National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[AD-FRL-5116-5]

RIN 2060-AD93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The final rule provided in this document is a national

emission standard(s) for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for bulk

gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations pursuant to section

112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). On February 8,

1994, EPA proposed a NESHAP for the gasoline distribution source

category. On August 19, 1994, the EPA also published supplementary data

and recommendations on the level of control for gasoline cargo tanks.

This document announces the EPA's final decisions on the rule.

This final rule requires sources to achieve emission limits

reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT) consistent with section 112(d) of the Act. The rule regulates

all hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) identified in the Act's list of

189 HAP's that are emitted from new and existing bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations that are major sources of

HAP's or are located at plant sites that are major sources of HAP's.

DATES: Effective Date. December 14, 1994.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial

review of NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under section

307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's

notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-38, containing information

considered by the EPA in developing the promulgated standards, is

available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, including all non-Government holidays, at the

EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, room M1500, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Background Information Document. The background information

document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained as

supplies permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Library

(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919)

541-2777; or from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone

(703) 487-4650. Please refer to ``Gasoline Distribution Industry (Stage

I)--Background Information for Promulgated Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-

002b). The BID contains: (1) a summary of the public comments made on

the proposed standards and the EPA's responses to the comments, and (2)

a summary of the revisions made to the regulatory analysis presented at

proposal. Electronic versions of the BID as well as this preamble and

final rule are available for download from the EPA's Technology

Transfer Network (TTN), a network of electronic bulletin boards

developed and operated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for

the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bits

per second (bps) modem. If more information on TTN is needed, contact

the systems operator at (919) 541-5384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information

concerning the final rule, contact Mr. Stephen Shedd, Waste and

Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone (919) 541-5397. For information regarding the economic

impacts of the rule, contact Mr. Scott Mathias, Innovative Strategies

and Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, at

the above address; telephone (919) 541-5310. For information regarding

the test methods and procedures referenced in the rule, contact Mr. Roy

Huntley, Emission Inventory and Factors Group, Emissions, Monitoring

and Analysis Division, at the above address; telephone (919) 541-1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Applicability

II. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability

B. Level of Control

III. Significant Comments and Changes

A. Applicability Determination

B. Equipment Leak Requirements

C. Storage Vessel Requirements

D. Cargo Tank Requirements

E. Continuous Monitoring

IV. Summary of the Final Rule

A. Sources Covered

B. Standards for Sources

C. Effective Date for Compliance

D. Compliance Extensions

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Regulatory Review

I. Applicability

The final rule is applicable to all existing and new bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations that are major sources of

HAP's or are located at plant sites that are major sources. Major

source facilities that are subject to this rule must install and

operate the control equipment and implement the work practices required

in the rule. Section 112(a) of the Act defines major source as a

source, or group of sources, located within a contiguous area and under

common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering

controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25

tpy or more of any combination of HAP's. Area sources are stationary

sources that do not qualify as ``major.'' The term ``affected source''

as used in this rule means the total of all HAP emission points at each

bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station that is subject to

the rule.

To determine the applicability of this rule to facilities that are

within a contiguous area of other HAP-emitting emission sources that

are not part of the source category covered by this rule, the owner or

operator must determine whether the plant site as a whole is a major

source. A formal HAP emissions inventory must be used to determine if

total HAP emissions from all HAP emission sources at the plant site

meets the definition of a major source. To determine the applicability

of this rule to facilities that are not contiguous with other HAP-

emitting emission sources (i.e., to stand-alone bulk gasoline terminals

or pipeline breakout station facilities), the owner or operator may use

the emissions screening equations in the rule, which are intended to

identify clearly nonmajor (area) sources, or conduct a formal HAP

emissions inventory.

