Consistent with some of the release detection methods described in § 280.43(h), EPA maintained the performance standard of 0.2 gallon per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05.  However, we are not requiring the additional standard of 150 gallons within a month per § 280.43(h).  EPA included this additional standard in the 1988 UST regulation to primarily address external methods.  EPA added the standard because it is more difficult to demonstrate that external methods meet a small hourly leak rate than a larger, though equivalent, volume.  SIR is an in-tank monitoring method and the 0.2 gallon per hour standard with a probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05 is the applicable standard to use.

SIR must also meet EPA's established requirement for probability of detection and probability of false alarm.  In a normal probability distribution, SIR data typically analyzed through the calculation of the reportable values of minimum detectable leak rate (MDL) and the leak declaration threshold (T) are related as follows:
   *    MDL is always greater than T
   *    Pd = (1-Pfa), then MDL = 2 times T (i.e., T = (1/2) MDL)

Any analysis of data indicating a threshold value greater than one-half minimum detectable leak rate should be appropriately investigated as a suspected release.

In this proposal, EPA is addressing the following issues associated with using SIR:

   * SIR is not the same as inventory control
         o          o          For years, users, vendors, and regulators incorrectly linked SIR to the inventory control method described in § 280.43(a).  SIR is more sophisticated than inventory control and not subject to the same requirement to combine it with tank tightness testing and limit its use to 10 years.  Note § 280.50(c)(2) states, "In the case of inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm the initial result."  This language allowed owners and operators to use a second month of inventory control data to confirm initial possible failure results.  However, this allowance does not apply to SIR.

   * Results for release detection, including SIR, are required within the 30-day monitoring period
         o          o          EPA considered including a requirement that UST owners and operators obtain a record of SIR results within 30 days.  However, we believe this requirement is adequately covered in 40 CFR part 280, subpart D of the 1988 UST regulation.  As § 280.41 states, "Tanks...must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days using one of the methods listed in § 280.43(d) through (h)...".  In today's proposal, EPA is adding a subsection to formally recognize SIR.  A definitive result of pass or fail that identifies the tank's leak status is required within the 30-day monitoring period for all release detection methods, including SIR.

   * Owners and operators must use another method of release detection if SIR results are inconclusive results
         o          o          For years, implementing agencies have been concerned about inconclusive results when using SIR for release detection.  In 1993, EPA issued a policy regarding inconclusive SIR results, which says all methods used to meet release detection requirements in § 280.41 must obtain a conclusive result of pass or fail within the 30-day monitoring period.  All monitoring records must be maintained according to § 280.45.  For SIR, this means UST owners and operators must obtain a report determining release status within the 30-day monitoring period.  Another method of release detection is required:  when results are inconclusive; prior to sufficient data being gathered to generate an initial report at startup; or when a report is not available for any month of monitoring.

   * Initial SIR report at startup
         o          o          SIR methods need to gather data over a period of time in order to determine whether the tank is leaking.  In some cases, regulatory agencies have addressed significant lag times between when data is collected to when a tank status determination is available to owners and operators.  NWGLDE's list of third-party evaluated methods indicates the data collection period required for SIR methods ranges from 15 to 90 days.  However, most methods require between 23 to 30 days to gather sufficient measurements that provide an accurate result.  Any method that goes beyond a 30-day monitoring period is inconsistent with the established requirement and does not protect human health and the environment.  It is imperative that UST owners and operators determine the status of their tanks within the established monitoring period to avoid increased risk of contamination.
         o          o          EPA recognizes that a rolling collection of data may be used to analyze the leak status of the tank.  For example, data from the previous 30-day monitoring period may be added to measurements taken within the current 30-day monitoring period to determine whether or not the tank is leaking.  However, the majority of data must come from the current 30-day period and another method of release detection must be used to monitor the tank during this startup period.  Subsequent monitoring continuously rolls data forward and provides sufficient data in a timely manner to determine pass or fail.

Interstitial Monitoring
EPA is proposing to add three methods of interstitial monitoring  -  vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled methods  -  in § 280.43(g)(4).  Although these interstitial methods are covered under the general description provided in § 280.43(g), These methods should be included as distinct interstitial monitoring options.  Each of these methods must be capable of detecting breaches in both the inner and outer walls of secondarily contained tanks and secondarily contained piping.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
   *    Should EPA require specific performance standards for vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled interstitial monitoring?  If so, what should the performance standards be and why?
   *    Are there performance standards for release detection methods that should be added or removed?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different from EPA's proposal.

2. Updates To Codes Of Practice Listed In The UST Regulation

What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to update the codes of practice (also called standards or recommended practices) listed in the 1988 UST regulation to reflect new codes, changes to code names, and new nationally recognized associations and independent testing laboratories.  EPA proposes to update, add, or remove codes of practice to the following specific areas of the 1988 UST regulation:

§ 280.11  -  interim prohibition for deferred UST systems
            Updated Codes:
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
            Added Codes:
            - NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
            - Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems

§ 280.20(a)(1)  -  fiberglass tanks
            Updated Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S615, Standard for Reinforced Plastic Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            Removed Codes:
            - American Society of Testing and Materials Standard D4021-86, Standard Specification for Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks

§ 280.20(a)(2)  -  steel tanks with cathodic protection
            Updated Codes:
            - Steel Tank Institute Specification sti-P3(R) Specification and Manual for External Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage Tanks
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603.1, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S631, Standard for Isolating Bushings for Steel Underground Tanks Protected with External Corrosion Protection Systems
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            Added Codes:
            - Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks

§ 280.20(a)(3)  -  clad or jacketed steel tanks
            Updated Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
            Added Codes:
            - Steel Tank Institute Specification F894, ACT-100(R) Specification for External Corrosion Protection of FRP Composite Steel USTs
            - Steel Tank Institute Specification F961, ACT-100-U(R) Specification for External Corrosion Protection of Composite Steel Underground Storage Tanks
            - Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute Specification for Permatank(R)
            Removed Codes:
            - Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100, Specification for the Fabrication of FRP Clad Underground Storage Tanks

§ 280.20(a)(6)  -  secondary containment tanks (new addition to the regulation   -  see section A-2)
            Added Codes:
             - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
            - Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks
            - Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute Specification for Permatank(R)

§ 280.20(b)(1)  -  non-corrodible piping
            Updated Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard S660, Standard for Non-Metallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
            Removed Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 567, Pipe Connectors for Flammable and Combustible and LP Gas
            - Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard CAN 4-S633-M81, Flexible Underground Hose Connectors

§ 280.20(b)(2)  -  steel piping with cathodic protection
            Updated Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
            - NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
            Added Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe
            - Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection
            Removed Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
            - American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems

§ 280.20(b)(3)  -  metal piping without additional corrosion protection
            Removed Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
            - National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69, Control of External Corrosion on Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

§ 280.20(b)(5)  -  secondary containment piping (new addition to the regulation  -  see section A-2)
            Added Codes:
            - Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
            - Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe

§ 280.20(d)  -  installation
            Updated Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of Underground Petroleum Storage System
            - Petroleum Equipment Institute Publication RP100, Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems
            Added Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages
            Removed Codes:
            - American National Standards Institute Standard B31.3, Petroleum Refinery Piping
            - American National Standards Institute Standard B31.4, Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping System

§ 280.21  -  lining inspection standards (new addition to the regulation  -  see section E-3)
            Added Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1631, Interior Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
            - National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
            - Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended Practice, Recommended Practice for Inspecting Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a Video Camera

§ 280.21(e)  -  upgrade requirements for previously deferred UST systems (new addition to the regulation  -  see section C)
            Added Codes:
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
            - NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
            - National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
            - American Society for Testing and Materials Standard G158, Standard Guide for Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks

§ 280.30  -  spill and overfill control
            Updated Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 385, Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1621, Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets
            Added Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1007, Loading and Unloading of MC 306/DOT 406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles
            Removed Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code

§ 280.31  -  operation and maintenance of corrosion protection
            Updated Codes:
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
            Added Codes:
            - NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
            - NACE International Test Method TM 0101, Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Tank Systems
            - NACE International Test Method TM0497, Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
            - Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R051, Cathodic Protection Testing Procedures for sti-P3 USTs

§ 280.32  -  compatibility
            Removed Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, Storing and Handling Ethanol and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations
            - American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, Storage and Handling of Gasoline-Methanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service Stations

§ 280.33  -  repairs
            Updated Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 2200, Repairing Crude Oil, Liquified Petroleum Gas, and Product Pipelines
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
            - National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning, Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
            Added Codes:
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair
            - Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R972, Recommended Practice for the Addition of Supplemental Anodes to sti-P3(R) Tanks
            - NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
            - Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Recommended Practice T-95-02, Remanufacturing of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Underground Storage Tanks

§ 280.36  -  secondary containment testing (new addition to the regulation  -  see section B-4)
            Added Codes:
            - Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R012, Recommended Practice for Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing Underground Double Wall Steel Tanks
            - Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Protocol, Field Test Protocol for Testing the Annular Space of Installed Underground Fiberglass Double and Triple-Wall Tanks with Dry Annular Space

§ 280.37  -  walkthrough inspections (new addition to the regulation  -  see section B-1)
            Added Codes:
            - Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice RP 900, Recommended Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems

§ 280.43(a)  -  inventory control
            Updated Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1621, Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets

§ 280.43(g)  -  interstitial monitoring
            Removed Codes:
            - Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks (moved to new section 280.20(a)(6))

§ 280.71  -  permanent closure
            Updated Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1604, Closure of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
            - The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication 80-106, Criteria for a Recommended Standard...Working in Confined Space
            Added Codes:
            - American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 2016, Guidelines and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum Storage Tanks
            - National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?  What Background Information Is Available About This Change?
EPA is proposing this change to update the codes of practice associated with regulated UST systems.  The 1988 UST regulation relies heavily on codes of practice developed by nationally recognized associations or independent testing laboratories.

