[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66469-66494]
[DOCID:fr15de09-24]

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

Part IV

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; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-9092-1]
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: Proposed rule; reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: EPA received two petitions for reconsideration from trade
associations representing their stakeholders regarding 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 proposing 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 proposed action. We are seeking comments only on the proposed
amendments presented in this action. We will not respond to any
comments addressing other provisions of the final rules or any related
rulemakings.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before
February 16, 2010.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 28, 2009, a public hearing will be held on
December 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0406, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver your
comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0406. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov docket index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket, 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>, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact persons listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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. Rebecca Kane, Office of Compliance, Air
Compliance Branch (2223A), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 564-
5960, facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of regulated
             Category                NAICS *            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................     324110  Operations at area
                                       493190   sources that transfer
                                       486910   and store gasoline,
                                       424710   including bulk
                                       447110   terminals, bulk plants,
                                       447190   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,
subparts BBBBBB and 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.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 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.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Janet Eck, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group
(E143-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-7946, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 2 days in advance
of the potential date of the public hearing. If a public hearing is
held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site
nearby. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this rule by December 28, 2009 this hearing will be
cancelled without further notice.
    Outline: The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
    A. Petitions for Reconsideration
    B. Other Stakeholder Issues
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Proposed Amendments Applicable to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
BBBBBB
    B. Proposed Amendments Applicable to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
CCCCCC
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. Throughput Thresholds
    C. Rule Clarifications
IV. 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
    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

I. Background

    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, subparts BBBBBB and
CCCCCC) pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(d)(5) of the Clean Air
Act (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 U.S. 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) have contacted EPA with questions or issues related to the
implementation of the final rules. We discuss these requests below.

A. Petitions for Reconsideration

1. The Alliance Petition
    The Alliance petition identified three issues for reconsideration.
The Alliance asserted:
    1. The broad definition of ``Bulk Gasoline Plant'' and unclear
language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, section 63.11086, can be
read to impose duplicative and redundant requirements on facilities
also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    2. The broad definition of ``Bulk Gasoline Plant'' appears to
regulate some specialized engine testing facilities under 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBB when such facilities should be regulated only by 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    3. Emergency generators and fire pump gasoline storage tanks should
be exempt from regulation under both 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    Today we are granting reconsideration of, and requesting comment
on, the first two issues raised in the petition for reconsideration
filed by the Alliance. These two issues raise concerns regarding the
definition of ``bulk gasoline plant'' and allege that the ambiguous
language in the definition may impose duplicative requirements on
facilities under both subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC, or improperly
regulate certain facilities under subpart BBBBBB rather than subpart
CCCCCC. The Alliance raised similar concerns in their comments
submitted on the proposed rule; EPA included its response to those
comments in the preamble to the final rule and in the December 19,
2007, Memorandum, ``Summary of Comments and Responses to Public
Comments on November 9, 2006 Proposal for Gasoline Distribution Area
Sources'' (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, item 0141). Nonetheless, we
grant reconsideration on these two issues in the Alliance petition for
reconsideration so that we may more fully address these potential
ambiguities in the definition and more clearly identify what facilities
are ``bulk gasoline plants'' and therefore only subject to subpart
BBBBBB. We discuss our proposed changes to this definition and to other
applicable regulatory text for addressing these issues in Section III
of this preamble.
    Moreover, on June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31273) we published a proposed
settlement agreement with the Alliance in the Federal Register
regarding the petition for judicial review filed by the Alliance in the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals. After a 30-day public comment period, EPA
and the Alliance formally entered into the settlement agreement. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, we are proposing the amendments
contained in Attachment A of the agreement. The proposed amendments in
Attachment A are those that address the issues for which we grant
reconsideration above.
2. The API Petition
    The API petition identified four issues for reconsideration. API
asserted:
    1. The rule should be clarified so that facilities would be allowed
180 days from the compliance date to conduct a performance test and an
additional 60 days to submit the Notice of Compliance Status.
Additionally, API stated that the requirements under the rule should
not be triggered prior to the compliance date regardless of whether or
not a Notice of Compliance Status is submitted prior to

the compliance date specified in the rule.
    2. The monitoring requirements do not appropriately accommodate
daily monitoring and recording requirements for control equipment at
facilities that are not manned daily or that have alternative control
system configurations.
    3. The identification of affected units in 40 CFR part 63, subparts
BBBBBB and CCCCCC inadvertently regulate equipment not meant to be part
of this rule.
    4. EPA has identified startup/shutdown/malfunction (SSM) reporting
requirements within the entries of Table 3 of the rule when there is no
requirement for an SSM plan for facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB.
    Additionally, on May 8, 2008, API sent a letter to EPA that further
clarified the four issues raised in its March 10, 2008 petition. The
May 8 letter also introduced seven new issues regarding the final
rules. Since these seven issues were not included in the March 10
petition for reconsideration, EPA is not addressing them as part of the
petition for reconsideration; instead, EPA is addressing them with the
issues raised by other stakeholders (see section I.B. below). In
section III. (Rationale for Proposed Amendments) of this preamble,
API's issues are identified by the order in which they are listed in
the May 8 letter.
    Despite having ample time and opportunity to do so, API did not
submit comments on any of the issues raised in its petition for
reconsideration during the public comment period. The provisions that
provoked all of these questions were included in the proposed rules,
yet API did not seek to resolve them until after EPA promulgated the
final rules. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA is not obligated to
reconsider these issues as not being ``properly noticed'' as alleged by
API in their petition for reconsideration. Nonetheless, EPA is today
granting reconsideration on all four of the issues raised in API's
petition for reconsideration. EPA recognizes the value of addressing
these questions for the facilities that are attempting to implement the
rules; providing clarity on possibly confusing provisions will enhance
owner/operator compliance with these rules. Thus, EPA agrees that
addressing these issues is appropriate at this time. Section III
contains a detailed explanation of the issues as well as EPA's proposed
methods for resolving those issues. The package also includes proposed
changes to the regulatory text, where appropriate, that address the
four issues raised in API's petition for reconsideration.
    Our final decision on reconsideration of all the issues for which
we are not granting reconsideration today will be issued no later than
the date by which we take final action on the issues discussed in
today's action.

B. Other Stakeholder Issues

    In addition to the petitions for reconsideration discussed above,
several other compliance-related questions have been raised by various
stakeholders, including the Alliance,\1\ API, State and local air
pollution control agencies, equipment suppliers, etc. The questions
raised by stakeholders include topics such as: Clarification of the
applicability of the two subparts to various types of gasoline-handling
operations; options for submerged fill pipe lengths; applicability of
the subparts to storage tanks that are used infrequently or used only
for surge control at pipeline facilities; the definition of monthly
throughput and how monthly throughput is to be calculated; the timing
of certain recordkeeping activities and submittal of notifications;
clarification of the rule text regarding continuous compliance
monitoring; clarification of the frequency of required storage tank
inspections; and the applicability of several General Provisions
subparts. We are addressing these questions in today's action. Section
III. of today's notice presents the details on each of the questions
that have been raised and on our responses to the questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letters from the Alliance and API have been added to Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406 and can be found at items 0175 through
0180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments being proposed today addressing both the petitions
for reconsideration and the additional questions from other
stakeholders primarily clarify the final rules and do not substantially
change the requirements of the final 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.

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

A. Proposed Amendments Applicable to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart BBBBBB

    As a result of our reconsideration of the issues raised by the
petitions filed by the Alliance and API, as well as questions from
other stakeholders regarding 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, we are
proposing to amend certain rule provisions. The rationale for the
amendments is fully presented in the next section of this preamble. We
are proposing to:
     Add a provision to Sec.  63.11081 clarifying that gasoline
storage tanks located at bulk facilities, but used only for dispensing
gasoline in a manner consistent with tanks located at a gasoline
dispensing facility (GDF) as defined at Sec.  63.11132, are not subject
to any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. Instead,
these tanks must comply with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC.
     Add a provision to Sec.  63.11081 stating that if a bulk
facility's monthly throughput ever exceeds an applicable throughput
threshold in the definition of ``bulk gasoline terminal,'' or in Table
2, item 1 of this subpart, the affected source will remain subject to
those requirements even if the affected source's throughput later falls
below the applicable throughput threshold.
     Add to Sec.  63.11086 a provision to allow storage tanks
to have an additional option for submerged fill pipes that are further
from the bottom of the tank than the distances previously specified in
Sec.  63.11086 if adequate recordkeeping is performed and records are
maintained by the owner or operator to demonstrate that the liquid
level in the tank never drops below the highest point in the opening of
the fill pipe.
     Amend item 1 in Table 1 to provide different controls than
promulgated for two types of tanks, as follows:
    [cir] Add a capacity/throughput threshold below which small,
infrequent-use gasoline storage tanks would be required to be equipped
with a fixed roof and covers on all openings that are to be maintained
in a closed position at all times when not in use.
    [cir] Add a definition for surge control tanks and provisions
requiring that they be equipped with pressure/vacuum (PV) vents with a
positive cracking pressure of no less than 0.50 inches of water and
that all openings are to be maintained in a closed position at all
times when not in use.
     Additionally, we are proposing to include the following
clarifications:
    [cir] Correct typographical errors;
    [cir] Move the provision that indicates that certain storage tanks
that are located at bulk plants are only subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC from Sec.  63.11086(b)(2) to Sec.  63.111081;
    [cir] Clarify in Sec.  63.11092 the presentation and wording of
bulk terminal loading rack testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping
provisions;

    [cir] Clarify in a new paragraph (g) in Sec.  63.11081 that the
20,000 gallons per day throughput threshold that distinguishes a bulk
gasoline plant from a bulk gasoline terminal is the maximum throughput
for any day and not an average;
    [cir] Clarify paragraph (c) in Sec.  63.11083 by removing the word
``average'' in the discussion of monthly throughput;
    [cir] Clarify in a new paragraph in Sec.  63.11095(a)(4) the due
dates for Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) reports for storage
tanks on extended compliance dates;
    [cir] Clarify the definition of ``bulk gasoline plant;''
    [cir] Clarify the rule by adding definitions of ``gasoline'' and
``gasoline storage tank'' based on cross-referenced definitions used in
other rules;
    [cir] Correct the definition of ``vapor-tight cargo tank;''
    [cir] Clarify in Table 1, item 2(b), that internal floating roof
tanks are excluded from the secondary seal requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW, as we did for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb;
    [cir] Clarify, by adding rule text at Sec.  63.11081(d) and (e),
that the following activities are not affected source categories under
40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB: the loading of aviation gasoline into
storage tanks at airports (including the subsequent transfer of
aviation gasoline within the airport), and the loading of gasoline into
marine tank vessels at bulk facilities, as discussed at promulgation of
this rule;
    [cir] Clarify, by adding rule text at Sec.  63.11081(h), that the
loading of gasoline into cargo tanks for on-site redistribution to
another storage tank is considered to be a bulk plant operation; and
    [cir] Clarify the applicability of certain General Provisions
paragraphs in Table 3.