Certain assumptions used by all nonmajor sources in the emission

screening equations will become enforceable limitations on the

facility's operations under this rule. These enforceable limitations

include, type of gasoline used, type and number of storage vessels,

limit on gasoline throughput, level of cargo tank vapor-tightness, and

number of valves, pumps, connectors, loading arm valves, and open-ended

lines in gasoline service. Federally enforceable limitations must be

established outside the provisions of this rule, for facilities using

the emissions inventory for determination of their major source status,

and for some parameters used by facilities in the emission screening

equation. The vapor processor outlet emission limit for cargo tank

emissions and minimum efficiency for fixed roof storage vessel

emissions are the federally enforceable limitations that must be

established outside the provisions of this rule to be used in the

emission screening equations. Facilities using the emission screening

equations in the rule are required to record their assumptions and

calculations, notify the Administrator that the facility is using the

screening equations and provide the results of the calculations, and

operate the facility in a manner not to exceed the operational

parameters used in the calculations. Larger facilities (those that, in

and of themselves, have HAP emissions over 50 percent of the major

source emissions thresholds above and use the emissions screening

equations in the rule) are additionally required to submit to the

Administrator for approval their assumptions and calculations, maintain

records to document the parameters have not been exceeded, and submit

an annual certification that the operational parameters established for

the facility have not been exceeded.

II. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

On February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5868), the EPA proposed NESHAP for all

major source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations and

provided notice of a public hearing on the proposal. A public hearing

was held on March 10, 1994, and the 60-day comment period ended on

April 11, 1994. On August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42788), the EPA published an

announcement of the availability of supplemental information pertaining

to the level of control and test procedures for cargo tank leakage, and

established a comment period for this information. Public comments

received in response to the proposal and the supplemental notice have

been considered in this final rulemaking action.

In response to comments received on the proposed standards, changes

have been made in developing the final rule. While several of these are

clarifying changes designed to make the Agency's intent clearer, a

number of them are significant changes to the proposed control

requirements of the standards. Substantive changes made since proposal

are described in the following sections. The Agency's responses to

public comments that are not addressed in this preamble and the revised

analysis for the final rule are contained in the BID for this final

rulemaking (see ADDRESSES section of this document).

A. Applicability

The constants in the proposed emission estimation screening

equations have been modified based on lower emission factors for

leakage emissions from tank trucks and equipment components. In

addition, the storage vessel constants have been recalculated using the

current EPA emission equations (publication AP-42, Section 12) to

estimate evaporative emissions from the storage of gasoline. Finally,

an adjustment factor has been added to each equation to account for

facilities that do not handle any reformulated or oxygenated gasoline

containing methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).

For the purposes of this rulemaking and under certain conditions,

the EPA has determined that a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station facility's ``potential to emit'' (PTE) may be based on

certain operating limitations that are made enforceable under this

rule. These limitations would be established in the range between

actual and maximum design conditions based on emission screening

equations provided in the rule. If a facility's operation (e.g.,

gasoline throughput) exceeds these limitations or if a facility fails

to maintain records or report as required in this final rule, it will

be considered to be in violation of the rule.

B. Level of Control

The proposed leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for

controlling equipment leaks have been replaced with a visual inspection

program. Instrument leak detection and repair will be an available

alternative rather than the basis of the final rule. Both new and

existing major sources are required to perform a visual leak inspection

of their equipment on a monthly basis.

At proposal, the ``floor,'' or minimum level of control for

gasoline storage vessels at existing facilities was determined to be

the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, the new source

performance standards (NSPS subpart Kb) which apply to new volatile

organic liquid storage vessels. Based on the revised analysis, a new

floor for storage vessels has been determined. Only the storage vessel

floating roof closure device or ``rim seal'' requirements in the NSPS

subpart Kb are now considered to be the floor for existing storage

vessels. Gasketed ``fittings'' (such as hatch covers, vents, drains,

etc.), which are also an NSPS subpart Kb requirement, are not now

considered to be a part of the floor for this rule. However, in the

final rule gasketed fittings are required to be installed on existing

external floating roof storage tanks that do not meet the NSPS subpart

Kb rim seal requirement, as of today's date.