EPA reviewed information on more than 200 codes of practice from more than 25 code-making groups that have been developed or revised since the 1988 regulation.  As a result of this review, EPA proposes to add 18 codes of practice not previously listed in the 1988 regulation, remove or move 12, and update all codes of practice in the 1988 UST regulation (see the specific additions, updates, and removals listed above).  EPA is proposing to add the 18 codes of practice that were previously not listed because they are applicable to the UST regulation and did not exist when EPA originally promulgated the 1988 UST regulation.  EPA is proposing to remove or move the 12 codes of practice in the 1988 UST regulation for one of the following reasons:
   *    The code of practice is out of date, no longer available, was withdrawn, or rescinded;
   *    The code of practice did not provide any information appropriate to the section of the regulation where it was referenced;
   *    The information in the code of practice did not adequately address the part of the regulation where it was referenced; or
   *    The code of practice is no longer needed.

For example, the Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100 tank standard was listed in § 280.20(a)(3) as a code of practice for meeting the clad tank requirement.  EPA is removing this code of practice because both the association and code of practice no longer exist.

In several cases, EPA is proposing to move a code of practice from one section of the 1988 UST regulation to another section.  For example, EPA is proposing to move Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks from § 280.43(g) - interstitial monitoring to § 280.20(a)(6) - secondary containment tanks.  EPA is proposing this because we are adding secondary containment requirements to the performance standards for new UST systems portion of this proposed UST regulation.

Note: EPA is aware of at least one code of practice (Petroleum Equipment Institute standard for testing of spill, overfill, interstitial areas, and release detection) currently being developed that could be potentially relevant to this proposed UST regulation.  Other standards may be developed before EPA publishes a final UST regulation.  If so, EPA will consider including them in the final UST regulation.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
   *    Should other codes of practice be added to or removed from the UST regulation?  If so, please provide EPA with information about the code and the specific location in the UST regulation where the code should be included or removed.
   *    The regulations at § 280.20(d) require that all tanks and piping be properly installed in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.  Since the installation codes of practice also address other UST system components such as spill and overfill, should EPA consider revising § 280.20(d) such that all portions of the UST system must be installed according to a code of practice and according to manufacturer's instructions?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different from EPA's proposal.

3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade And Implementation Deadlines

What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to revise the UST regulation to remove references to the 1998 deadline and old phase-in schedules, while continuing to allow testing of corrosion protection and release detection.  For those deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, we are proposing those systems be allowed to upgrade with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection.  EPA is proposing the following specific revisions:

Revise upgrading of existing UST systems in the 1988 UST regulation (§ 280.21).
   *    Remove the 1998 upgrade deadline references, but continue to allow:
         o          o          Testing of internally-lined USTs;
         o          o          Tanks and piping with cathodic protection; and
         o          o          Upgrades of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, including wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant systems, UST systems with field-constructed tanks, and UST systems that store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators.  See section C for additional information on deferred UST systems.
   *    Require UST systems not upgraded with corrosion protection, spill, or overfill prevention be permanently closed according to subpart G, unless the implementing agency determines an upgrade is appropriate or the UST system was deferred in the 1988 UST regulation.

Revise release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation.
   *    § 280.40
         oo          oo          Remove phase-in schedule for release detection probabilities;
         oo          oo          Remove phase-in schedule for release detection monitoring;
         oo          oo          Remove references to upgrade deadlines;
         oo          oo          Remove references to existing USTs; and
         oo          oo          Address deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, add language about implementing release detection monitoring for these systems in § 280.40(c).
   *    § 280.41
         oo          oo          Remove inventory control and annual tightness testing as a regulatory option;
         oo          oo          Remove reference to upgrade deadlines; and
         oo          oo          Make the inventory control and five year tightness testing language historical by putting language in this section in the past tense.
   *    § 280.42
         oo          Remove 1998 references and upgrade language for existing hazardous substance UST systems.

EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in schedule in § 280.91 of subpart H to acknowledge that financial responsibility implementation deadlines are passed and remove references to § 280.91 and the deadlines in § 280.90.  In addition, EPA is proposing to revise § 280.91 to reference the phase-in schedule for deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate at § 280.10.

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?  What Background Information Is Available About This Change?
EPA is proposing these changes to acknowledge that the 1998 deadline for upgrading UST systems with release prevention and the 1990s release detection and financial responsibility deadlines passed more than a decade ago.  Owners and operators had more than two decades to upgrade their UST systems and meet the 1988 UST regulation.  In addition, all UST facilities have been inspected at least once and are required to meet release detection, release prevention, and financial responsibility requirements.  EPA is proposing owners and operators of upgraded UST systems continue conducting cathodic protection and internal lining testing consistent with how they previously performed these tests.

For release detection, EPA is proposing to eliminate the phase-in for both release detection probabilities and release detection monitoring.  EPA is proposing to eliminate these two phase-in parts because the deadlines for implementing these requirements have passed.  Owners and operators have been implementing these requirements for more than two decades.  The last phase-in period applied to systems installed between 1980 and 1988, giving owners and operators until 1993 to meet the subpart D requirements.  Any new UST installed after 1993 had to meet release detection requirements when installed.

To meet the release detection requirement, § 280.41 allows owners and operators of USTs less than 10 years old to use a combination of monthly inventory control with tank tightness testing every five years, until the UST has been installed for 10 years.  When the UST is 10 years old, owners and operators must use another release detection method listed in subpart D.  For new and replaced UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation, interstitial monitoring will be required.  The new interstitial monitoring requirement will make inventory control and tank tightness testing obsolete as a release detection method 10 years after the UST regulation is finalized.

For hazardous substance UST systems release detection, EPA is proposing to remove 1998 deadline and upgrade references.  The 1988 UST regulation in § 280.41 required existing UST systems meet the requirements for petroleum UST systems until 1998.  After 1998, all new and existing hazardous substance UST systems must meet requirements for new hazardous substance UST systems.  Since the 1998 deadline has passed, these changes will clarify the hazardous substance UST system requirements.

For financial responsibility, EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in dates in § 280.91.  These phase-in dates passed more than a decade ago and are no longer needed.  In addition, §280.90(b) and (e) contain references to § 280.91 and compliance dates that need to be removed.

UST systems with field constructed tanks, airport hydrant systems, and wastewater treatment tank systems may be upgraded according to § 280.21.  However, EPA is proposing to no longer allow UST systems regulated under the 1988 UST regulation to be upgraded if they have never met the upgrade requirements.  Unless the implementing agency determines that an UST system is acceptable to upgrade, non-upgraded UST systems must be permanently closed according to the closure requirements in subpart G.  UST systems that have not been upgraded are older and have been in the ground for more than two decades.  In addition, metal USTs and piping without corrosion protection pose a significant risk to human health and the environment because the metal in contact with soil corrodes.  EPA is proposing that implementing agencies make case-by-case determinations on when to allow upgrades.  EPA does not expect implementing agencies to allow continued use of USTs or piping not upgraded with corrosion protection.  However, some implementing agencies may decide to allow owners and operators of UST systems with corrosion protection, but without spill or overfill prevention, to add spill or overfill prevention instead of requiring permanent closure.

The proposed requirements in § 280.21 will allow UST systems EPA is proposing to no longer defer to be upgraded.  See section C for additional information on upgrading these UST systems.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
   *    Does removing the deadlines and making upgrades historical cause any unintended regulatory consequences?
   *    Should EPA consider not allowing the implementing agency the flexibility of making a determination to allow an upgrade?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different from EPA's proposal.