B. Proposed Amendments Applicable to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC

    As a result of our reconsideration of the issues raised in the
petitions filed by the Alliance and API, as well as questions from
other stakeholders regarding 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, we are
proposing to amend certain rule provisions. The rationale for the
amendments is fully presented in the next section of this preamble. We
are proposing to:
     Clarify in Sec.  63.11111(g) that the loading of aviation
gasoline into storage tanks at airports (including the subsequent
transfer of aviation gasoline within the airport) is not subject to
this subpart.
     Clarify in a new paragraph (h) in Sec.  63.11111 the
applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC to multiple GDF at
different locations within the same area source.
     Add a paragraph (i) to Sec.  63.11111 stating that if a
GDF's monthly throughput ever exceeds an applicable monthly throughput
threshold, the GDF will remain subject to those requirements even if
the GDF's monthly throughput later falls below the applicable monthly
throughput threshold.
     Add a paragraph (j) to Sec.  63.11111 stating that the
dispensing of gasoline from fixed gasoline storage tanks at a GDF into
portable gasoline storage tanks 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 at the area source is
subject to Sec.  63.11116 of this subpart.
     Add a paragraph (e) to Sec.  63.11113 specifying the dates
by which the performance tests required under Sec.  63.11120 must be
conducted. Section 63.11120(a) is also being revised to add a reference
to this new paragraph.
     Add a paragraph (d) to Sec.  63.11116 stating that owners
or operators using portable gasoline containers that meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 59, subpart F, (the Mobile Source Air
Toxics Rule) will be considered in compliance with paragraph (a)(3) of
this section.
     Add to Sec.  63.11117 a provision to allow storage tanks
to have an additional option for submerged fill pipes that are further
from the bottom of the tank than the distances previously specified in
Sec.  63.11117 if adequate recordkeeping is performed and records are
maintained by the owner or operator to demonstrate that the liquid
level in the tank never drops below the highest point in the opening of
the fill pipe.
     Clarify in Sec.  63.11124 the dates by which the NOCS must
be submitted.
     Add a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  63.11125 clarifying that
cargo tank vapor tightness testing records must be kept for a period of
5 years, but adding that cargo tank owners or operators have the option
of keeping only the current year's records with the cargo tank and
keeping records for the previous 4 years in the owner's office if the
records are instantly available.
     Add a definition of ``vapor-tight cargo tank,'' correct
the definition of ``gasoline cargo tank,'' and clarify the location of
vapor-tight testing records to clarify compliance for cargo tank owners
and operators with item (vi) in Table 2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC.
     Add definitions for ``gasoline,'' ``motor vehicle,''
``nonroad engine,'' and ``nonroad vehicle'' to ensure consistency with
other rules.
     Amend the current definition of ``gasoline dispensing
facility'' in Sec.  63.11132 to clarify our intent to include all
public and private stationary facilities that dispense gasoline into
the fuel tanks of on- and off-road engines, vehicles, and equipment
rather than just those facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel
tanks of motor vehicles.
     Revise the definition of monthly throughput in Sec.
63.11132 to remove the reference to a ``rolling 30-day average'' and to
add a clarification on how monthly throughput is calculated. This
revision is being proposed to clarify our intent that the 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 day, plus the total volume of gasoline loaded into, or
dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during the
previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 12.
     Revise Sec.  63.11111(e) and Sec.  63.11113(c) to remove
the word ``average.''
     Amend Table 1 by adding a footnote to clarify the
applicability of the provisions in the Table.
     Clarify in Table 1, item 2, the construction date after
which storage tanks at existing GDF are ``new'' and required to have
dual-point vapor balance system.
     Clarify in Table 2, item (vi), that vapor tightness
testing documentation must be carried ``with'' the cargo tank, rather
than ``on'' the cargo tank.
     Clarify the applicability of certain General Provisions
paragraphs in Table 3.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Applicability

1. Definition of Bulk Gasoline Plant
    Alliance, in their petition (issue 1), stated that the
broad definition of ``bulk gasoline plant'' in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBBB could be interpreted to impose duplicative and redundant
requirements on facilities also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC. Alliance stated that, in the preamble to the proposed rule (71
FR 66064, 66066, November 9, 2006), EPA described bulk gasoline plants
as ``* * * intermediate storage and distribution facilities that
normally receive gasoline from bulk terminals via tank trucks or
railcars. Gasoline from bulk plants is subsequently loaded into tank
trucks for transport to local dispensing facilities.'' They further
stated that the final rule

does not reflect this description and could be interpreted to include
any gasoline storage facility that receives less than 20,000 gallons of
gasoline per day, including GDF regulated under subpart CCCCCC.
Alliance noted that EPA revised the rule between proposal and
promulgation, but stated that the revision was not clear and failed to
specifically exempt facilities subject to subpart CCCCCC from the
requirements of subpart BBBBBB. Alliance requested that such an
exemption be clearly stated in subpart CCCCCC.
    We agree with the Alliance that the intent of the rule was to
separately regulate bulk gasoline plants and GDF. We also agree that,
as written, there could be confusion with the definition of ``bulk
gasoline plant.'' The definition of ``bulk gasoline plant'' in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB includes the phrase ``gasoline storage and
distribution facility.'' Our intent was that by including the term
``distribution facility,'' it would be clear that the gasoline stored
at these facilities was distributed to smaller dispensing facilities
rather than being dispensed into vehicles and other gasoline-fueled
equipment. To address the issues raised by the Alliance in their
petition, we are proposing to revise the definition of ``bulk gasoline
plant'' to include the descriptive language, as used in the preamble,
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.'' This change should adequately address any potential confusion
regarding the distinction between bulk plants and GDF; thus, we are not
proposing to add an exemption for bulk plants to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC.
    Alliance also mentioned that some facilities could be subject to
overlapping requirements because the final rule failed to clearly
exempt facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC
from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. They requested
that such an exemption be added to subpart BBBBBB.
    We agree that an operation that dispenses gasoline in a way that
meets the definition of ``gasoline dispensing facility'' in 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC should only be subject to the requirements of
subpart CCCCCC regardless of the type of facility (bulk terminal, bulk
plant, or pipeline facility) at which it is located. We are proposing
to add a paragraph (c) to Sec.  63.11081 to read as follows: ``Gasoline
storage tanks that are located at affected sources identified in
paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(4) of this section, and that are used only for
dispensing gasoline in a manner consistent with tanks located at a GDF,
as defined at Sec.  63.11132, are not subject to any of the
requirements in this subpart. These tanks must comply with subpart
CCCCCC of this part.''
2. Definition of Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF)
    Alliance, in their petition (issue 2), expressed concern
that, under the current definitions in the rules, some facilities could
be considered to be subject to both 40 CFR part 63, subparts BBBBBB and
CCCCCC when they should only be subject to subpart CCCCCC. Alliance
stated that the overly broad definition of ``bulk gasoline plant''
could subject some specialized test facilities that dispense gasoline
into research and development engines, engine dynamometers, engine test
stands, and other vehicle testing equipment to regulation under both
subpart BBBBBB and CCCCCC because some of these facilities have a
single gasoline storage tank that dispenses gasoline into complete
motor vehicles as well as the incomplete items described above.
Alliance recommended that EPA revise the definition of ``gasoline
dispensing facility'' to specifically include facilities that dispense
gasoline into motor vehicle engines, whether or not such engine is part
of a complete motor vehicle.
    Alliance also stated (issue 3) that both subparts could be
interpreted to cover storage tanks that fuel emergency generators and
fire pumps, but that it is not clear how they apply to this equipment.
Alliance added that neither the proposed nor final rules provided any
notice that they could potentially apply to the gasoline storage tanks
that dispense gasoline into thousands of emergency generators and fire
pumps at various types of industrial and other facilities across the
nation. Alliance recommended that, because of the small tank size and
very low throughput, the storage tanks fueling this type of equipment
should not be regulated under either subpart. They suggested that the
rules be revised to exclude storage tanks attached to or solely used to
fuel emergency generators and fire pumps.
    API requested in their May 8, 2008 letter (issue 4) that
the definition of ``gasoline dispensing facility'' in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC be revised to clarify that the rule does not apply to
those facilities that dispense gasoline for use within the facility or
by employees of the facility. They stated that these types of GDF do
not dispense gasoline for retail sale, and emissions from the gasoline
storage tanks are typically addressed by State/local permits or
regulations.
    Several other stakeholders have questioned whether specific types
of operations are considered to be GDF. One stakeholder questioned how
a remote facility that has a 5,000-gallon storage tank, receives
gasoline once per year, and dispenses about 300 gallons per month for
use in stationary and nonroad portable engines is covered by this rule.
A few stakeholders asked if the definition should include operations
such as marinas that dispense gasoline into boats, storage tanks that
are used to dispense gasoline into nonroad vehicles and landscaping or
construction equipment, storage tanks that are brought onsite for short
term use (such as in construction equipment), and gasoline dispensed
for non-retail purposes.
    We did not intend to exclude any GDF from this rule and
specifically stated in the preamble for the final rule that we intended
to cover all public and private GDF (73 FR 1916, 1925). Thus, we are
proposing to clarify this in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. This is
appropriate because all of these operations are part of the source
category that was listed and the facility operations and applicable
controls are the same for all types of GDF.
    As discussed at promulgation, 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 estimated emissions for all end
users of gasoline. See the August 22, 2008, Memorandum, ``Review of
1990

