Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Review and Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review
Posted Date: 2022-06-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35608-35642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12223]

[[Page 35607]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 112

June 10, 2022

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline 
Distribution Technology Review and Standards of Performance for Bulk 
Gasoline Terminals Review; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 35608]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371; FRL-8202-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU97

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Gasoline Distribution Technology Review and Standards of Performance 
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Gasoline Distribution facilities and the 
Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals. The EPA is 
proposing to revise NESHAP requirements for storage tanks, loading 
operations, and equipment leaks to reflect cost-effective developments 
in practices, process, or controls. The EPA is also proposing New 
Source Performance Standards to reflect best system of emissions 
reduction for loading operations and equipment leaks. In addition, the 
EPA is proposing revisions related to emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction; to add requirements for electronic 
reporting of performance test results, performance evaluation reports, 
and compliance reports; to revise monitoring and operating requirements 
for control devices; and to make other minor technical improvements. We 
estimate that these proposed amendments would reduce emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants from this source category by 2,220 tons per 
year (tpy) and would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds by 
45,400 tpy.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2022. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before August 9, 2022.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before June 15, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0371, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0371 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Neil Feinberg, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2214; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because 
of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social 
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-
person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 27, 2022. The 
hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude 
at 7:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last 
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional 
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards or contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The 
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be June 22, 2022. 
Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list 
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text 
of your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation

[[Page 35609]]

such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the 
public hearing team and describe your needs by June 17, 2022. The EPA 
may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in Instructions section of this document. If you submit any 
digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note 
the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the 
email address [email protected], and as described above, should include 
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with 
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for 
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing 
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link. 
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it 
to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope. Preamble 
acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use of ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple 
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be 
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AVO audio, visual, or olfactory
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
LDAR leak detection and repair
LEL lower explosive limit
mg/L milligrams per liter
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NO2 nitrogen oxides
NSPS new source performance standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOC total organic carbon

[[Page 35610]]

tpy tons per year
U.S.C. United States Code
VCU vapor combustion unit
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VRU vapor recovery unit

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how do the current 
standards regulate emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
    E. How does the EPA perform the NESHAP technology review and 
NSPS review?
III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
    A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology reviews and NSPS review, and what is the rationale for 
those decisions?
    B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the 
rationale for those actions?
    C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the 
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    The source categories that are the subject of this proposal are 
Gasoline Distribution regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts R and 
BBBBBB and Petroleum Transportation and Marketing regulated under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart XX. The EPA set maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards for the Gasoline Distribution major source 
category in 1994 and conducted the residual risk and technology review 
in 2006. The sources affected by the major source National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Gasoline 
Distribution source category (part 63, subpart R) are bulk gasoline 
terminals and pipeline breakout stations. The EPA set generally 
available control technology (GACT) standards for the Gasoline 
Distribution area source category in 2008. The sources affected by the 
area source NESHAP for the Gasoline Distribution source category (part 
63, subpart BBBBBB) are bulk gasoline terminals, bulk gasoline plants, 
and pipeline facilities. The EPA set New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for the Petroleum Transportation and Marketing source category 
in 1983. The sources affected by the current NSPS (part 60, subpart XX) 
are bulk gasoline terminals that commenced construction or modification 
after December 17, 1980.
    The statutory authority for these proposed rulemakings is sections 
111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 
requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 years review and, if 
appropriate, revise'' NSPS. Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA provides that 
performance standards are to ``reflect the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of 
emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving 
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact 
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 
adequately demonstrated.'' We refer to this level of control as the 
best system of emission reduction or ``BSER.'' Section 112(d)(6) of the 
CAA requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 
112 and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less often than 
every 8 years following promulgation of those standards. This is 
referred to as a ``technology review'' and is required for all 
standards established under CAA section 112(d).
    The proposed Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals 
and the proposed amendments to the NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution 
facilities fulfill the Agency's requirement, respectively, to review 
and, if appropriate, revise the NSPS and to review and revise as 
necessary the NESHAP at least every 8 years.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action In Question
a. NESHAP Subpart R
    We are proposing to require a graduated vapor tightness 
certification from 0.5 to 1.25 inches of water pressure drop over a 5-
minute period, depending on the cargo tank compartment size for 
gasoline cargo tanks. We are also proposing to require fitting controls 
for external floating roof tanks consistent with the requirement in 
NSPS subpart Kb. In addition, we are proposing to require semiannual 
instrument monitoring for major source gasoline distribution 
facilities.
b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    We are proposing to lower the area source emission limits for 
loading racks at large bulk gasoline terminals to 35 milligrams of 
total organic carbon (TOC) per liter of gasoline loaded (mg/L) and 
require vapor balancing for loading storage vessels and gasoline cargo 
tanks at bulk gasoline plants with maximum design capacity throughput 
of 4,000 gallons per day or more. We are also proposing to require a 
graduated vapor tightness certification from 0.5 to 1.25 inches of 
water pressure drop over a 5-minute period, depending on the cargo tank 
compartment size for gasoline cargo tanks. Additionally, we are 
proposing to require fitting controls for external floating roof tanks 
consistent with the requirement in NSPS subpart Kb. Also, we are 
proposing to require annual instrument monitoring for area source 
gasoline distribution facilities.
c. NSPS Subpart XXa
    We are proposing in a new NSPS subpart XXa that facilities that 
commence construction after June 10, 2022) must meet a 1 mg/L limit and 
facilities that commence modification, or reconstruction after June 10, 
2022 must meet a 10 mg/L limit. We are also proposing to require a 
graduated vapor tightness certification from 0.5 to 1.25 inches of 
water pressure drop over a 5-minute period, depending on the cargo tank 
compartment size for gasoline cargo tanks. Also, we are proposing to

[[Page 35611]]

require quarterly instrument monitoring.
3. Costs and Benefits
    To satisfy requirements of E.O. 12866, the EPA projected the 
emissions reductions, costs, and benefits that may result from these 
proposed rulemakings. These results are presented in detail in the 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this proposal developed 
in response to E.O. 12866. We present these results for each of the 
three rules included in this proposed action, and also cumulatively. 
This action is economically significant according to E.O. 12866 
primarily due to the proposed amendments to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. The 
RIA focuses on the elements of the proposed rulemaking that are likely 
to result in quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to a 
baseline without the proposal that incorporates changes to regulatory 
requirements. We estimated the cost, emissions, and benefit impacts for 
the 2026 to 2040 period. We show the present value (PV) and equivalent 
annual value (EAV) of costs, benefits, and net benefits of this action 
in 2019 dollars.
    The initial analysis year in the RIA is 2026 as we assume the large 
majority of impacts associated with the proposed rulemakings will be 
finalized in that year. The NSPS will take effect immediately upon the 
effective date of the final rule and impact sources constructed after 
publication of the proposed rule, but these impacts are much lower than 
those of the other two rulemakings in this action. The other two rules, 
both under the provisions of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, will 
take effect three years after their effective date, which will occur in 
2026 given promulgation of this rulemaking in 2023. Therefore, their 
impacts will begin in 2026. The final analysis year is 2040, which 
allows us to provide 15 years of projected impacts after all of these 
rules are assumed to take effect.
    The cost analysis presented in the RIA reflects a nationwide 
engineering analysis of compliance cost and emissions reductions, of 
which there are two main components. The first component is a set of 
representative or model plants for each regulated facility, segment, 
and control option. The characteristics of the model plant include 
typical equipment, operating characteristics, and representative 
factors including baseline emissions and the costs, emissions 
reductions, and product recovery resulting from each control option. 
The second component is a set of projections of data for affected 
facilities, distinguished by vintage, year, and other necessary 
attributes (e.g., precise content of material in storage tanks). 
Impacts are calculated by setting parameters on how and when affected 
facilities are assumed to respond to a particular regulatory regime, 
multiplying data by model plant cost and emissions estimates, 
differencing from the baseline scenario, and then summing to the 
desired level of aggregation. In addition to emissions reductions, some 
control options result in gasoline recovery, which can then be sold 
where possible. Where applicable, we present projected compliance costs 
with and without the projected revenues from product recovery.
    The EPA expects health benefits due to the emissions reductions 
projected under these proposed rulemakings. We expect that hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP) emission reductions will improve health and 
welfare associated with exposure by those affected by these emissions. 
In addition, the EPA expects that volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
emission reductions that will occur concurrent with the reductions of 
HAP emissions will improve air quality and are likely to improve health 
and welfare associated with exposure to ozone, particulate matter 2.5 
(PM2.5), and HAP. The EPA also expects disbenefits from 
secondary increases of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide 
(CO) emissions associated with the control options included in the cost 
analysis. Discussion of the non-monetized benefits and climate 
disbenefits can be found in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
    Tables 1 through 3 of this document presents the emission changes, 
and PV and EAV of the projected monetized benefits, compliance costs, 
and net benefits over the 2026 to 2040 period under the proposed 
rulemaking for each subpart. Table 4 of this document presents the same 
results for the cumulative impact of these rulemakings. All discounting 
of impacts presented uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

  Table 1--Short-Term and Long-Term Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Proposed NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB Amendments,
                                                                    2026 Through 2040
                                                   [Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   3 Percent discount rate                                      7 Percent discount rate
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PV                            EAV                           PV                            EAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\...................  $180(ST) and $1,500(LT)......  $15(ST) and $130(LT)........  $110(ST) and $900(LT).......  $12(ST) and $99(LT).
Climate Disbenefits (3%) \c\...  $28..........................  $2.3........................  $28.........................  $2.0.
Net Compliance Costs \d\.......  -$70.........................  -$5.0.......................  -$42........................  -$5.0.
    Compliance Costs...........  $140.........................  $12.........................  $98.........................  $11.
    Value of Product Recovery..  $210.........................  $17.........................  $140........................  $16.
Net Benefits...................  $230(ST) and $1,500(LT)......  $18(ST) and $130(LT)........  $130(ST) and $910(LT).......  $15(ST) and $100(LT).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                                          2026-2040 Total.
 tons).
    VOC........................                                                          605,000.
    HAP........................                                                          31,000.
Secondary Emissions Increases                                                        2026-2040 Total.
 (short tons).
    CO2........................                                                          490,000.
    NO2........................                                                            290.
    SO2........................                                                            3.5.
    CO.........................                                                           1,300.
Non-monetized Impacts in this    HAP benefits from reducing 31,000 short tons of HAP from 2026-2040, VOC benefits from reductions outside of the ozone
 Table.                           season (October-April).
                                 Health and climate disbenefits from increasing nitrogen oxides (NO2) emissions by 290 short tons, sulfur dioxide (SO2)
                                  by 3.5 short tons, and carbon monoxide (CO) by 1,300 short tons from 2026-2040.
                                                                                   Visibility benefits.
                                                                               Reduced vegetation effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Short tons are standard English tons (2,000
  pounds).

[[Page 35612]]

 
\b\ Monetized benefits include ozone related health benefits associated with reductions in VOC emissions. The health benefits are associated with
  several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for both short-(ST) and long-term (LT) benefits. The two benefits
  estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and upper-bound
  estimates. Benefits from HAP reductions and VOC reductions outside of the ozone season remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
  Disbenefits from additional CO2 emissions resulting from application of control options are monetized and included in the table as climate
  disbenefits. Climate disbenefits are monetized at a real discount rate of 3 percent. The unmonetized effects also include disbenefits resulting from
  the secondary impact of an increase in NO2, SO2, and CO emissions. Please see Section 4.6 of the RIA for more discussion of the climate disbenefits.
\c\ Climate disbenefits are based on changes (increases) in CO2 emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon
  (SC-CO2) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For the presentational
  purposes of this table, we show the disbenefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single
  central SC-CO2 point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the disbenefits calculated using all four SC-CO2 estimates; the
  additional disbenefit estimates range from PV (EAV) $5.4 million ($0.5 million) to $84 million ($7.0 million) from 2026-2040 for the proposed
  amendments. Please see Table 4-7 in the RIA for the full range of SC-CO2 estimates. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA, a consideration of climate
  disbenefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational
  impacts.
\d\ Net compliance costs are the rulemaking costs minus the value of recovered product. A negative net compliance costs occurs when the value of the
  recovered product exceeds the compliance costs.

     Table 2--Short-Term and Long-Term Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Proposed NESHAP Subpart R
                                                              Amendments, 2026 Through 2040
                                                   [Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   3 Percent discount rate                                      7 Percent discount rate
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PV                            EAV                           PV                            EAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\...................  $9.9(ST) and $81(LT).........  $0.83(ST) and $6.8(LT)......  $5.6(ST) and $48(LT)........  $0.65(ST) and $5.3(LT).
Net Compliance Costs \c\.......  $23..........................  $2.0........................  $15.........................  $1.8.
    Compliance Costs...........  $34..........................  $2.9........................  $23.........................  $2.6.
    Value of Product Recovery..  $11..........................  $1.0........................  $8..........................  $0.90.
Net Benefits...................  -$13(ST) and $58(LT).........  -$1.2(ST) and $4.8(LT)......  -$9.4(ST) and $33(LT).......  -$1.2(ST) and $3.5(LT).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                                          2026-2040 Total.
 tons).
    VOC........................                                                          32,000.
    HAP........................                                                           2,010.
Non-monetized Impacts in this    HAP benefits from reducing 2,010 short tons of HAP from 2026-2040, VOC benefits from reductions outside of the ozone
 Table.                           season (October-April).
                                                                                   Visibility benefits.
                                                                               Reduced vegetation effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Short tons are standard English tons (2,000
  pounds).
\b\ Monetized benefits include ozone related health benefits associated with reductions in VOC emissions. The health benefits are associated with
  several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for both short-(ST) and long-term (LT) benefits. The two benefits
  estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and upper-bound
  estimates and should not be summed. Benefits from HAP reductions and VOC reductions outside of the ozone season remain unmonetized and are thus not
  reflected in the table.
\c\ Net compliance costs are the rulemaking costs minus the value of recovered product. A negative net compliance costs occurs when the value of the
  recovered product exceeds the compliance costs.

   Table 3--Short-Term and Long-Term Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of Proposed NSPS Subpart XXa, 2026 Through 2040
                                                   [Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   3 Percent discount rate                                      7 Percent discount rate
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PV                            EAV                           PV                            EAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\...................  $29(ST) and $240(LT).........  $2.4(ST) and $20(LT)........  $16(ST) and $130(LT)........  $1.7(ST) and $15(LT).
Climate Disbenefits (3%) \c\...  $4.4.........................  $0.37.......................  $4.4........................  $0.37.
Net Compliance Costs \d\.......  $9.0.........................  $0.70.......................  $5.0........................  $0.60.
    Compliance Costs...........  $41..........................  $3.4........................  $26.........................  $2.9.
    Value of Product Recovery..  $32..........................  $2.7........................  $21.........................  $2.3.
Net Benefits...................  $16(ST) and $230(LT).........  $1.3(ST) and $19(LT)........  $6.6(ST) and $130(LT).......  $0.73(ST) and $14(LT).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                                          2026-2040 Total.
 tons).
    VOC........................                                                          97,000.
    HAP........................                                                           4,020.
Secondary Emissions Increases                                                        2026-2040 Total.
 (short tons).
    CO2........................                                                          74,000.
    NO2........................                                                            50.
    SO2........................                                                            42.
    CO.........................                                                             0.
Non-monetized Impacts in this    HAP benefits from reducing 4,020 short tons of HAP from 2026-2040, VOC benefits from reductions outside of the ozone
 Table.                           season (October-April).
                                 Health and climate disbenefits from increasing NO2 emissions by 50 short tons, and SO2 by 42 short tons from 2026-2040.
                                                                                   Visibility benefits.
                                                                               Reduced vegetation effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Short tons are standard English tons (2,000
  pounds).
\b\ Monetized benefits include ozone related health benefits associated with reductions in VOC emissions. The health benefits are associated with
  several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for both short-(ST) and long-term (LT) benefits. The two benefits
  estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and upper-bound
  estimates. Benefits from HAP reductions and VOC reductions outside of the ozone season remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
  Climate disbenefits are estimated at a real discount rate of 3 percent. The unmonetized effects also include disbenefits resulting from the secondary
  impact of an increase in NO2, SO2 and CO emissions. Please see Section 4.6 of the RIA for more discussion of the climate disbenefits.

[[Page 35613]]

 
\c\ Climate disbenefits are based on changes (increases) in CO2 emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon
  (SC-CO2) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For the presentational
  purposes of this table, we show the disbenefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single
  central SC-CO2 point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the disbenefits calculated using all four SC-CO2 estimates; the
  additional disbenefit estimates range from PV (EAV) $0.78 million ($0.08 million) to $13 million ($1.1 million) from 2026-2040 for the proposed
  amendments. Please see Table 4-7 for the full range of SC-CO2 estimates. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA, a consideration of climate disbenefits
  calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts.
\d\ Net compliance costs are the rulemaking costs minus the value of recovered product. A negative net compliance costs occurs when the value of the
  recovered product exceeds the compliance costs.

