[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4155-4185]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-14]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 15

January 24, 2011

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and
Pipeline Facilities; and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-9253-7]
RIN 2060-AP16

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants,
and Pipeline Facilities; and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which EPA promulgated on January 10,
2008, and amended on March 7, 2008. In this action, EPA is finalizing
amendments and clarifications to certain definitions and applicability
provisions of the final rules in response to some of the issues raised
in the petitions for reconsideration. In addition, several other
compliance-related questions posed by various individual stakeholders
and State and local agency representatives are addressed in this
action. We are also denying reconsideration on one issue raised in a
petition for reconsideration received by the Agency on the final rules.

DATES: These final rules are effective on January 24, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 24,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
    The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is: http://wwwlepa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The electronic mail (e-mail) address for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the Fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General and Technical Information: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number: (919) 685-
3195, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Compliance Information: Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Compliance, Air
Compliance Branch (2223A), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 564-
7027, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                            NAICS *                  Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................  324110, 493190, 486910,      Operations at area sources that transfer
                                           424710, 447110, 447190.      and store gasoline, including bulk
                                                                        terminals, bulk plants, pipeline
                                                                        facilities, and gasoline dispensing
                                                                        facilities.
Federal/State/local/Tribal governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your
EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
    Outline: The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. General Information
    A. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    B. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
    A. Petitions for Reconsideration and Judicial Review
    B. Other Stakeholder Issues
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Throughput Thresholds
    C. Rule Clarifications
    D. Comments Addressing Other Provisions That Were Not Proposed
To Be Amended
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
these final amendments will also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN at EPA's Web site
provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

B. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by March 25, 2011. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

    On January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1916), EPA promulgated National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; and
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC) pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and
112(d)(5) of the CAA. On March 10, 2008, the Administrator received two
petitions for reconsideration of the final rules. One petition was
filed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the
other by the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0406, items 0174 and 0173). The Alliance also filed a petition for
judicial review of the final rules in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In addition, the
Alliance, API, and several other stakeholders (affected facilities and
State and local government agencies) contacted EPA with questions on
issues related to the implementation of the final rules.

A. Petitions for Reconsideration and Judicial Review

1. The Alliance Petition
    The Alliance's petition for reconsideration identified three issues
for reconsideration (see the preamble to the proposed rule for a
discussion of these issues (74 FR 66471)). The first two issues were
regarding the definition of ``Bulk Gasoline Plant.'' We granted
reconsideration of these two issues in the proposed rule (74 FR 66471).
We are taking final action with regard to those issues in today's
notice.
    The Alliance raised a third issue in its petition for
reconsideration, which questioned the inclusion of gasoline storage
tanks used to fuel emergency generators and fire pumps as being subject
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB or 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
The Alliance stated in both its petition for reconsideration and in its
comments submitted on the proposed amendments that gasoline storage
tanks that fuel fire pumps and emergency generators should not be
covered by subparts BBBBBB or CCCCCC. They stated that many of these
pieces of equipment are fueled by gasoline storage tanks holding less
than 250 gallons. The Alliance acknowledged that other gasoline storage
tanks fueling this equipment are above this 250-gallon level, but it
asserts that the gasoline storage tanks still have very low monthly
throughput. The Alliance also stated that most emergency generator and
fire pump gasoline storage tanks will have zero gallons per day
throughput and are likely to be filled only once or twice per year
after routine maintenance and testing. The Alliance further stated that
regulating this equipment under subparts BBBBBB or CCCCCC could
potentially cover thousands of emergency generator and fire pump
gasoline storage tanks nationwide at various types of facilities that
may not otherwise have air permitting requirements. Thus, in its
petition for reconsideration, the Alliance suggested that EPA entirely
exempt these gasoline storage tanks from regulation under either
subpart BBBBBB or subpart CCCCCC.
    After considering this matter, we deny reconsideration of the third
issue in the Alliance's petition for reconsideration. Under CAA section
307(b)(7)(B), the Administrator must initiate reconsideration
proceedings with respect to provisions that are of central relevance to
the rule at issue if the petitioner shows that it was impracticable to
raise an objection to a rule within the public comment period or that
the grounds for the objection arose after the public comment period but
within the period for filing petitions for judicial review. The
Alliance attempted neither demonstration in its petition for
reconsideration; instead, it merely asserted that ``neither the
proposal nor the final rule provided any notice'' that these tanks
could be subject to the rules (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406,
item 0152.1). Such assertion is not sufficient under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) for requiring EPA to reconsider this issue. The provision
that the Alliance alleges provoked this third issue, the originally
promulgated definition of ``bulk gasoline plant,'' was included in the
original proposal published on November 9, 2006 (see 40 CFR 63.11100,
73 FR 1916, 1940). The Alliance had ample time during the 60-day public
comment period to raise its concern that this definition of ``bulk
gasoline plant'' ``could be read to cover gasoline storage tanks that
fuel emergency generators and fire pumps.'' (See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0406, item 0152.1.) However, the Alliance did not raise this
concern in its January 8, 2007 comments that it submitted on that
proposal (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, item 0094.1) and has not
provided any other explanation in its petition for reconsideration
regarding why doing so was ``impracticable.'' Additionally, the
Alliance has not provided any argument regarding why its concern
``arose after the public comment period but within the period for
filing petitions for judicial review.'' Finally, the Alliance has
offered no explanation as to why its particular issue with this
particular provision is of ``central relevance to the rule.'' Since the
Alliance has not demonstrated how its request meets the requirements of
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA is denying reconsideration of this issue
in its petition for reconsideration.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While EPA did grant reconsideration on the Alliance's other
issues in its petition for reconsideration which also involved the
definition of ``bulk gasoline plant'', EPA did so for completely
independent reasons unrelated to this third issue. See 74 FR 66470,
66471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we disagree with the Alliance that gasoline storage
tanks that

fuel emergency generators and fire pumps should not be regulated as
part of the Gasoline Distribution area source category. This alleged
issue is essentially just a request from the Alliance that EPA exempt
from regulation gasoline storage tanks fueling emergency generators and
fuel pumps. However, as we stated in the preamble to the proposed
amendments (74 FR 66474), the CAA requires that EPA set Federal
emission standards under CAA section 112(d) for source categories
listed under CAA section 112(c)(3). The list of source categories was
developed based on an emission inventory. The emission inventory for
GDF is based on the total volume of gasoline consumed nationwide
(including domestic production, plus imports and stock changes from the
previous year, minus exports), the emission factor for gasoline loading
losses, and the amount of submerged and splash loading and vapor
balancing in the industry. Total gasoline consumption is the total used
nationwide, so the emission inventory includes emissions estimates for
all end users of gasoline, which includes gasoline used in these
emergency generators and fire pumps. See 74 FR 66470, 66474.
Additionally, the types of gasoline storage tanks identified by the
Alliance are essentially the same as those found at other GDF, except
that the average or typical size and gasoline throughput tend to be
smaller than for the gasoline storage tanks at a more typical GDF that
refuel primarily motor vehicles. We considered both the size and
throughput of gasoline storage tanks at GDF in the selection of the
control requirements in the current rule, so the types of controls, and
the control levels required, are appropriate for even the smallest
gasoline storage tanks.
2. The API Petition
    The API Petition for Reconsideration identified four issues
regarding clarifications that they suggested should be made to the
final rules. We granted reconsideration of all four issues and
addressed them in the preamble and the rule text revisions that were
included in the proposed amendments. Additional discussion of the final
amendments to the rules as a result of our reconsideration of the
issues in the API petition, and our rationale for the amendments, is
presented in section IV of this preamble.

B. Other Stakeholder Issues

    In addition to the petitions discussed above, the Alliance, API,
and several other stakeholders (affected facilities and State and local
government agencies) contacted EPA with questions or issues related to
the implementation of the final rules. We are finalizing the proposed
changes to the rules resulting from these issues as described in
section IV of this preamble.
    The amendments being promulgated address both the petitions for
reconsideration and the additional questions from other stakeholders.
Our responses to the stakeholder questions do not substantially change
the level of the standards but clarify some of the requirements. These
clarifications do not change the impacts of the rules. Thus, the
estimates of environmental, cost, and information collection impacts
are not substantially different than estimated at promulgation of these
rules, and no changes have been made to the estimates presented in the
final rules.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    This section presents a brief summary of the significant changes
that have been made in the final rule as a result of our consideration
of the public comments on the proposed rule. Each of the items listed
below is discussed in detail in section IV of this preamble.
    1. In the final rule, we have added a provision to paragraph (g) in
40 CFR 63.11081 clarifying that ``An enforceable State, local, or
Tribal permit limitation on throughput, established prior to the
applicable compliance date, may be used in lieu of the 20,000 gallons
per day design capacity throughput threshold, to determine whether the
facility is a bulk gasoline plant or a bulk terminal.''
    2. In the final rule, we have clarified in 40 CFR
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), that the purpose of a heat sensing device
used to monitor a thermal oxidizer is to ``send,'' rather than to
``display'' (as stated in the proposal), either a positive or a
negative parameter value as a signal to indicate the presence or
absence, respectively, of the pilot flame. We also clarified that the
analyzer for conducting monthly measurements of the carbon outlet
volatile organic compound (VOC) concentration (from a carbon bed) can
be permanently mounted (i.e., it need not be portable as was previously
stated in the rule at 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)(iii)).
    3. We have added text to 40 CFR 63.11092(f) specifying that
facilities that are subject to subpart XX of 40 CFR part 60 may elect,
after notification to the subpart XX delegated authority, to comply
with the annual certification test for gasoline cargo tanks as
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
    4. We have revised the proposed amendments to entry 2 of Table 1 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, to correctly specify that the secondary
seal requirements from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (40 CFR
60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (a)(1)(iv) through (ix)) or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW (40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D)) do not apply to
internal floating roof tanks that are subject only to subpart BBBBBB.
    5. In 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, the following revisions have
been made to the definitions in 40 CFR 63.11100:
     We have revised the proposed definition of ``gasoline
storage tank'' to add an item (3) that specifically excludes sumps,
including butane blending sample recovery tanks (SRT), and oil/water
separators, from the definition of gasoline storage tank.
     We have also added a fourth item in the definition of
``gasoline storage tank'' excluding ``tanks or vessels permanently
attached to mobile sources such as trucks, railcars, barges, or
ships.''
     We have amended the definition of ``pipeline pumping
station'' to read: ``a facility along a pipeline containing pumps to
maintain the desired pressure and flow of product through the pipeline
and not containing gasoline storage tanks other than surge control
tanks.''
    6. We have added a new paragraph (f) to 40 CFR 63.11113 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC, stating that the compliance date for existing
GDF that only load gasoline into fuel tanks other than those in motor
vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132, is January 24, 2014. Also, we
have added text to paragraph (e) of 40 CFR 63.11111 in the final rule
stating that the date of the start of recordkeeping for these existing
GDF is the date of publication of these final amendments. For new
sources constructed, or for existing sources reconstructed, after the
date of publication of these final amendments, recordkeeping must begin
upon startup of the affected facility.
    7. We have revised 40 CFR 63.11120 to include a new paragraph (d)
that adds a cross-reference to the vapor tightness testing requirements
found in 40 CFR 63.11092(f). The vapor tightness testing was not
previously listed in 40 CFR 63.11120.
    8. We have added rule text in 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) stating that
GDF that are now subject to the rule because they only load gasoline
into fuel tanks other than those in motor vehicles, as defined in 40
CFR 63.11132, must submit Initial Notifications within 120 days of
publication of these final amendments.