emissions inventory supporting the listing Gasoline Distribution''
(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, item 0181).
    We also believe that the types of storage tanks found at all of
these facilities are the same, except that the average or typical size
and throughput tend to be smaller than for the more typical GDF that
refuel primarily motor vehicles. We considered both the size and
throughput of GDF storage tanks in the selection of the control
requirements in the current rule, so we believe the types of controls,
and the control levels required, are appropriate to all of these
facilities.
    At proposal and promulgation, we considered all public and private
facilities in our calculations and decision-making; thus, tanks at all
of these facilities are already covered under the previous estimates.
However, in reviewing that data for this proposal, we found that the
references that presented the estimated number of private facilities
described those facilities as including government agencies, commercial
and industrial consumers, school systems, and companies of all sizes,
but they did not include farms, nurseries, and landscaping firms.
However, it appears that this omission provides little if any impact to
our previous estimates since we had considered most private GDF to have
monthly throughputs below 10,000 gallons, meaning they would incur no
additional control costs. GDF with throughputs of 10,000 gallons per
month or less must only perform the good management practices to check
for and minimize evaporation of gasoline that are standard industry
practices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR 63.11116(a). ``You must not allow gasoline to be
handled in a manner that would result in vapor releases to the
atmosphere for extended periods of time. Measures to be taken
include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Minimize
gasoline spills; (2) Clean up spills as expeditiously as
practicable; (3) Cover all open gasoline containers and all gasoline
storage tank fill-pipes with a gasketed seal when not in use; (4)
Minimize gasoline sent to open waste collection systems that collect
and transport gasoline to reclamation and recycling devices, such as
oil/water separators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to amend the current definition of ``gasoline
dispensing facility'' to clarify our intent to include all stationary
facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel tanks of all end users
of gasoline. The prior definition was: ``Gasoline dispensing facility
(GDF) means any stationary facility which dispenses gasoline into the
fuel tank of a motor vehicle.'' The new 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.'' Thus, we agree with the
Alliance that facilities that dispense gasoline into research and
development engines, engine dynamometers, engine test stands, and other
vehicle testing equipment do not qualify as bulk plants, but instead,
qualify as GDF. We also emphasize, contrary to positions asserted by
the Alliance, API, and other stakeholders, that all GDFs are covered
under subpart CCCCCC, and are proposing amendments to the GDF
definition to effectuate that originally expressed intent.
3. Tanks With Infrequent Use
    API, in their May 8, 2008 letter (issue 5), stated that
the current threshold for installation of floating roofs and seals is
based solely on the capacity of the tank. They stated that tanks that
are used on a very limited basis do not warrant the significant
investment associated with compliance in return for an insignificant
reduction in hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. API provided the
example of a utility, or maintenance tank that would only hold material
for short periods of time while primary tanks are out of service. API
requested that additional consideration be given to tanks for which the
limited duration of use results in emissions of less than 1 ton per
year of volatile organic compounds, but did not provide the basis for
using that value.
    API subsequently provided additional information in a letter dated
August 19, 2008 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, item 0178), related
to their concern about the control of storage tanks that are used
infrequently. They stated that the tanks in question were small tanks
(generally less than 40,000 gallon capacity, compared to the more
typical tanks that have capacities of over 1,000,000 gallons) with few
turnovers per year, and that the cost-effectiveness of installing a
floating roof in tanks such as these was significantly higher than for
the tanks EPA analyzed for the final rule. API provided an example of a
40,000 gallon tank with 5 turnovers per year and a throughput of
175,000 gallons per year (5 turnovers times a 35,000 gallon working
capacity). They calculated a HAP cost-effectiveness of about $9,200 per
ton for adding a floating roof to such a tank. API recommended that
tanks up to 40,000 gallons capacity and with a throughput of less than
175,000 gallons per year only be required to meet the requirements
specified in Table 1, item 1 (a fixed roof with all openings closed at
all times when not in use).
    We analyzed the information provided by API and agree that for
infrequent-use and low-throughput tanks, the HAP cost effectiveness of
adding a floating roof is expected to be $9,000 per ton or more. We are
therefore proposing to establish a separate subcategory for these
tanks, based on size and gasoline throughput, with the control
requirements in Table 1, item 1. Specifically, we are proposing to
amend item 1 of Table 1 of subpart BBBBBB by adding a second
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. We are proposing that these gasoline storage tanks
must be equipped with a fixed roof and that covers on all openings be
maintained in a closed position at all times when not in use.
4. Surge Control Tanks
    API requested (issue 6 in their May 8, 2008 letter, also
in their August 19, 2008 letter) that EPA revisit the requirements for
surge control tanks. The rule currently would require these tanks to
install internal floating roof tanks that would reduce the usable
capacity of the tank, which could render the tank no longer adequately
capable of providing the required surge relief.
    As explained by API, these are tanks used at pipeline facilities to
provide a means of ensuring that the pressure in the pipeline does not
exceed the level specified by the Department of Transportation (DOT).
The surge control tanks are normally kept at very low levels so that
gasoline can be pumped into them at any time there is a surge or excess
pressure in the pipeline. In follow-up conversations with EPA, API also
explained that these tanks are typically fixed roof tanks with
capacities ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 gallons; they have PV vents
with positive cracking settings of 0.50 inches of water; they are used
two or three times per year, on average; the duration of their use is
kept as short as possible so that surge capacity will always be
available and the pipeline does not have to shutdown. API also
explained that the use of floating roof systems in surge control tanks
is risky as the loading of gasoline into the tanks is sometimes at such
a high rate that the

floating roof can be damaged. API added that the cost-effectiveness
would be very poor (nearly $100,000/ton of HAP reduced) to install
internal floating roofs because many tanks would have to be replaced
with larger tanks, or additional tanks would have to be added, to make
up for the loss of capacity from adding the roof.
    We reviewed the applicable DOT regulations and agree that pipeline
operations are required to maintain the pressure in the pipeline below
an established level. It also appears that in the case of a storage
tank that is sized just large enough to provide the minimum level of
pressure relief, the installation of a floating roof system could
reduce the working volume to an unacceptable level. This could
necessitate the installation of a larger or an additional tank,
resulting in a poor HAP cost-effectiveness as a consequence of
complying with the internal floating roof requirement. Also, as pointed
out by API, a floating roof system may not be a practical control
method for surge control tanks because of the potential for damaging
the roof during rapid filling of the tank. We are proposing to add an
entry 3 in Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, specifying that
owners or operators must ``Equip each surge control tank with a fixed
roof that is mounted to the tank in a stationary manner and with a PV
vent with a positive cracking pressure of no less than 0.50 inches of
water. Maintain all openings in a closed position at all times when not
in use.''
    We are also proposing to add a definition of a surge control tank
to implement this new provision. The definition is based on the
requirement in DOT regulations (49 CFR 195.406(b)) which states that
``no operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or
other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the
operating pressure limit.'' We are proposing the following definition:
``surge control tank or vessel means, for the purposes of this subpart,
those tanks or vessels used only for controlling pressure in a pipeline
system during surges or other variations from normal operations.''
5. Definition of Storage Tank
    API requested (issue 6 in their May 8, 2008 letter) that
the definition in new source performance standard (NSPS) 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb for ``storage tank'' be included in Sec.  63.11100. They
stated that the definition of ``storage tank'' should be included in 40
CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB rather than relying on the definitions in
subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, because those definitions
are somewhat different. API's view is that the definition of storage
tank should exclude ``process tanks'' as is done in the subpart Kb
definition of storage tank. API suggested that incorporating the
subpart Kb definition would address the concern over the applicability
of the rule to surge control tanks at pipeline facilities. As discussed
previously, API requested that surge control tanks be excluded from the
requirement to have floating roof systems.
    Our intent is that compliance with the control requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW constitutes
compliance with the control requirements for bulk facilities under 40
CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. As discussed in the proposal (71 FR 66064,
66071, November 9, 2006) and final (73 FR 1916, 1926, January 10, 2008)
preambles, we determined that certain seal types are appropriate. We
only used the control provisions in subparts Kb and WW to specify the
seal types and monitoring of those selected seal types that are
referenced in this rule; the applicability requirements in subparts Kb
and WW are not applicable for sources subject to subpart BBBBBB.
    In reviewing and considering API's suggestions, we agree we should
add a definition of gasoline storage tank. However, since gasoline
distribution does not include the typical process-type tanks that are
described in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb definition, other than the
surge control tanks mentioned by API, we do not believe it is necessary
to provide an exemption for process tanks in the definition in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB, as was done in subpart Kb. We are proposing a
definition of gasoline storage tanks as follows: ``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 subpart Kb without the
exemption for ``process tank.''
    We have, however, considered API's stated concern about the
possible impacts of requiring control of tanks that are used solely as
pipeline ``surge control'' tanks. We have included them in the analysis
discussed previously on surge control tanks.
6. Aviation Gasoline at Airports and Marine Tank Vessel Loading at Bulk
Facilities
    API (issue 3 in their petition and issue 10 in
their May 8, 2008 letter) stated that, while the intended exclusion of
aviation gasoline at airport facilities is clearly specified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC, there is no mention of this intended exclusion
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. They recommended that the
applicability provision of Sec.  63.11081 be revised to specifically
list, and exclude from coverage, the storage and loading of aviation
gasoline at airports. API also pointed out that the preamble to subpart
BBBBBB stated that the loading of gasoline into marine tank vessels is
not included in the gasoline distribution source category, and that
subpart BBBBBB does not specifically include such an exclusion. API
recommended that such an exclusion be added to Sec.  63.11081.
    Neither the loading of aviation gasoline at airports nor the
loading of gasoline into marine tank vessels at bulk facilities are
part of this source category and are not intended to be covered by 40
CFR part 63, subparts BBBBBB or CCCCCC. See the December 19, 2007,
Memorandum, ``Summary of Comments and Responses to Public Comments on
November 9, 2006 Proposal for Gasoline Distribution Area Sources''
(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, item 0141). We are proposing to
revise Sec.  63.11081 to clarify that these activities are not part of
the source categories covered by subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC by adding a
paragraph (d), which reads ``The loading of aviation gasoline into
storage tanks at airports, and the subsequent transfer of aviation
gasoline within the airport, is not subject to this subpart'' and a
paragraph (e), which reads: ``The loading of gasoline into marine tank
vessels at bulk facilities is not subject to this subpart.''
7. Temporary/Contractor Tanks
    One stakeholder stated that 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC is not
clear with regard to whether a facility is required to submit
preconstruction, startup, and compliance certifications for temporary
tanks, such as those brought onto a site by a contractor or another
third party that remain entirely under the control of that party. The
stakeholder recommended that EPA clarify how the regulations for GDF
would apply to such tanks and which party (the contractor/third party
or the owner/operator of the facility) would be responsible for
ensuring compliance