Table 4--Short-Term and Long-Term Cumulative Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Proposed Rulemakings, 2026 Through
                                                                          2040
                                                   [Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   3 Percent discount rate                                      7 Percent discount rate
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PV                            EAV                           PV                            EAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\...................  $220(ST) and $1,800(LT)......  $19(ST) and $150(LT)........  $130(ST) and $1,100(LT).....  $15(ST) and $120(LT).
Climate Disbenefits (3%) \c\...  $32..........................  $2.7........................  $32.........................  $2.7.
Net Compliance Costs \d\.......  -$38.........................  -$2.4.......................  -$22........................  -$2.7.
    Compliance Costs...........  $220.........................  $18.........................  $150........................  $17.
    Value of Product Recovery..  $250.........................  $20.........................  $170........................  $19.
Net Benefits...................  $230(ST) and $1,800(LT)......  $19(ST) and $150(LT)........  $120(ST) and $1,090(LT).....  $15(ST) and $120(LT).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                                          2026-2040 Total.
 tons).
    VOC........................                                                          730,000.
    HAP........................                                                          37,000.
Secondary Emissions Increases                                                        2026-2040 Total.
 (short tons).
    CO2........................                                                          560,000.
    NO2........................                                                            340.
    SO2........................                                                            46.
    CO.........................                                                           1,300.
Non-monetized Impacts in this    HAP benefits from reducing 37,000 short tons of HAP from 2026-2040, VOC benefits from reductions outside of the ozone
 Table.                           season (October-April).
                                 Health and climate disbenefits from increasing NO2 emissions by 340 short tons, SO2 by 42 short tons, and CO by 1,300
                                  short tons from 2026-2040.
                                                                                   Visibility benefits.
                                                                               Reduced vegetation effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Short tons are standard English tons (2,000
  pounds).
\b\ Monetized benefits include ozone related health benefits associated with reductions in VOC emissions. The health benefits are associated with
  several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for both short-(ST) and long-term (LT) benefits. The two benefits
  estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and upper-bound
  estimates and should not be summed. Benefits from HAP reductions and VOC reductions outside of the ozone season remain unmonetized and are thus not
  reflected in the table. Climate disbenefits are estimated at a real discount rate of 3 percent. The unmonetized effects also include disbenefits
  resulting from the secondary impact of an increase in NO2, SO2 and CO emissions. Please see Section 4.6 of the RIA for more discussion of the climate
  disbenefits.
\c\ Climate disbenefits are based on changes (increases) in CO2 emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon
  (SC-CO2) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For the presentational
  purposes of this table, we show the disbenefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single
  central SC-CO2 point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the disbenefits calculated using all four SC-CO2 estimates; the
  additional disbenefit estimates range from PV (EAV) $6.2 million ($0.6 million) to $97 million ($8.1 million) from 2026-2040 for the proposed
  amendments. Please see Table 4-7 of the RIA for the full range of SC-CO2 estimates. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA, a consideration of climate
  disbenefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational
  impacts.
\d\ Net compliance costs are the rulemaking costs minus the value of recovered product. A negative net compliance costs occurs when the value of the
  recovered product exceeds the compliance costs.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The source categories that are the subject of this proposal are 
Gasoline Distribution regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts R and 
BBBBBB and Petroleum Transportation and Marketing regulated under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart XX. The North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes for the Gasoline Distribution industry are 324110, 
493190, 486910, and 424710. This list of NAICS codes is not intended to 
be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the 
entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed 
standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the 
affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities 
would not be affected by this proposed action.
    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial 
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), 
the Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) source category is any facility 
engaged in ``the storage and transfer facilities associated with the 
movement of gasoline. This category includes, but is not limited to, 
the gasoline vapor emissions associated with the loading of transport 
trucks or rail cars, storage tank emissions, and equipment leaks from 
leaking pumps, valves, and connections at bulk terminals, bulk plants, 
and pipeline facilities.'' Subsequently, on July 19, 1999, we added 
this category to the list of area source categories for regulation 
under a Federal Register publication for the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706). The Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) 
source category also includes storage tank filling operations that 
occur at public and private gasoline dispensing facilities (e.g., 
service stations and convenience stores). Gasoline dispensing 
facilities are regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. The EPA 
did not review the standards for gasoline dispensing facilities.
    The EPA Priority List (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, August 21, 1979) 
included Petroleum Transportation and Marketing as a source category 
for which standards of performance were to be promulgated under CAA 
section 111. The New Source Performance Standards for this source 
category applies to the total of all the loading racks at a bulk 
gasoline terminal that deliver liquid product into gasoline tank 
trucks. A bulk gasoline terminal is defined as any gasoline facility 
which receives gasoline

[[Page 35614]]

by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a gasoline throughput greater than 
75,700 liters per day.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the 
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key 
technical documents at this same website.
    A redline strikeout version of each standard showing the edits that 
would be necessary to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts XX and XXa and Part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB proposed in this 
action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371). 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will also post a 
copy of these documents to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

1. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those 
standards that are based on MACT to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP 
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual 
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also 
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 
years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account any 
``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies.'' This 
review is commonly referred to as the ``technology review,'' and is the 
subject of this proposal. The discussion that follows identifies the 
most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of 
the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may 
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards. 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. For categories of major 
sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the 
second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing 
any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) 
and concurrently conducting a technology review pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6). The EPA set MACT standards for the Gasoline Distribution 
major source category in 1994 and conducted the residual risk and 
technology review in 2006.
    CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards 
promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary 
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years following promulgation 
of those standards. This is referred to as a ``technology review'' and 
is required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d) 
including GACT standards that apply to area sources.\1\ In conducting 
this review, the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floors 
that were established in earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required to 
address regulatory gaps, such as missing MACT standards for listed air 
toxics known to be emitted from major source categories, and any new 
MACT standards must be established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 
(3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA sections 112(d)(4) or (h). 
Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020). This action constitutes the 112(d)(6) technology 
review for the Gasoline Distribution major source and area source 
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards, 
CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide that the CAA section 
112(f)(2) residual risk review is not required. However, the CAA 
section 112(d)(6) technology review is required for such categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they 
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions 
from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and 
(k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area 
sources under CAA section 112.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at 
least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban 
areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75-percent reduction in cancer 
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As 
discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, 
38715, July 19, 1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area 
sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, 
and these HAP are commonly referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.''
    Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient 
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are 
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through 
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting 
standards for categories of area sources including the Gasoline 
Distribution source category that is addressed in this action.
    CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, in 
lieu of setting MACT standards (which are

[[Page 35615]]

generally required for major source categories), the EPA may elect to 
promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide 
for the use of generally available control technology or management 
practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' In developing such standards, the EPA evaluates the 
control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions 
that are generally available for each area source category. Consistent 
with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic 
impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.
    GACT standards were set for the Gasoline Distribution area source 
category in 2008. As noted above, this proposed action presents the 
required CAA 112(d)(6) technology review for that source category.
2. NSPS
    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 111 
of the CAA, which governs the establishment of standards of performance 
for stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the 
EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the 
Administrator's judgement cause or contribute significantly to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and 
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to 
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source 
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority under CAA 
section 111(b) to define the scope of the source categories, determine 
the pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the 
emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, type 
and sizes within categories in establishing the standards.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to ``at least 
every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source 
performance standards. Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA provides that 
performance standards are to ``reflect the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of 
emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving 
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact 
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 
adequately demonstrated.'' We refer to this level of control as the 
best system of emission reduction or ``BSER.'' The term ``standard of 
performance'' in CAA 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine 
both the BSER for the regulated sources in the source category and the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the 
BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate 
standards of performance for new sources that reflect that level of 
stringency. Section 111(b)(5) of the CAA precludes the EPA from 
prescribing a particular technological system that must be used to 
comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any 
measure or combination of measures that will achieve the standard. 
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA 111(a), standards of 
performance apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of such 
proposed standards in the Federal Register.
    The EPA Priority List (44 FR 49222, August 21, 1979) included 
Petroleum Transportation and Marketing as a source category for which 
standards of performance were to be promulgated under CAA section 111. 
The NSPS for this source category was promulgated on August 18, 1983 
(48 FR 37578) and applies to the total of all the loading racks at a 
bulk gasoline terminal that deliver liquid product into gasoline tank 
trucks. This proposed action presents the required CAA 111(b)(1)(B) 
review for the bulk gasoline terminals NSPS.

B. What are the source categories and how do the current standards 
regulate emissions?

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The sources affected by the current major source NESHAP for the 
Gasoline Distribution source category subpart R are bulk gasoline 
terminals and pipeline breakout stations. A bulk gasoline terminal is 
defined at 40 CFR 63.421 as ``any gasoline facility which receives 
gasoline by pipeline, ship, or barge, and has a gasoline throughput 
greater than 75,700 liters per day.'' \2\ A pipeline breakout station 
is defined as ``a facility along a pipeline containing storage vessels 
used to relieve surges or receive and store gasoline from the pipeline 
for reinjection and continued transportation by pipeline or to other 
facilities.'' The HAP emitted by Gasoline Distribution sources are 
benzene, hexane, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, 
cumene, and napthalene. The emission standards are the same for new 
sources and existing sources. Emissions from loading racks are 
controlled by vapor collection and processing systems meeting 10 
milligrams (mg) total organic carbon (TOC) per liter (L) of gasoline 
loaded and the cargo tanks being loaded must be certified to be vapor 
tight. Emissions from storage vessels with a design capacity greater 
than or equal to 75 cubic meters are controlled by equipment designed 
to capture and control emissions. Equipment leaks are required to be 
repaired upon detection using audio, visual, or olfactory (AVO) 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 75,700 liters per day is equal to 20,000 gallons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The sources affected by the current area source NESHAP for the 
Gasoline Distribution source category subpart BBBBBB are bulk gasoline 
terminals, bulk gasoline plants, and pipeline facilities. A bulk 
gasoline terminal is defined at 40 CFR 63.11100 as ``any gasoline 
storage and distribution facility that receives gasoline by pipeline, 
ship or barge, or cargo tank and has a gasoline throughput of 20,000 
gallons per day or greater.'' A bulk gasoline plant is defined as ``any 
gasoline storage and distribution facility that receives gasoline by 
pipeline, ship or barge, or cargo tank, and subsequently loads the 
gasoline into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to gasoline dispensing 
facilities, and has a gasoline throughput of less than 20,000 gallons 
per day.'' A pipeline breakout station is defined as ``a facility along 
a pipeline containing storage vessels used to relieve surges or receive 
and store gasoline from the pipeline for re-injection and continued 
transportation by pipeline or to other facilities.'' A pipeline pumping 
station is defined as ``a facility along a pipeline containing pumps to 
maintain the desired pressure and flow of product through the pipeline, 
and not containing gasoline storage tanks other than surge control 
tanks.'' The HAP emitted by Gasoline Distribution sources are benzene, 
hexane, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, 2,24-trimethylpentane, cumene, 
and napthalene. The emission standards are the same for new sources and 
existing sources. Emissions from loading racks at large bulk gasoline 
terminals (those with gasoline throughput of 250,000 gallons per day or 
greater) are controlled by vapor collection and processing systems 
meeting 80 mg TOC per L of gasoline loaded (mg/L) and the cargo tanks 
being loaded must be certified to be vapor tight. Small bulk gasoline 
terminals and bulk gasoline plants must use submerged filling when 
loading gasoline. Emissions from storage vessels with a design capacity 
greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters are required to

[[Page 35616]]

be controlled by equipment designed to capture and control emissions. 
Equipment leaks are required to be repaired upon detection using AVO 
methods.
3. NSPS Subpart XX
    The sources affected by the current NSPS for the Bulk Gasoline 
Terminals source category subpart XX are bulk gasoline terminals that 
commenced construction or modification after December 17, 1980. NSPS 
subpart XX at 40 CFR 60.501 defines bulk gasoline terminals as ``any 
gasoline facility which receives gasoline by pipeline, ship or barge, 
and has a gasoline throughput greater than 75,700 liters per day.'' 
Emissions from loading racks at bulk gasoline terminals are controlled 
by vapor collection and processing systems meeting 35 mg/L and the 
cargo tanks being loaded must be certified to be vapor tight.\3\ 
Equipment leaks are required to be repaired upon detection using AVO 
methods. Emissions from storage vessels are regulated under a separate 
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart K, Ka, or Kb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Allowance is provided to meet 80 mg/L for affected 
facilities with an ``existing vapor processing system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    The EPA used several data sources to determine the facilities that 
are subject to the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP and the Bulk Gasoline 
Terminals NSPS. We identified facilities in the 2017 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI) and the Toxics Release Inventory system having a 
primary facility NAICS code beginning with 4247, Petroleum and 
Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers. We also used information from 
the original Gasoline Distribution NESHAP, Bulk Terminal list of 
petrochemical storage facilities from the Internal Revenue Service, the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's Enforcement and 
Compliance History Online tool (https://echo.epa.gov), and the Energy 
Information Administration. To inform our reviews for these emission 
sources, we reviewed the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) and regulatory development 
efforts for similar sources published after the Gasoline Distribution 
NESHAP and Bulk Terminals NSPS were developed. The EPA also reviewed 
air permits to determine facilities subject to the Gasoline 
Distribution NESHAP and Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS.
    We met with industry representatives from Marathon, the American 
Petroleum Institute, the International Liquid Terminals Association, 
and the International Fuel Terminal Operators Association to collect 
data and discuss industry practices. We also met with control device 
suppliers to obtain information on the cost and design of control 
devices. We met with representatives of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to discuss cargo tank requirements.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    We relied on certain technical reports and memoranda that the EPA 
developed for flares used as air pollution control devices in the 
Petroleum Refinery Sector residual risk and technology review and NSPS 
rulemaking (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). The Petroleum Refinery 
sector docket is at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. For 
completeness of the rulemaking record for this action and for ease of 
reference in finding these items in the publicly available petroleum 
refinery sector rulemaking docket, we are including the most relevant 
technical support documents in the docket for this proposed action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371) and including a list of the of all 
documents used to inform the original flare provision in the Petroleum 
Refinery Sector residual risk and technology review and NSPS rulemaking 
in Attachment 2 of the memorandum titled Monitoring Options and Costs 
for Gasoline Distribution Facilities, which is available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Additional information related to the promulgation and subsequent 
amendments of the NSPS and NESHAPs is available in Docket ID Nos. A-79-
52, A-92-38, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0019, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0164, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406.

E. How does the EPA perform the NESHAP technology review and NSPS 
review?

1. NESHAP Technology Review
    Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and 
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that have occurred since the NESHAPs were promulgated. 
Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical 
feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and nonair 
environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions 
associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our 
decision of whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the CAA section 112 
emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of 
applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. 
For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a 
``development:''
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
and GACT standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT and GACT standards) that could result in additional 
emissions reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT and 
GACT standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT and 
GACT standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT and GACT 
standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
each NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation 
of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. We also 
review each NESHAP and the available data to determine if there are any 
unregulated emissions of HAP within the source categories, and evaluate 
these data for use in developing new emission standards. When reviewing 
MACT standards, we also address regulatory gaps, such as missing 
standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the source 
category. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information 
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the 
technology review.
2. NSPS Review
    As noted in the section II.A.2 of this document, CAA section 111 
requires the EPA, at least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate 
revise the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and 
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of

[[Page 35617]]

performance, they must reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through the application of the BSER taking into account the 
cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors including the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission 
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current 
standards are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission 
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated 
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of 
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission 
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can 
achieve. The agency considers these costs in the context of the 
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The agency also 
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means 
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a 
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of 
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In 
general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by 
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost-
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing 
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant 
reductions realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the factors described above, the EPA then 
compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines 
which system is ``best''. The EPA then establishes a standard of 
performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA 
can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on 
classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER 
and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The 
result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of 
performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because the new source 
performance standards reflect the best system of emission reduction 
under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its 
review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure 
compliance with the emission standards.
    See section II.C of this preamble for information on the specific 
data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
reviews and NSPS review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

    We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies for loading operations, storage vessels, and equipment 
leaks for NESHAP subpart R and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. For the NSPS XX, 
we evaluated BSER for loading operations and equipment leaks. We 
analyzed costs and impacts for each emission source (e.g., loading 
operations) by each subpart. We also included product recovery in the 
cost calculation, where appropriate. We based the product recovery on 
the average pre-tax retail price of regular conventional gasoline in 
2019 at a value of gasoline recovered of $1.50 per gallon.\4\ This 
yielded a product recovery of $480 per ton of VOC. For NSPS, we 
determined cost-effectiveness, cost per ton of emissions reduced, on a 
VOC basis. For NESHAP, we determined cost-effectiveness on a HAP basis 
from the VOC emissions. In general, gasoline (liquid) is approximately 
20 weight percent HAP, but gasoline vapors are only 3 to 4 weight 
percent HAP. We estimated that loading operation VOC emissions were 4 
weight percent HAP, storage vessel VOC emissions were 5 weight percent 
HAP, and equipment leak VOC emissions were 10 weight percent HAP. 
Although we considered the options cumulatively, we also calculated the 
incremental cost effectiveness, which allowed us to assess the impacts 
of the incremental change between the options under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The VOC recovery credit was calculated based on the average 
retail price of regular conventional gasoline in 2019, which was 
$2.50/gallon, and that 60 to 70 percent of retail price is for taxes 
and distribution/marketing costs (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/; EIA, 2021). Therefore, we estimated the value of 
gasoline recovered to be $1.50/gallon ($2.50 x 0.60). Using a 
density of gasoline of 6.25 lb/gallon, this yields a VOC credit of 
$480/ton [($1.50/6.25) x 2000]. The average refiner's wholesale spot 
price for all gasoline types in 2019 was $1.85/gallon (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPM0_PBR_NUS_DPG&f=M; EIA, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Standards for Loading Racks
    We evaluated the control efficiency and costs of common control 
systems used for loading racks, including thermal/vapor combustion 
units (VCUs), carbon adsorption vapor recovery units (VRUs), flares, 
and refrigerated condensers. We assessed the loading rates to the 
control systems based on both splash loading and submerged loading for 
5 different ``model plant'' gasoline throughputs. We also assessed cost 
for vapor balancing controls. Our assessment of control systems is 
summarized in the memorandum ``Control Options for Loading Operations 
at Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' included in EPA Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
    We did not identify any new control technologies, but we did 
identify some state and local permits that required emission limits as 
low as 1 mg/L (less than the most stringent federal limit of 10 mg/L). 
We therefore considered the costs for upgrades needed to retrofit a 
current control system to achieve more stringent emission limits for 
each of the current rules. The emission limits assessed included 80 mg/
L, 35 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 1 mg/L, depending on the emission limits for 
each subpart, which are discussed in detail in sections III.A.1.a-c. We 
also assessed alternative means of expressing the loading rack 
emissions limit. The emissions limit expressed in terms of mg TOC/L of 
gasoline loaded is difficult to directly monitor continuously as 
discussed below. As such, the emission limit is generally assessed via 
an initial

[[Page 35618]]

performance test, with operating limits established as means to ensure 
continuous compliance. Alternative means to express the emission limit 
may make the emission limit more amenable to direct monitoring.
a. NESHAP Subpart R
    We identified one development for loading racks which is an 
emission limit of 1 mg/L using the same types of control that we expect 
are used to meet the current major source emission limit of 10 mg/L of 
gasoline loaded. Therefore, we assessed maintaining the 10 mg/L 
emission limit or reducing it to 1 mg/L. For the major source NESHAP 
subpart R impacts analysis, we estimated that most facilities used VRUs 
and that approximately 75 percent of the facilities could comply with 
the 1 mg/L emission limit by modifying their operating characteristics 
(cycle times) and 25 percent would need to upgrade their control 
system.
    Table 5 of this document summarizes the resulting impacts for the 
control option considered for 210 major source (NESHAP subpart R) 
facilities. Based on the costs associated with further HAP emission 
reductions, we determined it is not cost-effective to lower the 10 mg/L 
standard, since the cost effectiveness of the option is over $100,000 
per ton of HAP reduced--a level that is over an order of magnitude 
higher than we have considered cost-effective in previous rulemakings 
to limit organic HAP. Accordingly, we are not proposing any changes to 
the current emission limit for loading operations for the NESHAP 
subpart R. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the 
memorandum ``Major Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution 
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) 
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
    As noted in section V of this preamble, the EPA requests public 
comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, including our evaluation 
of the costs and efficacy of control options for loading operations 
under NESHAP subpart R. Among other issues, EPA requests comment on 
whether we have accurately assessed the costs, pollution reduction 
benefits, and cost-effectiveness of applying a 1 mg/L emission limit to 
major sources subject to this NESHAP; experience from implementing 
state regulations or local ordinances for these sources that could 
inform this technology review; and whether there are other factors that 
EPA should consider that would support a revision of the current NESHAP 
subpart R. For example, we note that there are at least 5.9 million 
people located within 5 km of these sources (see Table 18 of this 
document), and the EPA is concerned that these communities may already 
be overburdened by air pollution from multiple sources. Information on 
the contributions that HAPs from these sources make to overall 
pollution burdens in neighboring communities may be useful in 
determining whether a more stringent standard is warranted.