    9. We have revised 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to include a
requirement that facilities must state in their Notification of
Compliance Status (NOCS) report whether the facilities' gasoline
throughput is determined based on the volume of gasoline loaded into
all gasoline storage tanks, or on the volume of gasoline dispensed from
all gasoline storage tanks. We have also specifically included the 60-
day time frame for the submittal of the NOCS in 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2).
    10. We have corrected a typographical error in proposed 40 CFR
63.11125(c). The citation included in the paragraph should be to
``Sec.  63.11094(b)(2)(i) through (viii)'' rather than to ``Sec.
63.11094(b)(i) through (viii)'' as it appeared in the reconsideration
proposal.
    11. In 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, we have added the CAA
definition of motor vehicles to the definitions found in 40 CFR
63.11132.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    Amendments to the gasoline distribution area source rules were
proposed on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66470). The 60-day public comment
period ended on February 16, 2010, and we received 17 comment letters.
Comments were received from industry representatives, trade
associations, State and local air pollution control agencies, and
private citizens. The final rule amendments reflect our consideration
of the significant comments received on the proposed action. This
section presents a summary of the significant comments received and our
responses to those comments.

A. Applicability

1. Definition of Bulk Gasoline Plant
    We proposed revising the definition of ``bulk gasoline plant'' in
subpart BBBBBB to clarify that gasoline from these facilities is
subsequently loaded into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to GDF. The
proposed definition is as follows: ``Bulk gasoline plant means any
gasoline storage and distribution facility that receives gasoline by
pipeline, ship or barge, or cargo tank and subsequently loads the
gasoline into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to gasoline dispensing
facilities, and has a gasoline throughput of less than 20,000 gallons
per day. Gasoline throughput shall be the maximum calculated design
throughput as may be limited by compliance with an enforceable
condition under Federal, State, or local law and discoverable by the
Administrator and any other person.''
    We received no comments specifically addressing the proposed
revision to the definition of ``bulk gasoline plants'' and are
finalizing the definition as proposed.
2. Definition of Gasoline Dispensing Facility
    We proposed amending the definition of ``gasoline dispensing
facility'' in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to clarify our intent to
include all stationary facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel
tanks of all end users of gasoline. The proposed definition is:
``Gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) means any stationary facility
which dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, motor
vehicle engine, nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine, including a nonroad
vehicle or nonroad engine used solely for competition. These facilities
include, but are not limited to, facilities that dispense gasoline into
on- and off-road, street, or highway motor vehicles, lawn equipment,
boats, test engines, landscaping equipment, generators, pumps, and
other gasoline-fueled engines and equipment.''
    Comment: One commenter recommends that, if EPA finalizes the
proposed definition of GDF, EPA extend the compliance date for
facilities that may now become affected facilities under 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC. The commenter suggested that since EPA will likely
not issue the final amendments until just prior to the January 10,
2011, compliance date, many affected sources may be unaware that they
are subject to subpart CCCCCC. The commenter requests that EPA consider
extending the compliance date for GDF that exceed the 10,000 gallons
per month (gpm) throughput level purely because they dispense gasoline
to end users other than motor vehicles. The commenter asserted that
these facilities may not be able to install the necessary control
equipment prior to the January 10, 2011, deadline, and should be
provided additional time to comply with the submerged fill
requirements.
    The commenter stated that the proposed new definition of GDF
greatly expands the affected source category beyond the ``fuel tank of
a motor vehicle'' category in the current rule. The commenter stated
that while many of the additional affected sources may fall under the
10,000 gpm throughput level, these facilities would still become
affected facilities under the national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP). The commenter stated that State agencies
accepting delegation of these NESHAP must be able to sufficiently
implement and enforce the standards for all affected facilities, not
just facilities required to control emissions. The commenter noted
that, in addition to applying good management practices, small GDF must
also be able to produce records to prove the facility is under 10,000
gpm throughput. The commenter asserted that it is not reasonable to
believe that the majority of these small GDF will keep these gasoline
throughput records, nor that EPA or the delegated State agencies will
be able to assure compliance with the recordkeeping requirements.
Further, the commenter suggested that some facilities may exceed the
10,000 gpm throughput threshold levels when considering fueling nonroad
vehicles or nonroad engines.
    A second commenter stated many of the same concerns as the previous
commenter and also stated that, without any objective research, the
Agency concluded that the newly-affected sources would all have
throughputs less than 10,000 gpm and therefore be subject to only 40
CFR 63.11116. The commenter stated that some of their facilities would
not fit into this presumed scenario; as a result, they would be given
only a few months to install submerged fill pipes on all its storage
tanks.
    The commenter also stated that EPA ignores the coincident impacts
of a source being regulated under the NESHAP. For example, the
commenter stated that they are covered by a New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) General Air Permit. The commenter
explained that the NJDEP General Air Permit excludes coverage for any
source that is covered under 40 CFR part 63. As a result, the commenter
said that they will have to apply for, pay the fees for, and obtain an
individual permit. The commenter asserted that this will also work
against the NJDEP's focus on General Air Permits, which ensures
environmental protection while freeing staff resources for more
worthwhile tasks. The commenter stated that the rule should be revised
to read as follows:
    ``(c) If you have an existing affected source that becomes subject
to the control requirements in this subpart after January 10, 2008, you
must comply with the standards in this subpart no later than 3 years
after the affected source becomes subject to the control requirements
in this subpart.''
    Response: We continue to believe that the preamble to the January
10, 2008, final rule was clear that, as discussed in the proposal, all
facilities that dispense gasoline, both public and private, were
subject to the rule. However, we acknowledged that our intent may have
been misinterpreted by some readers

because the January 10, 2008, final rule definition of GDF only
referenced the dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank of a ``motor
vehicle.'' CAA section 216(2) defines the term motor vehicle as ``any
self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on
a street or highway.'' The combination of these two definitions results
in a definition of GDF that is more limited than what we intended when
promulgating the final rule. Thus, we agree with the commenters that
some facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC
because they dispense gasoline to end users other than those defined in
the January 10, 2008, final rule, or specifically defined in the CAA as
motor vehicles, may not have considered themselves subject to the rule
prior to the clarification of the definition of GDF. This segment of
the GDF population includes those that dispense gasoline into the fuel
tank of a nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine, including a nonroad
vehicle or nonroad engine used solely for competition. It would also
include facilities dispensing gasoline into lawn equipment, boats, test
engines, landscaping equipment, generators, pumps, and other gasoline-
fueled engines and equipment.
    We recognize that the source category was more narrowly defined in
the final rule than we intended, so we are finalizing the proposed
amendments to the definition of ``gasoline dispensing facility'' to
correctly define the source category. Because the sources described
above were only clearly informed that 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC
was applicable to them as of the December 15, 2009, proposal date, we
agree that these newly covered sources should be allowed additional
time in which to comply with the revised final rule.
    In the final rule, we have added the CAA definition of ``motor
vehicles'' in 40 CFR 63.11132, and have also added a new paragraph (f)
to 40 CFR 63.11113 indicating the compliance dates for new and existing
GDF that only load gasoline into fuel tanks other than those in motor
vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132. For existing GDF that are
subject to the control requirements in this subpart only because they
load gasoline into fuel tanks other than those in motor vehicles, as
defined in Sec.  63.11132, the compliance date is January 24, 2014. For
new or reconstructed GDF that are subject to the control requirements
in this subpart only because they load gasoline into fuel tanks other
than those in motor vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132, the
compliance date is either the date of publication of these final rules
or the date of startup of the affected GDF (see 40 CFR 63.11132(f)(2)),
whichever is later.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that, to clarify that a single
site may contain multiple GDF, the following sentence be added at the
end of the proposed definition of GDF: ``Each separate gasoline
dispensing activity and associated gasoline storage tank or tanks shall
be considered an individual GDF for the purposes of this rule.''
    Response: Section 63.11111(h) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, as
proposed, included the following sentence: ``If an area source has two
or more GDF at separate locations within the area source, each GDF is
treated as a separate affected source.'' We believe that this statement
is appropriate to resolve the commenter's concern, that it is more
specific, and that it is more appropriate in the applicability section
rather than in the definition of a GDF. We are, therefore, not
incorporating this change into the definition of GDF as requested by
the commenter.
3. Tanks With Infrequent Use
    We proposed to amend item 1 of Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBBB by adding a subcategory that specifies the control requirements
for tanks that have a capacity of less than 151 cubic meters and a
throughput of less than 480 gallons per day (gpd). We did not receive
comments on this proposed amendment and have included it in the final
rule.
4. Surge Control Tanks
    We proposed to add a definition of ``surge control tanks'' and to
amend Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB by adding an entry 3
that specifies control requirements for these tanks. We did not receive
comments on this proposed amendment and have included it in the final
rule.
5. Definition of Gasoline Storage Tank
    We proposed to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB to include the
following definition of ``gasoline storage tank'': ``Gasoline storage
tank or vessel means each tank, vessel, reservoir, or container used
for the storage of gasoline, but does not include: (1) Frames, housing,
auxiliary supports, or other components that are not directly involved
in the containment of gasoline or gasoline vapors; or (2) subsurface
caverns or porous rock reservoirs.'' This definition is based on the
definition of ``storage vessel'' found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb
without the exemption for ``process tank.''
    Comment: Commenters object to the proposed definition of ``gasoline
storage tank'' and believe that it has potentially unintended
implications. The commenters provided extensive comments in support of
their position that the definition of ``gasoline storage tank'' should
be exactly the same as is found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, i.e.,
that the definition should specifically exclude process tanks. The
commenters stated that subpart Kb and other EPA regulations have
distinguished between vessels that serve a storage function and vessels
that serve a process function. The commenters stated that, by removing
the process tank exclusion, the rule may inadvertently bring
underground sumps and oil/water separators into the rule. The
commenters further stated that these vessels are not ``storage'' tanks.
The commenters explained that sumps that collect drained material such
that it can be pumped to storage or otherwise re-injected into the
system, serve a process rather than a storage function. The commenters
stated that a typical sump has a capacity of approximately 1,200
gallons, and is used to collect liquid from thermal relief valves,
sample collection activities, and maintenance activities. The
commenters further stated that most sumps are equipped with a pump that
starts automatically as liquids accumulate, and that the liquids are
either pumped back into the pipeline or to a larger transmix tank and
are not stored long-term in the sump. The commenters stated that there
is no way to install floating roofs on these vessels, and installation
of a pressure/vacuum (p/v) vent on these vessels could result in back
pressure in the system which could cause vapors to go back into the
loading system. The commenter also stated that one particular type of
sump, a butane SRT, should not be considered a storage tank. The
commenter explained that, for terminals with butane blending, a SRT is
part of the apparatus required by the applicable American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method for the routine automatic
product sampling performed for the butane blending process. The
commenter stated that these small tanks (250- or 500-gallons capacity)
collect used samples of gasoline. The commenter also stated that a
floating roof would not be feasible in such small tanks, and closing
the tank with a pressure vent would interfere with the ASTM test method
for which the tank is installed. The commenter further stated that the
ASTM test method requires the analysis to be performed at atmospheric
pressure, and, thus, the SRT is equipped with an open vent in order to
prevent back pressure