The floor level of control and the control requirements for leakage

from controlled cargo tanks (tank trucks and railcars) at existing and

new major source bulk terminals have been changed so that cargo tanks

must annually pass a certification test with a 25 mm (1 inch) of water

pressure decay limit [in 5 minutes, after pressurization to +460 mm

(+18 inches) of water column and then evacuation to -150 mm (-6 inches)

of water] instead of the 75 mm (3 inch) of water pressure decay

proposed limit. In addition, cargo tank owners and operators are

required to annually perform a pressure test of the cargo tank's

internal vapor valve and to be able to meet a 63 mm (2.5 inch) pressure

change limit at any time. Test procedures to be used in performing

these tests are added to the final rule. At proposal, new bulk gasoline

terminals were required to install and operate a vacuum assist vapor

collection system to minimize cargo tank leakage. The requirement for

vacuum assist has been replaced with the same leak testing requirements

described above for cargo tanks that load at existing facilities.

III. Significant Comments and Changes

Comments on the proposed standards and the supplemental notice were

received from industry, State and local air pollution control agencies,

trade associations, an environmental group, and a U.S. Government

agency. A detailed discussion of comments and the EPA's responses can

be found in the promulgation BID, which is referred to in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. The major comments, responses, and changes

made to the rule since proposal are discussed below.

A. Applicability Determination

1. Screening Equations

Several commenters felt that the EPA did not fully explain or

support the development of the proposed emission estimation screening

equations. As a result, these two equations were characterized by some

commenters as arbitrary. One commenter who had experience preparing

emissions inventories for bulk gasoline terminals in Texas pointed out

that, for several terminals that do not exceed the 10/25 tons of HAP's

per year threshold, the screening equation incorrectly indicates that

many of these terminals emit greater than 10/25 tons of HAP's.

The development of the screening equations was discussed in the

preamble to the proposed standards. This development was explained in

more detail in a memorandum that was included at proposal in the

rulemaking docket (item II-B-23), and has been updated and included in

the final docket. These equations were not arbitrary, but were

developed specifically to identify facilities that have the potential

to emit (PTE) less than 10/25 tons per year of HAP and to reduce the

amount of effort needed to perform applicability determinations.

However, if a facility has other HAP emission sources not considered in

the equation, the equation will under-predict emissions and cannot be

used to determine if the facility is a major source. Some commenters

expressed support for the use of screening equations as an aid in

determining rule applicability, but most of them had suggestions for

revising the equations to make them more accurate and useful. In

response to all of these comments, the equations have been retained in

the rule but have been revised to accommodate the concerns of

commenters and to make them more accurate in their function as a

screening tool. These modifications and the new equations are discussed

in detail in the responses to the following comments.

Some commenters suggested that, instead of using ``worst-case''

HAP-emitting gasolines to derive the constants in the equations, the

Agency should use average parameters to promote consistency between the

equations and the rule. Also, the EPA should include an adjustment

factor for facilities that do not handle gasoline oxygenated with MTBE.

At proposal, the EPA developed the screening equations based on a

HAP to VOC ratio that was determined to represent the average MTBE

content in reformulated and oxygenated gasolines, and not the ``worst-

case'' ratio. In the gasoline composition analyses that were available

to the Agency before proposal, the MTBE content in gasoline ranged from

11.8 to 16.3 percent. Based on these data, the EPA made an assumption

that the average MTBE content of reformulated and oxygenated gasolines

was 11.9 percent, which is slightly higher than the lowest percentage

found in the data. In addition, the EPA assumed that most facilities

that handle higher MTBE content oxygenated gasolines would also handle

the lower MTBE content reformulated gasolines. This approach is

consistent with the Agency's intent to avoid underestimating emissions

in this screening process, which could allow a major source to be

deemed an area source and thus improperly escape applicability of this

rule. Facilities in any case will have the opportunity to perform a

full emissions inventory in order to make a more accurate determination

of their status.