4. Editorial And Technical Corrections

What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing these editorial corrections to the 1988 UST regulation:
         *                Where "industry codes" and "codes and standards" are used, replace with "codes of practice"
         *                Revise to appropriately use the terms:  part, subpart, section, and paragraph
         *                § 280.10(c)(3)  -  change "10 CFR part 50 Appendix A" to "10 CFR part 50"
         *                § 280.20(a)(2), paragraph (C) in the note  -  change "G03.1" to "603.1"
         *                § 280.21(b)(2)(iii)  -  change "by conducting two (2) tightness tests that meet the requirements of § 280.43(c).  The first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic protection system.  The second tightness test must be conducted between three (3) and six (6) months following the first operation of the cathodic protection system; or" to "by conducting two tightness tests that meet the requirements of § 280.43(c).  The first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic protection system.  The second tightness test must be conducted between three and six months following the first operation of the cathodic protection system; or"
         *       § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C)  -  change "operator" to "transfer operator"
         *                § 280.22(a)  -  change "Any owner who brings an underground storage tank system into use after May 8, 1986, must within 30 days of bringing such tank into use, submit, in the form prescribed in Appendix I of this part, a notice of existence of such tank system to the state or local agency or department designated in Appendix II of this part to receive such notice." to "After May 8, 1986, an owner must submit notice of a tank system's existence to the implementing agency within 30 days of bringing the underground storage tank system into use.  Owners must use the form in Appendix I of this part."
         *                § 280.22(g)  -  change "The form provided in Appendix III of this part may be used to comply with this requirement." to "The statement provided in Appendix III of this part, when used on shipping tickets and invoices, may be used to comply with this requirement."
         *                § 280.31  -  change "for as long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances" to "until the UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to § 280.71."
         *                § 280.31  -  change "steel" to "metal"
         *                § 280.33(c)  -  change "fiberglass pipes" to "non-corrodible pipes"
         *                § 280.33(g)  -  change "for the remaining operating life of the UST system" to "until the UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to § 280.71."
         *                § 280.34  -  change "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act" to "Solid Waste Disposal Act"
         *                § 280.34(b)(2)  -  change cite from "280.31" to "280.31(d)"
         *                § 280.40(a)(3)  -  change "probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05." to "probability of detection of 0.95 and probability of false alarm of 0.05."
         *                § 280.41(b)(2)  -  change "conduct" to "conducted"
         *                § 280.42(a)(1)(ii)  -  change "released from the tank system" to "leaked from the primary containment"
         *       § 280.42(d)  -  delete "jacketing of" from "...jacketing of double-walled pipe)..."
         *                § 280.43(b)(4)  -  change "leak" to "release"
         *                § 280.43(b)(5)  -  delete "manual" from "manual inventory control"
         *                § 280.52(a)(1)  -  change "repair, replace, or upgrade the UST system" to "repair, replace, upgrade, or close the UST system"
         *                § 280.52(a)(1)  -  change "leak" to "release"
         *                § 280.52(a)(2)  -  change "leak" to "release"
         *                § 280.52(a)(3)  -  change "leak" to "release"
         *                § 280.92  -  definition for provider of financial assurance  -  change "§§ 280.95  -  280.103" to "§§ 280.95  -  280.107"
         *                § 280.92, § 280.95(b)(1)(iii), § 280.95(c)(5), and § 280.95(d)  -  change "Rural Electrification Administration" to "Rural Utilities Service"
         *                § 280.94(a)(1)  -  change "§§ 280.95  -  280.103" to "§§ 280.95  -  280.107"
         *                § 280.95(b)(1)(ii)  -  change "165.145" to "§ 265.145"
         *                § 280.95(c)(5)(i)  -  change "form" to "from"
         *                § 280.95(d)  -  change "[insert: "suddent accidential releases" and/or "nonsudden accidential releases]" to "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" or "nonsudden accidental releases" or "accidental releases"]"
         *                § 280.95(d)  -  change "Liabilitly" to "Liability" under Letter From Chief Financial Officer
         *                § 280.95(d)  -  change "lastest" to "latest" under Letter From Chief Financial Officer, Alternative I, Number 11
         *                § 280.95(d)  -  remove "$" symbol for Number 8 under Alternative II of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer
         *                § 280.95(d)  -  add "$" symbol for Numbers 13 and 14 under Alternative II of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer
         *                § 280.96(b)  -  change "§ 280.110(c)" to "§ 280.114(e)"
         *                § 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3)  -  change three "40 CFR 280.108" citations to "40 CFR § 280.112"
         *                § 280.96(c), Guarantee (Recital 3)  -  change "accidential" to "accidental"
         *                § 280.96(d)  -  change "280.108" to "§ 280.112"
         *                § 280.97(a)  -  change "§ 290.93" to "§ 280.93"
         *                § 280.98(b)  -  change "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)" to Solid Waste Disposal Act"
         *                § 280.98(b), Performance Bond, paragraph 4,  -  change "[... either "sudden" or "nonsudden" or "sudden and nonsudden"] accidental releases arising from" to "either "sudden accidental releases" or "nonsudden accidental releases" or "accidental releases"] arising from..."
         *                § 280.98(b)  -  change two "40 CFR 280.108" citations to "40 CFR 280.112"
         *                § 280.98(b)  -  add end brackets to "State of Incorporation" and "Liability Limit"
         *                § 280.98(d)  -  change "40 CFR 280.108" citation to "40 CFR 280.112"
         *                § 280.99(b)  -  change "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976" to Solid Waste Disposal Act"
         *                § 280.99(b)  -  change "persuant" to "pursuant"
         *                § 280.99(b)  -  change "curent" to "current"
         *                § 280.99(c)  -  change "40 CFR 280.108" citation to "40 CFR 280.112"
         *                § 280.101(d)  -  change "280.107(b)(5)" to "§ 280.111(b)(8)"
         *                § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, paragraph 2  -  change "standpoint" to "[insert "standby" where trust agreement is standby trust agreement]"
         *                § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4  -  add opening quotation mark for "Third-Party Liability Claims"
         *                § 280.103(b)(1), Trust Agreement, section 4  -  add opening quotation mark for "compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by"
         *                § 280.104(b)  -  change "Moody's rating of Aaa, A, A" to "Moody's rating of Aaa, Aa, A"
         *                § 280.104(b)  -  change "refunded issues and" to "refunded issues, and"
         *                § 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer  -  change "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" and/or "nonsudden accidental releases"]" to "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" or "nonsudden accidental releases" or "accidental releases"]".  Note that this change occurs in two places in the letter.
         *                § 280.104(e), Letter From Chief Financial Officer, last paragraph  -  change "not backed by third-party credit enhancement or are insured by a municipal bond insurance company." to "not backed by third-party credit enhancement or insured by a municipal bond insurance company."
         *                § 208.105(c)  -  change "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" and/or "nonsudden accidental releases"]" to "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" or "nonsudden accidental releases" or "accidental releases"]"
         *                § 208.105(c)  -  change 10(a) and 11(a) under Worksheet for Municipal Financial Test, Part II from "Debt Service (from 4d)" to "Debt Service (from 4c)"
         *                § 280.106(a)(1)  -  change "§ 280.104(c)" to "§ 280.104(d) and § 280.104(e)"
         *                § 280.106(b)  -  change "§ 280.114(c)" to "§ 280.114(e)"
         *                § 280.106(d), under Local Government Guarantee With Standby Trust Made by a State, recital 7d  -  change "loaded" to "loaned"
         *                § 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee Without Standby Trust Made by a State, recital 7d  -  change "loaded" to "loaned"
         *                § 280.106(e), under Local Government Guarantee Without Standby Trust Made by a Local Government, recital 8d  -  change "loaded" to "loaned"
         *                § 280.107(d)  -  change "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" and/or "nonsudden accidental releases"]" to "[insert: "sudden accidental releases" or "nonsudden accidental releases" or "accidental releases"]"
         *                § 280.107(d), third paragraph under Letter From Chief Financial Officer  -  change "ten" to "five"
         *                § 280.109(b)(3)  -  change "§ 280.107(b)" to "§ 280.111(b)"
         *                § 280.111(b)(9)(ii)  -  change "§ 280.107(a)(3)" to "§ 280.107(c)"
         *                § 280.111(b)(9)(iii)  -  change "§ 280.107(a)(3)" to "§ 280.107(c)"
         *                § 280.111(b)(9)(iii)  -  change "§ 280.107(a)(3)(i)" to "§ 280.107(c)(1)"
         *                § 280.111(b)(9)(iii)  -  change "§ 280.107(a)(3)(ii)" to "§ 280.107(c)(2)"
         *                § 280.113  -  change "properly" to "permanently"

EPA is proposing these technical corrections to the 1988 UST regulation:
   *    § 280.12  -  revise exclusion (d) of the definition of UST to incorporate a revision in section 9001 of the SWDA as shown below

            "(d)  Pipeline facility (including gathering lines):

            	(1)  Which is regulated under chapter 601 of Title 49, or

            	(2)  Which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under state laws as provided in
                           chapter 601 of Title 49,

                        and which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be connected to a pipeline or to be operated or intended to be capable of operating at pipeline pressure or as an integral part of a pipeline;"
   *    § 280.43(b)(1)  -  replace "a period of at least 36 hours" with "the minimum duration of test in the table below"; this updates current UST capacity allowances when using manual tank gauging as a method of release detection
         oo          oo          § 280.43(b)(4)  -  replace existing table with the one below; this ensures information in the table is consistent with the change in § 280.43(b)(1)

                             Nominal Tank Capacity
                           Minimum Duration Of Test
                          Weekly Standard (One Test)
                     Monthly Standard (Four Test Average)
550 gallons or less
                                   36 hours
                                  10 gallons
                                   5 gallons
551-1,000 gallons
(when tank diameter is 64")
                                   44 hours
                                   9 gallons
                                   4 gallons
551-1,000 gallons
(when tank diameter is 48")
                                   58 hours
                                  12 gallons
                                   6 gallons
551-1,000 gallons
(also requires periodic
tank tightness testing)
                                   36 hours
                                  13 gallons
                                   7 gallons
1,001-2,000 gallons
(also requires periodic
tank tightness testing)
                                   36 hours
                                  26 gallons
                                  13 gallons

         oo          oo          § 280.41(a)(2)  -  modify tank sizes in text so it is consistent with the table above.  "Tanks with capacity of 550 gallons or less and tanks with a capacity of 551 to 1000 gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in § 280.43(b) may use manual tank gauging (conducted in accordance with § 280.43(b))"; and
         oo          oo          § 280.43(b)(5)  -  modify tank sizes in text so it is consistent with the table above.  "Tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity and tanks with a nominal capacity of 551 to 1000 gallons that meet the tank diameter criteria in the table in (b)(4) may use this as the sole method of release detection.  All other tanks with a nominal capacity of 551 to 2,000 gallons may use the method in place of manual inventory control in § 280.43(a).  Tanks of greater than 2,000 gallons nominal capacity may not use this method to meet the requirements of this subpart."
   *    *    § 280.43  -  remove the requirement for inventory control in the automatic tank gauging release detection method
   *    *    § 280.92  -  change the definition of accidental release from "release of petroleum from an underground storage tank" to "release of petroleum arising from operating an underground storage tank"
   *    *    § 280.104(h)  -  add this subsection:  "(h) If the local government owner or operator fails to obtain alternate assurance within 150 days of finding that it no longer meets the requirements of the bond rating test or within 30 days of notification by the Director of the implementing agency that it no longer meets the requirements of the bond rating test, the owner or operator must notify the Director of such failure within 10 days."
   * Revise Appendix III to read: "Note.  A federal law (the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,  requires owners of certain underground storage tanks to notify implementing agencies of the existence of their tanks.  Notifications must be made within 30 days of bringing the tank into use.  Consult EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 280.22 to determine if you are affected by this law."

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?  What Background Information Is Available About This Change?
EPA is proposing to make editorial and technical corrections to the 1988 UST regulation.  Proposed editorial corrections include: correcting misspellings; capitalizing words; removing unused acronyms; using conventional number formatting; and appropriately referring to parts, subparts, sections, and paragraphs. In addition, EPA is proposing technical corrections which include updating the regulation to incorporate statutory changes that occurred since the 1988 regulation was promulgated and clarifying long-standing Agency policies.

The editorial change to § 280.10(c)(3) makes the citation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation more general, in the event requirements for emergency generator UST systems at nuclear power facilities are moved from Appendix A to some other part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation.

The editorial change to § 280.22(a) makes the language easier to understand and consistent with the proposed new paragraphs of § 280.22(b) and § 280.22(h).

The editorial change to § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C) clarifies that the transfer operator needs to be alerted.  This change makes the language consistent with § 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(B).
The editorial change to § 280.22(g) clarifies the content of and how to use Appendix III of the 1988 UST regulation to meet the notification requirement.

