 of the state or a sector of the 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 decom39 TexReg 7748 September 26, 2014 Texas Register 
missioning 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 of the 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 of the industry 

by improving consistency between the state and federal Stage I 

rules. 

The adopted rulemaking implements requirements of 42 United 

States Code (USC), §7 410, which requires states to adopt a SIP 

that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS in each air quality control region of the 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 of emissions 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 order to 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 of 42 USC, §7 410. States are not free to ignore 

the requirements of 42 USC, §7 410, 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 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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. If each 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 

ADOPTED RULES 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 of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225. 

The adopted rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal law or exceed an express requirement of state law. No contract or delegation agreement covers the topic that is the subject 

of this adopted rulemaking. Therefore, this adopted 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 of the 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 of the TCAS. 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 

NAAQS for ground level ozone. The purpose of the 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 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 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 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 of Stage 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 of the 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 subject to the CMP and is, therefore, consistent with 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 Register 
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 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 Fort Worth 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 account for the designation of Wise County as nonattainment within 

the Dallas-Fort Worth 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 of the 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 of this 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, nor does 

it support the current requirement to do so found in §115.226(2). 

ADOPTED RULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7751 
The 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 request within 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 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 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, §§7 401, 

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 of the 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 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, 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 of this title 

(relating to Definitions). 

(1) Background--The ambient concentration of volatile organic compounds in the air, determined at least one meter upwind of 

the component to be monitored. Test Method 21 (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 60, Appendix A) shall be used to determine the background. 

(2) Beaumont-Port Arthur 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 of VOCs entering a 

capture system and delivered to a control device divided by the weight 

per unit time of total 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 of piping, ductwork, connections, and, 

if necessary, 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 of system consisting of a 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 of equipment, 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 other joined fitting 

used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. 

The term connector does not include joined fittings 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 of this chapter 

will be considered continuous if it can be demonstrated that at least 

95% of the 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 of this 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 roof in 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 roof edge and tank shell. A double seal consists of two complete 

and separate closure seals, one above the other, containing an enclosed 

space between them. For the purposes of this chapter, an external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof 

(typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall be considered to be 

an internal floating roof storage 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, excluding marine terminals, having a gasoline throughput 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 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 vapor pressure equal to or less than 0.044 pounds per square inch 

absolute (0.3 kilo Pascal) 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 of the 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 of this 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 roof tank 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 of this chapter, 

an external floating roof storage tank that is equipped with a self-supporting fixed roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) shall 

be considered to be an internal floating roof storage 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 of liquid or vapors can be detected by sight, sound, or 

smell. Cargo tank closures must meet the applicable rules or regulations of the marine vessel's classification society or flag state. Cargo 

tank pressure/vacuum valves must be operating within the range specified by the marine vessel's classification society or flag state and seated 

when tank pressure is less than 80% of set point pressure such that no 

vapor leaks 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 of this standard. 

(26) Light liquid--Volatile organic compounds that have a 

true vapor pressure greater than 0.044 pounds per square inch absolute 

(0.3 kilo Pascal) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), and are 

a liquid at operating conditions. 

(27) Liquefied petroleum gas--Any material that is composed predominantly of any of the following hydrocarbons or mixtures 

of hydrocarbons: propane, propylene, normal butane, isobutane, and 

butylenes. 

(28) Low-density polyethylene--A thermoplastic polymer 

or copolymer comprised of at 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, 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 

ADOPTED RULES September 26,2014 39 TexReg 7753 
not share common piping, valves, and other loading equipment) is considered to be a separate marine loading facility. 

(30) Marine loading operation--The transfer of oil, 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 of crude oil, or through the redistillation, cracking, extraction, reforming, or other processing of unfinished petroleum derivatives. 

(35) Polymer or resin manufacturing process--A process 

that produces any of the 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 

of the process equipment. A pressure relief valve or pressure-vacuum 

relief valve 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 

of no 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 or used to receive or convey wastewater into the wastewater system. 

(39) Process unit--The smallest set of process 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 of isolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a downstream pressure relief valve. 

(41) 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 clear process material from a process unit or part of a 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 

of a 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 of the unit and start up the unit. 

(B) Operation of a process unit or part of a unit in recycle mode (i.e., process material is circulated, but production does not 

occur) is not considered shutdown. 

( 42) Startup--For the purposes of this chapter, the setting 

into operation of a piece of equipment or process unit for the purpose 

of production 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 

of the chemicals listed in 40 Code of Federal 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 or trailer. Vacuum 

trucks used exclusively for maintenance and spill response are not considered to be tank-truck tanks. 

( 46) Transport vessel--Any land-based mode oftransporta· 

tion (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. 

( 4 7) True partial pressure--The absolute aggregate partial 

pressure of all 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 equipment to 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 of 50 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 of Petroleum Oils." 

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 12, 

2014. 

TRD-20140437 4 

39 TexReg 7754 September 26, 2014 Texas Register 
Robert 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 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 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 of the 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. Recordkeeping Requirements. 

The owner or operator of each 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 of this title (relating to Definitions) shall maintain the following records and during an inspection make the records available at 

the site upon request to representatives of the executive director, the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, or any local air pollution control program with jurisdiction. 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 identification number and date of the last leak testing, required by § 115 .224(2) 

of this 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 of two years; and 

(2) maintain for a period of two years: 

(A) a record of the results of any testing conducted at 

the gasoline dispensing facility in accordance with the provisions specified in §115.225 of this title (relating to Testing Requirements); and 

(B) a record of the 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) of this title; 

(C) §115.224(1) of this 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 of this division, except for: 

(A) § 115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this title; and 

(C) §115.224(1) ofthis title 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 of this division, except for: 

(A) § 115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this title; 

ADOPTED RULES September 26, 2014 39 TexReg 7755 
(C) §115.224(1) ofthis title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; and 

(D) §115.226(2)(B) of this 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 of gasoline in any calendar month 

after December 31, 2004 are exempt from the requirements of this division, except for: 

(A) §115.222(3) of this title as it applies to liquid gasoline leaks, visible vapors, or significant odors; 

(B) §115.222(6) of this 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) of this title. 

(5) Transfers to the following stationary receiving containers are exempt from the requirements of this division: 

(A) containers used exclusively for the fueling of implements of agriculture; 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 of the 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 

director to 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 director to 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