The EPA agrees that the proposed emission factors overestimate HAP

emissions from facilities handling gasoline without MTBE. As a result,

an adjustment factor has been included in the screening equations for

facilities in this situation. Facilities that handle, or anticipate

handling, any oxygenated or reformulated gasoline containing MTBE as a

component will not use the adjustment factor in performing the

calculations.

Several commenters felt the EPA's assumption that annually

certified and tested tank trucks with vapor control lose 10 percent of

the displaced vapors through leakage while loading is too high. The EPA

has reevaluated the basis for its assumption that tank trucks in an

annual test program lose 10 percent of the displaced vapors as leakage

emissions. The EPA has calculated a new leakage rate that is much lower

than the proposed figure, and this calculation is discussed in Section

III.D.1 of this notice.

Commenters stated that fixed-roof storage vessels connected to a

vapor control device emit virtually no HAP's and that a term should be

added to represent and quantify the low emission levels from such

controlled tanks. The EPA agrees with the commenters and has added a

new expression, (1-CE), to both screening equations. The term ``CE''

represents the control efficiency of the control device used to process

vapors from the fixed-roof tank. The value of CE must be documented by

the facility as meeting the definition of federally enforceable in

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 (General Provisions). If the facility is

not controlling emissions from its fixed-roof tanks using a vapor

control device, a value of zero will be entered for the term ``CE.''

Several commenters felt that the emission factors used for pump

seals and valves were too high, based on recent data collected at

marketing facilities. The EPA has evaluated the new data and agrees

with this comment. The emission factors for pump seals and valves have

been revised as discussed under Section III.B.1 of this notice.

Commenters felt that the equations should provide emission credits

for facilities that have implemented an instrument LDAR program or

vacuum assist vapor collection. Data provided by industry show that the

use of visual inspection programs is just as effective as the use of

instrument LDAR in identifying equipment leaks at marketing terminals

and breakout stations, as discussed further in Section III.B.2 of this

notice. As a result, the EPA will not grant credits to facilities that

currently use an LDAR program. The EPA has decided to not require

vacuum assist as explained in Section III.D.2.a of this notice, due to

Agency concerns about the control effectiveness of vacuum assist

technology at bulk terminal loading racks. As a result, the EPA also

will not provide emission credits for any facility using vacuum assist

technology.

One commenter stated that emission standards or limitations more

stringent than the Federal NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XX) limit (35

mg/liter) should be recognized. The term ``EF'' in the screening

equation for bulk terminals applies to any federally enforceable

emission standard in effect for the vapor processor. The concept of

``federally enforceable,'' defined in Sec. 63.2, allows emission

standards or limitations more stringent than the NSPS limit.

One commenter believed that the screening equations should be

modified to account for storage vessels that store MTBE for infrequent

periods and durations. The EPA does not intend to regulate under this

rule storage vessels that store only MTBE or any other gasoline

component or additive. All the other non-gasoline liquids such as MTBE

will be studied for regulation under the forthcoming NESHAP source

category of ``Non-Gasoline Liquid Distribution'' under section 112 of

the Act.

Commenters requested guidance on how to estimate emissions from

``swing'' tanks, which store gasoline only part of the time. In keeping

with the intent of these equations as an emission estimation screening

tool, the EPA has made the simplifying assumption that vessels storing

gasoline for any period or periods during a year will be assumed to

store gasoline year round. As a result, the emissions from ``swing''

tanks will be estimated in the same way as for tanks that store

gasoline on a continuous basis. Owners and operators should use the

emissions inventory approach, as specified in Sec. 63.420(a)(2) and

(b)(2), if these assumptions lead to a significant overestimation of

HAP emissions at their facility.