                                       Table 5--Control Option Impacts for Loading Operations for NESHAP Subpart R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        TAC \d\ w/o      TAC \d\  w/
                                     VOC emission                                         product          product       CE \e\  ($/ton   CE \e\  ($/ton
          Emission limit            reduction \a\     TCI \b\  ($)   AOC \c\  ($/yr)   recovery  ($/    recovery  ($/         VOC)           HAP) \f\
                                        (tpy)                                               yr)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L...........................           1,686       34,160,000        5,764,000        8,677,000        7,868,000            4,667          116,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline (10 mg/L) emissions of 1,873 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Annualized operating costs (AOC).
\d\ Total annualized cost (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\e\ Cost effectiveness (CE) as compared to baseline (10 mg/L).
\f\ HAP content of gasoline vapors assumed to be 4% of VOC.

    In our review of the developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies, we noted that there were inconsistencies 
regarding continuous parameter monitoring requirements associated with 
complying with the loading standard as expressed in terms of 10 mg/L of 
gasoline loaded. For example, most VRUs have a continuous TOC 
concentration monitor, but do not have flow meters needed to convert 
the concentration limit to a mass emission rate that can be used to 
calculate the emissions in terms of mg/L. State and local permitting 
agencies set continuous concentration limits based on performance 
tests, but also factor in more variability to account for different 
loading rates and operational characteristics of the VRU. While we 
noted some variability in exhaust flow rates with product loading 
rates, the exhaust flow rate is well correlated with the product 
loading rates, such that a direct concentration limit can be 
established that is equivalent to the 10 mg/L standard. We determined 
that the concentration limit for VRU has several advantages to the 10 
mg/L emission limit. First, a concentration limit could be directly and 
continuously monitored. In this case, the TOC monitor would be used as 
a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) and exceedances of the 
concentration limit would be a violation of the emission limit. When 
the emission limit is expressed in mg/L, the TOC monitor is used as a 
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) and exceedance of the 
concentration limit is a deviation of the operating limit. Thus, the 
concentration-based standard provides improved enforceability of the 
emission limit. Second, providing a concentration limit directly in the 
rule reduces the variability in the way the operating limits are 
established in different states and localities. Thus, it provides 
consistent implementation of the federal standard when considering 
continuous compliance requirements. The potential disadvantage of a 
concentration limit is the ability to draw in ambient air to dilute the 
exhaust gas concentration.
    Upon careful consideration of the potential options to improve 
continuous compliance monitoring requirements, we are proposing to 
express the emission limit for VRUs in terms of a concentration limit 
of 5,500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) TOC as propane on a three-
hour rolling average. As noted previously, this provides a more 
enforceable and consistent continuous compliance requirement that is 
directly related to the emissions limit. To prevent dilution, we are 
proposing that only vacuum breaker valves can be used to introduce 
ambient air into the VRU control system.
    Because of the need for combustion air and products of combustion, 
this concentration limit is not directly applicable for VCUs. We 
considered developing an equivalent concentration limit for VCUs, but 
this would require

[[Page 35619]]

both a TOC monitor and an oxygen monitor, to correct the concentration 
limit to 0 percent excess oxygen. This standard becomes problematic at 
low TOC loading rates, where the oxygen concentration may approach that 
of the ambient air. We consider that periodic performance test along 
with continuous monitoring of combustion zone temperature provides 
adequate assurance that the VCU is operating in a manner consistent 
with the TOC emissions limit. NESHAP subpart R already includes 
requirements for using a temperature operating limit to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the 10 mg/L emission limit; however, these 
requirements do not provide adequate instructions on how to establish 
the operating limit, particularly with respect to the averaging time. 
For example, the performance test requires readings be taken every 5 
minutes over a 6-hour test period, but there are no instructions on how 
to develop the temperature operating limit from these readings. At 
times, the 5-minute temperature readings can fluctuate significantly, 
particularly during periods of low loading rates. Establishing the 
operating limit based on the lowest 5-minute reading during a time of 
little or no loading of product into gasoline cargo tanks can lead to 
erroneously low temperature operating limits that do not ensure 
adequate combustion efficiencies. We considered establishing a minimum 
operating temperature, such as 1,400 [deg]F or 1,500 [deg]F as required 
for VCU in general standards for closed vent system and control devices 
[see 40 CFR 63.985(b)(1)(i)(B) or 40 CFR 60.482-10a(c)]. However, we 
recognized that there is a wide variety of VCU designs and that a 
single set temperature operating limit may not be appropriate for all 
applications. Therefore, we elected to maintain that the temperature 
operating limit be set during the performance test, but we are 
proposing additional instructions on how to develop and assess the 
temperature operating limit. First, we are proposing the temperature 
operating limit be established and evaluated on a 3-hour rolling 
average basis. We are proposing that, for each 5-minute block of the 
performance test, the combustion (flame) zone must be determined, 
either via a single temperature reading or an average temperature of 
all readings during the 5-minute block), and a record of the volume of 
liquid product loading into gasoline cargo tanks must be kept. We are 
proposing that hourly average combustion zone temperatures be developed 
from the 5-minute measurements using only those 5-minute periods when 
product is loaded into gasoline cargo tanks. From those hourly 
averages, 3-hour rolling averages are to be determined. During the 6-
hour performance test, 4 different 3-hour rolling averages will be 
determined. We are proposing that the temperature operating limit be 
established as the lowest of the 3-hour averages. We consider that this 
approach will establish a temperature operating limit that is 
indicative of VCU performance while accounting for variability in 
loading operations. We are proposing that compliance with the operating 
limit will be determined on a 3-hour rolling average basis following 
the same procedures used during the performance tests (5-minute 
measurements used to calculate 1-hour average values considering only 
5-minute periods when product was loaded into gasoline cargo tanks).
    We also determined that periodic emission testing should be 
required to help ensure continuous compliance. Currently, facilities 
conduct a one-time performance test and then monitor operating limits. 
We are proposing to require on-going performance tests at a minimum 
frequency of once every 5 years to supplement the parameter monitoring 
and ensure emission controls continue to operate as demonstrated during 
the initial performance test. Our assessment of monitoring options is 
summarized in the memorandum ``Monitoring Options and Costs for 
Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0371.
    Finally, we expect all or nearly all facilities use submerged 
loading as they fill product into cargo tanks. However, the NESHAP 
subpart R does not require submerged filling. The lack of a direct 
requirement for submerged loading may cause problems for several 
reasons. First, organic loading rates to the control system when using 
splash loading are expected to be more than double that of the organic 
loading rates when using submerged loading. With the preponderance of 
use of submerged loading, performance tests would almost certainly be 
conducted when the cargo tanks are loaded via submerged fill. The 
periodic performance test and operating limits may not be adequate to 
ensure compliance while splash loading is used. We also note that the 
10 mg/L emission limit is essentially equivalent to 98 percent TOC 
control efficiency when using submerged fill, but requires over 99 
percent control efficiency when splash loading is used. Because the 
flare requirements were specifically developed to ensure a 98 percent 
flare destruction efficiency, the flare operating limits are not 
considered adequate to ensure compliance with the 10 mg/L emissions 
limit when splash loading is used. Therefore, we are proposing to 
expressly include submerged fill requirements as an integral part of 
the loading rack standards.
b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The requirements for loading racks at area source gasoline 
distribution facilities are dependent on the total throughput capacity 
of all racks. Large gasoline bulk terminals have loading racks with a 
combined throughput of 250,000 gallons per day or greater and are 
required to reduce emissions of TOC to less than or equal to 80 mg/L of 
gasoline loaded. Small gasoline bulk terminals, which have loading 
racks with a combined throughput between 20,000 and 250,000 gallons per 
day, are required to use submerged filling with a submerged fill pipe 
that is no more than 6 inches from the bottom of the cargo tank. Bulk 
gasoline plants are facilities with gasoline throughput of 20,000 
gallons per day or less and are required to use submerged filling in 
all gasoline storage tanks with a capacity of greater than 250 gallons 
and in all cargo tanks.
    For large bulk gasoline terminals at area sources (i.e., combined 
throughput of 250,000 gallons per day or greater), we evaluated control 
options of either maintaining the current 80 mg/L control option or 
lowering that limit to either 35 mg/L, 10 mg/L, or 1 mg/L. Table 6 of 
this document presents the estimated nationwide impacts of these 
alternative emission limits for 232 large bulk gasoline terminals at 
area sources. The cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness 
of reducing the area source emission limit for large bulk gasoline 
terminals to 35 mg/L are $9,700 per ton of HAP emissions reduced, which 
we determined is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness and incremental 
cost effectiveness of reducing the area source emission limit for large 
bulk gasoline terminals to 10 mg/L are approximately $12,000 and 
$13,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced, respectively, which we 
determined is not cost-effective. Therefore, we are proposing to lower 
the area source emission limits for loading racks at large bulk 
gasoline terminals to 35 mg/L.
    We note, however, that there are at least 35.7 million people 
located within 5 km of these sources (see Table 19 of this document), 
and EPA is concerned that this population has the potential to be 
overburdened from air pollution from multiple sources. In this case, we 
have

[[Page 35620]]

identified a more stringent standard (i.e., 10 mg/L) that could further 
reduce HAP emissions exposure in communities near these large bulk 
terminals. We project that this more stringent standard would impose 
slightly higher, but not unreasonable, capital and annualized costs on 
these terminals. EPA seeks comment on whether this more protective 
standard, although it is less cost effective for these type of HAP 
emissions controls than we would typically find acceptable, is 
nevertheless appropriate given the reductions in HAPs that would occur 
in potentially over-burdened communities surrounding these large bulk 
terminals. EPA also requests information on the costs, efficacy, and 
feasibility of control options for loading racks at area source 
gasoline distribution facilities, and the contributions of these 
sources to overall pollution burdens in surrounding communities, to 
inform our consideration of whether a more protective area source 
standard is warranted. Our assessment of control options is summarized 
in the memorandum ``Area Source Technology Review for the Gasoline 
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities 
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
    As in the major source rule, we are proposing to replace the 
current mass-based limits with a direct concentration limit for 
facilities operating VRUs because it provides consistent implementation 
of the federal standard when considering continuous compliance 
requirements. The corresponding concentration limit equivalent to a 35 
mg/L emission limit is 19,200 ppmv as propane. Therefore, we are 
proposing to express the emission limit for VRUs in terms of a 
concentration limit of 19,200 ppmv TOC as propane on a three-hour 
rolling average. As noted previously, a concentration limit provides a 
more enforceable and consistent continuous compliance requirement that 
is directly related to the emissions limit. To prevent dilution, we are 
proposing that only vacuum breaker valves can be used to introduce 
ambient air into the VRU control system. Our assessment of monitoring 
options is summarized in the memorandum ``Monitoring Options and Costs 
for Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.
    Because of the need for combustion air, this concentration limit is 
not directly applicable for VCUs. We considered developing an 
equivalent concentration limit for VCUs, but this would require both a 
TOC monitor and an oxygen monitor, to correct the concentration limit 
to 0 percent excess oxygen. This standard becomes problematic at low 
TOC loading rates, where the oxygen concentration may approach that of 
the ambient air.\5\ Because most VCUs used at area source gasoline 
distribution facilities are enclosed, air-assisted flares, we 
determined that operating limits, either temperature operating limits 
(as described for the major sources NESHAP subpart R) or flare 
operating limits (net combustion zone heating value and air-assist 
dilution parameter values, as provided in the Petroleum Refinery MACT 
rule: 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) are the most appropriate. We 
anticipate that facilities electing to meet the flare operating limits 
for their VCU would conduct two-week sampling to assess the variability 
of heat content while loading gasoline and develop minimum natural gas 
assist rates as a means of demonstrating continuous compliance. 
Alternatively, facilities may elect to install a calorimeter to monitor 
heat content and only add natural gas as needed if the vent gas stream 
falls below the minimum required heat content. We are proposing to 
require VCUs at area source facilities to monitor temperature or meet 
the flare operating limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some VCU are essentially enclosed flares that do not have a 
means to reduce air inlet draft at low TOC loading rates.

                           Table 6--Control Option Impacts for Loading Operations at Large Area Source Bulk Gasoline Terminals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            TAC \d\ w/o     TAC \d\  w/
                                           VOC emission       TCI \b\      AOC \c\  ($/       product         product     CE \e\  ($/ton   ICE \g\  ($/
             Emission limit                reduction \a\     ($1,000)           yr)        recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/     HAP) \f\      ton HAP) \f\
                                               (tpy)                                            yr)             yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 mg/L.................................             820               0         385,000         385,000         319,000           9,742           9,742
10 mg/L.................................           2,619           1,878       1,371,000       1,531,000       1,275,000          12,170          13,270
1 mg/L..................................           3,945          68,400      15,560,000      21,400,000      20,990,000         133,000         371,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline (80 mg/L) emissions of 4,097 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Annual operating costs (AOC).
\d\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\e\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (80 mg/L).
\f\ HAP content assumed to be 4% of VOC.
\g\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.

    Similarly, for small bulk gasoline terminals at area sources (i.e., 
combined throughput between 20,000 and 250,000 gallons per day), we 
evaluated control options of maintaining the current submerged loading 
requirements and potentially adding loading rack emission limits of 
either 80 mg/L, 35 mg/L, 10 mg/L, or 1 mg/L. Table 7 of this document 
presents the estimated nationwide impacts of these alternative emission 
limits for 858 small bulk gasoline terminals at area sources. We 
evaluated the 80 mg/L emission limit for loading racks, but the cost-
effectiveness of this option exceeds $24,000 per ton of HAP emissions 
reduced. The other options are less cost-effective. Based on this 
analysis, we are not proposing any changes to the current area source 
provisions for small bulk gasoline terminals subject to NESHAP subpart 
BBBBBB.
    However, as noted above in the context of large bulk gasoline 
terminals at area sources, EPA is concerned about the large number of 
people living within 5 km of these facilities and the potential for 
these affected populations to be located in communities that already 
face a significant burden of air pollution from multiple sources. 
Although we estimate that a standard of 80 mg/L or less would have a 
cost per ton that is higher than we have traditionally

[[Page 35621]]

considered to be acceptable for organic HAP, it is also possible that 
other cost metrics we have discretion to consider--such as total 
capital and operating costs--could support the reasonableness of such 
an emissions limit. EPA therefore seeks comment on whether an emissions 
limit of 80 mg/L or less would be appropriate in light of these 
alternative cost metrics and the reductions in HAPs that would occur in 
potentially over-burdened communities surrounding these small bulk 
terminals. EPA also requests information on the costs, efficacy, and 
feasibility of control options for these sources, and the contributions 
of these sources to overall pollution burdens in surrounding 
communities, to inform our consideration of whether it is appropriate 
to establish an emissions limit for loading operations at small area 
source bulk gasoline terminals. Our assessment of control options is 
summarized in the memorandum ``Area Source Technology Review for the 
Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline 
Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                           Table 7--Control Option Impacts for Loading Operations at Small Area Source Bulk Gasoline Terminals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           TAC \d\  w/o     TAC \d\  w/
                                           VOC emission       TCI \b\      AOC \c\  ($/       product         product     CE \e\  ($/ton   ICE \g\  ($/
             Emission limit                reduction \a\     ($1,000)           yr)        recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/     HAP) \f\      ton HAP) \f\
                                               (tpy)                                            yr)             yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 mg/L.................................           2,015          11,870       1,909,000       2,922,000       1,954,000          24,250          24,250
35 mg/L.................................           2,974          12,370       3,758,000       4,813,000       4,457,000          37,460          65,240
10 mg/L.................................           5,056          38,470       9,579,000      12,860,000      12,260,000          60,600          93,650
1 mg/L..................................           5,789         326,400      43,310,000      71,140,000      70,450,000         304,200       1,984,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline (submerged loading) emissions of 5,870 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Annual operating costs (AOC).
\d\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\e\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (submerged loading).
\f\ HAP content assumed to be 4% of VOC.
\g\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.