The editorial changes to § 280.31 will eliminate any potential confusion with the temporary closure requirement and ensure all metal components comply with this section.  Temporary closure requires owners and operators operate and maintain corrosion protection even when the UST system is emptied.  The operation and maintenance of corrosion section indicates that releases due to corrosion must be prevented as long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances.  While EPA has interpreted that the UST system is used to store regulated substances even if it is empty during temporary closure, this proposed change will clarify this position.  In addition, UST systems have metal components, other than steel, protected from corrosion.  Changing the word steel to metal at the beginning of this section will make it clear that the operation and maintenance requirements for corrosion protection apply to all metal components.

The editorial change to § 280.33(g) will clarify when the operating life of an UST system ends.  EPA does not define an operating life; rather, we describe permanent closure and change-in-service.  With this change, EPA is proposing the operating life of an UST system ends when an owner or operator permanently closes the UST system or the UST system undergoes a change-in-service from regulated to unregulated.

EPA is proposing a technical correction to revise the definition of UST as it relates to pipeline facilities.  This revision directly incorporates a change made to Section 9001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act after the 1988 UST regulation was promulgated.

EPA is proposing a technical correction to clarify that hazardous substance USTs must be able to contain regulated substances released from the UST system until the substances are detected and removed.  Based on the 1988 UST regulation definition of release, the statement implies that a regulated substance has reached the environment.  Because a regulated substance should be contained in the UST system's secondary containment, EPA is proposing to change the term released to leaked, indicating a leak occurred from the primary containment but did not reach the environment.  Therefore, secondary containment would then contain the leak.  The editorial change to § 280.42(d) removes confusion about whether piping that is already double-walled also needs to be jacketed.

EPA is proposing technical corrections to § 280.43(d) which will codify long-standing Agency policies for using manual tank gauging and automatic tank gauging.  These changes update UST capacity allowances when using manual tank gauging and remove the requirement for USTs using automatic tank gauging to conduct additional inventory control.  Since 1990 and 1989, EPA allowed these deviations from the 1988 UST regulation through policy for manual tank gauging and automatic tank gauging, respectively.  EPA also stated these allowances in our publications:   Manual Tank Gauging For Small Underground Storage Tanks; Musts For USTs: A Summary of Federal Regulations For Underground Storage Tank Systems; and Straight Talk On Tanks: Leak Detection Methods For Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks And Piping.  With regard to manual tank gauging, note the expanded coverage of larger tanks is limited in some respects by the diameter of the tank as noted in the revised table.

EPA is proposing to add closure as an option at § 280.52(a)(1) to provide owners and operators additional flexibility when suspected and confirmed releases occur.

EPA is proposing an editorial correction of "leak" to "release" in § 280.43(b)(4) and § 280.52(a)(1), (2), and (3) because release is defined as regulated substance reaching the environment in the 1988 UST regulation.

EPA is updating references of "Rural Electrification Administration" (REA) to "Rural Utilities Services" (RUS).  Under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, REA reorganized to RUS.

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of "accidental release" under § 280.92 so it matches the definition stated in the original preamble for the financial responsibility requirements (53 FR 43334). EPA intended the definition in the preamble to be included in the 1988 UST regulation, but two important words were inadvertently omitted.  By changing this, EPA is clarifying that owners and operators are required to have financial responsibility for releases arising from operating USTs (including releases due to filling USTs and releases occurring at dispensers).

The editorial change to § 280.103(b)(1) will correct a typographical error [i.e., "standpoint"] and clarify the trust fund language.

The editorial change to the last paragraph of the Letter to the Chief Financial Officer under § 280.104(e) clarifies that no credit enhancement of any type is permitted for revenue bonds, consistent with the preamble to the 1988 UST regulation (58 FR 9033).

The editorial addition of § 280.104(h) will make requirements for the local government bond rating test under § 280.104 consistent with requirements of the financial test under § 280.95(g).  EPA included this requirement for private owners and operators in the 1988 UST regulation but inadvertently omitted it for local government owners and operators.

The editorial change to the third paragraph of the Letter From Chief Financial Officer under § 280.107(d) will make the wording of the letter consistent with the amount of coverage required in § 280.107(b).

EPA defines and discusses permanent closure, not proper closure, in the 1988 UST regulation.  This clarified that in § 280.113, financial responsibility is required during temporary closure.

The update to Appendix III removes old dates and clarifies the language in the statement for shipping tickets and invoices.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
   *    Are there other editorial corrections (such as typographical errors or inaccurate references) EPA should make?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different from EPA's proposal.

F.  Alternative Options EPA Considered

What Options Did EPA Consider?
In developing today's proposed regulatory changes (hereafter the Preferred Option), EPA considered and evaluated variations of a subset of the proposed regulatory requirements using two alternative options (hereafter Option 1 and Option 2).  The table below highlights differences between our Preferred Option and Options 1 and 2.  Some of the proposed regulatory requirements do not vary across the options (for example, notification of ownership changes is required in all three).  As a result, proposed regulatory changes discussed earlier in the preamble, but not listed here, mean those changes are in effect in all three options.  Overall, Options 1 and 2 consist of regulatory changes that are more and less stringent, respectively, than proposed changes in the Preferred Option.  After reviewing comments, EPA may use one or more of these options in whole or in part to establish the final UST regulation.

Comparison Of Preferred Option And Options 1 and 2
                             Proposed Requirement
                                    Options

   Preferred
           1
         2
Walkthrough inspections
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Overfill prevention equipment tests
3 year
1 year
3 year
Spill prevention equipment tests
1 year
Require replacement every 3 years (no testing)
1 year
Secondary containment tests
3 year
1 year
Not required
Elimination of flow restrictors in vent lines for all new tanks and when overfill devices are replaced
Required
Required
No change
Operability tests for release detection methods
1 year
1 year
3 year
Change leak rate probabilities from 95/5 to 99/1 (Pd/Pfa)
Not required
Required
Not required
Eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring as release detection methods
5-year phase-out
Immediately
No change
Remove deferrals for airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and UST systems with field-constructed tanks
Regulate under alternative release detection requirements
Require them to meet same release detection requirements as conventional USTs
Maintain deferrals

Below we explain Options 1 and 2, as well as our rationale for each.  (Note that EPA conducted a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for all three options.  The results are discussed in the RIA document titled Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The Proposed Revisions To EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations which is available in the docket for this proposed regulation.)

What Is EPA's Rationale For Option 1?
In Option 1, EPA considered requiring annual tests of overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas.  EPA assessed the costs of conducting annual tests for these components and decided instead to propose overfill prevention equipment testing and interstitial integrity testing every three years.  This will reduce the overall compliance cost burden on owners and operators without significantly compromising benefits of these tests.  When compared to other components such as spill prevention equipment, both interstitial areas and overfill prevention equipment are less likely to fail or be damaged.  Overfill prevention equipment is in the tank; interstitial areas for tanks and piping are typically buried several feet underground.  Spill prevention equipment encounters frequent human and climate interaction, making it prone to frequent damage and failure.  Secondary containment reduces the likelihood that a release into the environment will occur because a leak is contained if a breach of the inner wall occurs.  As a result, less frequent periodic tests of overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas would adequately ensure the integrity and functionality of equipment.  In addition, a three year test requirement for these two components will match the inspection cycle, allowing inspectors to ensure tests are completed.  Therefore, testing overfill prevention equipment and interstitial areas every three years is sufficient.

In Option 1, EPA considered mandatory replacement of spill prevention equipment every three years, regardless of the spill prevention equipment's condition.  As discussed earlier in the preamble, various sources indicated spill prevention equipment is a major source of confirmed releases and typically has a short lifespan.  After EPA evaluated the cost of requiring spill prevention equipment replacement every three years, we determined the cost burden of this requirement on owners and operators would be significant.  While developing today's proposal, EPA made a conscious effort to limit removing or replacing existing UST system equipment (for example, eliminating the use of ball floats as a form of overfill prevention in new tanks instead of requiring removal in existing tanks) to minimize impacts on owners and operators, both in terms of reducing compliance costs and interrupting daily operations.  As a result, EPA instead is proposing annual tests of spill prevention equipment.  This balances the benefits of properly functioning spill prevention equipment with the potential costs imposed on owners and operators.

When considering changes to existing release detection requirements, EPA evaluated the possibility of modifying the leak probability of detection (Pd) from 95 percent to 99 percent and the leak probability of false alarm (Pfa) from 5 percent to 1 percent.  EPA initially believed increasing the Pd rate for release detection equipment performance would be a relatively low cost action that would significantly increase identifying potential releases to the environment.  EPA also believed that decreasing the Pfa rate would be a relatively low cost means of reducing the number of nuisance alarms owners and operators experience.  Because they would have a higher confidence that alarms identify real problems, owners and operators would be more likely to respond.  Even though most equipment in use today is capable of meeting more stringent probability rates, almost all release detection devices would require some modification to achieve these results.  Even a relatively minor software upgrade could be a significant cost to owners and operators.  In addition, release detection vendors would need to perform significant testing and verification to determine whether their equipment would meet the new Pd/Pfa rates.  After considering the potential cost impacts, other proposed requirements, such as training owners and operators and requiring periodic walkthrough inspections, are sound alternatives for environmental protection.  Therefore, EPA instead is proposing periodic operation and maintenance for existing release detection equipment to ensure its proper operation.

EPA is proposing to eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring as permissible methods of release detection.  In Option 1, EPA considered an immediate ban of these two options as release detection methods because inspectors told us these methods are unsuitable and should be removed as soon as possible.  Approximately 5 percent of UST systems use groundwater or vapor monitoring for release detection, which means the affected population of users is relatively small.  Yet EPA recognizes this would require retrofitting or replacing existing equipment.  To accommodate owners and operators and provide them with sufficient lead time to meet this requirement, EPA today is proposing a five year phase out for owners and operators to select, install, and begin using another method of release detection.