and submittal of any applicable notifications.
    At this time, we are not proposing any revisions to the rule in
response to the issue raised by the stakeholder, but we are requesting
comment on the subject discussion below. We believe the issue raised by
the stakeholder is not unique to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC and
could come up at facilities that are subject to a variety of national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) regulations.
Standards, including subpart CCCCCC, apply to the ``owner or operator''
of the affected source, and Sec.  63.2 defines ``owner or operator'' as
``any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a
stationary source.'' 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.
8. Coverage of Tanks Used To Fuel Vehicles and To Fill Cargo Tanks for
On-Site Fuel Distribution
    One stakeholder requested clarification on how the two subparts
would be applied to storage tanks that are used to fuel vehicles but
that may also be used to dispense gasoline into portable tanks or cargo
tanks. The stakeholder presented four different scenarios as examples
of the types of operations in question. Two of the examples involve
facilities that dispense gasoline from storage tanks into portable
tanks (one a 150-gallon tank and the other a 500-gallon tank) that are
then used to fill the fuel tanks of vehicles at test facilities. The
other two examples involve operations where gasoline is dispensed from
storage tanks into cargo tanks (4,000 to 8,000 gallon capacity) that
subsequently off-load the gasoline into another stationary gasoline
storage tank located at a separate location. The stakeholder questioned
how 40 CFR part 63, subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC would be applied to
these examples and recommended that all of the example operations
should be subject only to subpart CCCCCC.
    We reviewed the information provided by the stakeholder and agree
that additional clarification of the rules is needed. The stakeholder's
examples of facilities that dispense gasoline into portable tanks that
are then used to fuel vehicles for use within the area source are
operations that we consider to be covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC. Such on-site redistribution of gasoline is not expected to
occur at a volume or frequency that would exceed the 10,000 gallons per
month threshold; if so, these operations would only be subject to the
Management Practices specified in Sec.  63.11116. The other two
examples, however, involve the loading of gasoline into a cargo tank
and the subsequent unloading of the gasoline back into another storage
tank. These operations appear to meet the definition of a bulk plant,
so these operations would be subject to Sec.  63.11086. If so, the
loading of the cargo tank and the subsequent off-loading from the cargo
tank to the storage tanks must be performed using submerged filling.
Because submerged filling of storage tanks and cargo tanks is a widely
used and cost-effective method of reducing emissions, we expect that
most gasoline transfers, such as the examples provided by the
stakeholder, already use submerged filling.
    To address the questions raised by the stakeholder, we are
proposing to add clarifying text to each subpart, as follows:
     Add a paragraph (h) to Sec.  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 Sec.  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.''
9. Applicability to Sources That Are Subject to and Complying With 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV
    One stakeholder questioned whether a facility that receives and
stores gasoline solely for the purpose of denaturing the ethanol that
they produce would be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. The
facility stores gasoline in a 30,000 gallon storage tank, blends it
with the ethanol at a concentration of less than 5-percent gasoline,
and then ships the mixture out of the facility.
    The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV)
includes as an affected source the storage and use of gasoline as a
feedstock in chemical manufacturing, as described by the stakeholder.
The control requirements in subpart VVVVVV for the loading of storage
tanks are similar to the requirements found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBBB. However, because the tank size and throughput thresholds for
determining the applicable control level for a given storage tank are
not exactly the same in the two standards, a direct comparison of the
requirements of the two standards must be on a case-by-case basis.
Section 63.11500 of subpart VVVVVV specifies that if part of a facility
is subject to both subpart VVVVVV and another Federal rule, the owner
or operator may choose to comply only with the more stringent
provisions of the two applicable subparts. For example, if the control
requirements in the other rule were at least as stringent as those
provided in subpart VVVVVV, but the monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting requirement in the other rule were not as stringent or
comprehensive as those in subpart VVVVVV, the source may comply with
the control requirements from the other rule, but must comply with the
more stringent monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in
subpart VVVVVV. We are proposing to adopt the same approach in these
subparts; therefore, we are proposing to amend subparts BBBBBB and
CCCCCC to specify that if an affected source under either of these
subparts is also subject to another Federal rule, like subpart VVVVVV,
the owner or operator may elect to comply only with the more stringent
provisions of the applicable subparts. We are proposing to add a new
paragraph (i) to Sec.  63.11081 of subpart BBBBBB and a new paragraph
(k) to Sec.  63.11111 of subpart CCCCCC, both of which would read as
follows: ``For any affected source subject to the provisions of this
subpart and another Federal rule, you may elect to comply only with the
more stringent provisions of the applicable subparts. You must consider
all provisions of the rules, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. You must identify the affected source and provisions with
which you will comply in your Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS)
required under Sec.  63.11093 [or Sec.  63.11124, as applicable]. You
also must demonstrate in your NOCS that each provision with which you
will comply is at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable
requirements in this subpart. You are responsible for making accurate
determinations concerning the more stringent provisions; noncompliance
with this rule is not excused if it is later determined that your
determination was

in error and, as a result, you are violating this subpart. Compliance
with this rule is your responsibility and the NOCS does not alter or
affect that responsibility.''

B. Throughput Thresholds

1. Once Over a Throughput Threshold
    Several stakeholders raised the question of whether a GDF whose
gasoline throughput increases from below the 10,000 or 100,000 gallons
per month thresholds to above the thresholds, making them subject to
the submerged fill or vapor balancing requirements, respectively, in 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, would still be subject to those
requirements if their throughput subsequently decreases to below the
relevant threshold.
    Our intent is that once a facility's throughput crosses the
threshold for either submerged fill or vapor balancing, the facility
must continue to use the controls even if their throughput subsequently
decreases to below the applicable threshold. Because neither of these
control technologies requires significant ongoing operating costs, the
primary control costs that the facility would incur would be for the
initial installation. For submerged fill, there are no operating costs
and no monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting costs. In fact, once a
facility crosses the 10,000 gallon threshold level and installs
submerged fill pipes, there would be an expense involved in converting
the tanks back to splash fill (i.e., the cost of removing the submerged
fill pipes). Thus, there would be no operational, practical, or
economic incentive to discontinue the use of the required control
technology.
    For vapor balance systems, there are periodic maintenance, testing,
and recordkeeping and reporting costs, but these are minor components
of the total costs of control. As with submerged fill, it would most
likely be more trouble and expense to discontinue the use of the
controls and to properly remove the equipment than to continue their
use.
    Another consideration is the fact that these controls will continue
to achieve substantial emissions reductions even if the facility's
throughput decreases below the applicable thresholds. In addition, 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. We also believe the same holds
true for the 20,000 gallons and 250,000 gallons per day throughput
thresholds for distinguishing between a bulk terminal and a bulk plant,
and requiring submerged fill versus vapor processors on loading racks
at bulk terminals under 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, respectively.
    Thus, we are proposing to clarify both 40 CFR part 63, subparts
BBBBBB and CCCCCC to implement this intent. We are proposing to add the
following provision to subpart BBBBBB, Sec.  63.11081(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, 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.'' We are proposing to add the following provision to subpart
CCCCCC, Sec.  63.11111(i): ``If your GDF's monthly throughput ever
exceeds an applicable monthly throughput threshold in (c) or (d) of
this paragraph, the GDF will remain subject to those requirements even
if the GDF monthly throughput later falls below the applicable monthly
throughput threshold.''
2. Monthly Throughput Definition
    Stakeholders requested clarification of the definition of ``monthly
throughput'' for GDF and questioned how the throughput value is to be
calculated. The stakeholders stated that the inclusion of the phrase
``rolling 30-day average'' is confusing because the calculated value is
actually a ``sum'' of the daily throughput over a 30-day period rather
than an ``average.'' Stakeholders also questioned whether the use of
the word ``average'' in the text of paragraph (e) of Sec.  63.11111(e)
for GDF was an oversight or if it is a monthly average based on the
last twelve months. Stakeholders have also stated that as an
alternative to determining throughput based on the volume of gasoline
``loaded'' into the GDF's storage tanks, the rule should allow for
monthly throughput to be based on the volume of gasoline ``dispensed''
by the GDF during a month. These stakeholders explained that some
States require throughput to be based on the volume of gasoline
dispensed and that keeping two sets of records would be burdensome for
GDF in those States.
    We agree with the stakeholders that we intended that the monthly
throughput would be calculated by taking the total volume of gasoline
loaded into all gasoline storage tanks for the last 365 days and
dividing by 12 to get the monthly throughput. Not only is this method
more simple to implement and understand, this was the method used to
analyze the environmental and cost-effectiveness calculations for each
threshold. In preparing the rule, we inadvertently used the rule text
definition for monthly throughput from State and local rules and did
not adjust them for how we evaluated controls and thresholds.
    The current definition provides that monthly throughput ``means the
total volume of gasoline that is loaded into all gasoline storage tanks
during a month, as calculated on a rolling 30-day average.'' We are
proposing to revise the definition to remove the phrase ``rolling 30-
day average'' in the final rule, as well as to add a clarification on
how it is calculated. Also, because we consider the term ``throughput''
to mean literally the volume that goes through the tank, we agree with
the stakeholders that it can be measured as either the volume of
gasoline going into the tank or the volume of gasoline coming out of
the tank. Therefore, we are proposing to add text to allow throughput
to be based on the volume of gasoline dispensed by a GDF. We are
proposing the definition 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 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 day, plus the total volume of gasoline loaded into, or
dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during the
previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 12.''
    In the final rule, Sec.  63.11111(e) reads as follows: ``An
affected source shall, upon request by the Administrator, demonstrate
that their average monthly throughput is less than the 10,000-gallon or
the 100,000-gallon threshold level, as applicable.'' We agree with the
stakeholders that the use of the word ``average'' in the text of the
paragraph is confusing. Because we have used an averaging method in the
definition of ``monthly throughput,'' the word ``average'' is not
needed in this provision; therefore, we propose to amend Sec.
63.11111(e) to delete the word ``average'' from the text. We also found
that Sec.  63.11113(c) contained the same incorrect use of the word
``average'' and we are proposing to delete it from that section as
well.
    While we are taking comment on these changes, we realize that some
affected sources may have used either the ``per month'' or ``month
average''