    We expect that storage tanks at bulk gasoline plants typically have 
fixed roofs. As such, vapor balancing is a potential control option for 
bulk gasoline plants. In reviewing state and local requirements, we 
found that a number of state requirements include requirements for 
vapor balancing at bulk gasoline plants but have a minimum 
applicability threshold of 4,000 gallons per day. Therefore, we 
evaluated the costs of requiring vapor balancing for a variety of 
differently-sized bulk gasoline plants. Vapor balancing is projected to 
result in a net cost savings relative to submerged loading (when 
considering the value of gasoline vapors not emitted) for bulk gasoline 
plants with throughput of about 8,000 to 10,000 gallons per day or 
more. The cost effectiveness of vapor balancing begins to diminish at 
smaller bulk gasoline plants, exceeding $10,000 per ton of HAP reduced 
at bulk plants with throughputs less than 4,000 gallon per day. 
Considering the state rules and diminishing cost effectiveness for 
small bulk gasoline plants, we are proposing to require vapor balancing 
both for loading storage vessels and for loading cargo tanks, for bulk 
gasoline plants with maximum design capacity throughput of 4,000 
gallons per day or more. Bulk gasoline plants with capacities below 
4,000 gallons per day would retain the requirement to use submerge 
fill.
    We also considered including loading rack emission limits of either 
80 mg/L, 35 mg/L, 10 mg/L, or 1 mg/L. Table 8 of this document presents 
the estimated nationwide impacts of the alternative emission limits 
considered for 5,913 bulk gasoline plants. Note that vapor balancing is 
projected to achieve emission reductions similar to that achieved by an 
emission limit of 35 mg/L, but at much lower costs. Each loading rack 
emission limit option at bulk gasoline plants had a cost-effectiveness 
exceeding $275,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. Based on this 
analysis, we are not proposing to add an emission limit for bulk 
gasoline plants subject to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. Our assessment of 
control options is summarized in the memorandum ``Area Source 
Technology Review for the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk 
Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.

                                    Table 8--Control Option Impacts for Loading Operations at Area Source Bulk Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           TAC \d\  w/o     TAC \d\  w/
                                           VOC emission       TCI \b\         AOC \c\         product         product     CE \e\  ($/ton   ICE \g\  ($/
             Emission limit                reduction \a\     ($1,000)       ($1,000/yr)    recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/     HAP) \f\      ton HAP) \f\
                                               (tpy)                                            yr)             yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor Balancing.........................          23,739          42,310           2,116           7,140          -4,255          -4,481          -4,481
80 mg/L.................................          20,215         455,800         247,900         286,800         277,100         342,600     \h\ 342,600
35 mg/L.................................          23,100         455,800         247,900         286,800         275,700         298,400         -12,000
10 mg/L.................................          24,969         455,800         247,900         286,800         274,800         275,100         -12,000
1 mg/L..................................          25,627       1,367,000         297,500         414,100         401,800         392,000       4,824,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline (uncontrolled) emissions of 25,700 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Annual operating costs (AOC).
\d\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\e\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (uncontrolled).
\f\ HAP content assumed to be 4% of VOC.
\g\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\h\ ICE compared to submerged fill rather than previous option of vapor balancing.

[[Page 35622]]

c. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The current NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XX \6\) that applies to 
bulk gasoline terminals (gasoline throughput exceeding 20,000 gallons 
per day) has a loading rack emission limit of 35 mg/L of gasoline 
loaded.\7\ We are proposing to add a new subpart at part 60, subpart 
XXa that would be applicable to bulk gasoline terminals that commenced 
construction, modification or reconstruction after June 10, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Part 60, subpart XX applies to bulk gasoline terminals that 
commenced construction, modification or construction after December 
17, 1980. This proposal would modify subpart XX so that it applies 
to bulk gasoline terminals that commenced construction, modification 
or reconstruction after December 17, 1980 and on or before the 
publication date of the proposed part 60, subpart XXa.
    \7\ Allowance is provided to meet 80 mg/L for affected 
facilities with an ``existing vapor processing system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 40 CFR 60.501``gasoline tank'' is defined as ``. . . a delivery 
tank truck. . . .'' The major and area source NESHAP definition of 
``gasoline cargo tank'' includes loading of tank trucks and railcars. 
In NSPS subpart XXa, we are proposing nomenclature revisions to 
generalize the loading requirements similar to the NESHAP definitions 
which apply to a ``gasoline cargo tank'' rather than just a ``gasoline 
tank'' to expressly include railcar loading operations. The control 
techniques and costs of control for loading operations apply equally to 
tank truck and rail car loading racks and we therefore find no basis 
for excluding rail car loading operations at bulk gasoline terminals 
from the NSPS requirements.
    Additionally, we assessed either maintaining the current NSPS 35 
mg/L emission limit for loading operations or reducing it to either 10 
mg/L or 1 mg/L. We assessed costs differently between facilities that 
are new versus modified or reconstructed, because the incremental cost 
of designing a system to meet 1 mg/L versus 10 mg/L for a new system is 
small, but the costs for upgrading an existing control system that 
currently meets a 10 mg/L or 35 mg/L emissions limit to meet 1 mg/L can 
be high and may require complete replacement of the existing controls.
    We projected nationwide impacts for different control options in 
the fifth year of the NSPS considering separately 5 newly constructed 
bulk gasoline terminals and 15 modified or reconstructed facilities 
that currently meet a 35 or 80 mg/L emission limit. These costs are 
summarized in Table 9 of this document. Considering the expected range 
of throughputs for newly constructed bulk gasoline terminals, the 
incremental cost to meet a 1 mg/L limit rather than a 10 mg/L limit is 
about $1,300 per ton of VOC reduced, which we determined is cost-
effective. As shown in Table 9 of this document, the incremental cost 
for modified or reconstructed facilities to meet a 1 mg/L limit rather 
than a 10 mg/L limit exceeds $8,300 per ton of VOC reduced, which we 
determined is not cost-effective. The incremental cost for modified or 
reconstructed facilities to meet a 10 mg/L limit, on the other hand, 
rather than a 35 mg/L limit is about $350 per ton of VOC reduced, which 
we determined is cost-effective. Therefore, we are proposing in the 
proposed subpart XXa that facilities that commence construction after 
June 10, 2022) must meet a 1 mg/L limit and facilities that commence 
modification, or reconstruction after June 10, 2022 must meet a 10 mg/L 
limit. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the 
memorandum ``New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline 
Terminals'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                                                     Table 9--Control Option Impacts for Loading Operations at NSPS Bulk Gasoline Terminals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                       TAC \c\  w/o     TAC \c\  w/
                                                                      VOC emissions    VOC emission       TCI \a\      AOC \b\  ($/       product         product      CE \d\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/
                           Emission limit                                 (tpy)          reduction       ($1,000)           yr)        recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/    ton VOC)      ton VOC)
                                                                                           (tpy)                                            yr)             yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New:
    Submerged Loading..............................................            2,402
    35 mg/L........................................................              171           2,231           5,900         671,000       1,170,000         103,000            46            46
    10 mg/L........................................................               48           2,354           6,210         706,000       1,240,000         106,000            45            23
    1 mg/L.........................................................                5           2,397           6,830         730,000       1,310,000         162,000            67         1,290
Modified/Reconstructed:
    Submerged Loading..............................................              332
    35 mg/L........................................................              286              46               0          19,500          19,500          -2,330           -51           -51
    10 mg/L........................................................              144             188             351         107,000         137,000          46,900           250           346
    1 mg/L.........................................................               14             317           6,530         725,000       1,280,000       1,130,000         3,560         8,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Annual operating costs (AOC).
\c\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\d\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to the first option listed.
\e\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.

2. Standards for Cargo Tank Vapor Tightness
    The area source NESHAP subpart BBBBBB and the NSPS subpart XX both 
have vapor tightness requirements for cargo tanks that allow up to 3 
inches of water pressure drop over a 5-minute period. The major source 
NESHAP subpart R has a graduated vapor tightness certification that 
allows from 1 to 2.5 inches ('') of water pressure drop over a 5-minute 
period, depending on the compartment size in the cargo tank. Further, 
DOT requirements that were last amended in 2003 (see 68 FR 19285, April 
18, 2003) indicate ``A cargo tank used to transport a petroleum 
distillate fuel that is equipped with vapor recovery equipment may be 
leakage tested in accordance with 40 CFR 63.425(e)'' [49 CFR 178.346-
5]. As such, it appears that most cargo tanks (those less than 18 years 
of age) are minimally required to comply with the major source NESHAP 
vapor tightness requirements pursuant to the DOT requirements. In 
discussion with industry representatives, facility operators indicated 
there generally is a single vapor-tightness certification and cargo 
tanks are not certified for NSPS subpart XX or the area source NESHAP 
separate from cargo tanks certified for the major source NESHAP. Since 
cargo tanks can be used across gasoline distribution facilities subject 
to different standards, we considered cargo tank vapor-tightness 
requirements consistently across all rules.
    Another development we identified is state requirements for vapor 
tightness that have allowable pressure drops that

[[Page 35623]]

are half those allowed under the major source NESHAP subpart R. As 
such, we assessed options ranging from maintaining current requirements 
(which has different requirements for facilities subject to NESHAP 
subpart BBBBBB and NSPS subpart XX than for NESHAP subpart R); 
requiring NESHAP subpart R limits for all gasoline distribution 
facilities (including facilities subject to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB and 
NSPS subpart XX); and requiring more stringent vapor tightness 
requirements based on state requirements (half those in NESHAP subpart 
R) for all gasoline distribution facilities (across all three rules). 
Table 10 of this document summarizes the results of these analyses. 
Based on these results, we concluded that the state rule requirements 
(one-half the current NESHAP subpart R requirements) are cost-effective 
developments that would further harmonize certification requirements 
across all gasoline distribution facilities and cargo tank operators. 
We also considered requiring even more stringent vapor tightness 
requirements, at about one-quarter of those in NESHAP subpart R, but 
these required allowable pressure drop limits that were less than the 
allowable precision of EPA Method 27. As such, we determined that 
further reductions of the vapor tightness requirements beyond those 
identified in state requirements have not been demonstrated in 
practice. Therefore, we are proposing to require a graduated vapor 
tightness certification from 0.5 to 1.25 inches of water pressure drop 
over a 5-minute period, depending on the cargo tank compartment size 
for gasoline cargo tanks subject to NSPS subpart XXa, NESHAP subpart R 
and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. Our assessment of control options is 
summarized in the memorandum ``Control Options for Loading Operation at 
Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0371.

                                        Table 10--Impacts for 10,000 Cargo Tanks Under Different Control Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   VOC      TAC \a\  w/  TAC \a\  w/
                                                      VOC        emission    o product     product    CE \b\  ($/  CE \b\  ($/  ICE \d\  ($/ ICE \d\  ($/
                     Option                        emissions    reduction     recovery     recovery     ton VOC)     ton HAP)     ton VOC)     ton HAP)
                                                     (tpy)        (tpy)       ($/year)     ($/year)                    \c\                       \c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3'' water.......................................       33,602            0      250,000      250,000
NESHAP Subpart R (1''-2.5'' water)..............       28,047        5,555      997,375    -1,669,14         -300       -7,512         -345       -8,637
State Rule (0.5''-1.25'' water).................       25,718        7,883    1,766,000   -2,017,984         -256       -6,400         -150       -3,746
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized operating costs.
\b\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (3'' water).
\c\ HAP content assumed to be 4% of VOC.
\d\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.

3. Standards for Gasoline Storage Vessels
    The area source and major source NESHAP (subparts R and BBBBBB) 
have standards for storage vessels that are largely based on the 
requirements for volatile organic liquid storage vessels in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Kb (NSPS subpart Kb), but include some exceptions to the 
NSPS subpart Kb requirements, primarily related to floating roof deck 
fitting controls. Because VOC emissions from storage vessels are 
regulated under NSPS subpart Kb, storage vessels are not part of 
affected facilities under NSPS subpart XX.
    We reviewed Federal, state, and local requirements for gasoline 
storage vessels. We identified potential improvements in the 
requirements for primary seals, secondary seals (for internal floating 
roofs), and improved fitting controls (particularly for guidepoles) as 
developments in practices and processes. Additionally, we identified a 
new practice for monitoring internal floating roof storage vessels 
using a lower explosive limit (LEL) monitor to identify floating roofs 
with poorly functioning seals or fitting controls. We assessed the cost 
and impacts of moving from the current standards to full compliance 
with NSPS subpart Kb requirements and for including LEL monitoring. Our 
assessments for each subpart are detailed in the following subsections. 
For more information on the storage vessel assessments, see memorandum 
``Control Options for Storage Tanks at Gasoline Distribution 
Facilities'' available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
a. NESHAP Subpart R
    The major source rule contains standards for gasoline storage 
vessels at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. The 
standards cross-reference NSPS subpart Kb requirements but exclude 
fitting control requirements in NSPS subpart Kb provided the storage 
vessel was already equipped with a floating roof meeting the seal 
requirements in NSPS subpart Kb. We estimated that about 95 percent of 
storage vessels in the gasoline distribution industry are equipped with 
internal floating roofs based on review of NEI data. We assessed costs 
and impacts of requiring fitting controls separately for internal and 
external floating roofs. Specifically, we evaluated the control options 
of (1) requiring upgrades of fitting requirements for external floating 
roofs and (2) requiring upgrades of fitting requirements for both 
external and internal floating roofs. Table 11 of this document 
summarizes the national impacts projected for major source gasoline 
distribution facilities. Based on our analysis, we determined 
installing/upgrading fitting controls for external floating roof tanks 
is cost effective. On the other hand, the projected cost-effectiveness 
of installing/upgrading fitting controls for internal floating roof 
tanks is approximately $350,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced 
(incremental costs between Option 1 and 2), and therefore, we 
determined these controls are not cost effective. Accordingly, we are 
proposing to require fitting controls for external floating roof tanks 
consistent with the requirements in NSPS subpart Kb and are not 
proposing to require fitting controls for internal floating roof tanks. 
Our assessment of control options is summarized in the memorandum 
``Major Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities 
(Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP'' in 
EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

[[Page 35624]]

                          Table 11--Control Option Impacts for Storage Vessels at Major Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
                                                     [Bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC                   TAC \c\ w/o  TAC \c\  w/
                                                    emission     TCI \b\      product      product    CE \d\  ($/  CE \d\  ($/  ICE \f\  ($/ ICE \f\  ($/
                 Control option                    reduction     ($1,000)     recovery     recovery     ton VOC)     ton HAP)     ton VOC)     ton HAP)
                                                   \a\  (tpy)               ($1,000/yr)  ($1,000/yr)                   \e\                       \e\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade EFRT fittings \g\.......................          546        1,857          173          -89         -164       -3,272         -164       -3,272
Upgrade IFRT and EFRT fittings \g\..............          772       45,240        4,205        3,835        4,966       99,320       17,330      346,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline emissions of 4,977 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\d\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline.
\e\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.
\f\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\g\ EFRT = external floating roof tank; IFRT = internal floating roof tank.

    While we are not directly proposing additional fitting controls for 
internal floating roof tanks, we identified the use of LEL monitoring 
within the headspace of an internal floating roof tank as a means to 
enhance the annual inspections and more readily identify malfunctioning 
internal floating roofs. We estimated the cost of the LEL monitoring 
requirement based on the additional time needed to monitor LEL during 
the annual inspections. We estimated the impacts of annual LEL 
monitoring based on the number of internal floating roof tanks at major 
source gasoline distribution facilities and assuming LEL monitoring 
identifies defects in about 2 percent of internal floating roofs 
resulting in a 2 percent reduction in baseline emissions of internal 
floating roofs. Based on our review of available LEL monitoring data, 
we expect that this is a conservative estimate of the emission 
reductions that would be achieved. Table 12 of this document summarizes 
the projected impact of requiring annual LEL monitoring for internal 
floating roof tanks as part of the annual roof-top inspections.
    The added cost for conducting LEL monitoring is under $70 per year 
per tank and LEL monitoring is expected to result in cost-effective 
emission reductions for major source gasoline distribution facilities 
(costs of $4,200 per ton of HAP reduced). Therefore, we are proposing 
to require LEL monitoring as part of the annual visual inspections 
conducted for internal floating roof tanks at major source gasoline 
distribution facilities. Our assessment of LEL monitoring at major 
sources is summarized in the memorandum ``Major Source Technology 
Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals 
and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.