In evaluating release detection methods suitable for UST systems with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, EPA considered requiring these tanks and systems comply with the same release detection requirements conventional UST systems meet under 40 CFR part 280, subpart D.  After assessing costs, technical feasibility, and potential impacts to facility operations, EPA decided to propose a release detection regulatory structure specific to field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution piping, per § 280.46 and § 280.47, respectively.  It is sometimes impossible for very large tanks and piping volumes to achieve thresholds for current release detection methods.  When a threshold is achievable, the time needed to reach it is often very long and impractical.  The RIA indicates the total annual costs to meet conventional release detection requirements are $153 million, while total annual costs under the proposed alternative release detection requirements are $23 million.  As a result, it is appropriate to propose release detection methods specific to these systems.  This will effectively protect the environment by quickly detecting releases from these tanks and piping.

What Is EPA's Rationale For Option 2?
In comparing costs with benefits of potential proposed changes, EPA weighed different frequencies for walkthrough inspections and periodic equipment testing.  In Option 2, EPA assessed quarterly walkthrough inspections and not requiring interstitial integrity testing as ways to reduce potential cost impacts on owners and operators.  While quarterly walkthrough inspections would reduce costs to owners and operators, EPA is taking the position that a period less frequent than monthly walkthrough inspections would considerably reduce benefits.  High operator turnover, frequency of small leaks at dispensers and submersible turbine sumps, and frequency of deliveries all contribute to the need for monthly walkthrough inspections.  With that in mind, EPA today is proposing monthly walkthrough inspections so owners and operators can consistently and routinely verify proper UST system component performance.  This will ensure problems are detected before a release occurs or contaminates the environment.

The 1988 UST regulation does not require owners and operators to ensure the integrity of secondarily contained areas, and EPA considered not requiring periodic interstitial integrity testing.  Because of the Energy Policy Act secondary containment requirement for nearly all new and replaced tanks and piping, all UST systems will eventually be secondarily contained (including interstitial monitoring for release detection) and we should require periodic interstitial integrity testing to ensure leaks into secondary containment areas will be properly detected and contained.  As described in Option 1, EPA considered annual interstitial integrity testing, but decided to propose a three year testing requirement, which will lower cost impacts of this requirement on owners and operators while retaining the environmental benefit of testing.

To reduce total compliance costs of today's proposal for owners and operators, EPA considered allowing continued use of flow restrictors in vent lines (that is, ball float valves) as an acceptable form of overfill prevention equipment.  After considering stakeholders' concerns, EPA is taking the position that vent line flow restrictors present problems for operability and safety reasons.  As described previously, EPA is proposing to eliminate ball float valves as overfill prevention for all new tanks and when overfill prevention is replaced in existing tanks.

EPA considered maintaining groundwater and vapor monitoring as acceptable forms of release detection in Option 2.  All tanks and piping will eventually use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring as their release detection method, and as a result, groundwater and vapor monitoring will eventually not be used.  Stakeholders raised concerns about these two release detection methods, more than other methods.  For both groundwater and vapor monitoring, releases travel through the environment to sampling points before releases are discovered.  Other release detection methods provide more immediate detection of releases.  In addition, numerous concerns were raised about frequent misapplications and improper designs of monitoring wells for these two methods.  Consequently, EPA today is proposing to phase out groundwater and vapor monitoring as release detection methods.  This will address stakeholders' concerns that UST systems using these two methods represent an unacceptable risk to the environment.

V. Updates To State Program Approval Requirements

What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing these substantive changes to the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulation (40 CFR part 281) to make it consistent with certain Energy Policy Act requirements and certain proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical regulation (40 CFR part 280).
   *    § 281.30(a), § 281.33(c)(2), and § 281.33(d)(3)  -  require secondary containment for new or replaced tanks and piping and under-dispenser containment for new motor fuel dispenser systems for UST systems located within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water well or community water system, unless a state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility according to § 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
   *    § 281.30(b)  -  eliminate flow restrictors for new or replaced overfill prevention
   *    § 281.30(c)  -  add notification for ownership changes
   *    § 281.31 and § 281.33(b) and (c)  -  delete upgrading requirements and eliminate phase-in schedule; add phase-in schedule for previously deferred UST systems
   *    § 281.32(e) and (f) and § 281.33(a)(3)  -  add periodic testing of spill and overfill prevention equipment, secondary containment areas, and mechanical and electronic components; and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as maintaining associated records
   *    § 281.33(c)  -  limit use of monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed or upgraded, if the tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA
   *    § 281.33(e)  -  require hazardous substance USTs to only use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring
   *    § 281.34(a)(1)  -  add "interstitial space may have been compromised" to suspected releases
   *    § 281.37  -  eliminate phase-in requirement for financial responsibility
   *    § 281.39  -  require operator training according to § 9010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
   *    § 281.40(a)  - require states to have delivery prohibition in accordance with § 9012 of the SWDA.
   *    § 281.60  -  add requirement for the Administrator to initiate proceedings to withdraw program approval when an approved program fails to submit a revised application within three years of 40 CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision, which will follow the proceedings procedures from the 1988 SPA regulation

EPA is not proposing to add the proposed compatibility requirement changes (see § 280.32) to 40 CFR part 281.

EPA is also proposing these technical changes to the SPA regulation.
   *    § 281.10  -  change "subpart" to "part"
   *    § 281.11(c), § 281.12(b)(2), § 281.23, § 281.50(a), and formerly § 281.51  -  eliminate interim approval
   *    § 281.12(a)(2)  -  change "Indian lands" to "Indian country"
   *    Formerly § 281.32(e)  -  eliminate requirement to maintain upgrade records
   *    Formerly § 281.38  -  eliminate reserved section for financial responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances
   *    Move § 281.39 to § 281.38  -  Lender Liability
   *    § 281.51, formerly § 281.52  -  add requirement for approved states to submit a revised application within three years of 40 CFR part 281 changes that require a program revision
   *    § 281.61  -  move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b)(2)

Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?  What Background Information Is Available About This Change?
The 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR part 281 sets criteria state UST programs must meet to receive EPA's approval to operate in lieu of the federal UST program.  The 1988 SPA regulation sets performance criteria states must meet to be considered no less stringent than the 1988 UST regulation (hereafter 40 CFR part 280) and provides requirements for states to have adequate enforcement.  It also details the components of a SPA application.

EPA is proposing certain changes to the 1988 SPA regulation to make it consistent with today's proposed changes to the 1988 UST technical regulation.  By doing so, EPA will require states to adopt UST technical regulation changes when final, in order to obtain or retain SPA.  EPA is proposing to keep the general format of the 1988 SPA regulation.  We are not proposing to make the SPA regulation as explicit or prescriptive as the UST technical regulation.  Finally, EPA is proposing technical corrections and adding a deadline for state program revisions whenever EPA makes substantive changes to the SPA regulation.

Addressing Energy Policy Act Requirements And Proposed 40 CFR Part 280 Changes

How SPA Works
EPA's proposed UST technical regulation changes and Energy Policy Act requirements primarily impact the 1988 SPA regulation in 40 CFR part 281, Subpart C  -  Criteria for No Less Stringent.  Thirty-six states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have state program approval and run their own underground storage tank programs in lieu of the federal program.  To ensure these jurisdictions, and any other states or territories obtaining SPA, adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes when final, EPA must update Subpart C.  To continue providing states with flexibility and not disrupt current state programs, EPA is proposing to revise the SPA regulation to make it consistent with, but not identical to, the 40 CFR part 280 changes.  Instead, EPA is proposing changes to the SPA regulation in a less prescriptive manner than in the changes in 40 CFR part 280.  EPA decided to continue this successful approach to implement the UST SPA program.

The 1988 SPA regulation developed no less stringent criteria in the form of objectives.  EPA is continuing this format so that, taken as a whole, state programs will be no less stringent than the federal requirements, even though they may deviate slightly from what is explicitly required in 40 CFR part 280.  For example, § 281.30 covers the no less stringent requirement for new UST system design, construction, and installation; it corresponds to § 280.20 of the UST technical regulation, but is much less explicit about requirements.

According to § 281.30 and to receive SPA, a state must require all new UST systems "...[b]e designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life due to manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion...".  In contrast, § 280.20 is much more explicit about how tank owners and operators ensure their tanks and piping prevent releases.  It states what is required to prevent releases and provides codes of practice to comply.  Although § 281.30 is less explicit, it nonetheless ensures owners and operators in approved states install UST systems that prevent releases and provides states flexibility in achieving that goal.

Proposed Goal Oriented Changes
EPA is proposing these goal oriented changes to Subpart C  -  Criteria for No Less Stringent.  By the term "goal oriented changes," EPA means changes in which states have some flexibility as to how they will meet the goals of the particular SPA regulation section.  They reflect certain 40 CFR part 280 proposed changes.
   *    § 281.30(c)  -  add notification for ownership changes
   *    § 281.31 and § 281.33(b)  -  add a phase-in schedule for upgrading previously deferred UST systems
   *    § 281.32(e) and (f) and § 281.33(a)(3)  -  add periodic testing of spill and overfill prevention equipment, secondary containment areas, and mechanical and electronic components; and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, as well as maintaining associated records

EPA's proposed ownership change notification requires anyone who assumes ownership of an UST system to notify the implementing agency within 30 days of assuming ownership and specifies what notification must include.  Our proposed SPA regulation change in § 281.30(c) is much less prescriptive and indicates states require owners and operators to "...adequately notify the implementing state agency within a reasonable timeframe when assuming ownership of an UST system using a form designated by the state agency."  This provides states some flexibility in complying, including allowing them to continue relying on an annual tank registration program to meet this requirement.  This is a reasonable way to ensure states know who owns USTs in their jurisdiction.  EPA does not have an annual registration program, so we specify a timeframe in § 280.22 because we want to know who owns tanks in jurisdictions where we are the implementing agency.

In § 280.21, EPA is proposing that previously deferred wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet specific upgrade requirements.  This is one way of achieving the goal states need to meet in § 281.31.  In § 281.31, states will be required to ensure tanks are upgraded to prevent releases due to corrosion, spills, and overfills or be permanently closed.  These more general requirements are sufficient for a state program to protect human health and the environment because they require UST systems to "...prevent releases for their operating life...".  EPA finds it is also adequate to upgrade previously deferred systems to this standard.