in the analyzer. The commenter concluded by saying that a SRT is not
used for gasoline ``storage,'' but rather, it collects material, for
sampling purposes, within the butane blending process before the
material is automatically transferred back into the system.
    One commenter also provided supporting data regarding the cost and
emission reduction potential of installing p/v vents on sumps and
underground vessels. The commenter stated that the cost of installing a
p/v vent on an average sized sump would be approximately $15,000, the
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reductions would only be about 6 pounds
per year, and the cost-effectiveness, even if the p/v vent eliminated
breathing losses entirely, would be over $1 million per ton of HAP
controlled.
    The commenters requested that, if EPA will not maintain the process
tank exemption, EPA add an exclusion under the ``gasoline storage
tank'' definition for sumps, including butane blending SRT, and oil/
water separators. The commenters also stated that if EPA will not
return the process tank exclusion to the ``gasoline storage tank''
definition, EPA should specify a separate compliance period for process
tanks (such as flow-through sumps that accumulate gasoline) and allow 3
years from the date of publication of the final amendments.
    Response: Prior to receiving these comments, we were not aware of
the issue related to sumps, including butane blending SRT, and oil/
water separators. After reviewing these comments, we agree that these
particular types of tanks should not be considered ``gasoline storage
tanks'' for the purposes of these rules. Based on the information
provided by the commenters, we concluded that these types of tanks are
not ``gasoline storage tanks'' and not part of the gasoline
distribution source category because the liquids that are collected and
stored in them do not meet the definition of ``gasoline.'' In addition,
information provided by the commenters indicates that emissions from
these types of tanks are low because they are located underground and
it is not cost-effective to enclose and control emissions by installing
p/v vent valves. We agree that sumps, including butane blending SRT,
and oil/water separators are likely not cost-effective to control based
on the information provided by the commenters. In the final rule, we
have revised the definition of ``gasoline storage tank'' to add an item
(3) that specifically excludes sumps, including butane blending SRT,
and oil/water separators from the definition of ``gasoline storage
tank.'' Since we have excluded these tanks from the definition of
``gasoline storage tank,'' they are not subject to control requirements
under these rules.
    As provided for under these rules, whether any other types of tanks
used at bulk facilities or GDF are subject to the requirements of these
rules depends on whether those tanks meet the definition of ``gasoline
storage tank'' in the rules (see 40 CFR 63.11100 of subpart BBBBBB and
63.11132 of subpart CCCCCC). For the gasoline distribution area source
category, the distinction between a ``process tank'' and any other type
of tank is not relevant for deciding whether the rules are applicable.
Instead, if a tank used at a bulk facility or a GDF meets the
definition of ``gasoline storage tank,'' it will be subject to the
applicable requirements in the rule. If that tank does not qualify as a
``gasoline storage tank,'' it will not be regulated under these rules.
Stakeholders that have questions about the applicability of these rules
to particular tanks at their facilities may seek assistance from the
applicable EPA Regional Office or the delegated State or local
authorities (see 40 CFR 63.11099 and 63.11131, as applicable).
Additionally, EPA will consider providing specific exclusions for
specific tanks in the ``gasoline storage tank'' definition as is being
done today if such action seems appropriate.
    Comment: The commenters also stated that the proposed definition of
``gasoline storage tank'' fails to distinguish between gasoline storage
tanks located at the terminal and the tank trucks that are loaded at
the terminal. They pointed out that 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb makes
this distinction by exempting ``Vessels permanently attached to mobile
vehicles such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships.'' The commenters
stated that a similar clarification should be made in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB.
    Response: We considered the commenter's position and agree that
mobile tanks such as tank trucks that are loaded at the terminal were
not intended to be included in the ``gasoline storage tank'' definition
as proposed. Such mobile tanks serve a different purpose than
stationary gasoline storage tanks, and the applicable emission control
technologies are also different. We did not anticipate that there would
be any confusion caused by the lack of a specific exclusion for mobile
tanks from the definition of gasoline storage tanks. We are, however,
adding a fourth item in the definition of ``gasoline storage tank''
excluding ``tanks or vessels permanently attached to mobile sources
such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships.''
    Comment: Commenters stated that an unintended consequence of the
``gasoline storage tank'' definition, as proposed, is that it could be
misconstrued in a manner that would result in pipeline pumping stations
being deemed pipeline breakout stations. The commenters stated that if
a surge control tank or an underground sump at a pipeline pumping
station were construed as being a storage vessel, then this facility
would be rendered a pipeline breakout station under the present
definition of a pipeline pumping station. They pointed out that in the
preamble for the final rule, EPA concluded that it is not necessary for
pipeline pumping stations to submit semi-annual reports for periods in
which no deviation occurred. The commenters further stated that
pipeline breakout stations, however, must submit semi-annual reports
regardless of whether any deviations occurred. The commenters stated
that misclassification of pipeline pumping stations as pipeline
breakout stations would impose a significant burden on these facilities
to submit reports that EPA has already concluded are unnecessary. The
commenters request that the rule be clarified to avoid a
misclassification of pipeline pumping stations as pipeline breakout
stations.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the definition of
``pipeline pumping stations'' needs to be clarified. It is not our
intent that the presence of surge control tanks or sump tanks result in
a pipeline pumping station being required to submit semi-annual reports
for periods in which no deviation occurs, as required for a pipeline
breakout station. However, as discussed earlier, we have excluded sump
tanks from the definition of a ``gasoline storage tank,'' so that is
not an issue with the definition of ``pipeline pumping station.''
    Additionally, as stated earlier, we did not receive adverse
comments on our proposed control requirements for surge control tanks
in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB by adding an entry 3 (not
item 2, as the commenter stated) that applies to pipeline breakout
stations and pipeline pumping stations (see title of Sec.  63.11087).
Thus, we are amending the definition of ``pipeline pumping station'' in
this final rule to mean ``a facility along a pipeline containing pumps
to maintain the desired pressure and flow of product through the
pipeline and not containing gasoline storage tanks other than surge
control tanks.''

6. Aviation Gasoline at Airports and Marine Tank Vessel Loading at Bulk
Facilities
    We proposed to specifically exclude the loading of aviation
gasoline into storage tanks at airports and the loading of gasoline
into marine tank vessels at bulk facilities from 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. We did not receive
comments on this proposed exclusion and have included it in the final
rules.
7. Temporary/Contractor Tanks
    We did not propose changes to the rule to address a question of how
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC applies to temporary or contractor
gasoline storage tanks. We asked for comment on the following rationale
for not making any changes: ``It appears it is the responsibility of
the owner or operator of the affected facility to ensure that all
emission sources at the facility comply with the requirements of any
applicable standards. It seems owners or operators could consider this
responsibility when negotiating contracts with third parties and
address it in the contracts for the specific work being done. Thus, the
requirements in the General Provisions will likely adequately address
the stakeholder's concern.''
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the approach EPA has
taken regarding temporary/contractor gasoline storage tanks. The
commenter's concern is that the approach could create very burdensome
paperwork demands for temporary gasoline storage tanks due to the
initial notifications and other potential requirements, such as
recordkeeping and compliance certifications, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC. The commenter also asked whether a facility would be
required to submit a notification to EPA when the temporary gasoline
storage tank is removed from the facility. The commenter suggested that
EPA clarify that any applicable recordkeeping requirements for
temporary or contractor gasoline storage tanks be terminated when the
gasoline storage tank is removed from the site.
    Response: We have not made any changes in the final rule as a
result of these comments. A gasoline storage tank temporarily located
at a facility should be treated the same as any other gasoline storage
tank at the facility in that routine notifications to the delegated
permitting agency would be needed when the gasoline storage tank
becomes subject to the standard or is removed from the facility. We do
not consider these notifications to be overly burdensome, especially
considering that only gasoline storage tanks with gasoline throughput
of 10,000 gallons or more per month would be required to submit them.
Also, as with any other emission source at a facility, once the
temporary or contractor gasoline storage tank is removed from the
facility, the owner's or operator's obligation to keep records
regarding that gasoline storage tank would also end. The commenter did
not address directly our proposed position that the owner or operator
of a facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all emission
sources at the facility comply with the requirements of any applicable
standards. Nor did any other commenters submit comments opposed to our
stated position.
8. Coverage of Tanks Used To Fuel Vehicles and To Fill Cargo Tanks for
On-Site Fuel Redistribution
    We proposed adding text to each subpart to clarify how the two
subparts would be applied to gasoline storage tanks that are used to
fuel vehicles, but that may also be used to dispense gasoline into
portable tanks or cargo tanks, as follows:
     Add a paragraph (h) to 40 CFR 63.11081 of subpart BBBBBB
to read as follows: ``Storage tanks that are used to load gasoline into
a cargo tank for the on-site redistribution of gasoline to another
storage tank are subject to this subpart.''
     Add a paragraph (j) to 40 CFR 63.11111 of subpart CCCCCC
to read as follows: ``The dispensing of gasoline from a fixed gasoline
storage tank at a GDF into a portable gasoline tank for the on-site
delivery and subsequent dispensing of the gasoline into the fuel tank
of a motor vehicle or other gasoline-fueled engine or equipment used
within the area source is subject to Sec.  63.11116 of this subpart.''
    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed definition of GDF
requires that the facility be stationary. The commenter stated that the
paragraph (j) added to 40 CFR 63.11111 of subpart CCCCCC, however,
contradicts this definition and appears to impose requirements on
portable gasoline tanks used for subsequent dispensing. The commenter
asked that EPA clarify that portable gasoline tanks are not subject to
the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11116 based on the proposed language in
40 CFR 63.11111(j). The commenter stated that the requirements should
only apply to the gasoline dispensing from the fixed gasoline storage
tank at the GDF.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter that a GDF is a
stationary source, there are certain steps that take place at the GDF
that involve mobile equipment. For example, the off-loading of gasoline
from the gasoline cargo tank into the GDF's fixed storage tanks is
subject to requirements under subpart CCCCCC. In the final rule we are
requiring that the management practices required under 40 CFR 63.11116
must be met during all steps in the gasoline distribution process. In
other words, the intermediate operations (see 40 CFR 63.11111(j)) of
loading a portable gasoline tank at a GDF, delivering the gasoline via
the portable gasoline tank, and dispensing the gasoline from the
portable gasoline tank into gasoline-fueled engines or pieces of
equipment (the end-use fuel tank) at the GDF, are all part of the
gasoline distribution process. These intermediate operations are
subject to the 40 CFR 63.11116 management practices (minimize spills
and evaporation). There are no notifications or reporting required
under 40 CFR 63.11116; thus, the only requirement applicable to these
intermediate operations is to utilize the management practices.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that gasoline
loaded into portable gasoline tanks does not need to be included in the
monthly throughput calculation, assuming you are calculating the
monthly throughput by considering the gasoline loaded into (rather than
dispensed from) all fixed gasoline storage tanks at the GDF. The
commenter explained that, with this clarification, monthly throughput
calculated using the gasoline loaded into the fixed gasoline storage
tank and the portable gasoline storage tank would not be double-
counted.
    Response: As discussed in the proposal preamble (74 FR 66478),
monthly gasoline throughput may be measured as either the volume of
gasoline going into the gasoline storage tanks at a GDF or,
alternatively, the volume of gasoline coming out of the gasoline
storage tanks. In most instances, we expect that measurement of the
volume of gasoline going into the gasoline storage tanks is most
appropriate because gasoline storage tank loadings tend to be done much
less often, and involve much greater quantities at one time, whereas
the dispensing of the gasoline usually occurs in frequent, but low
volumes. The commenter is correct that gasoline loaded into portable
gasoline tanks does not need to be included in the monthly throughput
calculation if you are calculating the monthly throughput by
considering the gasoline loaded into (rather than dispensed from) all
fixed gasoline storage tanks at the GDF. However, in cases where a
facility is measuring throughput based on the volume pumped out of the
GDF, the