                                         Table 12--LEL Monitoring Impacts at Nationwide Major Source Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        TAC \a\  w/o     TAC \a\  w/
                                                                       VOC emission       product          product       CE \b\  ($/ton   CE \b\  ($/ton
                           Facility type                                reduction      recovery  ($/    recovery  ($/         VOC)           HAP) \c\
                                                                          (tpy)             yr)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Major Source Facilities......................................              82           56,290           17,130              210            4,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized cost (TAC) considering annual operating costs; there are no annualized cost of capital for this option.
\b\ Cost effectiveness (CE).
\c\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.

b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The area source rule contains standards for gasoline storage tanks 
at bulk gasoline plants, bulk gasoline terminals, and pipeline breakout 
stations. The current requirements for bulk gasoline plants require the 
use of submerged filling for all gasoline storage tanks with a capacity 
of greater than 250 gallons. As noted in section III.A.1.b of this 
preamble, we are proposing to require vapor balancing at bulk plants, 
both when filling cargo tanks and when unloading cargo tanks (i.e., 
filling storage tanks). The use of vapor balancing when unloading cargo 
tanks into the storage tanks will reduce the working losses from the 
storage tanks. Several state and local agencies already require the use 
of vapor balancing when filling storage tanks at bulk plants with a 
maximum design capacity throughput of 4,000 gallons per day or more. 
Bulk plants with capacities below 4,000 gallons per day would retain 
the requirement to use submerge fill.
    The storage tank standards for area source bulk gasoline terminals 
and pipeline breakout stations cross-reference NSPS subpart Kb 
requirements or the National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels at 
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, but exclude the floating roof fitting 
control requirements for both internal and external floating roofs and 
secondary seal requirements for internal floating roofs with a vapor-
mounted primary seal. We assessed costs and impacts of requiring 
fitting controls separately for internal and external floating roofs. 
Specifically, we evaluated the control options of (1) requiring 
upgrades of fitting requirements for external floating roofs consistent 
with NSPS subpart Kb requirements and (2) requiring upgrades of fitting 
requirements for external floating roof tanks plus requiring upgrades 
of fitting and seal requirements for internal floating roofs tanks 
consistent with NSPS subpart Kb requirements. Table 13 of this document 
summarizes the national impacts projected for area source gasoline 
distribution facilities. Again, based on our analysis, we consider 
adding fitting controls for external floating roof tanks at area source 
gasoline distribution facilities to be cost effective. Alternatively, 
the projected cost effectiveness of installing secondary seals and 
fitting controls for internal floating roof tanks is approximately 
$45,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced (incremental costs between 
Option 1 and 2) and therefore, we determined these controls are not 
cost effective. Accordingly, we are proposing to require fitting 
controls for external

[[Page 35625]]

floating roof tanks consistent with the requirements in NSPS subpart Kb 
and are not proposing to revise the secondary seal and fitting control 
requirements for internal floating roof tanks. Our assessment of 
control options is summarized in the memorandum ``Area Source 
Technology Review for the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk 
Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0371.

                          Table 13--Control Option Impacts for Storage Vessels at Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
                                                     [Bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   TAC \c\  w/o     TAC \c\  w/
                                   VOC emission       TCI \b\         product         product      CE \d\  ($/   CE \d\  ($/  ICE \f\  ($/  ICE \f\  ($/
         Control option            reduction \a\     ($1,000)        recovery        recovery       ton VOC)    ton HAP) \e\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \e\
                                       (tpy)                        ($1,000/yr)     ($1,000/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Upgrade EFRT fittings \g\...           3,338           9,488             882            -720          -216        -4,315          -216        -4,315
(2) Upgrade IFRT and EFRT                 10,143         211,100          19,630          14,760         1,455        29,100         2,275        45,500
 fittings \g\...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Compared to baseline emissions of 26,510 tpy.
\b\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\c\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\d\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline.
\e\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.
\f\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\g\ EFRT = external floating roof tank; IFRT = internal floating roof tank.

    As noted for major source gasoline distribution facilities, we 
identified the use of LEL monitoring within the headspace of an 
internal floating roof tank as a means to enhance the annual 
inspections and more readily identify malfunctioning internal floating 
roofs. We estimated the cost of the LEL monitoring requirement based on 
the additional time needed to monitor LEL during the annual 
inspections. We estimated the impact of annual LEL monitoring based on 
the number of internal floating roof tanks at area source gasoline 
distribution facilities and assuming LEL monitoring identifies defects 
in 2 percent of internal floating roofs resulting in a 2 percent 
reduction in the baseline emissions for internal floating roof tanks. 
Based on our review of available LEL monitoring data, we expect that 
this is a conservative estimate of the emission reductions that would 
be achieved. Table 14 of this document summarizes the projected impact 
of requiring annual LEL monitoring for internal floating roof tanks as 
part of the annual roof-top inspections for different types of area 
source gasoline distribution facilities. Our assessment of LEL 
monitoring at area sources is summarized in the memorandum ``Area 
Source Technology Review for the Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, 
Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0371.

                                         Table 14--Nationwide LEL Monitoring Impacts for Area Source Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        TAC \a\  w/o     TAC \a\  w/
                                                                       VOC emission       product          product       CE \b\  ($/ton   CE \b\  ($/ton
                           Facility type                                reduction      recovery  ($/    recovery  ($/         VOC)           HAP) \c\
                                                                          (tpy)             yr)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area Source Facilities.......................................             430          353,200          146,700              341            6,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs; there are no annualized cost of capital for this option.
\b\ Cost effectiveness (CE).
\c\ HAP content assumed to be 5% of VOC.

    Because area source gasoline distribution facilities are expected 
to have smaller storage tanks on average than major source facilities, 
LEL monitoring is expected to be somewhat less cost-effective for area 
source facilities than major source facilities. Nonetheless, LEL 
monitoring is projected to have costs of $6,800 per ton of HAP reduced 
when applied to internal floating roof tanks at area source gasoline 
distribution facilities. We consider these costs to be reasonable. 
Therefore, we are proposing to require LEL monitoring as part of the 
annual visual inspections conducted for internal floating roof tanks at 
area source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations.
4. Standards for Equipment Leaks
    All gasoline distribution rules (40 CFR part 60, subpart XX; 40 CFR 
part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB) have standards for equipment leaks from 
equipment components in gasoline or gasoline vapor service. The current 
leak detection and repair (LDAR) program requirements rely on 
identifying leaks using AVO methods. We reviewed Federal, state, and 
local requirements for identifying and repairing equipment leaks. 
Although the option to use optical gas imaging (OGI) for monitoring 
equipment leaks has been available since 2008 in the General Provisions 
to 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 as part of an alternative work practice to 
EPA Method 21 monitoring, the EPA has only recently proposed the use of 
OGI in leak detection surveys (40 CFR part 60, Appendix K; see 86 FR 
63110, November 15, 2021). Therefore, we considered OGI monitoring as a 
potential development in equipment leak monitoring. For each subpart, 
we assessed LDAR programs based on AVO, EPA Method 21, and OGI. We 
developed a Monte Carlo model to randomly initiate leaks from 
individual equipment components present at gasoline distribution 
facilities. We assumed no leaks were present initially and randomly 
generated leaks at the facility on a monthly basis for a period of 5 
years. We assessed the emissions that occurred in the 5th year of the 
simulation to assess the relative performance of different LDAR 
programs. For more information on the Monte Carlo model and modeling 
assumptions used to assess alternative

[[Page 35626]]

equipment LDAR programs, see memorandum entitled ``Control Options for 
Equipment Leaks at Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' available in 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
    Based on our Monte Carlo simulations, we found that periodic 
monitoring using EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv 
achieved similar emission reductions as OGI monitoring at the same 
frequency. We evaluated options of (1) maintaining the monthly AVO 
inspections, (2) using instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21 or OGI 
following Appendix K) on an annual basis, (3) using instrument 
monitoring on a semiannual basis, and (4) using instrument monitoring 
on a quarterly basis. The periodic instrument requirement also includes 
a requirement to fix any readily identified leaks observed using AVO 
methods during the normal duties. The results of our assessment of 
alternative LDAR programs by rule are detailed in the following 
subsections.
    Costs for EPA Method 21 monitoring and OGI monitoring were 
developed based on information collected from equipment leak monitoring 
contractors. OGI monitoring contractors commonly include a daily 
instrument rental charge, but they can monitor many more components per 
day than EPA Method 21 monitoring contractors. For facilities with a 
large number of equipment components to be monitored, OGI monitoring 
costs less than EPA Method 21 monitoring (the savings in time to 
conduct OGI monitoring more than makes up for the equipment rental 
charge). However, for facilities with a small number of equipment 
components to be monitored, EPA Method 21 monitoring costs less than 
OGI monitoring because the time saving to conduct OGI monitoring is not 
significant enough to cover the added equipment rental charge. When 
evaluating ``instrument monitoring'' costs for different types of 
gasoline distribution facilities, we assumed facilities would elect to 
use the lowest cost instrument monitoring option between EPA Method 21 
and OGI. For more information on the cost assumptions used to assess 
alternative equipment LDAR programs, see memorandum ``Control Options 
for Equipment Leaks at Gasoline Distribution Facilities'' available in 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
a. NESHAP Subpart R
    The major source rule contains equipment leak standards for bulk 
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. Prior to the initial 
performance test, the major source rule requires equipment leak 
monitoring to be conducted using EPA Method 21 using a leak definition 
of 500 parts per million (ppm). The major source rule also requires 
subsequent monitoring monthly and allows the use of any leak 
identification method, including AVO techniques. We evaluated the 
current monthly AVO inspection requirements with LDAR programs based on 
periodic instrument monitoring.
    Table 15 of this document summarizes the projected impacts of 
requiring periodic instrument monitoring combined with a general 
requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods) during normal 
duties. For the major source gasoline distribution facilities (bulk 
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations), OGI is the least 
costly of the instrument monitoring alternatives. Annual OGI instrument 
monitoring was projected to result in cost savings compared to monthly 
AVO inspections and semi-annual instrument monitoring was projected to 
be about the same cost as monthly AVO inspections. Even with 
uncertainty in the relative performance of monthly AVO monitoring, we 
conclude that periodic instrument monitoring along with a general 
requirement to fix any readily identified leaks during the normal 
course of activities yields similar to better reductions at a net cost 
savings. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the 
memorandum ``Major Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution 
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) 
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                               Table 15--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options for Major Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              TAC \b\  w/o   TAC \b\  w/
                                                                 VOC  emissions   VOC emission     TCI \a\       product       product     CE \c\  ($/   CE \c\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/
                             Option                                   (tpy)         reduction      ($1000)      recovery      recovery      ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\
                                                                                      (tpy)                    ($1000/yr)    ($1000/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (monthly inspection).......................................           1,124
Annual instrument \f\..........................................             664             461        217.5          -380          -602        -1,310       -13,100        -1,310       -13,100
Semiannual instrument \f\......................................             439             686        217.5         -47.8          -377          -550        -5,550           999         9,990
Quarterly instrument \f\.......................................             309             816        217.5           557           166           203         2,030         4,170        41,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ HAP content assumed to be 10% of VOC.
\e\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\f\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified, however,
  connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

    The semiannual instrument monitoring is projected to yield a net 
cost savings compared to monthly AVO inspections. The incremental cost-
effectiveness from going from annual to semiannual instrument 
monitoring is just under $10,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. 
Taken together, we determined that semiannual instrument monitoring is 
cost effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness of going to 
quarterly instrument monitoring is over $40,000 per ton of HAP 
emissions reduced; therefore, we determined this option is not cost-
effective. Considering the developments in equipment leak monitoring 
practices, we are proposing to require semiannual instrument monitoring 
for major source gasoline distribution facilities.
b. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The area source rule contains equipment leak standards for bulk 
gasoline terminals, pipeline breakout stations, bulk gasoline plants, 
and pipeline pumping stations. Prior to the initial performance test, 
the area source

[[Page 35627]]

rule requires equipment leak monitoring to be conducted using EPA 
Method 21 using a leak definition of 500 ppm. The area source rule 
requires subsequent monitoring monthly and allows the use of any leak 
identification method, including AVO techniques. We evaluated the 
current monthly AVO inspection requirements with LDAR programs based on 
periodic instrument monitoring.
    Table 16 of this document shows the estimated impacts of applying 
instrument monitoring for equipment leaks at area source gasoline 
distribution facilities. For the smaller area source facilities, EPA 
Method 21 was generally less costly than OGI as an instrument 
monitoring method. For the larger area sources, we expect facilities to 
use OGI. The annual instrument monitoring requirement combined with a 
general requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods) 
during the normal course of activities is projected to be less costly 
than monthly AVO and yield additional emission reductions. Thus, we 
determined that annual instrument monitoring is cost effective. The 
relative cost of moving from annual monitoring to semi-annual 
monitoring is approximately $18,000 per ton of HAP removed which we 
determined is not cost-effective. Therefore, semi-annual instrument 
monitoring was rejected because of the high incremental cost-
effectiveness compared to annual instrument monitoring and we are 
proposing to require annual instrument monitoring combined with a 
requirement to repair any leaks identified (i.e., observed using AVO 
methods) during the course of regular business activities. Again, EPA 
is seeking comment on adopting more protective standards at costs above 
levels that we generally consider to be cost effective for these type 
of HAP given that many of these sources are located in highly populated 
areas where the communities surrounding these facilities already have 
the potential to be overburdened from multiple sources of air 
pollution. Our assessment of control options is summarized in the 
memorandum ``Area Source Technology Review for the Gasoline 
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities 
NESHAP'' in EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

                                Table 16--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options for Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              TAC \b\  w/o   TAC \b\  w/
                                                                 VOC  emissions   VOC emission     TCI \a\       product       product     CE \c\  ($/   CE \c\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/  ICE \e\  ($/
                             Option                                   (tpy)         reduction      ($1000)      recovery      recovery      ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\    ton VOC)    ton HAP) \d\
                                                                                      (tpy)                    ($1000/yr)    ($1000/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO............................................................          17,080
Annual instrument \f\..........................................           9,800           7,280        5,750        -4,180        -7,670        -1,050       -10,500        -1,050       -10,500
Semiannual instrument \f\......................................           6,950          10,100        5,750         2,290        -2,570          -254        -2,540         1,790        17,900
Quarterly instrument \f\.......................................           5,320          11,800        5,750        14,600         8,980           764         7,640         7,100        71,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ HAP content assumed to be 10% of VOC.
\e\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\f\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified, however,
  connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

c. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The NSPS subpart XX contains equipment leak standards for bulk 
gasoline terminals. Prior to the initial performance test, the NSPS 
requires monitoring to be conducted of the vapor collection system 
using EPA Method 21 using a leak definition of 10,000 ppm. The NSPS 
also requires subsequent monitoring of the loading racks, vapor 
collection system and vapor processing system monthly using any leak 
identification method, including AVO techniques.
    Regarding monitoring requirements prior to performance tests, we 
determined that these requirements are effective requirements for the 
closed vent system used to transfer vapors from the loading racks to 
the control system. Generally, the EPA requires these closed vent 
systems to operate with no detectable emissions (which is defined as 
less than 500 ppmv above background using EPA Method 21). Both major 
and area source NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB require the monitoring of 
the vapor collection system prior to a performance test using this no 
detectable emissions threshold (500 ppmv using EPA Method 21). 
Consistent with current practices for closed vent systems, we are 
proposing in subpart XXa to require that monitoring of the vapor 
collection system prior to a performance test be conducted using EPA 
Method 21 and that the vapor collection system be operated with no 
detectable emissions (no leaks greater than 500 ppmv).
    For the ongoing leak monitoring requirements, we evaluated the 
current monthly AVO inspection requirements compared to LDAR programs 
based on periodic instrument monitoring along with a general 
requirement to fix any leaks identified (via AVO methods) during the 
normal course of activities. Table 17 of this document provides 
estimated costs for newly affected bulk gasoline terminals. When 
considering VOC emission impacts, the overall cost effectiveness of the 
quarterly monitoring option is $259 per ton VOC reduced and the 
incremental cost effectiveness of quarterly monitoring compared to 
semi-annual monitoring is $4,020 per ton of VOC reduced. Taken 
together, we determined that quarterly instrument monitoring is cost 
effective for reducing VOC emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to 
require quarterly monitoring for bulk gasoline terminals in NSPS 
subpart XXa along with a general requirement to fix any leaks 
identified (via AVO methods) during normal duties. Our assessment of 
control options is summarized in the memorandum ``New Source 
Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals'' in EPA 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.

[[Page 35628]]

               Table 17--Estimated Emissions and Cost Impacts of Equipment Leak Control Options per Newly Affected Bulk Gasoline Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            TAC \b\ w/o     TAC \b\  w/
                                          VOC  emissions   VOC emission                       product         product     CE \c\  ($/ton   ICE \d\  ($/
                 Option                        (tpy)         reduction     TCI \a\  ($)    recovery  ($/   recovery  ($/       VOC)          ton VOC)
                                                               (tpy)                            yr)             yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (monthly inspection)................            4.47
Annual instrument \e\...................            2.64            1.83           1,000          -1,240          -2,120          -1,160          -1,160
Semiannual instrument \e\...............            1.74            2.73           1,000              60          -1,250            -458             962
Quarterly instrument \e\................            1.22            3.25           1,000           2,405             843             259           4,020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total capital investment (TCI).
\b\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annual operating costs and annualized cost of capital.
\c\ Cost effectiveness (CE) compared to baseline (AVO).
\d\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) compared to previous option in table.
\e\ Facilities would be allowed to select EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring. If EPA Method 21 is selected, valves and pumps would be required to be
  monitored at the frequency specified, however, connectors are only monitored annually. If OGI is selected, all applicable valves, pumps, and
  connectors would be required to be monitored at the frequency specified.