method for calculating their gasoline throughput to determine the
applicable rule requirements that they subsequently reported in their
Initial Notifications. We believe the use of these alternative methods
was justified by the language in the final rule. (Additional discussion
of the Initial Notifications is presented later in this preamble.) We
are proposing that sources use the new method for calculating gasoline
throughput prospectively, or in other words, beginning on the date of
promulgation of the final rules. Affected sources must be in compliance
with the requirements that are found to be applicable, using the final
throughput definition, by January 10, 2011. Given that the current
method is likely to capture fewer sources over the thresholds, due to
seasonal variations, than the 30-day rolling average period, we believe
there should be no need to provide more time to comply with the
standards. We are therefore not proposing a change to the compliance
dates in Sec.  63.11083.
    Additionally, Tables 1 and 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB
contain throughput thresholds for determining applicable bulk terminal
loading rack and storage tank emission controls (in gallons per day).
Similar to the GDF thresholds discussed above, the bulk terminal
thresholds were based on an environmental and cost analysis using total
annual throughput for all gasoline loading racks at a bulk terminal
divided by 365 days per year. We are proposing to clarify the method of
calculation by adding a second sentence in item 1(ii) of Table 1, and
in both items 1 and 2 of Table 2, as follows: ``Gallons per day is
calculated by summing the current day's throughput, plus the throughput
for the previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 365.'' We are
also proposing to clarify the rule text for both items 1 and 2 of Table
2 that the gasoline throughput is the total for all racks at the bulk
gasoline terminal. Section 63.11083(c), which refers to Table 2,
incorrectly refers to an ``average'' throughput, and because we are
proposing to clarify the method of calculation in the text of Table 2,
we are proposing to remove the word ``average'' in this paragraph.
    Also note that bulk gasoline terminals and bulk gasoline plants are
defined and partly distinguished by throughput (20,000 gallons per
day). This 20,000 gallons per day throughput threshold is interpreted
as a maximum for any day (no averaging) and is used as such when
determining compliance with other rules as well as with this rule. We
are proposing to clarify the applicability of the 20,000 gallon per day
throughput threshold by adding a paragraph (g) to Sec.  63.11081
specifying that, for the purpose of defining a bulk gasoline plant and
a bulk gasoline terminal, the 20,000 gallons per day throughput
threshold is the maximum calculated design throughout for any day and
is not an average.
3. Start of Throughput Records
    Several stakeholders also questioned when facilities must start
keeping records of throughput for documenting whether they are
operating above or below applicable throughput thresholds in each
subpart.
    Existing sources that are subject to these subparts were required
to submit Initial Notifications by May 9, 2008. EPA assumed that owners
and operators would begin keeping throughput records immediately after
the promulgation date of January 10, 2008, so that they could indicate
exactly which standard was applicable to their facility in the Initial
Notification. In addition to the legal requirements to complete the
Initial Notification accurately, it is in the best interest of the
facility to be aware as early as possible what control requirements
must be met. For example, if a GDF's throughput has normally been
somewhat below the 100,000 gallon threshold for vapor balancing, but
shortly before the January 10, 2011 compliance date, the owner
discovers that throughput has surpassed the threshold, installing the
required vapor balance system by the compliance date may be difficult
or impossible. Thus, EPA expected that owners and operators would begin
keeping throughput records as far in advance of the compliance date as
possible so that they could be in compliance with applicable controls
by the compliance date. However, because the final rules do not
specifically state when a facility should start keeping these
throughput records, we are proposing to clarify the rules by adding
such a requirement. For existing sources, we are proposing that
facilities 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 are proposing that recordkeeping must begin
upon startup of the affected facility. Since the new sources will
commence construction after the area source rules are proposed, (see
CAA section 112(a)(4)), we intended that they comply with all
recordkeeping requirements from their startup date based on the amount
of throughput expected in their business plan for operating the new
source or the capacity of equipment installed.
4. Multiple Tanks at Multiple Locations at Affected Source
    Stakeholders, including the Alliance in separate follow-up
conversations and correspondence unrelated to their petition for
reconsideration, described a situation where a plant site, such as a
military base or large private company property, has multiple gasoline
storage tanks in multiple locations, and questioned whether it was
EPA's intent that the monthly throughput at such a facility would be
the ``total volume of gasoline that is loaded into all gasoline storage
tanks,'' as specified in the definition of monthly throughput in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC. These stakeholders questioned whether subpart
CCCCCC applies to each area source individually or to the entire
facility collectively. One stakeholder pointed out that the rule text
in Sec.  63.11111(a) states ``each GDF that is located at an area
source,'' thus inferring that you can have multiple GDF at one
location.
    We agree with the stakeholders that subpart CCCCCC requires
clarification regarding our intent for how the rule should be applied
to the situation they describe. As one stakeholder pointed out, Sec.
63.11111(a) states: ``The affected source to which this subpart applies
is each GDF that is located at an area source.'' This indicates our
understanding that an area source may contain multiple GDF.
Additionally, the section titles for the applicable controls based on a
GDF's monthly throughput threshold state that these are ``Requirements
for facilities with monthly throughput'' meeting or exceeding a certain
threshold. We deliberately used the word ``facilities'' in the titles
to refer to the individual gasoline dispensing ``facilities'' within
the area source, not to an entire area source or plant site. Thus, we
intended that the monthly throughput and the corresponding monthly
throughput thresholds would be calculated and applied to each
individual GDF located at a single location within an area source.
Further, the environmental and cost analyses examined the impacts based
on groupings of gasoline storage tanks at a single location, not on
tanks located far apart. Thus, it is appropriate that a single area
source may have multiple GDF located within its exterior boundaries and
that each GDF be treated as a separate affected source. To clarify
these questions in the rule, we are proposing to add a new paragraph
(h) in Sec.  63.11111 as follows: ``(h) Monthly throughput is the total
volume of

gasoline loaded into, or dispensed from, all the gasoline storage tanks
located at a single affected GDF. 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.''

C. Rule Clarifications

1. Recordkeeping For Continuous Compliance Monitoring
    API requested (issue 2 in their petition and issue
3 in the May 8, 2008 letter) that EPA delete a requirement for
the automatic recording of shutdown events in the alternative
monitoring provisions for control devices used on loading racks that
use automated shutdown systems. API explained that automated shutdown
systems are frequently relied upon at facilities which have periods
during which loading occurs when there are no operating personnel
present on site. API also stated that when an automatic shutdown occurs
during such unmanned operations, the units are not returned to service
until personnel return to the facility to restart the unit. Thus, the
automated systems are used to shut down the systems in the event of a
malfunction, but are not equipped to provide a ``record'' of the
shutdown. API stated that, while it is understandable that the shutdown
of the system should be automatic during unmanned activities, no
environmental benefit would accrue from requiring recordkeeping to be
automated. They further stated that it should be acceptable to allow
that a manual record of the shutdown event be entered into the log book
when an operator restarts the unit.
    The intent of the provision in the rule was to ensure that a record
of a shutdown of the system is generated. So long as the loading of
cargo tanks at a loading rack cannot be performed while the control
device is in a shutdown mode, and a record of the event is generated to
document that loading has not occurred, it does not matter whether the
record is generated automatically or manually. Thus, we are proposing
to revise the verification sentences in Sec.
63.11092(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(ii) and (b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) 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.''
    API also stated that the requirement in section
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) to ``verify, during each day of operation
of the loading rack, the proper operation of the assist-air blower, the
vapor line valve, and the emergency shutdown system'' should not
include the phrase ``and the emergency shutdown system.'' They stated
that the emergency shutdown system is a manually operated ``switch''
that is only used to shut down the loading rack and vapor processor in
the case of an emergency. API also stated that, in discussions with EPA
regarding the monitoring systems in use within the industry, the terms
``emergency shutdown system'' and ``automatic shutdown system'' had
been inadvertently used interchangeably by API. API further stated that
the automatic shutdown system is ``an electronic system that may be
used to monitor the components that are critical to the combustion
process (i.e., presence of a pilot flame, vapor line valve, and assist-
air blower).'' API then stated that, because neither the emergency
shutdown system nor the automatic shutdown system are components that
are involved in the combustion efficiency of a thermal oxidizer,
neither should be included in the daily check of critical components.
API requested that the reference to the emergency shutdown system be
removed from the text of the subject paragraph.
    Based on discussions with API regarding the function of the
emergency shutdown system versus the automatic shutdown system, we
agree that the rule text should be amended. However, we believe that it
is necessary that the automatic alarm or shutdown system be monitored.
As API noted, the use of an automatic alarm or shutdown system is an
allowed alternative to the visual monitoring of the critical components
of the vapor processor system. We believe that if the automated
monitoring system alternative is used, it is important to ensure that
if the automatic alarm or shutdown system receives a signal that
another component (such as the vapor line valve or the assist-air
blower) has malfunctioned, the system will prevent any further loading
of gasoline. Thus, we believe that monitoring of the automatic alarm or
shutdown system is needed. In follow-up discussions with API, we
discussed this need to check the automatic alarm or shutdown systems.
Given these are electronic switches and less subject to failure, they
would be best checked during the semi-annual preventative maintenance
inspection required in the current rule (Sec.
63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii)). Thus, we are proposing to remove the
phrase ``emergency shutdown system'' from the items to be checked daily
under Sec.  63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) and add the phrase
``automated alarm or shutdown system'' as part of the semi-annual
inspection required under Sec.  63.11092(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2)(iii). Also,
the alternative monitoring provisions for carbon adsorption systems
have similar provisions, so we are proposing a parallel change to add
the phrase ``automated alarm or shutdown system'' as part of the semi-
annual inspection required under Sec.  63.11092 (b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(iii).
2. Submerged Fill Drop Tube Measurements and Alternatives
    One stakeholder questioned whether the distance from the submerged
fill pipe to the bottom of the tank (for determining compliance with
the 6 or 12 inch submerged fill requirement) would be measured from the
bottom or the top edge of a horizontal fill pipe. The stakeholder also
explained that the ends of most vertical submerged fill pipes are cut
on a 45-degree angle to properly distribute product; thus, the bottom
and top edges of the end of the fill pipe are different distances from
the bottom of the tank. Other stakeholders also mentioned that it is
industry practice, and some States require, that the measurement be
taken at the longest distance.
    Another stakeholder asked whether an existing facility whose
submerged fill pipe is more than the 12 inch maximum distance from the
bottom of the tank could be considered to be in compliance with the
rule if they keep records that demonstrate that the level of gasoline
in the tank never dropped below the end of the fill pipe.
    The primary mechanism by which submerged fill reduces emissions
during the filling of a storage tank is the reduction in the formation
of airborne droplets of gasoline formed by the ``splashing'' of the
gasoline as it is pumped into the tank. As such, the entire opening of
the submerged fill pipe should be below the liquid level in the tank as
soon as possible when loading occurs. For either vertical or horizontal
fill pipes, this would mean that the point in the opening of the pipe
that is the greatest distance from the bottom of the tank is the point
where the measurement should be made. Many State agency and industry
personnel use this approach to measure submerged fill tubes, and we are
proposing to add this requirement to Sec.  63.11086(a) and Sec.
63.11117(b).
    However, because the goal of submerged filling is simply to reduce
splashing, we are proposing to revise the applicable sections of each
rule to allow existing storage tanks to have fill pipes that are
further from the bottom of the tank if the owner can demonstrate