loading of a portable tank from the GDF's fixed gasoline storage tank
would count as throughput, but the subsequent off-loading from the
portable tank would not. Regardless of which measurement alternative a
facility chooses to use, however, the gasoline throughput to be used in
determining the applicable control requirements for any GDF is the
volume measured for the fixed gasoline storage tanks at the entire GDF.
    Comment: One commenter stated that new paragraph (j) of 40 CFR
63.11111 requires additional explanation. The commenter stated that it
is unclear what requirements apply to a fixed gasoline storage tank
that dispenses gasoline into both portable gasoline tanks (for further
distribution at the area source) and directly into the fuel tanks of
the end users of gasoline such that it has a total monthly throughput
that equals or exceeds 10,000 gallons. The commenter asked: ``[I]f the
transfer to a portable source is only subject to 40 CFR 63.11116, is
the transfer to fuel tanks of end users based upon the monthly
throughput to those end users or to the entire throughput from the
GDF?''
    Response: As explained in the previous response, monthly throughput
is determined either by accounting for all gasoline going into or
coming out of the fixed gasoline storage tanks at the GDF. The monthly
throughput for the fixed gasoline storage tanks at a GDF determines the
applicable control requirements for those fixed gasoline storage tanks.
For GDF that choose to measure monthly throughput based on the total
amount of gasoline dispensed from the fixed gasoline storage tanks at
the GDF, it does not matter whether the gasoline is pumped into
portable tanks or into the fuel tanks of the end users of the gasoline.
The amount dispensed in both situations would be included in
calculating the monthly throughout for that GDF. In the commenter's
example, if a fixed gasoline storage tank dispenses gasoline into both
portable gasoline tanks (for further distribution at the area source)
and directly into the fuel tanks of the end users of gasoline, such
that the GDF has a total monthly throughput that equals or exceeds
10,000 gallons, the fixed gasoline storage tank would be subject to
either the submerged fill requirements of 40 CFR 63.11117 or the vapor
balance requirements of 40 CFR 63.11118, depending on the total monthly
throughput of the GDF.
    As a result of questions by this and other commenters regarding the
applicability of standards to the loading of portable gasoline tanks,
we have clarified the proposed text of 40 CFR 63.11111(j) to state
clearly that the only standards applicable to the portable gasoline
tanks involved in the gasoline redistribution operations at the area
source are the management practices in 40 CFR 63.11116.
    Comment: One commenter does not agree with the proposed revision to
40 CFR 63.11081(h) for facilities that primarily operate as GDF, but
infrequently may need to redistribute small amounts of gasoline between
different gasoline storage tanks located within the same site. The
commenter stated that GDF that incidentally and infrequently
redistribute gasoline on-site should only be regulated as GDF under 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    Response: Our intent for proposing the revision to 40 CFR
63.11081(h) was to ensure that facilities that use a larger central
gasoline storage tank to act as a feeder tank for smaller gasoline
storage tanks that are located on the same site were subject to the
standards for bulk gasoline plants. We specified in the new paragraph
40 CFR 63.11081(h) that the provision applied to gasoline storage tanks
that load gasoline into a cargo tank. To minimize emissions, the
loading of a gasoline cargo tank should only be performed using
submerged filling. Thus, we disagree with the commenter that a facility
that loads gasoline into a cargo tank for redistribution on-site should
be regulated as a GDF, even if such an operation only occurs
infrequently. Also, the commenter did not explain why such activities
occur, how frequently they occur, what type of vessel is used for the
redistribution, or what volumes of gasoline are typical of these
activities. We continue to believe that the addition of new paragraph
40 CFR 63.11081(h) provides more clarity to the rules. However, we
acknowledge that it is possible that no matter how the final rules are
worded, there may be situations where the applicability of the rules
will need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis with the delegated
permitting authority.
9. Applicability to Sources That Are Subject to and Complying With 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV
    We proposed amending 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC to specify that, if an affected source under either
of these subparts is also subject to another Federal rule like 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVVVV, the owner or operator may elect to comply only
with the more stringent provisions of the applicable subparts.
    Comment: One commenter stated that gasoline used as a feedstock at
a chemical manufacturing facility is appropriately regulated under 40
CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, and should be exempted from 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBB, and from 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. The
commenter stated that, by requiring facilities to make a case-by-case
comparison of each condition in different Federal standards, the
proposed amendments will only serve to make the regulations more
difficult for affected facilities to comply with, and for State
agencies to implement and enforce.
    Another commenter stated that it is its understanding that a given
NESHAP is a set of requirements that work in unison to create a system
to ensure sources are properly identified, controlled, and monitored to
ensure sufficient environmental protections. The commenter stated that
the system will fail to be cohesive when individual components of
separate NESHAP are combined. The commenter claims that this approach
is haphazard and dissociative. The commenter believes that this case-
by-case comparison method of addressing duplicative emission standards
is without precedent, serves only to create confusion, and is almost
guaranteed to lead to conflict over which part of different rules are
the most stringent. The commenter claims that this is a unique approach
to duplicative rules. The commenter stated that, under the maximum
achievable control technology standards (MACT) rules, a source is
explicitly exempt from duplicate standards if the source is already
covered. The commenter further stated that the same should be applied
to the area source NESHAP. The commenter requested that EPA specify the
hierarchy of NESHAP applicability for a given classification of sources
so that one, and only one, NESHAP standard applies to a source or
process within a source.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions regarding the
proposed provisions. Each source has an obligation to comply with all
applicable Federal requirements. However, to the extent that a source
is subject to multiple requirements, that source may elect, under
either 40 CFR 63.11081(i) or 40 CFR 63.11111(k), to comply only with
the more stringent provisions in the applicable subparts. These
elective provisions do not relieve a source of its legal obligation to
be in compliance with all applicable requirements, but the provisions
do allow a facility to identify and comply with only one set of
requirements (i.e., the most stringent requirements in the overlapping
rules). The provisions themselves are optional; those facilities that
find them too

complex or burdensome may choose not to use them and instead comply
with all applicable subparts. Therefore, we are finalizing 40 CFR
63.11081(i) of subpart BBBBBB, and 40 CFR 63.11111(i) of subpart
CCCCCC, as proposed.

B. Throughput Thresholds

1. Once Over a Throughput Threshold
    We proposed adding provisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, clarifying our intent that once an
affected source's throughput exceeds an applicable throughput threshold
in either subpart, the affected source will remain subject to the
requirements for sources above the threshold, even if the affected
source's throughput later falls below the applicable throughput
threshold.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, based on EPA's current
definition for ``bulk gasoline terminal,'' gasoline throughput may be
limited by compliance with an enforceable condition under State law.
The commenter further stated that many existing bulk gasoline plants
have actual throughputs far below the 20,000 gpd threshold, but may not
have taken a permit limit or other enforceable condition prior to
January 10, 2008, to limit throughput. The commenter noted that State
agencies should have the discretion, prior to the January 10, 2011,
compliance date, to issue permits or regulations limiting the
throughput of affected sources that can demonstrate that actual
throughput never exceeded 20,000 gpd. The commenter stated that this is
consistent with what EPA has allowed for other NESHAP. The commenter
recommends that EPA modify proposed paragraph 40 CFR 63.11081(f) by
adding the italicized text, as follows: (f) If your affected source's
throughput ever exceeds an applicable throughput threshold in the
definition of ``bulk gasoline terminal,'' or in item 1 in Table 2 to
this subpart on or after the applicable compliance date, the affected
source will remain subject to the requirements for sources above the
threshold, even if the affected source throughput later falls below the
applicable throughput threshold.
    Response: We considered the commenter's recommendation and agree
that it is reasonable to allow bulk gasoline distribution facilities to
establish enforceable permit limitations on throughput prior to the
applicable compliance date. Such throughput limitations would allow a
facility whose design capacity is above the 20,000 gpd bulk terminal
threshold, but whose actual throughput is always below the threshold,
to be subject to the bulk gasoline plant standards rather than the bulk
gasoline terminal standards. In the final rule, we have added a
provision to paragraph (g) in 40 CFR 63.11081 clarifying that ``An
enforceable State, local, or Tribal permit limitation on throughput,
established prior to the applicable compliance date, may be used in
lieu of the 20,000 gpd design capacity throughput threshold to
determine whether the facility is a bulk gasoline plant or a bulk
gasoline terminal.''
    Comment: Commenters do not support the ``once in/always in'' (OIAI)
provisions. The commenters disagree that the ongoing compliance costs
for a GDF with a monthly throughput that exceeds, and subsequently
falls below, 100,000 gallons, are ``minor components of the total cost
of control.'' Commenters stated that the rules would require that
sources continue to comply with the vapor balance testing and reporting
requirements, and subsequently the associated maintenance and
recordkeeping, rather than just the submerged fill and work practice
standards set forth in 40 CFR 63.11117 and 40 CFR 63.11116,
respectively. The commenters also stated that EPA ignores the fact that
the costs of compliance are often greater for the administrative burden
than for the physical requirements. Therefore, according to the
commenters, if EPA reduced the rule requirements coincident with
gasoline use reductions, it would lower compliance costs while
maintaining the environmental benefit.
    One of the commenters noted that the OIAI requirement does not
encourage a site to reduce its gasoline usage which would be a win-win
situation for all environmental impacts. The commenter believes that
EPA's 1995 OIAI policy applies to major sources subject to MACT
standards, and would not apply to this area source regulation.
    Several of the commenters suggested that, if a GDF can demonstrate
that its monthly throughput has dropped below a throughput threshold
and maintained that level for a set period of time (commenters
suggested 1 year to 3 years), the GDF should be allowed to begin
complying with the requirements for the lesser throughput threshold.
One commenter recommended that, if a facility's GDF falls below the
100,000 gpm threshold, it should have the option to determine how and
when it will maintain and test its vapor balance system rather than
following the prescriptive rules. One commenter stated that EPA should
allow GDF to ``drop out'' of NESHAP requirements once applicable
throughput thresholds are no longer being met, and that EPA could limit
the drop-out option to those GDF that do not exceed a throughput
threshold more than a fixed number of times within a set period. The
commenter stated that once a GDF exceeds the applicable throughput
threshold more than the minimum allowable occurrences, the NESHAP
regulations could then become permanent as EPA is proposing to do after
only a single occurrence.
    One commenter also states that, as with GDF, if EPA allows actual
throughput volumes to determine the 20,000 gpd threshold for bulk
gasoline plants as they recommend, additional language is needed to
prevent permanent regulation of a facility if it exceeds the threshold
due to a one-time event. The commenter stated that EPA should allow
these facilities to exceed the 20,000 gpd threshold on a minimum number
of days over a defined period of time before imposing permanent
regulatory jurisdiction over the facility.
    Response: Several commenters provide additional justifications as
to why they disagree with our intent to require a GDF to continue to
comply with the vapor balance requirements of the rule, even when its
gasoline throughput decreases below the applicable threshold. Some
commenters have referenced EPA's 1995 OIAI policy as part of their
justification for changing this proposed requirement and indicated that
it should not apply in this rule. We agree that the OIAI policy does
not apply to area sources; therefore, it is not relevant to this rule.
The OIAI policy is intended to address situations where a major source
becomes an area source, which is not the case in question.\2\ Thus, the
OIAI policy is not relied upon for the applicable provisions in these
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Specifically, the policy provides that major sources can
become area sources up until the first substantive compliance date
of the major source MACT standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter indicated that the OIAI policy ``does not
encourage reduction of gasoline usage which would be a win-win
situation for all environmental impacts.'' First, as stated above, the
OIAI policy does not apply here. Second, we disagree with the
commenter's position regarding this provision's impact on gasoline
usage since gasoline throughput is a function of consumer demand, and
we have already considered seasonal fluctuations in the applicable
definitions. In other words, we do not agree that requiring a GDF to
maintain a particular level of control is what will determine the
gasoline throughput at that particular GDF; instead, it is the consumer