B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for 
those actions?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing to remove exemptions from the requirement to comply during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). We also are 
proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to 
require the use of electronic reporting of performance test reports and 
semiannual reports. We also are proposing to correct section reference 
errors and make other minor editorial revisions. Our rationale and 
proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 
2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the 
CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature 
and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some 
section 112 standards apply continuously. With the issuance of the 
mandate in Sierra Club v EPA, the exemption language in 63.6(f)(1) and 
(h)(1) are null and void and any cross reference to those provisions 
have no effect.
    In March 2021, the EPA issued a rule \8\ to reflect the court 
vacatur that revised the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to remove 
the SSM exemptions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). In this action, we 
are proposing to eliminate references to these SSM exemptions that are 
null and void, remove any additional SSM exemptions or references to 
SSM exemptions, and remove any cross-references to provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63 (General Provisions) that are unnecessary, inappropriate or 
redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA determined the 
reasoning in the court's decision in Sierra Club applies equally to CAA 
section 111. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards that we 
are proposing in NSPS subpart XXa would apply at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption From Emission Standards 
During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86 FR 13819, 
March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption in NESHAP Subpart R
    We are proposing the elimination of the vacated exemption provision 
and several revisions to Table 1 of this document, (the General 
Provisions Applicability Table to subpart R of part 63, hereafter 
referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart R'') as is 
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we 
are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant 
in the absence of the SSM exemption.
    The EPA considers that processes at Gasoline Distribution 
facilities are not continuous and that there will be variation in 
emission stream characteristics over time. The standards consider this 
variation and provide sources the ability to meet the standards at all 
times. Therefore, we have not proposed alternate standards for startup 
and shutdown.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2 
and 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 
112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction 
to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this 
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar 
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Therefore, the standards 
that apply during normal operation apply during periods of malfunction.
    We are also proposing the following revisions to the General 
Provisions table to subpart R as detailed below.
1. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to 
``no.'' Section 63.6(e) describes the general duty to minimize 
emissions and requirements for an SSM plan. Some of the language in 
that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add 
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.420(k) that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the

[[Page 35629]]

general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the 
SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal 
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing 
the general duty. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are 
not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are 
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 
63.420(k). Therefore, in addition to changing the applicability of 
63.6(e) from ``yes'' to ``no'' in the table, the language the EPA is 
proposing for 40 CFR 63.420(k) does not include the language from 40 
CFR 63.6(e)
2. SSM Plan
    As noted in the previous paragraph, the proposed revisions to the 
General Provisions table to subpart R for 40 CFR 63.6(e) will also 
remove provisions to that require an SSM plan. Generally, the 
paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan 
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. 
Therefore, affected units are subject to an emission standard during 
such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will 
ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve 
compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) from ``yes'' in column 2 to ``no.'' As 
noted above, with the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v EPA, the 
exemption language in 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) are null and void and any 
cross reference to those provisions have no effect. The EPA amended 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the court order 
and revise the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. However, the second 
sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the 
existence of an exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the 
exemption. Thus, rather than cross-referencing 63.6(f)(1), we are 
adding the language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires compliance with 
standards at all times to the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.420(k). The 
court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards 
apply continuously.
    As noted in the General Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(h), there are no opacity standards in NESHAP subpart R, so the 
General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(h) were marked as ``no'' in column 2. 
There are visible emissions observations for flares, so we are 
proposing to revise the comment in column 3 to note that NESHAP subpart 
R specifies the requirements for visible emissions observations for 
flares.
4. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.425(a). The performance testing requirements 
we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance 
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not 
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM 
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from 
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions specifically note 
the batch operation of gasoline loading operations and include periods 
when cargo tanks are being changed out when a full cargo tank is 
disconnected, and a new cargo tank is moved into position for loading. 
As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart 
should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the 
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary 
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Section 63.7(e)(1) requires that the owner or operator make 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does 
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory 
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that 
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
5. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R of Part 63 by adding separate entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 
(iii) and including a ``no'' in column 2. The cross-references to the 
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not 
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring 
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the major source General Provisions 
table to subpart R of Part 63 by splitting the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) 
into two separate entries, one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1) and (2) and 
retaining the ``yes'' in column 2 and one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and 
including a ``no'' in column 2. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) 
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no 
longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add provisions to subpart R 
at 40 CFR 63.428(d)(4) that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except 
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The 
program of corrective action should be included in the plan as required 
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
6. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R of Part 63 by adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), 
(ii), (iv) and (v) and including a ``no'' in column 2.
     Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements for startup and shutdown periods when the source exceeds 
any applicable emission limitation in a relevant standard and section 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements for 
malfunctions. We are instead proposing to add recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of for all exceedances.
    The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.428(g). 
The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General 
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the 
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of 
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR 
63.428(g) that sources keep records that include a list of the affected 
source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the 
standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and

[[Page 35630]]

a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that 
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is 
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any 
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how 
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source 
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv), when 
applicable, requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events 
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 63.428(g).
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(v), when 
applicable, requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events 
to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The 
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer 
be required.
     We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart R of Part 63 by adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) 
and including a ``no'' in column 2. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an 
owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept 
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 
40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R of Part 63 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 
requirements for SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting 
requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 
CFR 63.428(m). The replacement language differs from the General 
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources 
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in the semiannual report already 
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain 
the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source 
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments at 
63.10(d)(5), therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required 
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These 
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    The proposed amendments at 63.10(d)(5) will also eliminate the 
cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) 
describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions 
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow 
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners or operators to report 
when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not 
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
b. Proposed Revisions To Address SSM Provisions in NESHAP Subpart 
BBBBBB
    We are proposing to remove references to malfunction throughout 
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB. Specifically, we are removing the requirements 
at 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(iv), 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(iv), 
63.11092(d)(4), 63.11095(b)(4), and 63.11095(d) and revising the 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(v), 
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(v), 63.11092(d), 63.11092(d)(3), 
63.11094(f)(4), and 63.11094(g). We are also proposing limited 
revisions to Table 4 of this document (as proposed, formerly Table 3), 
the General Provisions Applicability Table to subpart BBBBBB of part 
63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart 
BBBBBB'' to address selected SSM provisions. NESHAP subpart BBBBBB was 
amended on January 24, 2011 (76 FR 4156) to address SSM provisions. We 
are proposing one additional SSM revision. Specifically, we are 
proposing to revise the area source General Provisions table to subpart 
BBBBBB by splitting the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) into two separate 
entries, one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)-(2) and retaining the ``yes'' in 
column 2 and one for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in column 
2. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General 
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA 
is proposing to add provisions to subpart BBBBBB at 40 CFR 63.11094(h) 
that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence 
is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective 
action should be included in the plan as required under Sec.  
63.8(d)(2).''
c. Proposal of NSPS Subpart XXa Without SSM Exemptions
    We are proposing standards in the NSPS subpart XXa that apply at 
all times. We are proposing that emission limits will apply at all 
times, including during SSM. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 
60.8(c) contains an exemption from non-opacity standards. We are 
proposing in NSPS subpart XXa specific requirements at 40 CFR 
60.500a(c) that override the general provisions for SSM. We are 
proposing that all standards in NSPS subpart XXa apply at all times.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups 
and shutdowns are part of normal operations at Bulk

[[Page 35631]]

Gasoline Terminals. The proposed emission standards adequately control 
emissions during these startup and shutdown periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). 
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that 
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law 
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what 
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission 
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While 
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, the 
EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the 
type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations 
of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels EPA to 
consider such events in setting section 111 standards of performance. 
The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances 
(setting ``achievable'' standards under section 112) has been upheld as 
reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 
579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of gasoline 
distribution facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-
annual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in 
the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for 
this action.
    The proposed rules require that performance test results collected 
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting 
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \9\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an 
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance 
evaluation results of CEMS measuring relative accuracy test audit 
pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must 
be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an 
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and 
other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the 
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semi-annual reports, the proposed rules require that owner and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for 
these reports are included in the docket for this action.\10\ The EPA 
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Gasoline Distribution Semiannual Reporting Template, 
available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These 
circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude 
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that 
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with 
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force 
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. 
The EPA is providing these potential extensions in NSPS subpart XXa to 
protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they 
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for 
reasons outside of their control. In both circumstances, the decision 
to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the 
discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as 
possible. These potential extensions are not necessary to add to NESHAP 
subpart R and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, because they were recently added 
to the part 63, subpart A, General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.9(k).
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in these proposed 
rulemakings will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \11\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \12\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\13\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \12\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \13\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    We are proposing several technical amendments and definition 
revisions to improve the clarity and enforceability of the provision of 
the gasoline distribution facility standards. These additional proposed 
revisions and our rationale for the proposed revisions are described in 
this section.

[[Page 35632]]

a. Applicability Equations in NESHAP Subpart R
    The current major source rule includes applicability equations that 
can be used to exempt facilities from the major source requirements. 
The equations exclude all bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout 
stations with an emissions screening factor (Et or 
Ep, respectively) of less than one. Upon reviewing the 
applicability equations, we determined the equations can potentially 
exempt facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions. 
Specifically, it is possible for gasoline storage tanks to be larger 
and have higher emissions than the model tanks used to derive the 
applicability equation. Additionally, the terms used in the different 
equations, particularly the fixed roof tank term, are different. A 
combination of tanks that exceeds 1 (indicating major source facility) 
using the equation in paragraph 40 CFR 63.420(b) for pipeline breakout 
stations can be below 1 (suggesting an area source facility) using the 
equation in paragraph 40 CFR 63.420(a) for bulk gasoline terminals. 
Thus, it appears some true major source facilities may only need to 
comply with major equipment counts associated with these applicability 
equations and not have ongoing requirements to ensure, for example, 
their floating roof seals are intact. Additionally, facilities that 
used these equations to become exempt from the major source rule are 
not covered by the area source rule if they are truly major sources of 
HAP emissions. In meeting with industry representatives, none of the 
industry representatives indicated that they used these equations to 
determine applicability with the rule. Therefore, we are proposing to 
remove the applicability equations in the major source rule to ensure 
that all major sources are subject to the emission limitations in 
NESHAP subpart R.
b. Definitions of Bulk Gasoline Terminal, Pipeline Breakout Station, 
and Pipeline Pumping Station
    The major source rule applies to bulk gasoline terminals and to 
pipeline breakout stations. These terms are defined, but there appears 
to be significant potential overlap in these definitions. Based on the 
applicability equations and the fact that the loading rack requirements 
apply only to bulk gasoline terminals, the key difference between a 
bulk gasoline terminal and a pipeline breakout station is the presence 
(or absence) of gasoline loading racks. Application of subpart R 
requirements to ``pipeline breakout station'' facilities that have 
loading racks is inconsistent. We identified a title V permit that 
considers these separate affected facilities, with one portion of the 
facility regulated as a pipeline breakout station and the loading racks 
(and perhaps associated tanks and equipment) regulated as a bulk 
gasoline terminal. We also identified a title V permit where the 
loading racks at a pipeline breakout station were listed as having no 
applicable Federal requirements. To ensure consistent application of 
the rule and to clarify that all loading racks at major source 
facilities are to comply with the loading rack requirements in 40 CFR 
63.422, we are proposing to clarify the definitions of ``bulk gasoline 
terminal'' to clearly delineate that these facilities load gasoline 
into cargo tanks (i.e., have gasoline loading racks). Similarly, we are 
proposing to clarify the definitions of ``pipeline breakout stations'' 
to clearly delineate that these facilities do not have gasoline loading 
racks and that if a facility loads gasoline into cargo tanks, that 
facility is a bulk gasoline terminal. Since the requirements for 
storage vessels and equipment leak are the same for these facility 
types, the only difference the proposed revisions make is to clarify 
that loading racks at facilities that primarily transport gasoline via 
pipeline are still required to be meet the emission limitations for 
gasoline loading racks.
    We are also proposing similar definitions for area source standards 
(NESHAP subpart BBBBBB) and for NSPS subpart XXa. At 40 CFR 63.11088 of 
the area source NESHAP, the header includes bulk gasoline terminals, 
pipeline breakout stations and pipeline pumping stations. However, 
Table 2 to subpart BBBBBB only specifies loading rack control 
requirements for ``bulk gasoline terminal loading rack(s).'' The 
proposed revisions to bulk gasoline terminals, pipeline breakout 
stations and pipeline pumping stations clarify that pipeline breakout 
stations and pipeline pumping stations do not contain loading racks. We 
are also proposing to revise the header of 40 CFR 63.11088 to delete 
reference to pipeline breakout stations or pipeline pumping stations. 
For the NSPS subpart XXa, we are simply proposing the definition of 
bulk gasoline terminals consistent with the definitions being proposed 
in the major and area source NESHAP.
c. Definition of Gasoline
    We are also proposing to add a definition of gasoline to NESHAP 
subpart R to clarify the definition of gasoline that applies to this 
subpart. The proposed definition is based on the definition in NSPS 
subpart XX and is consistent with the definition of gasoline in both 
NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart BBBBBB.
d. Definition of Submerged Filling
    Because we are proposing in NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R 
to require submerged filling when loading cargo tanks, we are also 
proposing to add a definition of ``submerged filling'' similar to the 
definition include in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB to clearly define this term 
for use in complying with the proposed requirements for submerged 
filling. Specifically, submerged filling is either the use of a pipe 
whose discharge is no more than the 6 inches from the bottom of the 
tank or the use of bottom filling. The proposed definitions of 
``submerged filling'' in NSPS subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R do not 
include references to stationary storage tanks that are included in the 
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB definition of ``submerged filling'' because NSPS 
subpart XXa and NESHAP subpart R do not require submerged filling of 
storage tanks (although the floating roof requirements essentially 
demand use of submerged filling).
e. Definition of Flare and Thermal Oxidation System
    We are proposing to further clarify the distinction between a flare 
and a thermal oxidation system. For the gasoline distribution rules, 
the term flare refers to thermal combustion system using an open flame 
(without enclosure), whereas a thermal oxidation system has an enclosed 
combustion chamber. Some flares may have shrouds or other ``partial'' 
enclosures, which make it difficult to classify these devices based on 
the current definitions. We are proposing to clarify the definition of 
a flare to include shrouded flares or flares with partial enclosures 
that are insufficient to capture the emitted pollutants and convey them 
to the atmosphere in a conveyance that can be used to conduct a 
performance test to determine the emissions. Thus, a performance test 
cannot be performed on a flare. We are also proposing to clarify that 
thermal oxidation systems are enclosed to the point that the pollutants 
are emitted through a conveyance that affords quantification of 
emissions through application of performance tests. This clarification 
is consistent with the current requirements to conduct initial 
performance tests for thermal oxidation systems but not for flares.

[[Page 35633]]

f. Additional Part 63 General Provision Revisions
    We are proposing to correct a typographical error in the General 
Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40 CFR ``63.1(a)(6)(8)'' to 
delete ``(8)''. We expect that this was meant to reference paragraphs 
``(a)(6)-(8)'' but paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) are reserved. Therefore, 
we are proposing to delete the ``(8)'' from this entry and add 
reference to paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) with the existing reference to 
40 CFR 63.1(a)(9) so the entry reads ``63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9). We are 
proposing to revise the comment in column 3 to note these sections 
(plural) are reserved.
    We are proposing to correct a typographical error in the General 
Provisions table to subpart R entry for 40 CFR ``63.1(a)(12))-(14)'' to 
delete ``)-(14)''. Paragraph (a)(12) is the last paragraph in 40 CFR 
63.1(a) and the added ``)'' is a typographical error.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.1(b)(3) to change the ``no'' in column 2 to 
``yes'' and revise the comment in column 3. Paragraph (b)(3) requires 
records be kept for stationary sources within the source category, but 
not subject to the relevant standard. The comment explaining the ``no'' 
indicated that ``Subpart R specifies reporting and recordkeeping for 
some large area sources in Sec.  63.428.'' As noted in section 
III.B.3.a, we are proposing to remove the applicability equations and 
related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Therefore, we are 
proposing that the General Provisions requirements in 40 CFR 63.1(b)(3) 
apply and revising the comment to note ``Except that subpart R 
specifies additional reporting and recordkeeping for some large area 
sources in Sec.  63.428. These additional requirements only apply prior 
to the date the applicability equations are no longer applicable.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to add a row for 40 
CFR 63.7(a)(4) and indicating a ``yes'' in the appropriate column. This 
is a recently added paragraph in the NESHAP General Provisions that 
describes procedures for requesting an extension in the case a force 
majeure event delays required performance testing. This paragraph did 
not exist in the NESHAP General Provisions when the major source and 
area source standards were developed, so no reference to this paragraph 
was included. We consider these provisions reasonable and should be 
available for Gasoline Distribution facilities in the unlikely event 
performance testing is delayed due to a force majeure event.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR 
63.7(g) and 63.8(e) to add that subparts R and BBBBBB specify how and 
when the performance test and performance evaluation results are 
reported. We are revising these comments to note that there are 
specific performance test and performance evaluation results reporting 
requirements in the major source and area source rules.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R rows for 40 CFR 63.1(c)(4), 63.5(b)(5), and 63.9(b)(3) from ``yes'' 
in column 2 to ``no'' because these paragraphs are reserved. We are 
proposing to indicate these paragraphs are reserved in column 3. We are 
also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart R row 
for 40 CFR ``63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)'' to ``63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)'' because 40 
CFR 63.4(a)(3) is reserved and no longer applies. We are also proposing 
to revise the General Provisions table to subpart R row for 40 CFR 
``63.4(a)(4)'' to ``63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)'' to add reference to paragraph 
(a)(3) which we are proposing to remove from the previous table entry 
and to add reference to paragraph (a)(5) and delete the entry for 40 
CFR 63.4(a)(5). Paragraph (a)(5) is also reserved and no longer 
applies. We are proposing to revise the comment in column 3 for 
``63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)'' to note these sections (plural) are reserved.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2) from ``no'' in column 2 to ``yes'' and 
revising the comment to, ``Except subpart R allows additional time for 
existing sources to submit initial notification. Sec. 63.428(a) 
specifies submittal by 1 year after being subject to the rule or 
December 16, 1996, whichever is later.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
BBBBBB to add a row for 40 CFR 63.9(b)(3) and indicating that this 
paragraph is reserved. This follows the manner in which reserved 
sections are included elsewhere in the General Provisions table to 
subpart R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB (rather than 
being omitted).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1) through (3) to add that subpart R 
specifies how to submit the Notification of Compliance Status. We are 
revising this comment to note that there are specific submittal 
requirements in the major source rule.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
BBBBBB entry for 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1)-(6) to provide separate entry 
``63.9(h)(4)'' from ``63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6)'' and including 
``[Reserved]'' in column 2 of the new 40 CFR 63.9(h)(4) entry because 
this General Provision paragraph is reserved. We are also proposing to 
revise the note for the revised entry 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6) to 
read ``Yes, except as specified in Sec.  63.11095(c)'' rather than 
``Yes, except as specified in Sec.  63.11095(a)(4); also, there are no 
opacity standards'' because we proposed revisions to reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11095 and proposed visible emission 
requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R and the General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR 
63.9(k) to delete, ``only as specified in Sec.  63.9(j).''
    We are also proposing to clarify the General Provisions table to 
subpart BBBBBB entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c) to include ``Subpart BBBBBB 
specifies CMS records.'' As described in section III.B.1 of this 
preamble, we are also proposing revisions to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB 
recordkeeping requirements that detail the CMS records that must be 
kept, and we are proposing to include this additional note to clarify 
that these recordkeeping requirements apply rather than those outlined 
in the General Provisions.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R and General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB entries for 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(2) from ``yes'' to ``no'' because the subparts specify how and 
when the performance test results are reported. We are revising these 
comments to note that there are specific performance test and 
performance evaluation results reporting requirements in the major 
source and area source rules.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(3) from ``yes'' to ``no'' because subpart R 
specifies reporting requirements for visible emissions observations for 
flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R to provide separate entries for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2) through 
(4) and by changing the entries for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(2) through (4) from 
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' We are also proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to revise the entries for 40 
CFR 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii), (iv)-(v), (vi)-(viii), and (e)(4) from 
``yes'' in column 4 to a