2. Emissions Inventory

As a supplement to the emission estimation screening equations,

Sec. 63.420(a)(2) and (b)(2) of the proposed rule exempted those

facilities ``for which the owner or operator has documented to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major source as

defined in section 112(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.'' The proposal

preamble on page 5877 indicated that an ``emissions audit'' would have

to be performed to satisfy these provisions. One commenter felt that

the rule provisions should specifically state that the estimation of

emissions for the applicability determination is to be accomplished by

means of an emissions audit, as was stated in the preamble. Several

other commenters found the term ``emissions audit'' confusing, and

questioned what the EPA would consider acceptable for demonstrating

applicability. Some suggested that the familiar term ``emission

inventory'' be substituted because emission inventories are common

requirements and procedures are in place under many State programs.

Others requested that the EPA define or provide an approved methodology

for conducting the emissions audit. One commenter said that the public

should have an opportunity to comment on this guidance prior to this

rule being promulgated. One commenter thought that the EPA should

eliminate the requirement that a source determine its applicability

status by means of an emissions audit. They felt such a requirement is

unnecessary and contrary to prohibitions in Executive Order 12866 since

major sources, which are subject to part 70 permitting, are already

required to determine their applicable regulatory requirements and

identify them in their permit applications.

In describing the formal means of documenting a facility's major or

area source status as an ``emissions audit'' in the proposal preamble,

the EPA was referring to a calculation of a facility's potential to

emit HAP considering federally enforceable controls. Such calculations

are similar to those already being prepared under many existing Federal

and State control programs. Therefore, the intent of the Agency was in

accord with the thoughts of the commenters. The discussion in the

preamble and the requirements in the final rule are intended to clarify

and simplify compliance with the rule and are not known to be contrary

to provisions of the part 70 permitting requirements. The EPA feels

that guidance on performing HAP emissions inventories is not needed

since the preparation of such inventories is standard practice. The

activities undertaken in response to part 70 requirements are

applicable and may relieve the majority of the burden of fulfilling

this inventory.

3. Potential to Emit

One commenter felt that the rule was not clear in explaining

whether a facility's major source applicability is determined from

``potential to emit'' (PTE) or actual emissions and asked for

clarification. Several commenters who interpreted the rule to indicate

that PTE should be used expressed disagreement with the EPA, and

believed that basing major source applicability on a source's PTE would

draw into the regulation many more sources than the EPA has

anticipated. They said the EPA should recognize that there are inherent

limits in the operational parameters (throughput, etc.) of gasoline

distribution facilities, and major source determination should be based

on a source's actual emissions or at least a more reasonable gasoline

loading potential. The American Petroleum Institute (API) recommended a

scheme for categorizing facilities based on actual emission rates that

they felt would alleviate the ``potentially drastic consequences'' of

applying the PTE definition. These categories are: I--actual emissions

exceed the major source threshold (10/25 tpy), so the source is subject

to all provisions of the rule; II--actual emissions are greater than 80

percent but less than 100 percent of the major source amounts. The

facility would have to certify its area source status by obtaining a

permit with enforceable limits, submit annual certification of emission

rates, and notify the EPA of any change that could increase HAP

emissions; III--actual emissions are greater than 50 percent but less

than or equal to 80 percent of the major source definition. The

facility would have to submit annual certification and provide

notification of any change; IV--actual emissions are 50 percent or less

of the major source cutoffs. This facility would only have to provide

notification of any changes affecting emissions. Another commenter

suggested that applicability should be based on a combination of the

potential to emit of the vapor recovery system and the actual emissions

of the storage vessel rim seals and fittings using the EPA's current

emission factors.

At proposal, the EPA did not use the term PTE in the preamble

discussion or in the proposed rule. However, the proposed rule and

discussion in the preamble did reference the General Provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A), which includes a definition for PTE. This

definition is as follows:

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary

source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational

design. Any physical or operational limitation on capacity of the

stationary source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution

control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or the type

or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be

treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it

would have on emissions is federally enforceable.

Terminals and breakout stations have many limitations that affect

emissions and some of these can vary according to gasoline demand.

Industry provided data showing many methods to calculate maximum

capacity, including total tank storage capacity, loading rack pumping

capacity, feeder pipeline pumping rate, etc. Each of these methods of

calculating capacity results in different and conflicting PTE results.