Additionally, EPA is proposing previously deferred UST systems be upgraded within three years of a state submitting its SPA application for approval or revision.  In the past, EPA experienced problems with requiring states to have a particular requirement by a certain date in order to receive SPA.  States applying for SPA after a deadline passed often have difficulty implementing or obtaining a retroactive requirement.  A retroactive or deadline leads to complications with little added benefit.

In today's proposal, EPA is adding various operation and maintenance requirements.  In 40 CFR part 280, EPA is proposing specific frequencies and procedures for testing spill and overfill prevention equipment, secondary containment integrity testing, release detection equipment testing, and operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections.  In § 281.32, EPA is proposing states require these tests in a manner and frequency that ensures proper functionality of equipment, includes proper operation and maintenance of the UST system, and prevents releases for the life of the equipment and UST system.  This approach allows states who have these requirements, despite different frequencies or manners, to receive SPA, as long as their requirements sufficiently ensure properly functioning non-releasing UST systems.  EPA is also proposing to update § 281.32(g) by adding these tests to the recordkeeping requirements of SPA.

Proposed Energy Policy Act Changes
In today's SPA regulation proposal, EPA is addressing Energy Policy Act requirements more generally than in today's UST technical regulation proposal, yet they are slightly different than the goal oriented approach above.  The Energy Policy Act amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act and requires states that receive federal Subtitle I money to adopt operator training requirements, delivery prohibition, and additional measures to protect groundwater from contamination.  In the additional measures to protect groundwater provision, states must meet either secondary containment and interstitial monitoring for new or replaced tanks and piping within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water well or community water system, or manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification.  The secondary containment requirement includes under-dispenser containment on any new motor fuel dispenser system within 1,000 feet of a potable drinking water well or community water system.

EPA developed guidelines for states to implement Energy Policy Act requirements; many states and territories implemented the Energy Policy Act requirements according to these guidelines.  In order to establish similar requirements in Indian country and in states and territories that do not adopt Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA is adding secondary containment and operator training to today's 40 CFR part 280 proposal.  In proposing those requirements, EPA does not want to supersede programs states developed to meet Energy Policy Act requirements.  Requiring states to alter newly implemented provisions would be a disservice to them, as well as UST owners and operators.  Therefore, EPA is proposing to address in today's SPA regulation proposal the secondary containment, manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification, delivery prohibition, and operator training requirements that appear in the Energy Policy Act.  So, states already meeting these Energy Policy Act requirements need not change their programs to receive SPA.

EPA is proposing additional measures to protect groundwater and operator training requirements in Subpart C (§ 281.22(d)(3), § 281.30(a), § 281.33(c)(2), and § 281.39).  Delivery prohibition is in Subpart D  -  Adequate Enforcement of Compliance (§ 281.40(a)).  Because delivery prohibition is an enforcement tool, EPA is proposing to require states have authority to prohibit deliveries according to Energy Policy Act, rather than make this a no less stringent requirement.

EPA is not proposing to add delivery prohibition to 40 CFR part 280 because delivery prohibition is primarily an enforcement tool for implementing agencies; it is not a requirement for owners and operators.  Because the Energy Policy Act gives EPA clear delivery prohibition enforcement authority, we do not need to add delivery prohibition to the UST technical regulation.  However, the only way to ensure states have that same authority is to require states to have authority to implement delivery prohibition as a prerequisite for SPA, as proposed in § 281.40(a).

Proposed Specific Changes
EPA is proposing specific changes below to Subpart C  -  Criteria for No Less Stringent.  They reflect proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes.  This specific approach is the only way for states to adopt this group of proposed changes.  The goal of these proposed sections remain intact, yet the specific changes ensure states adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes when final, and are able to receive SPA.
   *    § 281.30(b)  -  eliminate flow restrictors for new or replaced overfill prevention
   *    § 281.31  -  delete upgrading requirements
   *    § 281.33(c)  -  limit use of monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed or upgraded, if the tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA
   *    § 281.33(e)  -  require hazardous substance USTs to only use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring
   *    § 281.34(a)(1)  -  add "...interstitial space may have been compromised..." to suspected releases
   *    § 281.37  -  eliminate phase-in requirement for financial responsibility

EPA is proposing in § 281.30(b) states wishing to receive SPA not allow installation of flow restrictors (commonly referred to as ball floats) in vent lines for overfill protection.  The existing goal of § 281.30(b) is for states to require that UST systems have spill and overfill prevention equipment.  In the proposed language, EPA maintains the overall goal to prevent spills and overfills; however, owners and operators can no longer install ball floats to achieve that goal.

The deadlines for upgrades and for owners and operators to obtain financial responsibility have passed.  As a result, EPA is proposing to eliminate these UST technical regulation deadlines in the SPA regulation.  In § 281.31 and § 281.33(b), EPA is removing UST upgrades, except for previously deferred USTs.  In § 281.37, we are eliminating the financial responsibility phase-in schedule.  Please note EPA is proposing states allow upgrades prior to submitting their approval or revision applications for SPA, rather than only until December 22, 1998.  EPA is taking this action due to states' previous problems with implementing a retroactive requirement when applying for SPA after the upgrade deadline.

In § 281.33(c), EPA is proposing monthly inventory control in combination with tank tightness testing conducted every five years for the first 10 years after a tank is installed or upgraded, only if a tank was installed prior to a state receiving SPA.  This reflects a proposed change in 40 CFR part 280 and avoids another problem in the 1988 SPA regulation.  First, EPA is proposing to eliminate this method.  Second, EPA is proposing to tie the date for eliminating this method to a state's submission of its SPA application for approval or revision.  As discussed earlier, EPA is taking the position that it is better to tie deadlines in the SPA regulation to states' submission of SPA applications, rather than specific dates.

In today's notice, EPA is proposing states wishing to receive SPA will no longer be able to allow installation of non-secondarily contained hazardous substance UST systems.  This is consistent with EPA's proposed change in § 280.42(e); an equivalent and specific proposed change to the SPA regulation is the only way to ensure states adopt it.  For consistency with proposed changes in the UST technical regulation and to ensure states wishing to receive SPA adopt this change, in § 281.34(a)(1), EPA is proposing to add "...interstitial space may have been compromised..." to suspected releases conditions.

Proposed UST Technical Regulation Changes Not Addressed In Proposed SPA Regulation
EPA is not proposing to address in the proposed SPA regulation (§ 281.32) the methods for determining compatibility.  Today's proposed compatibility proposal in § 281.32 allows owners and operators to use any method for determining compatibility approved by an implementing agency, as long as the method is no less protective of human health and the environment.  It is unnecessary to change the SPA regulation because the proposed UST technical regulation in § 281.32 will provide states with discretion to ensure compatibility.  Also, the proposed UST technical regulation change delineates how owners and operators can demonstrate they are storing substances in UST systems made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substances stored.  This is more prescriptive than the general format of the SPA regulation, and thus is not appropriate for the SPA regulation.

Addressing SPA Revision Process

EPA is proposing to add a requirement for approved states to submit a revised application within three years of SPA regulation changes that require a program revision under § 281.51.  Approved states are required to revise their programs and submit revised applications whenever the federal program changes or EPA's Administrator requests a revised application based on changes to a state's program.  Given today's proposed significant changes, it is necessary to develop a timeframe which will ensure approved states meet SPA regulation changes in a reasonable time.

After discussions with states and reviews of other EPA programs, EPA is taking the position that three years is a reasonable time for approved states to submit revised applications resulting from SPA regulation changes.  Also, EPA will work with states to ensure they meet this three-year deadline.  EPA's proposed language in § 281.51 is intended only to require a state program revision within three years if EPA makes changes that necessitate state program changes.  For instance, EPA changes to Subpart C  -  Criteria for No Less Stringent would likely require a state program revision, unless EPA is only making minor editorial changes.

While most states will be able to meet the three-year deadline for program revision, EPA is aware that some states may need additional time.  EPA will notify states that have not revised their program within three years.  EPA will ask those states to demonstrate their level of effort, show progress to date, and provide dates when they will achieve major milestones for revising their programs and submitting a revised application.    EPA will consider these factors before initiating program approval withdrawal.

Additional Proposed Changes To SPA Regulation

EPA is proposing these additional SPA regulation changes; they are not a direct result of proposed 40 CFR part 280 changes.  Rather, the majority are corrections to the 1988 SPA regulation.
   *    § 281.10  -  change "subpart" to "part"
   *    § 281.11(c), § 281.12(b)(2), § 281.23,  and formerly § 281.51  -  eliminate interim approval
   *    § 281.12(a)(2)  -  change "Indian lands" to "Indian country"
   *    § 281.32(e)  -  eliminate requirement to maintain upgrade records
   *    Formerly § 281.38  -  eliminate reserved section for financial responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances
   *    Move § 281.39 to § 281.38  -  Lender Liability
   *    § 281.61  -  move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b)(2)

The SPA regulation incorrectly uses the term subpart in § 281.10, and therefore EPA is proposing to correctly change this to part.  EPA has been using the term Indian country instead of Indian lands for years.  We are proposing to incorporate this term, which does not alter the meaning, in the SPA regulation.  EPA is proposing to remove the reserved financial responsibility for USTs containing hazardous substances section (formerly § 281.38); move the lender liability section from § 281.39 to § 281.38; and include the new operator training section in § 281.39.  Because operator training needs to be in Subpart C, which has no remaining section numbers, this eliminates the need to renumber Subpart D.  Also, the reserved financial responsibility for hazardous substances section is unnecessary since there is no corresponding requirement in 40 CFR part 280.

EPA is proposing to delete the interim SPA approval language (in § 281.11(c) and § 281.51).  In more than 20 years of the UST program, no state has sought interim approval; it is more beneficial to receive full approval all at once, rather than in steps.  Also, because 36 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have SPA, interim SPA approval is unnecessary at this time.

EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain upgrade records for the operational life of an UST facility.  This requirement in § 281.32(e) of the 1988 SPA regulation does not exist in 40 CFR part 280.  In addition, EPA is proposing to no longer allow upgrades.

EPA is also proposing to move § 281.60(b) to § 281.61(b).  This paragraph explains the procedure EPA will follow to withdraw approval.  This paragraph is better suited for § 281.61, which explains the procedures for withdrawing approval, as opposed to § 281.60, which explains the criteria for withdrawal.