[[Page 35634]]

``no.'' Given the transition to electronic reporting as described in 
section III.B.2 of this preamble, we are also proposing to include 
electronic reporting for CEMS performance evaluations in the major and 
area source rules so the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10(e)(2) 
are no longer applicable. Also, as described in section III.B.1 of this 
preamble, we are proposing all relevant CEMS deviation reporting 
requirements directly in 40 CFR 63.428(l) and similar reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11095(e), rather than relying on cross-
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). These edits are not expected to alter 
the reporting burden; however, the direct inclusion of the 40 CFR 
63.10(e)(3) reporting requirements into 40 CFR 63.428(l) and 40 CFR 
63.11095(e) will provide clarity of the reporting requirements to 
gasoline distribution owners and operators.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R entry for 40 CFR 63.11(a)-(b) to add the comment, ``Except these 
provisions no longer apply upon compliance with the provisions in Sec.  
63.425(a)(2) for flares to meet the requirements specified in 
Sec. Sec.  60.502a(c)(3) and 60.504a(c) of this chapter.''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
BBBBBB to include missing entries for 40 CFR 63.11(a) and 63.11(c)-(e). 
40 CFR 63.11(a) specifies the applicability of Sec.  63.11 and we are 
proposing to include ``yes'' in column 4 to clarify that this paragraph 
applies. 40 CFR 63.11(c)-(e) describe alternative work practice 
standards for using optical gas imaging as an alternative to EPA Method 
21 for monitoring equipment for leaks. We are proposing to include 
``no'' in column 4 because the proposed leak monitoring provisions 
specifically allow the use of optical gas imaging for leak detection.
    We are also proposing for revise the comment in column 4 of the 
entry for 40 CFR 63.11(b) to read, ``Yes, until compliance with the 
flare provisions in Item 2.b of Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB.'' As 
described in Section III.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing more 
detailed provisions for operating and monitoring flares to ensure the 
performance of flares used as control devices. After compliance with 
these flare provisions in Item 2.b of Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB, the 
provisions in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB apply rather than those specified 
in for 40 CFR 63.11(b).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R to revise the entries for 40 CFR 63.12(a)-(c) from ``63.12(a)-(c)'' 
to ``63.12'', for 40 CFR 63.13(a)-(c) from ``63.13(a)-(c)'' to 
``63.13'', for 40 CFR 63.14(a)-(b) from ``63.14(a)-(b)'' to ``63.14'', 
and for 40 CFR 63.15(a)-(b) from ``63.15(a)-(b)'' to ``63.15''.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
R and the General Provisions table to subpart BBBBBB to add a row for 
40 CFR 63.16 and indicating a ``yes'' in the appropriate column. This 
paragraph in the NESHAP General Provisions, which describes special 
reporting provision for Performance Track member facilities procedures, 
was missing from the major source and area source General Provisions 
tables and adding it provides clarity regarding the applicability of 
these special provisions.
g. Editorial Corrections
    The EPA is proposing an additional change that addresses technical 
and editorial corrections for 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB as 
follows.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.11100, definition of ``vapor-tight 
gasoline cargo tank'' to update cross-reference to annual certification 
test requirements from in Sec.  63.11092(f) to Sec.  63.11092(g) based 
on location of this provision in the proposed amendments.

C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale 
for the proposed compliance dates?

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The EPA is not proposing to revise the primary loading rack 
emission limits for the major source NESHAP subpart R; however, we are 
proposing to revise the format of the standard and certain testing and 
monitoring provisions. We are proposing to maintain the current 
compliance options until the time that a new performance test or 
performance evaluation is conducted. We are proposing that performance 
tests for loading racks with thermal oxidation systems be required at 
least once every 60 months. We are proposing that owners or operators 
must conduct a performance test within three years of the promulgation 
of the proposed standards if the thermal oxidation system has not been 
tested by that time in the past 60 months. Because we are proposing to 
revise the ongoing performance requirements in some cases, we consider 
three years is as expedient as can be required for facilities that may 
have to purchase and install new monitoring systems. For vapor recovery 
systems, we are proposing to revise the format of the standard and 
require a CEMS to demonstrate continuous compliance. While we expect 
most vapor recovery systems have continuous TOC monitors, some owners 
or operators may need to upgrade their monitoring system to comply with 
the proposed CEMS requirements. We consider 3 years is as expedient as 
can be required considering the potential need to upgrade or replace 
TOC monitoring systems. For facilities using flares, we are proposing 
to require the more detailed requirements in the Refinery MACT Rule (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC). For these provisions, we allow up to 3 years 
to meet the new operating and monitoring requirements, consistent with 
the timeframe we provided for petroleum refineries when first proposing 
those requirements. The new requirements may require substantial 
upgrades to monitoring systems and 3 years is as expedient as can be 
required considering the number of monitoring systems to be upgraded.
    We are proposing revisions to the cargo tank vapor tightness 
requirements apply no later than 3 years after the promulgation date of 
the proposed standards. Facilities that conduct the cargo tank 
certifications will need time to review and implement the new vapor 
tightness requirements and it will take at least one year after they 
implement the new vapor tightness requirements before the fleet of 
cargo tanks can be certified at the new vapor tightness levels.
    We are proposing revisions to the storage vessel requirements for 
both internal and external floating roofs. For external floating roofs, 
we are proposing to require fitting controls, which will require the 
degassing of the storage vessel. We are proposing that these controls 
be installed at the first degassing of the storage vessel after 3 years 
from the promulgation date of the proposed standards, but in no case 
more than 10 years from the promulgation date of the proposed 
standards. We are allowing 3 years to identify storage vessels that 
need to be upgraded and identify appropriate fitting control systems 
that need to be installed. We are allowing up to 10 years in order to 
align the installation of the controls with a planned degassing event, 
to the extent practicable, to minimize the offsetting emissions that 
occur due to a degassing event solely to install the fitting controls. 
For internal floating roofs, we are proposing to add LEL monitoring 
requirements. Compliance with this requirement may require significant 
upgrades of the internal floating roof. For example, internal floating 
roofs are typically installed in pieces, with the pieces either welded 
or riveted together. Welded roofs do not have ``seam'' emissions 
whereas riveted roofs have emission losses from these seams. While

[[Page 35635]]

the current rule requirements do not prohibit the use of riveted seams 
for the internal floating roof, poor rivet closures along the seams 
could result in excess emissions wherein the LEL limit may be exceeded. 
In these cases, it is likely a new roof would need to be installed, or 
at minimum, the seams repaired or welded. Because the LEL emissions 
limitation may require full replacement of existing internal floating 
roofs, we are proposing to provide up to 3 years to comply with these 
new requirements.
    We are proposing new requirements to conduct instrument monitoring 
to identify equipment leaks. This requirement will require owners or 
operators to identify all affected equipment components, implement 
training on the new requirements, and identify contractors to conduct 
the instrument monitoring. Therefore, we are proposing to provide up to 
3 years to comply with these new requirements.
    We are proposing to phase out the applicability equations. While we 
expect very few facilities may be using these equations while otherwise 
being a major source, facilities that may be using these equations 
could require significant upgrades to their existing control systems. 
As such, we determined that three years be provided for the phase out 
of these applicability equations.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions applicability 
table to remove references to vacated provisions. As these provisions 
have been vacated for several years, we are proposing that these 
revisions be applicable upon promulgation. We do not expect any of the 
proposed revisions will increase burden to any facility and can be 
implemented without delay.
    We are proposing to require electronic reporting. We are providing 
up to 3 years to comply with these new provisions. Because we are 
proposing to allow owners or operators to comply with existing 
requirements and electronic reporting forms will not be available for 
the existing reporting requirements, it is expedient to harmonize the 
timing of the proposed revisions to the electronic reporting 
requirements with the revisions to the requirements.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The EPA is proposing to revise the primary loading rack emission 
limits for the large bulk gasoline terminals and bulk plants at area 
source gasoline distribution facilities subject to NESHAP subpart 
BBBBBB. We are also proposing to revise the format of the standard and 
certain testing and monitoring provisions. We are proposing up to 3 
years to meet the new emission limits and operating and monitoring 
requirements. These revisions may require significant control system 
upgrades and monitoring system installations. We determined that 3 
years is as expedient as can be required considering the number of 
control systems and monitoring systems to be upgraded.
    We are proposing revisions to the cargo tank vapor tightness 
requirements apply no later than 3 years after the promulgation date of 
the proposed standards. Facilities that conduct the cargo tank 
certifications will need time to review and implement the new vapor 
tightness requirements and it will take at least one year after they 
implement the new vapor tightness requirements before the fleet of 
cargo tanks can be certified at the new vapor tightness levels.
    We are proposing revisions to the storage vessel requirements for 
both internal and external floating roofs. For external floating roofs, 
we are proposing to require fitting controls, which will require the 
degassing of the storage vessel. We are proposing that these controls 
be installed at the first degassing of the storage vessel after 3 years 
from the promulgation date of the proposed standards, but in no case 
more than 10 years from the promulgation date of the proposed 
standards. We are allowing 3 years to identify storage vessels that 
need to be upgraded and identify appropriate fitting control systems 
that need to be installed. We are allowing up to 10 years in order to 
align the installation of the controls with a planned degassing event, 
to the extent practicable, to minimize the offsetting emissions that 
occur due to a degassing event solely to install the fitting controls. 
For internal floating roofs, we are proposing to add LEL monitoring 
requirements. Compliance with these requirements may require 
significant upgrades of the internal floating roof. Therefore, we are 
proposing to provide up to 3 years to comply with these new 
requirements.
    We are proposing new requirements to conduct instrument monitoring 
to identify equipment leaks. This requirement will require owners/
operators to identify all affected equipment components, implement 
training on the new requirements, and identify contractors to conduct 
the instrument monitoring. Therefore, we are proposing to provide up to 
3 years to comply with these new requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions applicability 
table to remove references to vacated provisions. As these provisions 
have been vacated for several years, we are proposing that these 
revisions be applicable upon promulgation. We do not expect any of the 
proposed revisions will increase burden to any facility and can be 
implemented without delay.
    We are proposing to require electronic reporting. We are providing 
up to 3 years to comply with these new provisions. Because we are 
proposing to allow owners or operators to comply with existing 
requirements and electronic reporting forms will not be available for 
the existing reporting requirements, it is expedient to harmonize the 
timing of the proposed revisions to the electronic reporting 
requirements with the revisions to the requirements.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    We are proposing that all bulk gasoline terminal sources that 
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after 
June 10, 2022, would need to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart XXa upon startup of the new, reconstructed or modified facility 
or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. This 
proposed compliance schedule is consistent with the requirements in 
Section 111(e) of the CAA.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are approximately 9,500 facilities subject to the Gasoline 
Distribution NESHAP and the Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS. An estimated 
210 facilities are classified as major sources and more than 9,250 are 
area sources. We estimated there would be 5 new facilities and 15 
modified/reconstructed subject to the NSPS in the next 5 years.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    This proposed action would reduce HAP and VOC emissions from the 
Gasoline Distribution NESHAP and the Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS 
sources. In comparison to baseline emissions of 6,110 tpy HAP and 
121,000 tpy VOC, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission reductions of 
approximately 2,220 and 45,400 tpy, respectively, based on our analysis 
of the proposed action described in sections III.A and B in this 
preamble. Emission reductions and secondary impacts (e.g., emission 
increases associated with supplemental fuel or additional electricity) 
by subpart are listed below.

[[Page 35636]]

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    For the major source rule, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission 
reductions of approximately 134 and 2,160 tpy, respectively, compared 
to baseline HAP and VOC emissions of 845 and 18,200 tpy. The EPA 
estimates that the proposed action would not have any secondary 
pollutant impacts. More information about the estimated emission 
reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for the major 
source rule can be found in the document, ``Major Source Technology 
Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals 
and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP.''
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    For the area source rule, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission 
reductions of approximately 2,090 and 40,300 tpy, respectively, 
compared to baseline HAP and VOC emissions of 5,260 and 99,400 tpy. The 
EPA estimates that the proposed action would result in additional 
emissions of 32,400 tpy of carbon dioxide, 19 tpy of nitrogen oxides, 
and 86 tpy of carbon monoxide. More information about the estimated 
emission reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for 
the area source rule can be found in the document, ``Area Source 
Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk 
Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP.''
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    For the NSPS, the EPA estimates VOC emission reductions of 
approximately 2,950 tpy compared to baseline emissions of 3,890 tpy. 
The EPA estimates that the proposed action would result in additional 
emissions of 2,229 tpy of carbon dioxide, 2 tpy of nitrogen oxides, and 
1 tpy of sulfur dioxide. More information about the estimated emission 
reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for the NSPS 
can be found in the document, ``New Source Performance Standards Review 
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals.''

C. What are the cost impacts?

    This proposed action would cost (in 2019 dollars) approximately 
$66.8 million in total capital costs and total annualized cost savings 
of $3.42 million per year (including product recovery), based on our 
analysis of the proposed action described in sections III.A and B of 
this preamble. Costs by rule are listed below.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    For the major source rule, the EPA estimates this proposed action 
would cost approximately $2.07 million in total capital costs and $2.11 
million per year in total annualized costs (including product 
recovery). More information about the estimated cost of this proposed 
action for the major source rule can be found in the document, ``Major 
Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk 
Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) NESHAP.''
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    For the area source rule, the EPA estimates this proposed action 
would cost approximately $57.6 million in total capital costs and have 
cost savings of $5.91 million per year in total annualized costs 
(including product recovery). More information about the estimated cost 
of this proposed action for the area source rule can be found in the 
document, ``Area Source Technology Review for Gasoline Distribution 
Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities NESHAP.''
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    For the NSPS, the EPA estimates this proposed action would cost 
approximately $7.20 million in total capital costs and $387,000 per 
year in total annualized costs (including product recovery). More 
information about the estimated cost of this proposed action for the 
NSPS can be found in the document, ``New Source Performance Standards 
Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals.''

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, 
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for this 
action. The economic impact analyses contain two parts. The economic 
impacts of the proposal on small entities are calculated as the 
percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate 
parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the 
direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of Gasoline 
Distribution facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We 
estimate the average small entity impacted by the proposal will incur 
total annualized costs of 0.42 percent of their revenue, with none 
exceeding 6.75 percent. We estimate fewer than 10 percent of impacted 
small entities will incur total annualized costs greater than 1 percent 
of their revenue, and fewer than 5 percent will incur total annualized 
costs greater than 3 percent of their revenue. This is based on a 
conservative estimate of costs imposed on ultimate parent companies, 
where total annualized costs are imposed on a facility are at the upper 
bound of what is possible under the rule and do not include product 
recovery as a credit. More explanation of these economic impacts can be 
found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) later in this preamble 
and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this proposed 
rulemaking.
    The EPA also prepared a model of the U.S. gasoline market in order 
to project changes caused by the rulemaking to the price and quantity 
of gasoline sold from 2026 to 2040. Using this model, the price of 
gasoline is projected to rise by less than .003 percent in all years 
from 2026 to 2040, whereas the quantity of gasoline consumed is 
projected to fall by less than .001 percent in all years from 2026 to 
2040. These projections consider the costs imposed by amendments to 
NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, NESHAP subpart R, and amendments to NSPS subpart 
XX (as proposed in subpart XXa).
    Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the 
industries impacted by this proposed rulemaking, and there will not be 
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of 
the proposal are not expected to result in a significant market impact, 
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed 
by the firms. The RIA for this proposed rulemaking includes more 
details and discussion of these projected impacts.