demand for gasoline from that GDF that will dictate its gasoline
throughput. Additionally, a GDF has the option of establishing an
enforceable gasoline throughput limit in its applicable permit if that
GDF wants to maintain a certain maximum level of gasoline throughput
below the threshold level such that the GDF is subject to less
stringent control requirements in the rule.
    Several additional commenters raised concerns with the compliance
costs of complying with the more stringent requirements, i.e., vapor
balance system rather than submerged fill. However, as stated in the
proposed amendments (74 FR 66478), ``neither of these control
technologies requires significant ongoing operating costs[; rather,]
the primary control costs that the facility would incur would be for
the initial installation [of the equipment].'' The ongoing operating
costs (e.g., inspection and maintenance of controls plus monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs) associated with running either a
submerged fill system or a vapor balance system are reasonable for GDF
based on the low costs for these items. For vapor balance systems,
these costs include inspection and maintenance of the system (about
$180 per year \3\), the periodic pressure testing (estimated to cost
about $700 and is required once every three years, or about $230 per
year) and other monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
(about $575 per year). For submerged fill systems these costs would be
similar (inspection and maintenance costs are estimated to be about
$100 per year, plus similar monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
costs of about $340) except that there is no vapor pressure required.
In other words, the annualized costs of running the vapor balance
system are estimated to be only $310 ($80 plus $230) per year higher
than the costs of running a submerged fill system. Therefore, we
disagree that the costs of complying with the vapor balance system
requirements should be a reason for allowing facilities that cross the
applicable threshold level to instead continue complying with the
submerged fill requirements. Instead, as we stated previously (74 FR
66478), ``it would most likely be more trouble and expense to
discontinue the use of [either of] the controls and to properly remove
the equipment than to continue their use.'' Also, ``it would be
reasonable to assume that if a facility once crossed an applicable
throughput threshold, it might do so again at some point in the near
future. Thus, in addition to the environmental gain in requiring the
continued use of controls, there is a practical economic incentive to
maintaining the equipment.'' (74 FR 66478) Finally, as also stated in
the proposed amendments, requiring vapor balance systems to remain
operational at GDF ``will continue to achieve substantial emissions
reductions, even if the facility's throughput decreases below the
applicable thresholds.'' (74 FR 66478)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gasoline Distribution Area Source Control Cost Estimates''
October 3, 2006, prepared for the November 9, 2009 proposed rule.
Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, we have decided against allowing a facility to
drop controls when gasoline throughput falls below an applicable
threshold as it will not result in a significant reduction in
compliance costs and it will not have an overall benefit to the
environment. We are therefore finalizing these provisions as proposed.
2. Monthly Throughput Definition
    We proposed revising the definition of monthly throughput in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC, to remove the phrase ``rolling 30-day
average'' in the final rule, as well as adding a clarification on how
it is calculated. We also proposed adding text to allow throughput to
be based on the volume of gasoline dispensed by a GDF.
    Comment: Commenters believe that the definition of ``monthly
throughput'' and the requirement in 40 CFR 63.11111(e) to demonstrate/
document throughput, when taken in conjunction with the proposed
amendments to the definition of GDF, will impose additional and
unnecessary recordkeeping requirements for facilities. One of the
commenters stated that the requirement that affected sources calculate
their throughput every day will be a large new administrative burden on
newly-covered sources with absolutely no environmental benefit. The
commenter stated that EPA's proposal will require them to dedicate
resources to calculate gasoline throughput for each day of the year,
and claims this is an unreasonable administrative burden, and that EPA
should revise the proposal to read as follows: ``Monthly throughput
means the total volume of gasoline that is loaded into, or dispensed
from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during a calendar month.
Monthly throughput is calculated by summing the volume of gasoline
loaded into, or dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF
during the current month, plus the total volume of gasoline loaded
into, or dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during
the previous 11 months, and then dividing that sum by 12.''
    One commenter further stated that determining throughput categories
based on calendar year data would be much easier, and in the worst
case, would result in a delay in determining the applicability of a
particular requirement to a given facility of 1 year. The commenter
stated that, given that facilities whose throughput increases to a
level that requires greater controls are given 3 years to comply, a
modest delay in how soon this throughput increase is detected does not
seem that significant.
    One commenter suggested the calculation be simplified by allowing a
facility to use the calendar year annual throughput divided by 12 to
calculate monthly throughput. This commenter believes this would
simplify the calculation significantly for these facilities and will
maintain the benefit of eliminating seasonal variations. The commenter
stated that many GDF that submit calendar year annual throughputs to
the county, obtain those numbers directly from their suppliers based on
annual gasoline purchased for the calendar year.
    Response: We continue to believe that the proposed procedure for
calculating throughput at a GDF is appropriate and have finalized that
procedure in the final rule. As we stated in the preamble to the
proposal (74 CFR 66478), this was the method used to analyze the
environmental and cost-effectiveness calculations for the throughput
thresholds. We believe that this procedure is the best way to avoid the
impacts of seasonal variations in throughput calculations because it is
based on data that cover an entire year. For example, facilities that
have a significant spike in throughput in the summer months are able to
lower that spike by including the throughput during fall and winter in
the calculation. In other situations, throughput may peak in the fall
and winter months, and be low in the summer.
    As one commenter pointed out, basing the calculation on the
calendar year period would result in facilities determining their
throughput and the applicable control requirement, only once per year.
We do not consider this to be appropriate nor that it represents our
intent that facilities achieve continuous compliance with the
standards.
    The throughput calculation procedure is simple and will not require
facilities to expend significant extra resources. It seems reasonable
to expect that nearly all GDF facilities already keep a record of each
cargo tank delivery of gasoline

to the facility. For those days when no deliveries are made, the
facility would merely enter a ``zero'' in their records. In addition,
the rule does not require that the actual calculation of throughput be
performed every day. For example, a facility that receives a delivery
of gasoline once per week could update the running volume of gasoline
delivered, and perform the throughput calculation only on those days
when a delivery is made. For each intervening day when no deliveries
are received, the calculated monthly throughput would always be equal
to or less than that calculated on the day of the last delivery. For
the reasons described above, we have concluded that the procedure for
calculating monthly throughput is appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of ``monthly
throughput'' in 40 CFR 63.11132 gives a choice for calculating monthly
throughput as either the total volume of gasoline that is loaded into
all gasoline storage tanks, or the total volume of gasoline that is
dispensed from all gasoline storage tanks. The commenter stated that
clarification is needed that, if one method is chosen over the other,
the source must then stay with that choice of calculating monthly
throughput for the duration of existence of the GDF for clarity,
simplicity, and enforcement purposes, or recommended that one of the
choices be taken out of the rule.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that facilities subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC should be required to document whether they
have chosen to calculate monthly throughput based on gasoline volume
loaded into all storage tanks or gasoline volume dispensed from all
storage tanks. We have revised 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to
include a requirement that facilities must state in their NOCS report
the basis they will use to calculate monthly throughput. The second
sentence in each of these paragraphs now reads: ``The NOCS must be
signed by a responsible official who must certify its accuracy, must
indicate whether the source has complied with the requirements of this
subpart, and must indicate whether the facilities' monthly throughput
is calculated based on the volume of gasoline loaded into all storage
tanks or on the volume of gasoline dispensed from all storage tanks.''
    Comment: One commenter recommends that EPA add a sentence to the
proposed new definition for ``monthly throughput'' in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC, stating that the Administrator may allow GDF with less
than 10,000 gpm throughput to use alternative methods for calculating
their monthly throughput.
    Response: We have not made any changes to the definition based on
this comment. The commenter did not offer any recommendations regarding
alternative methods that could be used or any reasons why alternative
methods would be beneficial. We believe that by offering facilities the
choice of calculating throughput based on the volume of gasoline
delivered to the facility, or on the volume of gasoline dispensed from
the facility, we have provided sufficient flexibility. Also, requiring
all affected facilities to use one of these two approaches for
calculating their throughput will simplify the implementation and
enforcement of the rule.
    Comment: One commenter fully supports the proposed method of
calculating monthly throughput for GDF and believes that it is a more
equitable method to determine GDF monthly threshold throughputs.
However, with regard to daily throughput calculations for bulk gasoline
plants, the commenter noted that EPA is proposing new language in 40
CFR 63.11081 that specifically prohibits averaging to determine actual
throughput thresholds. Instead, according to the commenter, the NESHAP
require the 20,000 gpd threshold to be based on the maximum calculated
design throughput for any single day. The commenter believes, as with
GDF, the maximum daily throughput for bulk gasoline plants should be
based on actual daily throughputs averaged over a 365-day period. The
commenter stated that determining the 20,000 gpd threshold based on
maximum calculated design throughput is too broad of a standard to be a
reliable determinant for applicability of the NESHAP requirements. The
commenter further stated that maximum daily design throughputs can
range significantly depending on factors that have nothing to do with
actual throughput, or even the size of the tank. The commenter urges
the EPA to adopt language that allows the 20,000 gpd throughput
calculation for bulk gasoline plants to be based on the actual daily
throughput averaged over 365 days. The commenter stated that this
language is essential because the actual daily throughput at bulk
gasoline plants is far less than the 20,000 gpd threshold under the
rule. The commenter is concerned that calculation of throughput based
on maximum daily design capacity rather than actual throughput could
bump bulk plants up to ``gasoline terminal'' status under the rule, a
regulatory change that would impose a much heavier compliance burden.
The commenter believes that permanently regulating small bulk gasoline
plants that otherwise have small daily gasoline throughput as if they
were a large ``gasoline terminal,'' based solely on maximum design
capacity, and not actual throughput, serves no regulatory purpose. The
commenter urges EPA to adopt language that would base threshold
calculations on actual throughputs averaged over 365 days. The
commenter also recommends that EPA allow these facilities to exceed the
20,000 gpd threshold on a minimum number of days over a defined period
of time before imposing permanent regulatory jurisdiction over the
facility.
    Response: The threshold for distinguishing whether a distribution
facility is a bulk gasoline plant or a bulk gasoline terminal for the
purpose of these rules is the same as the threshold in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart R (the major source Gasoline Distribution NESHAP), and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart XX (the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Bulk Gasoline Terminals). These rules were published as final rules on
December 14, 1994, and August 18, 1983, respectively. Therefore, we
have been using this methodology since August of 1983, and are
concerned that changes made at this point would be confusing to many
stakeholders. In addition, we do not want to create a situation where
some facilities could fall between the definition of a bulk terminal
and the definition of a bulk plant (i.e., a gap in coverage). Thus, we
disagree with the commenter that the definition should now be changed
to use a different method for calculating throughput. It is also
important to note that the definition of a bulk gasoline plant provides
that facilities may limit their throughput by compliance with an
enforceable condition under Federal, State, or local law. Thus, a
facility whose maximum calculated design throughput is above the 20,000
gpd threshold may still be considered a bulk gasoline plant if the
actual throughput is limited to less than 20,000 gpd by an enforceable
condition of a permit.
3. Start of Throughput Records
    We proposed in both 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC that existing sources begin keeping records and
calculating throughput as of January 10, 2008 (the date of promulgation
of the final rules). For new sources constructed, or for existing
sources reconstructed after November 9, 2006, we proposed that
recordkeeping must begin upon startup of the affected facility.