that at all times the level of the liquid in the tank is above the
entire opening of the fill pipe, provided adequate recordkeeping is
performed and records are maintained. We are proposing to add a new
paragraph (3) to Sec.  63.11086(a) and Sec.  63.11117(b), which reads:
``(3) Submerged fill pipes not meeting the specifications of paragraphs
(1) or (2) are allowed if the owner or operator can demonstrate that
the liquid level in the tank is always above the entire opening of the
fill pipe. Documentation providing such demonstration must be made
available for inspection by the Administrator's delegated
representative during the course of a site visit.''
3. Continuous Compliance Monitoring of all Vapor Processors
    Stakeholders stated that the vapor processor monitoring
requirements of Sec.  63.11092(b) were unclear. One stakeholder
believes that continuous compliance monitoring is required for all
vapor processors; however, the rule text is inconsistent in its
presentation of continuous parameter monitoring requirements. The
introductory paragraph to the continuous monitoring Sec.  63.11092(b)
states that the section is applicable ``For each performance test
conducted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.* * *'' However,
within section (b), paragraph (b)(5) specifies requirements for
monitoring ``if you have chosen to comply with the performance testing
alternatives provided under paragraph (a)(2) or paragraph (a)(3) or
this section.* * *'' Paragraph (a)(2) allows sources that are operating
in compliance with an enforceable State, local, or tribal rule or
permit that requires loading racks to meet an emission limit of 80
milligrams per liter of gasoline loaded to submit a statement by a
responsible official of the facility certifying the compliance status
of the loading rack in lieu of the test required under paragraph
(a)(1). Paragraph (a)(3) allows sources to submit test reports for
tests performed within 5 years prior to January 10, 2008, in lieu of
performing a new test under paragraph (a)(1). Thus, the stakeholder
contends that the rule text, as structured, is unclear on whether the
requirements in Sec.  63.11092(b) apply to all vapor processors or only
those that must conduct a new performance test under Sec.
63.11092(a)(1).
    Another stakeholder pointed out that the rule requires in paragraph
(b) that the operator determine a monitored operating parameter value,
but that in (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) it allows for monitoring to indicate the
presence of a pilot flame. The stakeholder further stated that if they
choose to use presence of pilot flame monitoring, they do not have a
``monitored operating parameter,'' as required by Sec.  63.11092(b).
The stakeholder then questioned whether EPA's intent was to allow that
the presence of a pilot flame be continuously confirmed as an
alternative to having to meet the requirement to monitor an operating
parameter. Other stakeholders have also questioned how they were to
determine an ``operating parameter value'' if they choose to use the
option of monitoring for the presence of a pilot flame.
    We agree with the stakeholders that the intent 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
gallons per day, or greater, must have continuous compliance monitoring
under Sec.  63.11092(b). We also agree the rule text in Sec.  63.11092
should be clear and we are proposing clarifications to the rule text by
restructuring paragraphs (b) and (b)(1) as explained below.
    In the proposed rule text, revised paragraph (b) is the
introductory language that requires subject facilities to monitor vapor
processors. Revised paragraph (b)(1) lists the specific monitoring
requirements for: Carbon adsorption systems (paragraph (b)(1)(i));
condenser systems (paragraph (b)(1)(ii)); thermal oxidation systems
(paragraph (b)(1)(iii)); and alternative monitoring or control systems,
other than those listed above (paragraph (b)(1)(iv)).
    The second stakeholder is correct that paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1)
allows monitoring to indicate the presence of a pilot flame in a
thermal oxidation system as an alternative to a continuous parameter
monitoring system that measures operating temperature. However, the
stakeholder's statements imply that he does not consider the presence
(or absence) of a pilot flame to be an ``operating parameter'' for a
thermal oxidizer. We believe that the presence of a pilot flame is a
key operating parameter for a thermal oxidizer and it is our intent
that the monitoring for the presence of a pilot flame meets the
requirements for monitoring an operating parameter. In addition, it is
our intent that when monitoring for the presence of a pilot flame there
are two possible parameter ``values'' that could be returned. The first
possible outcome of the monitoring is a positive parameter value to
indicate that there is a pilot flame. The second possible outcome of
the monitoring is a negative parameter value to indicate that there is
no pilot flame. We are proposing to clarify our intent regarding the
monitoring for the presence of a pilot flame by adding a sentence to
paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) reading 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.''
4. Secondary Rim Seal Requirements Specified Under 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart WW
    API stated (issue 9 in the May 8, 2008 letter) that 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB did not adequately accomplish EPA's stated goal
of requiring that ``internal floating roof tanks have a primary seal
but not a secondary seal.'' API pointed out that the final rule
excludes the secondary seal requirements found in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb when that rule is chosen as the compliance option, but
failed to exclude the secondary seal requirements found in 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW when that rule is the compliance option. API further
stated that Table 1, item 2(d) should include the phrase ``except for
the secondary seal requirements for internal floating roofs under Sec.
63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D).''
    We agree with API that our intent is to exclude the secondary seal
requirements found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB and
that we incorrectly listed only the requirements of subpart Kb as not
being required. We are proposing to revise the rule to correct this
error by adding the phrase ``except for the secondary seal requirements
for internal floating roofs under Sec.  63.1063(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D)''
to the Table 1, item 2(d) entry.
5. Monitoring of Submerged Fill Loading Racks
    API requested (issue 11 in the May 8, 2008 letter) that
the loading rack portion of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB be revised
to clarify that the testing and monitoring provisions of Sec.  63.11092
would not apply to facilities with throughputs below the threshold
value of 250,000 gallons per day because these facilities are only
required to use submerged fill. API pointed out that it is not clearly
stated that the testing and monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.11092
apply only to those facilities that are required to control loading
rack emissions with a control device.
    API is correct that the bulk terminal loading rack testing and
monitoring provisions of Sec.  63.11092(a) through (d) apply only to
loading racks at facilities with throughputs of 250,000 gallons per day
or more that are complying with the 80 milligram per liter emission
limit in

item 1(b) of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. We are
proposing to revise the introductory text in Sec.  63.11092(a) to read
as follows: ``Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal
subject to the emission standard in item 1(b) of Table 2 to this
subpart must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d)
of this section.''
6. Initial Notifications
    One stakeholder stated that because EPA is proposing changes to
certain definitions and the applicability sections in 40 CFR part 63,
subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC, it is likely that some facilities may now
be covered by a different subpart than the subpart for which an Initial
Notification was submitted, or may no longer be subject to the revised
rules. The stakeholder also stated that many facilities that previously
were not subject to either subpart may now be subject to one of the
subparts. The stakeholder recommended that EPA clarify how such
facilities should proceed with submitting Initial Notifications and
whether Initial Notifications for the original rulemaking must be
resubmitted.
    EPA does not believe that revisions to the Initial Notification
requirements are necessary to account for the proposed changes made in
this package, but we 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. While there may be instances where
a facility submitted an Initial Notification that is no longer
accurate, or did not submit an Initial Notification when one was
required because the facility was unsure whether it was subject to
either subpart, these facilities may now submit new or revised
Notifications. Specifically, Sec.  63.9(b)(2) states that an owner or
operator of an affected source ``that has an initial startup before the
effective date of a relevant standard'' must submit its Initial
Notification ``not later than 120 calendar days after the effective
date of the relevant standard (or within 120 calendar days after the
source becomes subject to the relevant standard).'' Thus, a facility
has 120 days from the effective date of the final amendments to correct
a previously submitted Initial Notification or to submit an original
Initial Notification. In addition, we expect that many facilities that
now realize that they are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC as
a result of the proposed clarifications of the GDF definition or the
calculation of monthly throughput would be GDF that have a monthly
throughput of less than 10,000 gallons per month. These facilities
would be subject to Sec.  63.11116 and would not be required to submit
notifications or reports. For these reasons, we are not proposing
revisions to the Initial Notification requirements as they do not seem
warranted.
7. Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS)
    API (issue 1 in their petition and issue 1 in the
May 8, 2008 letter) stated that there is currently ambiguity in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB with respect to when an initial NOCS report is
due. API stated that Sec.  63.11093(b) invokes Sec.  63.9(h) from the
General Provisions which stipulates that it applies ``when an affected
source becomes subject to a relevant standard.'' API stated that this
suggests that the NOCS report is not applicable until sometime after
the compliance date of the rule. Section 63.9(h)(2)(ii), however,
requires notifications to be submitted within 60 days after the
completion of ``the relevant compliance demonstration activity
specified in the relevant standard.'' API stated that every emission
point that is subject to the rule has a relevant compliance
demonstration activity, and many of the compliance demonstrations will
occur prior to the compliance date of the rule. API stated that it
would reduce the burden on the affected facilities as well as
regulatory agencies if the documentation of these compliance
demonstrations could be grouped and submitted in a single initial NOCS
report. API also stated that other standards, such as 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC (Refinery MACT), have clarified the NOCS reporting
requirements by specifying that an initial NOCS report is due 150 days
after the compliance date specified in the rule. API also provided
suggested language to be used to revise Sec.  63.11093(b) to accomplish
their recommended change.
    Contrary to API's assertions, the General Provisions (GP) (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) appear adequate for instructing a facility
regarding the schedule of notifications, as presented in Sec.  63.9(h),
such that repeating this GP language in subpart BBBBBB, appears
unnecessary. However, we do agree with API that the compliance dates
for some storage tank controls may be different than for other control
equipment compliance dates. The provisions of Sec.  63.11099(a) allow
for the delegation of authority to implement and enforce this subpart
to state, local, or tribal agencies, with the exception of the items
noted in Sec.  63.11099(c). It appears that negotiating an alternative
schedule for grouping the submittal of the Notification of Compliance
Status with the delegated authority is not prohibited under Sec.
63.11099(c); therefore, we propose that a source could negotiate an
alternative schedule under this provision. We solicit comment on this
approach.
    We agree with API that once the initial NOCS report is required for
the facility, and another storage tank comes into compliance due to an
extended compliance date past the initial NOCS due date, then they can
consolidate the NOCS report with the next semi-annual compliance report
under section 63.11095(a). We are proposing to add to Sec.  63.11095(a)
as follows: ``(4) For storage vessels complying with Sec.  63.11087(b)
after January 10, 2011, the storage vessel's notice of compliance
status information can be included in the next semi-annual compliance
report in lieu of filing a separate Notification of Compliance Status
report under Sec.  63.11093.''
    Another stakeholder stated that the schedule for submitting the
NOCS report specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, Sec.
63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2), conflicts with the schedule specified in the
Table 3 subpart CCCCCC entry for Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(6). The stakeholder
stated that Sec.  63.11124, paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2), requires the
submittal of the NOCS report ``by the compliance date specified in
Sec.  63.11113.'' However, Table 3 indicates that the NOCS should be
submitted according to the schedule specified in Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(6),
which states that the NOCS is due ``on the 60th day following the
completion of the relevant compliance demonstration activity.'' The
stakeholder further stated that the language in Sec.  63.11124 could be
interpreted to require submittal of the NOCS on the date of startup for
new sources. The stakeholder recommended that Sec.  63.11124 be revised
to reference only Sec.  63.9 with regard to when the NOCS is due.
    It was not our intent to require submittal of the NOCS on a
schedule that deviated from the timeframe specified in section 63.9(h)
of the General Provisions. We agree with the stakeholder that there is
a contradiction between the requirements of Sec.  63.11124 and the
Table 3 reference to Sec.  63.9(h). We are proposing to revise the
language in Sec.  63.11124(a)(2) and (b)(2) to be consistent with the
60-day timeframe specified in section 63.9(h). 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).''
8. Storage Tank Inspections
    API stated (issue 2 in the May 8, 2008 letter) that the
requirements for inspections of storage tanks were not exactly the same
for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, the two
alternatives for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. API
explained that both subparts Kb and WW specify up-close inspections of
an internal floating roof tank prior to the initial filling of the tank
and then each time the tank is emptied and degassed, but at least once
every 10 years. The corresponding requirement for an external floating
roof tank also specifies an up-close inspection each time the tank is
emptied and degassed, but it does not include the requirement for an
up-close inspection prior to the initial fill. API also stated that
subpart Kb does not apply the 10-year frequency requirement to the up-
close inspection of an external floating roof tank. API stated that we
should recognize those differences and alert compliance inspectors. API
presented three different scenarios for when the first up-close
inspection would be required for existing storage tanks. API then
requested confirmation that the inspection requirements presented for
the three scenarios is correct.
    API is correct that inspection of storage tank seals could occur at
different times and require different levels of inspection, depending
on the standard selected. API is also correct that, because of
differences in the compliance status of existing storage tanks, there
are different scenarios for when the initial and subsequent inspections
must occur. Given all the possible scenarios, API's use of terms not
matching rule language, and the complexity of seal types and
monitoring, we cannot respond specifically to the three general
scenarios presented by API, but we believe the rule text is clear, so
we are not proposing changes. In discussions with API, another major
concern is the recognition that while some of these inspections may
have occurred voluntarily prior to the effective or compliance date of
the rule, they may not have proper documentation to adequately
determine if the proper inspection was performed, so some tanks may
need to be inspected again. We agree that if adequate documentation is
not available for those voluntary inspections, then those inspections
cannot be used to satisfy the requirements for an initial inspection
and to set the date for the next scheduled inspection. In those cases,
the initial inspection must be conducted according to the requirements
of the standard selected by the owner or operator.
9. General Provisions Applicability
    Several stakeholders, including API in their petition (issue
4) and their May 8, 2008 letter (issue 7), stated
that the General Provision citations in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB were not consistent in whether a SSM plan is required.
They pointed out that the SSM requirements in Sec.  63.6(e), (f), and
(h) were listed as not applying to subpart BBBBBB while some reporting
and recordkeeping associated with SSM plans under Sec.  63.8(c) and
Sec.  63.10(b) were listed as applying.
    The stakeholders are correct that the rules are inconsistent in the
applicability of an SSM plan and the associated recordkeeping and
reporting. It was our intent that a SSM plan not be required under
these subparts; therefore, SSM-related recordkeeping and reporting were
mistakenly required. We are proposing to revise Table 3 to correct this
error by changing the entry in the ``Applies to subpart BBBBBB'' column
from ``yes'' to ``no'' for the Sec.  63.8(c) and Sec.  63.10(b) rows.
    API also stated (issue 8 in the May 8, 2008 letter) that
there were corrections needed to two entries in Table 3 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBB, Applicability of General Provisions. They stated
that the entry for Sec.  63.7(e)(3) is currently listed as a ``yes''
when it should be a ``no.'' API also stated that the entry for Sec.
63.9(h)(1)-(6) should be revised to read as follows: ``Yes, for the
initial performance test (if required), however, there are no opacity
standards. Notification of Compliance Status reports are otherwise due
as specified in Sec.  63.11093(b).''
    We evaluated API's requests and have decided to propose the
following revisions to Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB. For
entry 63.7(e)(3), we agree with API that the requirement to conduct
three 1-hour test runs is not applicable to testing conducted on the
control devices specified in Sec.  63.11092(a). We are proposing to
revise the entry for Sec.  63.7(e)(3) to read ``yes, except for testing
conducted under Sec.  63.11092(a).''
    In regard to the timing of the NOCS reports, we are proposing to
revise the text of Sec.  63.11095(a)(4) to clarify that once the
initial NOCS report is required for a facility, if another storage tank
subsequently comes into compliance due to an extended compliance date
past the initial NOCS date, then the storage tank's notice of
compliance information can be included with the next semi-annual
compliance report under Sec.  63.11095(a), in lieu of filing a separate
NOCS report. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the Table 3 entry
for Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(6) to read ``yes, except as specified in Sec.
63.11095(a)(4).''
    One stakeholder stated that, under Sec.  63.11116(b), owners or
operators of GDF with throughput of less than 10,000 gallons per month
are not required to submit notifications or reports. The stakeholder
then stated that Table 3 indicates that Sec.  63.5 (Preconstruction
review and notification requirements) does apply to affected sources.
The stakeholder recommended that the Table 3 entry for Sec.  63.5 be
revised to state that the requirement to submit preconstruction
notifications only applies to affected sources that are subject to
Sec.  63.11117.
    The stakeholder is correct that the requirements of Sec.  63.5 do
not apply to facilities that are only subject to Sec.  63.11116. The
only control requirements that these facilities are subject to are the
Management Practices specified in Sec.  63.11116; therefore, the
submittal of notifications is not necessary. Facilities that are
subject to the control requirements of Sec.  63.11117 and Sec.
63.11118, however, are required to submit the applicable notifications.
To clarify the notification requirements, we are proposing to amend the
Table 3 entry for Sec.  63.5 to state that the requirements only apply
to facilities subject to Sec.  63.11117 and Sec.  63.11118.
    One stakeholder noted that the Table 3 entries for Sec.
63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii) and Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v) refer to a Sec.
63.11130(K) that does not exist in the final rule. The stakeholder
questioned what EPA's intent was for the applicability of these General
Provision sections.
    The stakeholder is correct that the Table 3 entries related to
excess emissions reports contain an erroneous reference. 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCCC does not have any requirement for excess emissions
reports, so we are proposing to change the Table 3 (fourth column)
entries to ``No.''
    Additionally, we are proposing to amend Table 3 in both subparts
BBBBBB and CCCCCC and indicate that we are not incorporating Sec.
63.7(e)(1) into the rules by changing the ``Yes'' in both Tables
(fourth column) to a ``No.'' Instead, we propose to include the
following language regarding conducting performance tests directly