The EPA has decided to provide an approach in the final rule that

provides the facility an opportunity to set some operational and

physical limitations that best fit its own operation only if all the

HAP emitted are from affected gasoline operations. The EPA considered

allowing gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations emitting

additional HAP emissions from non-gasoline sources at the plant site to

use this approach. However, the EPA believes covering all situations

and other source categories under this rule would be too complex and

uncertain. Therefore, those sources would have to obtain enforceable

conditions and limitations outside the provisions of this rule.

Under this approach for plant sites emitting HAP only from affected

gasoline operations, the bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout

station facility can establish its potential to emit through a

combination of operational and physical limitations that are otherwise

federally enforceable outside the context of this rule or that are made

enforceable through compliance with parameters included in the

screening equations in this rule. Examples of allowable federally

enforceable limitations and conditions are provided in the definitions

section of the General Provisions (Sec. 63.2). Examples of limitations

at bulk terminals and pipeline stations that are required to meet the

definition of federally enforceable outside the context of this rule

are emission limits on vapor processors that process emissions from

storage vessels and cargo tanks. Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements will be used to monitor compliance with all limitations.

Thus, the final rule allows the facility to limit PTE by complying with

the approved values of the physical or operational parameters contained

in the emission screening equations, such as maximum throughput. This

provides the facility the most flexibility in operations without

overestimating PTE.

The proposed rule required facilities to either use a specific

emission estimation screening equation or prepare an inventory of

emissions to determine their emissions for determination of major or

area source status. The proposal allowed area source facilities to

report their applicability findings and calculations in their initial

notifications to the Agency [required under Sec. 63.9(b)]. After review

and acceptance by the Agency, the facility would have been considered

an area source and would not be subject to the control requirements of

the rule. Changes to the final rule establish certain facility

parameters used in the emission screening equation as new ``physical or

operational limitation[s] on the capacity of the stationary source to

emit a pollutant.'' Upon request, the owner or operator of the bulk

gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station will be responsible for

demonstrating compliance with the facility's applicability

determination, including all assumptions, limitations, and parameters

used to calculate potential to emit HAP.

To monitor these limitations, certain facilities are required in

the final rule to annually certify that these facility parameters are

not being exceeded. It would be burdensome and unnecessary for all

facilities below the emissions threshold for major sources to provide

detailed reports and records, and annually certify that changes have

not occurred. As suggested in the API comments, only facilities within

50 percent of the emissions threshold for major sources will be

required to submit a detailed report of these calculations and

assumptions used in the calculations in an initial report, and then

provide annual certification that the established facility parameters

are not being exceeded. The remaining facilities will need to retain a

record at the facility of these calculations and notify the

Administrator of the use and results of the emission screening

equation. These records would remain at the facility for inspection by

the Administrator. If the PTE ``limitations'' are exceeded or if the

facility fails to keep records or report as required, the facility will

be in violation of this rule and may in some cases be considered a

major source and be subject to the emission standards of this rule.

The final rule also requires the reports submitted containing those

limitations and certifications to be approved by the Administrator and

made available for public inspection. The notifications and reports

documenting those limitations must be submitted within 1 year of

today's date to the Administrator. The final rule allows facilities to

change these parameters after submittal of the revised calculations and

approval by the Administrator.

If the facility becomes an area (nonmajor) source by complying with

the PTE enforceable limitations and conditions established under this

final rule, then the emission control requirements of this rule would

not apply. Furthermore, for purposes of section 112 of the Act, it

would not be a regulated area source that would be required to have an

operating permit under 40 CFR part 70. In other words, being subject to

the PTE limitations in this rule does not in and of itself make the

facility subject to 40 CFR part 70. However, there may be other reasons

that the stationary source is required to comply with 40 CFR part 70.

The EPA believes the mechanisms provided in this rule for limiting

PTE provide adequate safeguards for this source category. However, the

EPA is still evaluating whether the general approach taken in this rule

will be appropriate for other source categories.