    Comment: Commenters stated their concerns with the EPA's proposed
dates for compliance with recordkeeping requirements. One of the
commenters stated that EPA has proposed to clarify (in 40 CFR
63.11111(e)) that recordkeeping of monthly throughput should have begun
when the original rule was adopted (January 10, 2008), but that this
will not be possible for sites that become newly subject to the rule as
a result of this rulemaking. The commenters recommended adding the
following language to 40 CFR 63.11111(e): ``If an existing source
becomes subject to this subpart after January 10, 2008, recordkeeping
must begin on the date that it becomes subject to this subpart.''
    One of the commenters stated that they support the proposed
clarification on how to calculate the monthly throughput, but noted
that requiring throughput records back to January 10, 2008, could cause
a GDF that has not been tracking monthly throughput since January 10,
2008, to be out of compliance. The commenter stated that the compliance
date for existing sources for 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC is January
10, 2011, and, while they agree with EPA's logic that ``it is in the
best interest of the facility to be aware as early as possible what
control requirements must be met,'' there are many GDF facilities with
a monthly throughput significantly less than 10,000 gallons for which
control is not required. The commenter stated that these facilities
should not be considered out of compliance if throughput records were
not retained beginning on January 10, 2008. The commenter proposes that
documentation of the monthly throughput for existing sources begins on
January 10, 2010. The commenter stated that, based on the proposed
definition of monthly throughput, using a start date of January 10,
2010, would provide sufficient data to determine which threshold
applies.
    Response: As discussed in an earlier response, we agree with the
commenters that some facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC, because they dispense gasoline to end users other than
motor vehicles, may not have considered themselves subject to the rule
prior to the clarification of the definition of GDF. In the final rule
(40 CFR 63.11113(f)), we have clarified the compliance dates for GDF
that only load gasoline into fuel tanks other than those in motor
vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132. Thus we are also adding text
to paragraph (e) of 40 CFR 63.11111 in the final rule stating that the
date of the start of recordkeeping for those existing GDF is January
24, 2011. For those new sources constructed, or for existing sources
reconstructed, after January 24, 2011, recordkeeping must begin upon
startup of the affected facility.
    As to the second comment on changing the start of recordkeeping for
existing sources from the date of the final rule (January 10, 2008) to
one year prior to the final compliance date of January 10, 2011, we
continue to believe that it is reasonable to expect facilities to begin
keeping throughput records as soon as they become subject to the rules,
and that records for 3 years of operation are better than records for
only 1 year. Thus, owners or operators of all existing affected sources
that did not begin keeping records as of January 10, 2008, because they
did not consider themselves subject to the rules, should begin keeping
records as of the date of these final revisions to the rules (January
24, 2011). All other existing sources should keep records of throughput
as of January 10, 2008. As mentioned above, new sources must begin
keeping throughout records upon start-up. We have clarified these
requirements in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.11111(e).
4. Multiple Tanks at Multiple Locations at Affected Sources
    We proposed to add a new paragraph (h) in 40 CFR 63.11111 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC to clarify that a single area source may have
multiple GDF. We received no comments on the proposed new paragraph and
have incorporated it into the final rule.

C. Rule Clarifications

1. Recordkeeping for Continuous Compliance Monitoring
    The final rule language for alternative monitoring of control
devices, in 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii) and
(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of subpart BBBBBB, inadvertently included the
emergency shutdown system among the equipment to be checked on a daily
basis. The proposed amendments clarified that the emergency shutdown
system, which is not part of the emissions control system, is not
subject to the rule, but that the system is to be checked semi-
annually. We received no comments on this amendment and have finalized
the amendment, as proposed.
    We also proposed revising the verification sentences in 40 CFR
63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii) and (b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBB to read as follows: ``Verification shall be through
visual observation, or through an automated alarm or shutdown system
that monitors and records system operation. A manual or electronic
record of the start and end of a shutdown event may be used.''
    Comment: Commenters supported EPA's clarification that records of
shutdown events may be either manual or electronic. The commenters
stated, however, that detailed requirements for the record of a
shutdown event are specified in 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(v) and
(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(v), and, thus, the phrase ``start and end of a'' is
unnecessary and potentially confusing. The commenters request that this
phrase be deleted such that the sentence reads as follows: ``A manual
or electronic record of the shutdown event may be used.''
    Response: In previous comments on this paragraph, the commenters
suggested that either manual or electronic records of shutdown events
should be allowed. We agreed with the commenter that the intent of the
provision was to generate a record of such events, not to specify the
exact form in which the record was generated. Thus, the revision that
we proposed would allow for the manual recording of a shutdown event as
an alternative to an electronic record. We disagree with the commenter,
however, that the record of a shutdown event should not include both
the time that the event began and the time that the unit was restarted
after the event ended. It is important that the beginning and ending
times, and, thus, the duration of such an event, be recorded. We
consider the requirements in the paragraph to be clear and reasonable,
and to meet the commenter's original desire that manual records be
allowed. We have finalized the text of this paragraph as proposed.
2. Submerged Fill Drop Tube Measurements and Alternatives
    One stakeholder questioned how to measure the distance of the fill
pipe from the bottom of the gasoline storage tank when the end of the
fill pipe is cut at a 45 degree angle. In the preamble to the proposed
rule, we explained that the measurement of the distance of the fill
pipe from the bottom of the gasoline storage tank should be made at the
point in the opening of the pipe that is the greatest distance from the
bottom of the gasoline storage tank. We did not receive any comments on
this approach.
    We proposed, in both subparts, to allow existing gasoline storage
tanks to have fill pipes that are further from the bottom of the
gasoline storage tank than specified in 40 CFR 63.11086(a) and 40 CFR
63.11117(b) if the owner can demonstrate that at all times the level of
the liquid in the gasoline storage tank is above the entire opening of
the fill pipe,

provided adequate recordkeeping is performed, and records are
maintained.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concerns related to the proposed
amendment to 40 CFR 63.11086. The commenters stated that it is not
clear what kinds of records will be required, and it will be difficult
for field inspectors to ensure compliance. One of the commenters
questioned whether daily delivery and dispensing records would be
sufficient, or if an instantaneous accounting of gasoline storage tank
level would be required. One commenter stated that it would require a
great deal of work for an inspector to determine that the level had
actually NEVER fallen below the acceptable level between inspections,
and, in reality, the records would probably never be checked. The
commenter believes that the effort of reviewing the proper records
would be much more complicated than installing the properly cut fill
pipe.
    One commenter stated that, to ensure compliance, inspectors would
have to review daily gasoline storage tank level data for months or
years. The commenter further stated that, given the lack of specificity
in the proposal as to how the necessary records must be kept by the
facility, there could be significant recordkeeping differences, and
extremely large data review would be required to determine compliance.
The commenter then stated that to have to review months of this type of
data could be quite time-consuming for the inspector. The commenter
stated that most State regulations that have been in place for years
just specify a depth for the drop tube, such as the 6-inch or 12-inch
length, and this has not presented significant difficulty for tank
owner compliance. Two of the commenters recommended that EPA modify the
regulations to require a specific length for the drop tube.
    Response: The proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.11086 provides an
alternative to meeting the applicable 6- or 12-inch requirement for
submerged fill pipes, and should not be chosen by the owner or operator
if they cannot maintain proper documentation because it is, or becomes,
too burdensome. We proposed, and have finalized, this alternative for
owners or operators in cases where they ``can demonstrate that the
liquid level in the gasoline storage tank is always above the entire
opening of the fill pipe.'' We also specified that ``documentation
providing such demonstration must be made available for inspection by
the Administrator's delegated representative during the course of a
site visit.'' We did not specify how the owner or operator should make
such a demonstration, but merely provided them the alternative to do
so. Thus, it is the responsibility of the owner or operator to document
to the inspector's satisfaction that the liquid level in the gasoline
storage tank prior to each loading is sufficient to cover the fill
pipe. Basically, the owner or operator will have the dimensions of the
gasoline storage tank and the depth of the drop tube, and, from that
information, can calculate the amount of gasoline that must remain in
the tank to always keep the end of the fill pipe submerged. Thus, the
owner or operator must keep records of those calculations and of the
amount of gasoline that is always maintained in the gasoline storage
tank prior to refilling the gasoline storage tank.
    Comment: One commenter asked if ``portable'' fill tubes are
forbidden by the rule. The commenter stated that they have some
facilities with smaller gasoline storage tanks (typically <2,000
gallons), particularly aboveground gasoline storage tanks, that use
portable fill tubes when filling the gasoline storage tanks, as allowed
by their local regulations for GDF, and asks that this be addressed in
the rule.
    The same commenter also stated that they have facilities that have
fill tube diffusers installed at the bottom of the fill tubes which
prevent the measurement of tube depth from the bottom of the gasoline
storage tank. The commenter questioned how they should verify on-going
compliance of these facilities with the depth requirements. The
commenter recommended the rule specifically state how on-going
compliance with the depth requirement is verified.
    Response: The rule does not specify that fill pipes must be
permanently installed. Therefore, the types of portable fill pipes
mentioned by the commenter are not forbidden by the rule. With regard
to the commenter's question about fill pipes that have diffusers
installed, we can only recommend that the inspector work with the owner
or operator of the gasoline storage tank to obtain sufficient
information on the design of the diffuser so that the actual
measurement of the fill pipe can be adjusted to account for the
diffuser. The commenter, a county enforcement agency representative,
did not state how they currently account for the diffusers when
performing inspections of facilities within the county.
3. Continuous Compliance Monitoring of All Vapor Processors
    We proposed clarifications that the intent in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB was to provide that all vapor processors required in
Table 2 item 1(b) for gasoline loading rack(s) at a bulk gasoline
terminal with gasoline throughput of 250,000 gpd, or greater, must have
continuous compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 63.11092(b). We proposed
to clarify 40 CFR 63.11092 by restructuring paragraphs (b) and (b)(1)
as follows: (1) Revised 40 CFR 63.11092(b) becomes the introductory
language that requires all affected facilities to monitor vapor
processors; and (2) revised paragraph 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1) lists the
specific monitoring requirements for: (a) Carbon adsorption systems (40
CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(i)); (b) condenser systems (40 CFR
63.11092(b)(1)(ii)); and (c) thermal oxidation systems (40 CFR
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)). Section 63.11092(b)(1)(iv) remains the same and
contains the alternative monitoring provisions.
    We also proposed clarifying our intent regarding the monitoring for
the presence of a pilot flame by adding a sentence to 40 CFR
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), which reads as follows: ``The monitor shall
show a positive parameter value to indicate that the pilot flame is on,
or a negative parameter value to indicate that the pilot flame is
off.''
    Comment: Commenters stated that, under the proposed amendments, EPA
would require a continuous monitoring system (CMS) for any performance
test option chosen under 40 CFR 63.11092(a). The commenters stated that
this would extend CMS requirements to a population of control devices
that had not been previously understood to be subject to those
requirements. The commenters noted that the original rule promulgated
in January 2008, stated that a CMS was only required for performance
tests under 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(1), and excluded those addressed under
40 CFR 63.11092(a)(2) and (a)(3). The commenters stated that in EPA's
proposed rule, 40 CFR 63.11092(b) and (b)(1) have been rewritten from
the original rule, and the result is that CMS would now be required for
all facilities covered under 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1) through (5). The
commenter expressed concern that this new language could be interpreted
as requiring the installation of an add-on monitoring device where one
was not previously understood to be needed. The commenter stated that
this could result in a significant investment of resources.
    Additionally, the commenters stated that, as contained in 40 CFR
63.11092(b)(4) and (b)(5), the proposed rule adds an `Administrator
Approval'