What Issues Related To This Change Does EPA Request Comment Or Additional Data On?
EPA requests comments on:
   *    Is three years an appropriate timeframe for requiring a SPA state to submit a revised application?  Please provide justification.
   *    Should EPA address the proposed procedures for determining compatibility of § 280.32 into the SPA regulation?

Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or propose something different from EPA's proposal.

VI.

   A.

IV. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an "economically significant regulatory action" because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

EPA prepared an analysis of the potential incremental costs and benefits associated with this action.  This analysis is contained in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) document titled Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, which is available in the docket for this proposal.  RIA estimated regulatory implementation and compliance costs, and benefits for three regulatory options as described above in section V, subsection F.  On an annualized basis, the estimated regulatory compliance costs for the three options in today's proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520 million (Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2).  Separately, this analysis assessed the potential benefits of the proposed regulation.  As discussed in the RIA, a substantial portion of the beneficial impacts associated with the proposed regulation are avoided cleanup costs as a result of preventing releases and reducing the severity of releases.  Today's action is expected to have annual cost savings related to avoided costs of $300 - $740 million per year under the Preferred Option, $310 - $770  million per year under Option 1, and $110 - $590 million per year under Option 2.

We recognize that the estimated number of avoided releases and releases reduced in severity is based on expert judgment.  Moreover, the cost savings estimates reflect cost data from only a small number of state programs (e.g., such as New Hampshire).  We solicit public input on the accuracy of the expected reduction in releases due to the proposed requirements provided by the experts, as well as remediation cost data for releases of different sizes and types.  Please provide relevant data and studies on this topic.EPA solicits comment on the methodology and results from the RIA, as well as any data that the public feels would be useful in a revised analysis including specifically cost estimates for remediation and EPA's methods for estimating prevented releases under the proposed rule.

V. Statutory And Executive Orders

   A.    Executive Order  12866: Regulatory Planning And Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an "economically significant regulatory action" because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

   B.    Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number [XXXX.XX]. [Insert EPA ICR number.]

Today's proposed regulation contains mandatory information collection requirements.  The labor burden and associated costs for these requirements are estimated in the ICR supporting statement for today's proposed action.  The supporting statement identifies and estimates the burden for each of the changes to the regulations that include recordkeeping or reporting requirements.  Proposed changes include: adding secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping; adding operator training requirements; adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; removing certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection technologies; and updating state program approval requirements to incorporate these new changes.

Based on the same data and cost calculations applied in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for today's action, but using the burden estimations for ICRs, the ICR supporting statement estimates an average annual labor hour burden of 2.7 million hours and $134 million for the proposed regulation.  One time capital and hourly costs are included in these estimates based on a three year annualization period.  Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  The total universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of 223,558 facilities and 56 states and territories.

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 EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301.   Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB.  See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register.], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.].  The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

   C.    Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed regulation on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.   The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.  We have determined that at most 1 percent of potentially affected small firms in the retail motor fuel sector (NAICS 447) will experience an impact over  1 percent of revenues but less than 3 percent of revenues.  No small firms have impacts above 3 percent of revenues.  In addition, we estimate that no small governmental jurisdictions would be impacted at 1 percent or 3 percent of revenues.  This certification is based on the small entities analysis contained in the RIA for today's proposal.

Although this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this regulation on the regulated community in general, which is primarily comprised of small businesses.  EPA conducted extensive outreach in order to determine which changes to make to the 1988 regulations.  EPA worked with representatives of owners and operators and reached out specifically to small businesses.  In addition, EPA considered the impacts of each potential regulatory change and worked to limit changes that required retrofits, since changes requiring retrofits would place a high financial burden on small businesses.  Finally, EPA maintained numerous options for compliance in order to provide small entities with as much flexibility as possible.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

   D.    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.  This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector in any one year.  Accordingly, EPA prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement (an appendix to the RIA), which is summarized below.

 As estimated in the RIA, on an annualized basis, the total estimated regulatory compliance costs for the three options in today's proposed action are $210 million (Preferred Option), $520 million (Option 1), and $130 million (Option 2).  Of this amount, annualized costs to state/local governments total $9 million under the Preferred Option, $19 million under Option 1, and $6 million under Option 2.  These costs consist of estimated regulatory compliance costs for state/local governments that currently own or operate UST systems and annualized costs of $120,000 for states to implement the proposed rule.  EPA estimates total annualized costs to owners and operators of tribally-owned UST systems are $0.7 million under the Preferred Option.  The estimated annualized cost to the private sector range is approximately $180 million under the Preferred Option, $350 million under Option 1, and $120 million under Option 2.  While the proposed regulation may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector, thereby triggering section 202 of the UMRA, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 204 of UMRA because EPA does not believe state, local, and tribal governments will incur aggregate costs of over $100 million per year.

Consistent with section 205, EPA identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives.  Today's proposed regulation identifies a number of regulatory options, and the RIA estimates the annual cost across the three considered options may range between $130 million and $520 million.  Section 205 of the UMRA requires federal agencies to select the least costly or most cost-effective regulatory alternative unless the Agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why such alternative was not adopted.  As discussed earlier in the preamble, as part of EPA's deliberative process for today's proposed rule, EPA considered and evaluated variations of a subset of the proposed requirements using two alternative options (Options 1 and 2).  The preferred option provides the greatest difference between beneficial impact and costs of any of the options.  The requirements proposed  under the Preferred Option provides for greater protection of human health and the environment and better addresses stakeholder concerns, compared to the lower cost and proposed requirements of Option 2.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

   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, as specified in EO 13132.  Under the proposed rule, total costs to all affected states and local governments (including direct compliance costs, notification costs, and state program costs) are approximately $9 million.  This is not considered to be a substantial compliance cost under federalism requirements.  Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.

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

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.

EPA concluded that this action will have tribal implications to the extent that tribally-owned entities with UST systems on Indian country would be affected.  However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.  Total annualized costs for tribally-owned UST systems in Indian country are estimated to be $0.7 million.

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing this proposed regulation to welcome meaningful and timely input into its development.  EPA began its consultation with tribes on possible changes to the UST regulation shortly after the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  The Energy Policy Act directed EPA to coordinate with tribes to develop and implement an UST program strategy in Indian country to supplement the program's existing approach.  EPA and tribes worked collaboratively to develop a tribal strategy.

There are certain key provisions of the Energy Policy Act that apply to states receiving federal Subtitle I money, but do not apply in Indian country.  Nonetheless, EPA's goal is to establish in Indian country similar federal requirements to these Energy Policy Act provisions as an important step in achieving more consistent program results in release prevention.  Both EPA and tribes recognize the importance of having policies that can help ensure parity in program implementation between states and in Indian country.

In addition to our early consultation with tribes, EPA also reached out again to tribes as we started the official rulemaking process and throughout the development of this proposed regulation.  EPA sent letters to leaders of over 500 tribes as well as to tribal regulatory staff to invite their participation in the development of the regulation.  EPA heard from both tribal officials who work as regulators as well as representatives of owners and operators of UST systems in Indian country.  The tribal regulators raised concerns about ensuring parity of environmental protection between states and Indian country.

EPA finds that today's proposed changes to the UST regulation are needed to ensure parity between UST systems in states and in Indian country.  This regulation is also needed to ensure equipment is not just installed but is working properly to protect the environment from potential releases.

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

   G.    Executive Order 13045: Protection Of Children From Environmental Health And Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because the Agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.  EPA's risk assessment for this proposed rulemaking examines potential impacts to groundwater and subsequent chemical transport, exposure and risk. While the risk assessment did not specifically measure exposure to children, the general exposure scenarios reflect four exposure pathways that have the most significant potential for human health impacts.  These are: (1) ingestion of chemicals in groundwater that have migrated from the source area to residential drinking water wells; (2) inhalation of volatile chemicals when showering with contaminated groundwater; (3) dermal contact with chemicals while bathing or showering with contaminated groundwater; and (4) inhalation of vapors that may migrate upward from contaminated groundwater into overlying buildings.

Adults and children can potentially be exposed through all four exposure pathways considered.   For adults, inhalation of vapors while showering is the most significant exposure pathway; for children, ingestion is the most significant pathway, because they are assumed to take baths and are, therefore, not exposed via shower vapor inhalation.  As a result of the longer exposure from showering, adults are the more sensitive receptors for cancer effects compared to children, particularly those under five who are assumed to take more baths and fewer showers.
While the screening level risk assessment is limited in that it only examines benzene impacts, the proposed rule would likely reduce other contaminant exposures to children in a similar pattern and would not create significant adverse impacts on children's health.

The screening level population analysis performed to examine EO 12898 shows that children under 18 years and children under five years are slightly less likely to be found in the vicinity of UST facilities.  This suggests that the impacts of the proposed rule will not have a disproportionate impact on children's health.  Moreover, because all regulatory options proposed today would increase regulatory stringency and reduce the number and size of releases, EPA does not expect the proposed regulation to have any disproportionate adverse impact on children.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to petroleum products.

   H.    Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, Or Use

This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The following summarizes EPA's assessment of the energy impacts that the proposed rulemaking will have on energy supply, distribution, and use.

The proposed regulation consists of additional regulatory requirements that apply to the owners and operators of underground storage tanks.  To the extent that the proposed regulation affects the motor fuel sector, it does so at the retail motor fuel sales level, rather than the level of refineries or distributors, who supply the retail stations with motor fuel.  Therefore, we do not expect the proposed regulation to have a significant adverse impact on energy supply or distribution.

The additional regulatory requirements contained in the proposed regulation may increase compliance costs for owners and operators of retail motor fuel stations.  If owners and operators of retail motor fuel stations affected by the proposed regulation can pass through their increased compliance costs, energy use may be affected via higher energy prices caused by the proposed regulation.  However, we do not expect a significant change in retail gasoline prices to result from this proposed regulation for the following reasons: (1) economic analyses of retail fuel prices have revealed that demand for gasoline is highly sensitive to price (elastic) within localized geographic areas.  As a result, if one motor fuel retailer in an area passes through increases in compliance costs by increasing gasoline prices, while another does not, the one with higher prices is at a competitive disadvantage; and (2) retail motor fuel stations often have associated stores and/or services, such as car washes, repair operations, and convenience outlets, on which they can more successfully pass through increases in compliance costs.