E. What are the benefits?

    The emission controls installed to comply with these proposed rules 
are expected to reduce VOC emissions which, in conjunction with 
nitrogen oxides and in the presence of sunlight, form ground-level 
ozone (O3). This section reports the estimated ozone-related 
benefits of reducing VOC emissions in terms of the number and value of 
avoided ozone-attributable deaths and illnesses.
    As a first step in quantifying O3-related human health 
impacts, the EPA consults the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
(Ozone ISA) \14\ as summarized in the Technical Support Document for 
the Final Revised Cross

[[Page 35637]]

State Air Pollution Rule Update.\15\ This document synthesizes the 
toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological evidence to determine 
whether each pollutant is causally related to an array of adverse human 
health outcomes associated with either acute (i.e., hours or days-long) 
or chronic (i.e., years-long) exposure. For each outcome, the Ozone ISA 
reports this relationship to be causal, likely to be causal, suggestive 
of a causal relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, or 
not likely to be a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. EPA (2020). Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
and Related Photochemical Oxidants. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. Washington, DC. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/
R-20/012. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants.
    \15\ U.S. EPA. 2021. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 
Ozone Season NAAQS Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-attributable_health_benefits_tsd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In brief, the Ozone ISA found short-term (less than one month) 
exposures to ozone to be causally related to respiratory effects, a 
``likely to be causal'' relationship with metabolic effects and a 
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' 
for central nervous system effects, cardiovascular effects, and total 
mortality. The Ozone ISA reported that long-term exposures (one month 
or longer) to ozone are ``likely to be causal'' for respiratory effects 
including respiratory mortality, and a ``suggestive of, but not 
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' for cardiovascular 
effects, reproductive effects, central nervous system effects, 
metabolic effects, and total mortality.
    For all estimates, we summarized the monetized ozone-related health 
benefits using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent for both 
short-term and long-term effects for the 15-year analysis period of 
these rules discounted back to 2022 rounded to 2 significant figures. 
For the full set of underlying calculations see the Gasoline 
Distribution Benefits workbook (docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371). In 
addition, we include the monetized disbenefits from additional CO2 
emissions using a 3 percent rate, which occur with NESHAP subpart 
BBBBBB and NSPS XXa, but not NESHAP subpart R since there are no 
additional CO2 emissions as a result of this proposed rule. 
Monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences 
requires several important inputs, including central estimates of 
cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates 
of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). Due to 
methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the 
health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. A qualitative 
discussion of the health effects associated with HAP emitted from 
sources subject to control under the proposed action is included in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed action.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The PV of the benefits for the proposed amendments for NESHAP 
subpart R are $9.9 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $5.6 
million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $81 
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $48 million at the 7 percent 
discount rate for long-term effects. The EAV of the benefits for the 
proposed amendments for NESHAP subpart R are $0.83 million at the 3 
percent discount rate to $0.65 million at the 7 percent discount rate 
for short-term effects and $6.8 million at the 3 percent discount rate 
to $5.3 million at the 7 percent discount rate for long-term effects.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The PV of the net benefits (monetized health benefits minus 
monetized climate disbenefits) for the proposed amendments for NESHAP 
BBBBBB are $160 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $83 million 
at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $1,500 
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $870 million at the 7 percent 
discount rate for long-term. The EAV of the benefits for the proposed 
amendments for NESHAP BBBBBB are $13 million at the 3 percent discount 
rate to $9.7 million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term 
effects and $120 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $97 million 
at the 7 percent discount rate for long-term effects.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    Because the estimated emissions reductions due to this rule are 
small and because we cannot be confident of the location of new 
facilities under the NSPS, the EPA elected to use the benefit per-ton 
(BPT) approach. BPT estimates provide the total monetized human health 
benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of 
reducing one ton of the VOC precursor for ozone from a specified 
source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates 
from the ``Gasoline Distribution'' sector by the corresponding emission 
reductions.
    The PV of the net benefits (monetized health benefits minus 
monetized climate disbenefits) for the proposed NSPS subpart XXa are 
$25 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $12 million at the 7 
percent discount rate for short-term effects and $240 million at the 3 
percent discount rate to $130 million at the 7 percent discount rate 
for long-term effects. The EAV of the benefits for the proposed NSPS 
subpart XXa are $2.0 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $1.4 
million at the 7 percent discount rate for short-term effects and $20 
million at the 3 percent discount rate to $15 million at the 7 percent 
discount rate for long-term effects.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set 
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered 
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns.
    Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of 
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial 
equity and support underserved communities through federal government 
actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the 
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies.'' \16\ The EPA further defines fair 
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies''. In recognizing that minority and low-income populations 
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA 
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public 
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposal, the EPA examined the potential for Gasoline 
Distribution facilities to pose potential concerns to EJ communities by 
analyzing the distribution of demographic groups living in close 
proximity to these facilities in the baseline. Specifically, the EPA 
conducted a demographic screening analysis that shows that the 
proportion of the population of people of color living in proximity to 
these facilities is significantly higher than the

[[Page 35638]]

national average. The EPA expects that the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Review 
and Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review will 
reduce VOC and HAP emissions by 45,400 and 2,200 tpy, respectively. The 
EPA is proposing to require stricter cargo tank vapor tightness 
standards, improved storage vessel fittings, equipment leak instrument 
monitoring, lower emission limits for loading operations at large area 
source bulk gasoline terminals and NSPS subpart XXa affected 
facilities, and vapor balancing at bulk gasoline plants. These proposed 
changes to control requirements for affected facilities are anticipated 
to improve human health exposures for most populations, including for 
surrounding communities with EJ concerns.
    Based on these analyses of potentially exposed populations and 
actions taken to reduce adverse human health impacts, the EPA 
anticipates that this action is not likely to result in 
disproportionate impacts on minority populations and/or low-income 
populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, 
January 20, 2021). EPA remains committed to engaging with communities 
and stakeholders throughout the development of air pollution 
regulations. Following is a more detailed description of how the agency 
considers EJ in the context of regulatory development, and specific 
actions taken to address EJ concerns for this action.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
    As a starting point, to examine the potential for any EJ issues 
that might be associated with Gasoline Distribution facilities, we 
performed a baseline demographic analysis, which is an assessment of 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 
kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the 
data from this analysis to the national average for each of the 
demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 18 of this 
document) indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the 117 major 
source Gasoline Distribution facilities,\17\ the percent minority 
population (being the total population minus the white population) is 
larger than the national average (59 percent versus 40 percent). This 
difference is largely driven by the percent Hispanic or Latino 
population that is significantly higher than the national average (33 
percent versus 19 percent). The percent of the population that is 
African American (15 percent) and Other and Multiracial (10 percent) 
are slightly above the national averages (12 percent and 8 percent, 
respectively). The percent of people living below the poverty level (17 
percent) and those over 25 without a high school diploma (18 percent) 
are higher than the national averages (13 percent and 12 percent, 
respectively). The percent of people living in linguistic isolation was 
higher than the national average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The EPA estimates there are approximately 210 major source 
Gasoline Distribution facilities; however, we had location 
information for only 117 of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 117 
major source Gasoline Distribution facilities was similar to the 5 km 
analysis for minorities, with higher total minorities being driven by a 
larger Hispanic or Latino population. However, the percent of the 
population living below the poverty level and the percent of the 
population over 25 without a high school diploma were similar to the 
national averages. The percent of people living in linguistic isolation 
was still higher than the national average (8 percent versus 5 
percent).
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
major source Gasoline Distribution Facilities is included as Table 18. 
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Gasoline Distribution Facilities, available in 
this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).

      Table 18--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                   within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide        of 117      within 5 km of
                                                                                    facilities    117 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242     114,588,509       5,884,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             50%             41%
Minority........................................................             40%             50%             59%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             15%             15%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.3%            0.4%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             24%             33%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%             11%             10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             17%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             13%             18%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             87%             82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              8%              9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

[[Page 35639]]

 
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    As noted above, the EPA determined that the standards should be 
revised to reflect cost-effective developments in practices, process, 
or controls. Typically, the EPA would seek to estimate the impact of 
the proposed changes by either estimating the emissions changes likely 
to result from the adoption of new controls by specific sources or 
groups of sources, or (where data is more limited, as is typically the 
case) by analyzing a model plant scenario. In this case, we evaluated 
the impact of these standards by applying the revised standards to a 
set of model plants. Because we based the analysis of the impacts and 
emission reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain 
specifically how the potential benefits will be distributed across the 
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the 
potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we anticipate the 
proposed changes to NESHAP subpart R will generally improve human 
health exposures for populations in surrounding communities, including 
those communities with higher percentages of people of color. The 
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public 
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution 
facilities and will provide additional health protection for most 
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution, 
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    As a starting point, to examine the potential for any EJ issues 
that might be associated with Gasoline Distribution facilities, we 
performed a baseline demographic analysis, which is an assessment of 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and 
50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this 
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 19 of this 
document) indicate that, for populations within 5 km of 1,229 area 
source Gasoline Distribution facilities,\18\ the percent minority 
population (being the total population minus the white population) is 
larger than the national average (54 percent versus 40 percent). This 
difference is largely driven by the Hispanic or Latino (26 percent) and 
African American (18 percent) populations that are significantly larger 
than the national averages (19 percent and 12 percent, respectively). 
The percent of the population that is Other and Multiracial (10 
percent) is slightly above the national average (8 percent). The 
percent of people living below the poverty level (18 percent) and those 
over 25 without a high school diploma (16 percent) were higher than the 
national averages (13 percent and 12 percent, respectively). The 
percent of people living in linguistic isolation was higher than the 
national average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA estimates there are approximately 9,260 area source 
Gasoline Distribution facilities; however, we had location 
information for only 1,229 of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 
1,229 area source Gasoline Distribution facilities were similar to the 
national averages for all demographics. This is due to the fact that 
the large number of facilities (1,229) and larger study area (50 km) 
captured approximately 75% of the national population.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
area source Gasoline Distribution facilities is included as Table 19. 
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Gasoline Distribution Facilities, available in 
this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).

       Table 19--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Area Source Gasoline Distribution Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population      Population
                                                                                   within 50 km   within 5 km of
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide       of 1,229          1,229
                                                                                    facilities      facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242     252,008,837      35,679,430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             58%             46%
Minority........................................................             40%             42%             54%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             13%             18%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.5%            0.5%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             20%             26%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%              9%             10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             18%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             12%             16%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             88%             84%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35640]]

 
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              6%              9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    As noted above, the EPA determined that the standards should be 
revised to reflect cost-effective developments in practices, process, 
or controls. Typically, the EPA would seek to estimate the impact of 
the proposed changes by either estimating the emissions changes likely 
to result from the adoption of new controls by specific sources or 
groups of sources, or (where data is more limited, as is typically the 
case) by analyzing a model plant scenario. In this case, we evaluated 
the impact of these standards by applying the revised standards to a 
set of model plants. Because we based the analysis of the impacts and 
emission reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain 
specifically how the potential benefits will be distributed across the 
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the 
potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we anticipate the 
proposed changes to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB will generally improve human 
health exposures for populations in surrounding communities, including 
those communities with higher percentages of people of color. The 
proposed changes will provide additional health protection for all 
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution, 
which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous communities. The 
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public 
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution 
facilities that are area sources and will provide additional health 
protection for most populations, including communities already 
overburdened by pollution, which are often minority, low-income, and 
indigenous communities.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The locations of any new Bulk Gasoline Terminals that would be 
subject to NSPS subpart XXa are not known. In addition, it is not known 
which existing Bulk Gasoline Terminals may be modified or reconstructed 
and subject to NSPS subpart XXa. Thus, we are limited in our ability to 
estimate the potential EJ impacts of this proposed rule. However, we 
anticipate the proposed changes to NSPS XXa will generally improve 
human health exposures for populations in surrounding communities, 
including those communities with higher percentages of people of color. 
See Subsections 2 and 3 of this section for a summary of the 
demographic analysis results for major and area sources.
    The proposed changes to NSPS subpart XXa will improve human health 
exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The EPA 
determined that the standards should be revised to reflect BSER. The 
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public 
health for populations exposed to emissions from Gasoline Distribution 
facilities with new, modified or reconstructed sources and will provide 
additional health protection for most populations, including 
communities already overburdened by pollution, which are often 
minority, low-income, and indigenous communities.

V. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In this proposal, EPA 
has noted multiple times where we are concerned that this source 
category impacts large populations of people that have the potential to 
be overburdened by air pollution from multiple sources. In reviewing 
standards for this source category, we have identified more stringent 
standards that could further reduce HAP emissions exposure in 
communities but impose higher capital and annualized costs. The cost 
per ton of HAP of these options is greater than what we have considered 
cost-effective for these type of HAP in previous rulemakings. EPA seeks 
comment on whether these more protective standards, although less cost 
effective for these type of HAP emissions controls than we would 
typically find acceptable, are nevertheless appropriate given the 
reductions in HAPs that would occur in potentially over-burdened 
communities surrounding these sources. EPA also requests information on 
the costs, efficacy, and feasibility of control options for major and 
area source gasoline distribution facilities, and the contributions of 
these sources to overall pollution burdens in surrounding communities, 
to inform our consideration of whether more protective standards are 
warranted.
    In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are 
also interested in additional data that may improve the analyses. We 
are specifically interested in receiving any information regarding 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
reduce emissions. We are also interested in receiving information on 
costs, emissions, and product recovery. Finally, the EPA attempted to 
ensure that the SSM provisions we are proposing to eliminate are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption and are specifically seeking comment on whether we have 
successfully done so.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to OMB for review. This action is a significant regulatory action 
because it likely to

[[Page 35641]]

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 
been documented in the docket for this action. The EPA has prepared an 
economic analysis that is included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
which is available in the docket for these proposed rules.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

1. NESHAP Subpart R
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. You can find a 
copy of the Information Collection Request (ICR) in the docket for this 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing amendments that revise provisions pertaining 
to emissions during periods of SSM, add requirements for electronic 
reporting of periodic reports, and performance test results, and make 
other minor clarifications and corrections. This information will be 
collected to assure compliance with the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP 
subpart R.
     Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of 
gasoline distribution facilities. Respondent's obligation to respond: 
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart R).
     Estimated number of respondents: 210 (assumes no new 
respondents over the next 3 years). Frequency of response: Initially, 
semiannually, and annually.
     Total estimated burden: 16,300 (per year) to comply with 
the proposed amendments in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
     Total estimated cost: $1,263,464 (per year), including no 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with 
the proposed amendments in the NESHAP.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than August 9, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing amendments that revise provisions to add 
requirements for electronic reporting of periodic reports, and 
performance test results, and make other minor clarifications and 
corrections. This information will be collected to assure compliance 
with the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP subpart BBBBBB.
     Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of 
gasoline distribution facilities. Respondent's obligation to respond: 
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB).
     Estimated number of respondents: 9,263 (assumes no new 
respondents over the next 3 years). Frequency of response: Initially, 
semiannually, and annually.
     Total estimated burden: 83,882 hours (per year) to comply 
with the proposed amendments in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
     Total estimated cost: $6,501,788 (per year), including no 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with 
the proposed amendments in the NESHAP.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than August 9, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing provisions to require electronic reporting of 
periodic reports, and performance test results, and make other minor 
clarifications and corrections. This information will be collected to 
assure compliance with the Gasoline Distribution NSPS subpart XXa.
     Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of bulk 
gasoline terminals. Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 
CFR part 60, subpart XXa).
     Estimated number of respondents: 12 (assumes four new 
respondents each year over the next 3 years). Frequency of response: 
Initially, semiannually, and annually.
     Total estimated burden: 1,132 hours (per year) to comply 
with all of the requirements in the NSPS. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
     Total estimated cost: $86,899 (per year), including no 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with 
all of the requirements in the NSPS.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than August 9, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that each of the rules included in this proposed action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities under the RFA. The small entities

[[Page 35642]]

subject to the requirements of this proposed rulemaking are all small 
businesses. For NESHAP subpart R, EPA certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the RFA. The Agency has determined that two small 
entities are affected by these proposed amendments, which is 4.9 
percent of all affected ultimate parent companies. Neither of these 
small entities is projected to incur costs from this rule greater than 
1 percent of their sales. For NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, EPA certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the RFA. The Agency has determined that 
111 small entities are affected by these proposed amendments, which is 
42 percent of all affected ultimate parent businesses. Less than 10 
percent of these small entities (10 total) are projected to incur costs 
from the proposed rules of greater than 1 percent of their annual 
sales, and less than 4 percent (4 total) are projected to incur costs 
greater than 3 percent of their annual sales (with a maximum of 6.75 
percent). Finally, for NSPS subpart XXa, EPA certifies that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities under the RFA. The Agency has not identified any small 
entities that are affected by this proposed NSPS and does not project 
that any entities affected by the proposed NSPS will incur costs 
greater than 1 percent of their annual sales. Details of the analyses 
for each proposed rule are presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
for these proposed rulemakings.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities that have been identified 
as being affected by this action are owned or operated by tribal 
governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action. However, consistent with the EPA Policy 
on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer 
government-to-government consultation with tribes as requested.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe that the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
The proposed rules lower the emissions of gasoline and gasoline vapors 
and are projected to improve overall health including children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA expects this proposed action 
would not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, 
natural gas production, or electricity production. We estimate that 
this proposed action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports 
or exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in 
the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy 
supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, no significant 
adverse energy effects are expected to occur. For more information on 
these estimates of energy effects, please refer to the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for this proposed rulemaking.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use 
EPA Method 18. While the EPA identified ASTM 6420-18 as being 
potentially applicable, the Agency does not propose to use it. The use 
of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical because it 
has a limited list of analytes and is not suitable for analyzing many 
compounds that are expected to occur in gasoline vapor.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections III, 
IV.E, and IV.F of this preamble. All relevant documents are available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).
    The assessment of populations in close proximity of gasoline 
distribution facilities shows some demographic groups that are higher 
than the national average, however, we determined that the human health 
impacts are not disproportionate for these groups because this action 
proposes changes to the standards that will increase protection for 
communities. The EPA determined that the standards should be revised to 
reflect cost-effective developments in practices, process, or controls 
and BSER. The proposed changes will provide additional health 
protection for all populations, including communities already 
overburdened by pollution, which are often minority, low-income, and 
indigenous communities. The proposed changes will have beneficial 
effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed to 
emissions from facilities in the source category. Further, this 
rulemaking complements other actions already taken by the EPA to reduce 
emissions and improve health outcomes for overburdened and underserved 
communities.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12223 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P