step that had not previously been required for sources employing 40 CFR
63.11092(a)(2) or 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(3) in lieu of 40 CFR
63.11092(a)(1). The commenters stated that this change would add an
approval step to a population of control devices that were not
previously deemed subject to this requirement, and that the time
remaining prior to the compliance date for the rule is insufficient to
develop, gain approval of, and implement a CMS plan.
    Finally, the commenters stated that, given that this change in
guidance has the effect of extending the CMS requirement to a
population of control devices that were previously understood to not be
subject to this requirement, and the fact that there had not been fair
notice of this change, EPA should extend the compliance period for
implementing CMS at facilities that, in lieu of conducting a new
initial performance test, utilize the provisions of 40 CFR
63.11092(a)(2) or 40 CFR 63.11092(a)(3). The commenters stated that EPA
should allow 3 years from the date of publication of the final
amendments for implementation of CMS for these facilities.
    Response: The General Provisions defines CMS as ``a comprehensive
term that may include, but is not limited to, continuous emission
monitoring systems, continuous opacity monitoring systems, continuous
parameter monitoring systems, or other manual or automatic monitoring
that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation
on a continuous basis as defined by the regulation.'' Thus, a CMS is
not necessarily an add-on emissions monitor, but may be any type of
manual or automatic monitoring that shows that the pollution controls
are operating properly on a continuous basis. For example, a heat-
sensing device installed in proximity to the pilot light of a flare to
indicate the presence of a flame would be a CMS because it would show
whether or not the flare was operational.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It is our understanding that all control devices include
process monitors such as these to assist the owner/operator in the
proper operation of the device. Thus, these CMS are not likely to be
significantly different than what would be used in the absence of
these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments (74 FR 66481),
it was our intent that all vapor processors required under item 1(b) of
Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB for gasoline loading rack(s)
at a bulk gasoline terminal with gasoline throughput of 250,000 gpd, or
greater, must have continuous compliance monitoring under 40 CFR
63.11092(b). The January 10, 2008, final rule did not exempt anyone
from the continuous monitoring requirements. Thus, it is not clear how
the commenters came to their conclusion that some facilities did not
have to comply with the continuous monitoring requirements. However,
given that there was confusion, and given that the commenters are trade
organizations that represent the majority of bulk gasoline terminals,
we agreed that clarifications were needed. We proposed such
clarifications and are finalizing them in this rulemaking.
    The commenter also mentioned Administrator approval as a new
requirement. As explained above, it has always been our intent that
vapor processors must have continuous monitoring and must comply with
all of the associated requirements. The approval of the CMS monitoring
plan by the Administrator (or the delegated authority) is not a new
requirement but was always a part of the process of implementing the
continuous monitoring provisions. In other words, the requirement for
obtaining Administrator approval was included in the final rule and was
not newly proposed in the proposed amendments (73 FR 1936-1938).
    CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) provides that EPA, or the delegated State
or local authority, may grant an existing source a 1-year extension for
compliance with an emission standard if such time is needed to install
controls for meeting the standard. However, because the continuous
monitoring requirements that we have clarified in these amendments are
not emission standards, we are not extending the compliance date for
these continuous monitoring requirements.
    Comment: Commenters support EPA's clarification that monitoring the
pilot flame on a thermal oxidation system meets the requirements for a
CMS, with the presence of the pilot flame constituting the monitored
operating parameter. The commenters request, however, a clarification
in the rule language. The commenters stated that the requirement is for
the monitoring system to ``automatically prevent gasoline loading
operations from beginning at any time that the pilot flame is absent.''
Thus, according to the commenters, the requirement is for the heat-
sensing device to send a signal (or refrain from sending a signal) to
allow loading to commence, rather than to visually display the
parameter value (i.e., on or off). The commenters recommended that this
clarification might be achieved by the following edits to the rule
language: 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), ``The presence of a thermal
oxidation system pilot flame shall be monitored using a heat-sensing
device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or a thermocouple, installed
in proximity of the pilot light to indicate the presence of a flame.
The heat-sensing device shall send a positive parameter value to
indicate that the pilot flame is on, or a negative parameter value to
indicate that the pilot flame is off.''
    Response: We considered the clarification recommended by the
commenters and agree that the purpose of the heat sensing device is to
send either a positive or a negative parameter value as a signal to
indicate the presence or absence of the pilot flame. Thus, it is the
action of sending the appropriate signal to the loading system that is
significant, not the actual ``displaying'' of the positive or negative
parameter value. In the final rule, we have incorporated the
clarification into 40 CFR 63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1), as recommended by
the commenters.
4. Secondary Rim Seal Requirements Specified Under 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart WW
    We proposed clarifying in item 2(d) in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB, that the same rim seal requirements are intended
regardless of whether the owner/operator opts to comply with 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. In either case, the
secondary seal requirements are meant to not apply to internal
floating-roof tanks that are subject only to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBBB.
    Comment: Commenters stated that they appreciate EPA's intended
clarification, but stated that EPA's attempt to make the necessary
corrections in Table 1 failed to properly do so. The commenters
provided edits to the proposed Table 1 revisions that they claim will
clearly specify that the secondary seal requirements from 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb (40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (a)(1)(iv) through
(ix)), or 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and
(D)) do not apply to internal floating roof tanks that are subject only
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB.
    Response: We reviewed the commenter's recommended edits to the
proposed Table 1 revisions and agree that the edits are appropriate. In
the proposal, we inadvertently referred to the secondary seal
requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW in the same Table 1 entry
as the requirements from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. Our intent was to
discuss subpart Kb and subpart WW in separate Table 1 entries. Thus,

we have revised the text of items 2.(b) and 2.(d) in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB to read as follows:
    ``(b) Equip each internal floating roof gasoline storage tank
according to the requirements in Sec.  60.112b(a)(1) of this chapter,
except for the secondary seal requirements under Sec.
60.112b(a)(1)(ii)(B) and the requirements in Sec.  60.112b(a)(1)(iv)
through (ix) of this chapter;''
    ``(d) Equip and operate each internal and external floating roof
gasoline storage tank according to the applicable requirements in Sec.
63.1063(a)(1) and (b), except for the secondary seal requirements under
Sec.  63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D), and equip each external floating
roof gasoline storage tank according to the requirements of Sec.
63.1063(a)(2) if such storage tank does not currently meet the
requirements of Sec.  63.1063(a)(1).''
5. Monitoring of Submerged Fill Loading Racks
    We proposed a clarification that the testing and monitoring
provisions of 40 CFR 63.11092 in subpart BBBBBB do not apply to bulk
gasoline terminals with throughputs below the threshold value of
250,000 gpd. We received no comments related to the proposed
clarification and have incorporated it into the final rule.
6. Initial Notifications
    We did not propose revisions to the Initial Notification
requirements, but we did solicit comment on whether the provisions, as
written, including those in the General Provisions, are sufficient for
accommodating all facilities who find it necessary to submit a revised
Notification or a new Notification as a result of amendments to the
rule.
    Comment: One commenter restated that EPA should clarify how newly-
subject sites should proceed with submitting Initial Notifications. The
commenter stated that, in the preamble, EPA states that newly-subject
sites would have 120 days after the source becomes subject to the
relevant standard to submit the Initial Notification in accordance with
40 CFR 63.9(b)(2). The commenter stated that 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) does
not reference 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2), however, and that confuses the
subject. They suggested edits to 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) that would
revise the first sentence to read: ``You must submit an Initial
Notification that you are subject to this subpart by May 9, 2008, or
within 120 calendar days after you become subject to Sec.  63.11117,
whichever is later, unless you meet the requirements in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter that those GDF that would be
considered ``newly-subject'' affected sources as a result of revisions
to the subparts should have adequate time to submit new or revised
Initial Notifications. We have included in the final rule provisions
that specify that sources that have become affected sources as a result
of the revisions to the subpart have 120 days in which to submit the
Initial Notification.
    For GDF, in the final rule we have clarified the compliance dates
for GDF that only load gasoline into fuel tanks other than those in
motor vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132. We have also added rule
text in 40 CFR 63.11124 \5\ stating that GDF that only load gasoline
into fuel tanks other than those in motor vehicles, as defined in 40
CFR 63.11132, must submit Initial Notifications \6\ by May 24, 2011.
Those sources include GDF that dispense gasoline into portable tanks or
to end users other than motor vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 63.11132,
and that may not have considered themselves subject to the rule prior
to the clarification of the definition of GDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(1) applies to GDF with monthly throughput
of 10,000 gallons of gasoline or more, and 40 CFR 63.11124(b)(1)
applies to GDF with monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons of
gasoline or more. As specified in 40 CFR 63.11116(b), GDF with
monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline are not
required to submit notifications or reports, but must have records
available within 24 hours of a request by the Administrator to
document gasoline throughput.
    \6\ These notifications must include the following information:
The name and address of the owner or operator; the address (i.e.,
physical location) of the affected source; an identification of the
relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the
notification, and the source's compliance date; a brief description
of the nature, size, design, and method of operation of the source
and an identification of the types of emission points within the
affected source subject to the relevant standard and types of
hazardous air pollutants emitted; and a statement of whether the
affected source is a major source or an area source. Notifications
must be submitted to the Administrator, the appropriate Regional
office, and the State, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS)
    In the January 10, 2008, final rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC), 40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) stated that the NOCS be
submitted by the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.11113. However,
Table 3 indicates that the NOCS should be submitted according to the
schedule specified in 40 CFR 63.9(h), which states that the NOCS is due
60 days following the compliance demonstration. Stakeholders pointed
out this inconsistency, and we proposed revising the rule text in 40
CFR 63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to be consistent with the 60-day time
frame specified in 40 CFR 63.9(h) for submittal of the NOCS for GDF. In
each paragraph, the revised text would read as follows: ``You must
submit a Notification of Compliance Status to the applicable EPA
Regional Office and the delegated State authority, as specified in
Sec.  63.13, in accordance with the schedule specified in Sec.
63.9(h).''
    Comment: One commenter stated that, because there are no initial
performance tests or compliance demonstrations for owners and operators
subject to the control requirements in 40 CFR 63.11117 (submerged
fill), it is unclear when the NOCS is due for these sources. The
commenter stated that if it is EPA's intent for sources subject to the
control requirements in 40 CFR 63.11117 to submit their NOCS within 60
days of the compliance date, this should be expressly stated in the
rule.
    Response: We agree with the recommendation made by the commenter,
and have included the 60-day timeframe for the submittal of the NOCS in
40 CFR 63.11124(a)(2), which now reads: ``You must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status to the applicable EPA Regional office
and the delegated State authority, as specified in Sec.  63.13, within
60 days of the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.11113,
unless you meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.''
8. Storage Tank Inspections
    We received several questions from stakeholders regarding the
specific requirements for gasoline storage tank inspections under 40
CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. However, we proposed to leave the gasoline
storage tank inspection requirements unchanged from the January 10,
2008, final rule. We received no comments related to this proposal, and
have not revised the gasoline storage tank inspection requirements.
9. General Provisions Applicability
    We proposed to revise certain entries in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB, and Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, to
eliminate requirements related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) plans, which are not required under these subparts. We proposed
that in the ``applicability'' column in Table 3 for each subpart, the
entries for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c), and 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv)
be changed from ``yes'' to ``no.'' Since proposal, we have identified
certain other provisions listed in Table 3 to each subpart that are
related to the now vacated SSM provisions (Sierra