Furthermore, when considered in the context of total fuel consumption in the United States, the proposed rule would represent only a very small fraction of motor fuel prices even if it was fully passed through to consumers.  According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the United States consumed approximately 171 billion gallons of motor fuel (including gasoline and diesel) in 2008 at an average price of $3.27.  This implies that U.S. consumers spent $558 billion in 2008 on motor fuel. The overall cost of the proposed regulation is approximately $210 million, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the amount spent by end users on motor fuel in 2008.  In comparison, an increase of 1 cent in the average price of motor fuel in 2008 would have increased the total cost to consumers by approximately $1.7 billion.  Given these circumstances, the proposed regulations should not have a measurable impact on retail motor fuel prices.
As a result, EPA does not expect the proposed regulations to have a significant adverse impact on energy prices or use.

   I.    National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed regulation involves technical standards.  EPA is proposing to use voluntary consensus standards, called codes of practice identified in section E-2 of the preamble.  These codes of practice meet the objectives of today's proposed regulation by establishing criteria for the design, construction, and maintenance of underground storage tanks.

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed regulation and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

To inform us about the socioeconomic characteristics of communities potentially affected by the proposed regulation, EPA conducted a screening analysis to examine whether there is a statistically significant disparity between socioeconomic characteristics of populations located near UST facilities and those that are not.  As discussed in the RIA, the results indicate that minority and low-income populations are slightly more likely to be located near UST facilities.  An environmental justice analysis would then require an assessment of whether there would be disproportionate and adverse impacts on these populations.  However, because all regulatory options considered in this proposed regulation would increase regulatory stringency and reduce the number and size of releases, EPA does not anticipate the proposed regulation to have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these minority or low-income communities or any community.

List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 280
	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Confidential business information, Groundwater, Hazardous materials, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Underground storage tanks, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 281
      Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Hazardous materials, Petroleum, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

Dated:

_____________________________________________
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40 Chapter I of Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 280 -- TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)

1. The authority citation for part 280 is revised to read as follows:
Authority:  42 USC 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 6991(g), 6991(h), 6991(i).

2. Revise § 280.10 to read as follows:
§ 280.10  Applicability.

	(a)  The requirements of this part apply to all owners and operators of an UST system as defined in § 280.12 except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

     (1)      Previously deferred UST systems.  UST systems previously deferred from subparts B, C, D, E, G and H (airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, UST systems with field-constructed tanks, and wastewater treatment tank systems) and UST systems previously deferred from subpart D (UST systems that store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators) must begin meeting the requirements of this part as follows:

     (i)      UST systems installed on or before [effective date of rule] must meet the schedule in the following table.

                              Type Of UST System
                              Subpart Or Section
                                Effective Date
UST systems that store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators
                                       D
[1 Year after effective date of rule]
Airport hydrant fuel distribution systems; UST systems with field-constructed tanks; and wastewater treatment tank systems
                          B (except § 280.22) and C
[3 Years after effective date of rule]

                                       D
See the phase in schedule in § 280.40(c)

                      § 280.22 of subpart B, E, G and H
[effective date of rule]

     (ii)      UST systems installed after [effective date of rule] must meet all requirements at installation.

  	(2) Any UST system listed in paragraph (c) of this section must meet the requirements of § 280.11.

	(b)  The following UST systems are excluded from the requirements of this part:

	 (1)  Any UST system holding hazardous wastes listed or identified under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or a mixture of such hazardous waste and other regulated substances.

	(2)  Any wastewater treatment tank system that is part of a wastewater treatment facility regulated under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act.

	(3)  Equipment or machinery that contains regulated substances for operational purposes such as hydraulic lift tanks and electrical equipment tanks.

	(4)  Any UST system whose capacity is 110 gallons or less.

	(5)  Any UST system that contains a de minimis concentration of regulated substances.

	(6)  Any emergency spill or overflow containment UST system that is expeditiously emptied after use.

	(c)  Deferrals.  Subparts B, C, D, E, and G of this part do not apply to:

	(1)  Aboveground tanks associated with:

	(i)  Airport hydrant fuel distribution systems; and

	(ii)  UST systems with field-constructed tanks;

	(2)  Any UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 and following); and

	(3)  Any UST system that is part of an emergency generator system at nuclear power generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR part 50.

3. In § 280.11 revise the Note at the end of the section to read as follows:
§ 280.11 Interim prohibition for deferred UST systems.

* * * * *

	Note to paragraphs (a) and (b):  The following codes of practice may be used as guidance for complying with this section:

	(A) NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, "Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection";

 	(B) NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, "Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems";

	(C) American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, "Cathodic Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems"; or

	(D) Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, "Recommended Practice for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems".

4. § 280.12 is amended as follows: a. By adding in alphabetical order definitions for "Airport hydrant fuel distribution system," "Class A operator," "Class B operator," "Class C operator," "Dispenser system," "Replaced," "Secondary containment," "Training program," and "Under-dispenser containment," and b. By revising the definitions for "Motor fuel," "Regulated substance," "Repair," and "Underground storage tank."
§ 280.12  Definitions.

* * * * *

	Airport hydrant fuel distribution system means an UST system that is a combination of one or more tanks directly connected to underground hydrant piping used to fuel aircraft.  These systems do not have a dispenser at the end of the piping run, but rather have a hydrant (fill stand). If an aboveground storage tank (AST) is feeding an intermediary tank or tanks, this definition does not include the AST, but does include all underground piping entering and leaving the intermediary tank(s) and the intermediary tank(s).  Intermediary tanks are those tanks directly connected to the hydrant piping.

* * * * *

	Class A operator means the individual who has primary responsibility to operate and maintain the UST system in accordance with applicable requirements and standards established by the implementing agency.  The Class A operator typically manages resources and personnel, such as establishing work assignments, to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements.

	Class B operator means the individual who has day-to-day responsibility for implementing applicable regulatory requirements and standards established by the implementing agency.  The Class B operator typically implements in-field aspects of operation, maintenance, and associated recordkeeping for the UST system.

	Class C operator means the employee responsible for initially addressing emergencies presented by a spill or release from an UST system.  The Class C operator typically controls or monitors the dispensing or sale of regulated substances.

* * * * *

            Dispenser system means equipment located aboveground that meters the amount of regulated substances transferred to a point of use outside the UST system, such as a motor vehicle.  This system includes the equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the underground storage tank system.

* * * * *

	Motor fuel means petroleum or a petroleum-based substance that is typically used in the operation of a motor engine, such as motor gasoline, aviation gasoline, No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel, or any blend containing one or more of these substances (for example: motor gasoline blended with alcohol).

* * * * *

	Regulated substance means

	(a)	any substance defined in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (but not including any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under subtitle C), and

	(b)	petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof that is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute).  The term "regulated substance" includes but is not limited to petroleum and petroleum-based substances comprised of a complex blend of hydrocarbons, such as motor fuels, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, petroleum solvents, and used oils.

* * * * *

	Repair means to restore a tank, pipe, spill prevention equipment, overfill prevention equipment, corrosion protection equipment, release detection equipment or other UST system component that has caused a release or a suspected release of product from the UST system or has failed to function properly.

            Replaced means

          (a) for a tank - to remove a tank and install another tank.

          (b) for piping - to remove 50 percent or more of piping and install other piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single tank.  For tanks with multiple piping runs, this definition applies independently to each piping run.

* * * * *

            Secondary containment or Secondarily contained means a release prevention and release detection system for a tank and/or piping.  These systems have an inner and outer barrier with an interstitial space that is monitored for leaks.

* * * * *

	Training program means any program established by the implementing agency that provides information to and evaluates the knowledge of a Class A, Class B, or Class C operator regarding requirements and standards for UST systems.

            Under-dispenser containment or UDC means containment underneath a dispenser system designed to prevent dispenser system leaks from reaching soil or groundwater.

* * * * *

	Underground storage tank or UST means any one or combination of tanks (including underground pipes connected thereto) that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated substances, and the volume of which (including the volume of underground pipes connected thereto) is 10 percent or more beneath the surface of the ground.  This term does not include any:

	(a)  Farm or residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes;

	(b)  Tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored;

	(c)  Septic tank;

	(d)  Pipeline facility (including gathering lines):

	(1)  Which is regulated under U.S.C. chapters 601 and 603, or

	(2)  Which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under state laws as provided in U.S.C. 49 chapters 601 and 603,and which is determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be connected to a pipeline, or to be operated or intended to be capable of operating at pipeline pressure, or as an integral part of a pipeline;

	(e)  Surface impoundment, pit, pond, or lagoon;

	(f)  Storm-water or wastewater collection system;

	(g)  Flow-through process tank;

	(h)  Liquid trap or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering operations; or

	(i)  Storage tank situated in an underground area (such as a basement, cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor.

The term underground storage tank or UST does not include any pipes connected to any tank which is described in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this definition.

* * * * *

5. Revise Subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B --  UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification
280.20 Performance standards for new UST systems.
280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems.
280.22 Notification requirements.

Subpart B --  UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification
§ 280.20  Performance standards for new UST systems.
	In order to prevent releases due to structural failure, corrosion, or spills and overfills for as long as the UST system is used to store regulated substances, all owners and operators of new UST systems must meet the following requirements.

	(a)  Tanks.  Each tank must be properly designed and constructed, and any portion underground that routinely contains product must be protected from corrosion, in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.  In addition, all new or replaced tanks where installation began after [effective date of rule] must be secondarily contained in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section:

	(1)  The tank is constructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic; or

	Note to paragraph (a)(1):  The following codes of practice may be used to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

	(A) Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, "Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures"; or

	(B) Underwriter's Laboratories of Canada S615, "Standard for Reinforced Plastic Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids".

	(2)  The tank is constructed of steel and cathodically protected in the following manner:

	(i)  The tank is coated with a suitable dielectric material;