into the subparts as new paragraphs (g) to Sec.  63.11092 of subpart
BBBBBB, and (c) to Sec.  63.11120 of subpart CCCCCC: ``Conduct of
performance tests. Performance tests conducted for this subpart shall
be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to
the owner or operator based on representative performance (i.e.,
performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected
source. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.''
10. Compliance Testing For GDF
    One stakeholder questioned whether Bay Area 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 by 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. The
stakeholder explained that Bay Area ST-30 was listed in Stage II
vehicle refueling guidance issued by EPA in the early 1990s as a
recommended static pressure test method and has been incorporated into
several State and local rules requiring Stage II vapor balance systems.
The stakeholder pointed out that if Bay Area ST-30 is not an acceptable
alternative to CARB 201.3, many facilities would be required to do two
different tests to satisfy the State or local and the subpart CCCCCC
requirements. The stakeholder also pointed out that Bay Area ST-30
measures the pressure drop from an initial system pressure of 10 inches
of water rather than the initial 2 inches of water specified in CARB
201.3.
    We have analyzed the requirements of Bay Area ST-30 and found that
the original 1983 version of Bay Area ST-30 did not include procedures
for testing the integrity of PV valves installed on the storage tanks.
Because PV valves are a potential leak source, ST-30 cannot be compared
directly to CARB 201.3, which does measure the integrity of PV valve.
Therefore, we believe that because the 1983 version of Bay Area ST-30
is not testing all potential storage tank leak sources, it is not an
acceptable alternative for the CARB 201.3 testing required by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCCC. We request comment on our analysis.
    On December 21, 1994 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
amended ST-30 to include the PV valve and the PV valve connections as
components of the system during testing, and CARB subsequently issued a
letter of equivalency stating that amended ST-30 was equivalent to CARB
201.3. Therefore, if amended ST-30 is required by regulatory agencies,
we are proposing that the testing will be considered to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. (If facilities have to
do separate tests to meet the State and Federal requirements, the ST-30
test should be done first, followed by the CARB 201.3 test. This will
ensure that the PV vent and connections will be tested after they are
re-installed following the ST-30 test.)
    One stakeholder said that 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC is unclear
regarding the performance testing requirements of Sec.  63.11120 (the
compliance demonstration for vapor balance systems at GDF with a
gasoline throughput of 100,000 gallons or more). The stakeholder
questioned whether existing vapor balance systems are required to
conduct the specified periodic performance testing and, if so, by what
date it must be completed.
    Periodic testing is required under Sec.  63.11120(a) as follows:
``Each owner or operator, at the time of installation of a vapor
balance system required under Sec.  63.11118(b)(1), and every 3 years
thereafter, must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section.'' Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) specify the test
procedures to follow.
    The rule text for periodic testing only mentions one of the two
management practice options for vapor balance systems. The first and
main option is compliance under section 63.11118(b)(1). The vapor
balance system must meet the management practices specified in Table 1
to this subpart.\3\ As specified in the rule text in Sec.  63.11120(a),
owners or operators using this option must demonstrate compliance using
the periodic testing procedures specified in Sec.  63.11120(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As an alternative to Table 1 management practices, there is
a provision (section 63.11120(b)) that allows use of alternative
management practices that are demonstrated to be equivalent to those
in Table 1 by testing the vapor balance system to determine if it
achieves 95-percent emissions reduction using specific test
procedures. This provision also requires using the periodic tests in
section 63.11120(b), see section 63.11120(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
second vapor balance compliance option is provided since there are many
vapor balance systems that were installed prior to this rule under
State, local, or tribal rules or permits. As a way to compare the
performance of these systems and ensure continued compliance, these
systems must meet certain criteria. This second option is only for
vapor balance systems in compliance prior to January 10, 2008. The
vapor balance system is considered compliant with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCC if it is required to comply, and complies, with either a
90-percent reduction in emissions, or uses management practices at
least as stringent as those in Table 1 under enforceable State, local,
or tribal rule or permit. Owners or operators of vapor balance systems
installed prior to January 10, 2008, that choose and comply with the
compliance option under Sec.  63.11118(b)(2) are not required by
subpart CCCCCC to conduct the testing specified in Sec.  63.11120(a)
because Sec.  63.11120(a) states that it is only a requirement for
sources complying with Sec.  63.11118(b)(1). However, since they are
required to be in compliance with an enforceable State, local, or
tribal rule or permit, they may have other or similar periodic testing
specified by the State, local, or tribal rule or permit to perform and
remain in compliance with both rules.
    The dates by which owners or operators of affected GDF must comply
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC are specified in Sec.  63.11113. As
stated in the General Provisions under Sec.  63.7(a)(2), an affected
source must perform tests within 180 days of its compliance date; thus,
new sources must test within 180 days after startup and existing
sources must conduct all performance tests within 180 days after the
compliance date. While the General Provisions are referenced, the rule
text in subpart CCCCCC does not provide this text directly. Also, the
rule text for Sec.  63.11120(a) specifies that the test must be
performed ``at the time of installation.'' Because the installation of
a vapor balance system typically involves excavation work, we believe
that any new vapor balance system installed to comply with subpart
CCCCCC should be tested at the time it is installed rather than after
the storage tanks have been recovered and returned to normal service.
We agree with the stakeholder that the dates by which the periodic
tests required for systems installed for existing installations, as
well as new systems for vapor balance systems under Sec.
63.1118(b)(1), are not explicitly stated in the rule. Therefore, we are
proposing to add a new paragraph (e) to Sec.  63.11113 to provide the
dates discussed above for periodic testing. We are also proposing to
add a reference to the dates specified in this new paragraph (e) to the
testing and

monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.11120, paragraph (a).
    Additionally, we are proposing to clarify the requirements for the
annual certification testing of cargo tanks by adding a new paragraph
(c) to Sec.  63.11120. In the January 10, 2008 final rule, Table 2 item
(vi) requires that cargo tanks meet the specifications of EPA Method
27, but does not specifically state what the maximum allowable pressure
and vacuum changes are. Proposed paragraph (c) would clarify that the
maximum allowable pressure and vacuum change, as measured by EPA Method
27, for all affected gasoline cargo tanks is 3 inches of water, or
less, in 5 minutes.
11. Definition of Gasoline
    A number of stakeholders have asked what the definition of gasoline
is for this rule. Additionally, they have asked if E85, E10, denatured
ethanol, and transmix are considered gasoline and how are they handled
under this rule.
    The definition of gasoline is the same as the definition developed
for the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, Bulk Gasoline Terminals,
and used in many State Implementation Plans for Ozone Attainment, as
well as 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, the major source NESHAP for gasoline
distribution. Gasoline is defined in Sec.  60.501 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.'' Even
though the NSPS is cross-referenced in the definitions of 40 CFR part
63, subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC, for clarity we are proposing to add the
definition to these subparts as well.
    Both E85 and E10 are petroleum distillate/alcohol blends of 85- or
10-percent ethanol, respectively, with gasoline. Ethanol has a Reid
vapor pressure of about 2 pounds per square inch (psi), but when mixed
with gasoline at the highest percentage of ethanol (E85), the vapor
pressure of the blend is 6 to 12 psi for the different volatility
classes of gasoline. Thus, the vapor pressure of E85 and E10 is over
the lower limit in the definition of gasoline of 4 psi (27.6
kilopascals is about 4 psi) and considered gasoline under the
definition used. Gasoline storage tanks containing E10 and E85 at bulk
facilities and GDF would be subject to applicable controls.
    The ethanol used in fuel blends is denatured (``poisoned'' to
prevent human consumption) at the ethanol plant and can contain up to
5-percent hydrocarbons (gasoline or gasoline-like additives) before
blending. As discussed earlier, emissions at ethanol plants are already
subject to and controlled under 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. Thus,
the applicable question becomes how emissions downstream of the ethanol
plant are addressed. Based on limited information, denatured ethanol
mixed with normal gasoline appears to have a vapor pressure of about 4
psi or less. Thus, it is unclear if the mixture meets our vapor
pressure threshold for the various blends and volatility of gasoline.
We are requesting information during the comment period as to the vapor
pressure of denatured ethanol over the full normal range of amount of
ethanol mixed with the range of gasoline volatilities used for
denaturing ethanol. Secondly, given that the storage of denatured
ethanol to mix with additional gasoline normally occurs at gasoline
bulk terminals, we believe these storage emissions should be addressed
and controlled whether the liquid meets or does not meet the current
definition of gasoline criteria of at or above 4 psi. Thus, we are
proposing that any gasoline mixture with alcohol 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.
    Another stakeholder asked if transmix (the combined product mix at
the interface between different products conveyed in the pipeline) is
considered a regulated gasoline under this standard. This issue was
discussed in the December 19, 2007, Memorandum, ``Summary of Comments
and Responses to Public Comments on November 9, 2006 Proposal for
Gasoline Distribution Area Sources'' (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406,
item 0141) and in the preamble to the final major source NESHAP (59 FR
64303 (December 14, 1994)). We must set standards for all the gasoline
operations. The transmix contains various concentrations of gasoline
and other products to the degree that it would not be feasible to
specify in advance the percentage and concentration of gasoline in the
mixture; thus, as discussed in the responses to comment for both
standards, it should be stored and considered gasoline for the purposes
of these regulations. Additionally, industry has indicated that many of
the tanks that store transmix may have low throughputs and that they
are often smaller tanks, thereby many are in the lesser control option
of installing a fixed roof and maintaining all openings in a closed
position at all times when not in use (see item 1 in Table 2 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBBB).
12. Table 1 Requirements for ``New'' Storage Tanks
    Item 2 in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC currently
specifies that dual-point vapor balance systems be used ``For new or
reconstructed GDF, or new storage tank(s) at an existing affected
facility subject to Sec.  63.11118.'' As a result of questions
regarding the construction date that establishes when a tank is
considered new, we are proposing to amend the text of item 2 to read as
follows: ``A new or reconstructed GDF, or any storage tank(s)
constructed after November 9, 2006, at an existing affected facility
subject to Sec.  63.11118.'' Under Sec.  63.11112(b), an affected
source constructed after November 9, 2006, is considered to be a new
source (a new GDF), and we intended that the same date apply for newly
constructed storage tanks at existing facilities. The proposed text
would clarify that our intent was for the term ``new storage tank(s)''
to refer to storage tanks constructed after the publication date of the
proposed rule.
13. Requirements for Gasoline Containers
    One stakeholder stated that some plastic gasoline containers that
do not have gaskets may, nevertheless, meet the stringent emission
reduction requirements established in the 2007 Mobile Source Air Toxics
rulemaking (72 FR 8428) and should be allowed as an acceptable
alternative to the requirements of Sec.  63.11116(a)(3), which requires
that gasoline containers be covered with a gasketed seal. The
stakeholder recommended that EPA allow facilities to comply with Sec.
63.11116(a)(3) by using gasoline containers that meet the evaporative
emission standards of 40 CFR part 59, subpart F, sections 59.600-
59.699.
    We reviewed the requirements of Sec. Sec.  59.600-59.699 and agree
with the stakeholder that the 0.3 grams per gallon per day emission
standard found in Sec.  59.611(a) can only be met through the use of
tight-fitting closures. We are proposing to add a paragraph (d) to
Sec.  63.11116 that reads as follows: ``Portable gasoline containers
that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 59, subpart F, are considered
acceptable for compliance with Sec.  63.11116(a)(3).''

14. Cargo Tank Testing and Documentation
    Stakeholders have raised several questions regarding the GDF rule
requirement that only ``vapor-tight gasoline cargo tanks'' may be used
to fill storage tanks at GDF with 100,000 gallons or more per month
throughput. The GDF rule provision provides the inspector at vapor
balanced GDF an opportunity to check the cargo tank unloading at these
facilities to make sure the cargo tank has been tested for vapor
tightness. Cargo tank vapor tightness is important to ensure that
vapors are properly vapor balanced. Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC states that if you own or operate a gasoline cargo tank, you
must meet the following requirement: ``(vi) The filling of storage
tanks at GDF shall be limited to unloading by vapor-tight gasoline
cargo tanks. Documentation that the cargo tank has met the
specifications of EPA Method 27 shall be carried on the cargo tank.''
In review of the questions raised by the stakeholders, we found that
this provision of the rule related to the testing of vapor-tight
gasoline cargo tanks needs clarification on several points.
    First, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC does not include a definition
of ``vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank.'' We intended to use the same
vapor-tight testing requirements as those in the standards for bulk
facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB) promulgated at the same
time as the GDF rule. Subpart BBBBBB contains a definition of ``vapor-
tight gasoline cargo tank'' in that subpart. We found, however, that
the definition in subpart BBBBBB incorrectly referenced, as part of the
definition, the definition of ``vapor-tight gasoline tank truck'' found
in 40 CFR 60.501 (the NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals). The subpart
BBBBBB definition should have specified the test requirements in Sec.
63.11092(f) of subpart BBBBBB,\4\ since it provides the test method and
parameters for vapor tight gasoline cargo tanks for subpart BBBBBB, and
they are different than those specified in the Bulk Gasoline Terminal
NSPS. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the definition of ``vapor-
tight gasoline cargo tank'' in subpart BBBBBB to correct the reference
to the appropriate vapor tightness test requirements. We are also
proposing to include the same definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC to add clarity. The proposed definition would read as follows:
``vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank means a gasoline cargo tank which has
demonstrated within the 12 preceding months that it meets the annual
certification test requirements in Sec.  63.11092(f).'' Additionally,
it appears that the subpart CCCCCC definition of ``gasoline cargo
tank'' requires clarification not only to reference ``loading''
gasoline, but to reference ``unloading'' as well, since the definition
also applies to unloading gasoline at GDF. In today's amendments we are
proposing a revision of the definition of ``vapor-tight gasoline cargo
tank'' in subpart BBBBBB, an insertion of the definition of ``vapor-
tight gasoline cargo tank'' into subpart CCCCCC, and a revision of the
definition of ``gasoline cargo tank'' in subpart CCCCCC as described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 63.11092(f). ``The annual certification test for
gasoline cargo tanks shall consist of the test methods specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. (1) EPA Method 27,
Appendix A-8, 40 CFR part 60. Conduct the test using a time period
(t) for the pressure and vacuum tests of 5 minutes. The initial
pressure (Pi) for the pressure test shall be 460 millimeters (mm) of
water (18 inches of water), gauge. The initial vacuum (Vi) for the
vacuum test shall be 150 mm of water (6 inches of water), gauge. The
maximum allowable pressure and vacuum changes ([Delta] p, [Delta] v)
for all affected gasoline cargo tanks is 3 inches of water, or less,
in 5 minutes. (2) Railcar bubble leak test procedures.* * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second question that has been raised relates to the statement
in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC that ``Documentation that
the cargo tank has met the specifications of EPA Method 27 shall be
carried on the cargo tank.'' Stakeholders have pointed out that it is
impractical to require that documentation be ``on'' the cargo tank
because most cargo tanks are not equipped for the weatherproof storage
of paper documents. It was our intent that the documentation of vapor
tightness testing would be carried in the cab of the truck rather than
actually ``on the cargo tank.'' In today's amendments, we are proposing
to amend the wording of the phrase to state that documentation shall be
carried ``with the cargo tank.''
    Another question that has been raised relates to the length of time
that cargo tank owners or operators must retain testing documentation
with the cargo tank. We specified in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC that Sec.  63.10(b)(1), the general recordkeeping requirements
in the General Provisions, is applicable and requires all records to be
readily available and be kept for 5 years. We still believe that 5
years of records is necessary and appropriate. However, we believe, in
this case, that records for only the current year need to be available