Club v. EPA, 551 F 1019 (DC Cir., 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735
(U.S. 2010)), and that warrant revision. Specifically, in the final
rule, we have revised Table 3 to subpart BBBBBB to specify that the
following provisions do not apply: 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii),
63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and
(v). We have revised Table 3 to subpart CCCCCC to specify that the
following provisions do not apply: 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii),
63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and
(v). We also added language to both subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC
specifying that owners or operators have a general duty to minimize
emissions and provisions for recordkeeping and reporting of periods of
malfunctions of process equipment, or air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
    As stated earlier, in the proposed amendments we proposed to change
the ``yes'' to a ``no'' in the ``applicability'' column of Table 3 in
both subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC for the following provisions: 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) and 63.10(b)(2)(iii). We proposed these changes because
we received comments from stakeholders that these provisions relate to
SSM plans, which are not required under these rules. After further
reviewing these provisions, we found that these particular provisions
are not SSM-related; rather, these provisions address CMS equipment and
maintenance of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
respectively. Therefore, for subpart BBBBBB, we are not making the
proposed changes but instead will finalize Table 3 in subpart BBBBBB to
indicate a ``yes'' for the applicability of these provisions. Subpart
CCCCCC does not have any CMS requirements, so we will finalize the
``no'' for 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and a ``yes'' for 63.10(b)(2)(iii) for the
applicability of these provisions in Table 3 to subpart CCCCCC.
    We also proposed amending the entry for 40 CFR 63.5 (submittal of
construction/reconstruction notifications) in Table 3 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC to state that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.5 do not
apply to facilities that are only subject to 40 CFR 63.11116. The only
control requirements that these facilities are subject to are the
Management Practices specified in 40 CFR 63.11116; therefore, the
submittal of notifications is not necessary. We did not receive any
comments on this proposed amendment, and are finalizing the amendment
as proposed.
    Comment: One commenter supports most of the revisions that EPA
proposed relative to the General Provision requirements. The commenter
suggested, however, that EPA revise Table 3 to clarify the Agency's
intent that facilities with gasoline throughput less than 10,000
gallons are not required to submit any notifications or reports. The
commenter stated that, as written, Table 3 appears to require such
facilities to submit some notifications (such as compliance
certifications under 40 CFR 63.9(h)). The commenter suggested that EPA
include a statement in Table 3 that the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A do not apply to facilities only subject to 40 CFR 63.11116.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that Table 3
be revised to specifically note each requirement that does not apply to
GDF that are subject only to the management practices in 40 CFR
63.11116. We have, however, revised the text in 40 CFR 63.11116(b) to
state that ``you are not required to submit notifications or reports as
specified in Sec.  63.11125, Sec.  63.11126, or subpart A of this
part.'' This text appears sufficient to exclude applicable sources from
the General Provision requirements to submit notifications or reports.
10. Compliance Testing for GDF
    In the December 15, 2009, proposal, we presented the results of our
analysis of whether Bay Area Air Quality Management District Source
Test Procedure ST-30, a test method for static pressure testing of a
vapor balance system, could be accepted as an alternative to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 201.3 procedure required under 40
CFR 63.11120(a)(2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. We found that the
original version of Bay Area ST-30 did not include procedures for
testing the integrity of p/v valves installed on the gasoline storage
tanks, and, therefore, would not be an acceptable alternative to CARB
201.3. However, we also found that the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District amended Bay Area ST-30 on December 21, 1994, to add the p/v
valve and p/v valve connections as components of the system during the
testing, and that CARB subsequently issued a letter of equivalency
stating that Bay Area ST-30 was equivalent to CARB 201.3. We proposed
that Bay Area ST-30, as amended on December 21, 1994, be considered to
meet the requirements of subpart CCCCCC.
    We did not receive any comments regarding our analysis of Bay Area
ST-30, or our proposal that it be allowed as an alternative to CARB
201.3. Therefore, in the final rule, we have incorporated Bay Area ST-
30 by reference as an allowable alternative test method, and have
revised the text of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC accordingly.
    Comment: Commenters believe that all sources should be subject to
testing requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to ensure the
equipment is functioning properly, and meeting compliance and
manufacturer specifications to insure equitable treatment. One
commenter notes that 40 CFR 63.11120 states: ``The second option
(compliance under Sec.  63.11118(b)(2)) does not require the periodic
testing in Sec.  63.11120(a), but periodic testing may be required
under State, local, or Tribal rule or permits.'' The commenter believes
this is a problem as many GDF located in rural areas most likely not
affected by existing State rules will be subject to expensive testing
requirements, while those regulated in the urban areas and having the
most impact on sensitive populations may not be subject to testing
requirements, depending upon State, local, or Tribal rule. The
commenter stated that they feel the time period for all sources to
eventually become subject to testing requirements as ``new'' will
produce an inequity among the industry that may not make regulatory nor
economic sense. The other commenter stated that it is the older systems
that are more prone to leakage because they lack many of the leak
prevention features, such as adaptors, that will not leak when loosened
or over-tightened, as required for the newer systems, yet they may
never be tested. The commenter stated that if periodic testing is
needed for newer systems to verify the effectiveness of the vapor
recovery system, then it most surely is also needed for the older
systems. The commenter noted that the components that most often leak
vapors from storage systems, such as the vapor adaptors, spill
containment manhole drain valves, and p/v vent valves, are readily
accessible from grade, and do not require excavation to be repaired or
replaced. The commenter stated that keeping older systems vapor tight
should be no more of a chore than keeping the newer systems vapor
tight.
    Response: We did not propose any change to the periodic testing
requirements for GDF in the December 15, 2009, proposal, nor have we
made any change in the final rule. Many facilities that are complying
with State, local, or Tribal rules or permits, and have chosen to
comply with the compliance option under 40 CFR 63.11118(b)(2), will be
required under the State, local, or Tribal rule or permit to perform
some combination of periodic inspection and testing of the

vapor balance systems. We do not want to interfere with, or create
unnecessary duplication of, the operation of these State, local, or
Tribal programs. Additionally, over time, all will perform this testing
because reconstructed GDF or new GDF starting up on or after January
10, 2008, will be subject to the periodic testing under this rule.
    Comment: We proposed adding a new paragraph (e) to 40 CFR 63.11113
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to specify that new sources
(installed after November 9, 2006) must test within 180 days after
startup, and existing sources must conduct all performance tests within
180 days after the compliance date (if installed on or before December
15, 2009), or upon installation of the complete system (if installed
after December 15, 2009). We proposed this new paragraph because the
dates by which periodic tests should be conducted were not explicitly
stated in the January 10, 2008, final rule. One commenter believes that
setting the compliance date for existing facilities based on the
December 15, 2009, date of EPA's proposed amendments adds an additional
level of confusion and complexity for affected GDF, and for delegated
State agencies implementing and enforcing these regulations. The
commenter believes the performance testing deadline for existing
facilities should be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions, and
with other NESHAP regulations. The commenter recommends that EPA revise
the proposed amendments for 40 CFR 63.11113(e)(2) to the following:
    ``(2) For an existing affected source, the initial compliance test
must be conducted no later than 180 days after the applicable
compliance date specified in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.''
    Response: The January 10, 2008, final rule and the December 15,
2009, proposed amendments contain a requirement that facilities must
test their vapor balance systems ``at the time of installation.'' As
explained in the preamble to the proposal (74 FR 66484, third column),
the best time to perform the initial test of these systems is when they
are being installed. We recognize, however, that many facilities
already have vapor balance systems installed, and that not all of these
systems may have been tested at the time of installation. We proposed
that these systems must conduct their initial tests within 180 days
after the compliance date because we had failed to specify a date in
the final rule text, and because 180 days after the compliance date is
consistent with 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) in the General Provisions that was
referenced as applicable in the final rule. We believe the commenter
missed the point that the rule requires new sources and existing
sources that have to install a new vapor balance system to test that
system at the time of installation. We continue to believe that is
appropriate.
11. Gasoline, Denatured Ethanol, and Transmix
    Several commenters submitted comments regarding the relationship
between the proposed definition of gasoline and the proposal that
emissions from the storage of denatured ethanol and transmix be subject
to the standards.
Comments Related to the Definition of Gasoline
    We proposed adding the definition of gasoline to these subparts
even though the NSPS is cross-referenced in the definitions of 40 CFR
part 63, subparts BBBBBB and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. The
proposed definition is as follows: ``Gasoline means any petroleum
distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol blend having a Reid vapor
pressure of 27.6 kilopascals or greater, which is used as a fuel for
internal combustion engines.'' We received no negative comments on
incorporation of this definition, so the final rules include this
definition.
Comments Related to Denatured Ethanol
    We stated in the preamble the following (74 FR 66485): ``[W]e are
proposing that any gasoline mixture with alcohol should be considered
gasoline, and be controlled under the current control requirements in
subpart BBBBBB and CCCCCC. We are asking for comment on including any
mixture, on whether this level of control is appropriate, and if not,
we are requesting data on what level of control of those emissions is
appropriate.'' We proposed that such mixtures should be controlled the
same as gasoline and asked for comment.
    Comment: Commenters stated that denatured ethanol does not meet the
definition of gasoline, and that it is not appropriate to regulate
denatured ethanol under any NESHAP because it contains only a de
minimis concentration of HAP. The commenters stated that non-gasoline
sources in the petroleum liquids distribution system have been
previously evaluated by EPA in the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) source category, for which EPA determined that an area source
rule was not warranted. The commenters stated that this source category
was limited to gasoline distribution (not ethanol or transmix). The
commenters stated that the item in the affected source was ``gasoline
storage tanks,'' but, through what EPA is proposing, it has effectively