4. Refinery Bulk Terminals

One commenter requested that, for bulk terminals contiguous to

refineries, the EPA clearly define the separation between terminal

storage tanks and refinery storage tanks. These terminals are usually

fed from tanks located within the refinery itself, often thousands of

feet from the terminal. Refinery tanks will be regulated by the NESHAP

for petroleum refineries (proposed at 59 FR 36130, July 15, 1994). The

commenter felt that tanks not located at the terminal itself should be

considered part of the refinery for the purposes of regulation.

Several commenters were of the opinion that the EPA should

distinguish the association and applicability of the gasoline

distribution MACT rule from the refinery MACT rule currently under

development. Many commenters believe that only cargo tank loading racks

and cargo tank leakage should be regulated at terminals that are

``contiguous to'' refineries, and that tankage and equipment leakage

emissions should be regulated under the refinery MACT rule. One

suggested method to distinguish whether facilities are subject to the

refinery rule or the gasoline distribution rule is to consult the

applicable Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes already

assigned to these facilities.

Terminals and pipeline facilities contiguous to refineries are of

two types. First, there are terminals and pipeline facilities that are

located within a contiguous area and under common control, but are

managed by the ``marketing'' or ``distribution'' departments, though

they are located on the same property as a refinery. The other type are

terminals and pipeline facilities located among the refinery process

units and storage tanks and managed by the ``refinery'' management

departments. SIC codes are assigned and are currently being used by

these facilities to distinguish between equipment. Industry commenters

expressed a need to retain this separation because they often have

separate management for maintenance, capital improvements, personnel,

and operation of the assigned equipment. This separation would keep the

management of the air pollution control equipment under the same

management structure as the surrounding process equipment. The Agency

agrees with the commenters that maintaining this structure would be

beneficial, because it will increase the management of proper operation

and maintenance of the control equipment, decrease compliance costs,

and improve the reporting and recordkeeping and enforcement of this

rule.

Since a final rule cannot refer to another standard that has not

been promulgated as a final rule, this change is not incorporated into

the final gasoline distribution rule. The Agency, however, plans to

carry out this change by modifying this rule at the promulgation of the

refinery MACT standards. The proposed refinery MACT standards contain

different requirements for equipment leaks and compliance schedules for

storage tanks. The Agency will assess the differences between these two

rules after it considers public comments on the refinery MACT proposal

and develops the final refinery MACT standards. Meanwhile, all

provisions of this gasoline distribution rule will be implemented as

they are being promulgated here, since there are no requirements in

this rule that must be implemented before the scheduled promulgation of

the refinery MACT standards. Independent of the SIC code designation

decision discussed above, the EPA will make a decision in the refinery

MACT rule on the use of emission trading or averaging between the

collocated gasoline distribution and refinery sources.

B. Equipment Leak Requirements

1. Emission Factors

Several commenters strongly objected to the EPA's use of 1980

refinery data to estimate emissions from equipment (pumps, valves,

etc.) at bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations. These

commenters were in support of using the new API data gathered at

several bulk terminals. These data indicate that leakage from bulk

terminal and breakout station equipment is very small and that the

refinery emission factors overestimate these emissions greatly. The

commenters pointed out that the EPA's use of the higher factors would

lead to incorrect calculations of applicability status and baseline

emissions.

At proposal, the EPA used the refinery equipment emission factors

in publication AP-42, Section 9.1, Petroleum Refining, to estimate

emissions from equipment components at marketing terminals and pipeline

breakout stations. The API supplied new data which indicated that

corresponding emission factors for marketing terminals and breakout

stations are over 99 percent lower. The EPA has reviewed the data

submitted by API. In May 1994, the EPA released a draft report

containing new correlation equations for marketing facilities using the

API data. The Agency is still reviewing and analyzing the API data to

determine new EPA emission factors. For the purposes of this analysis

and completion of this final rule, API's suggested emission factors are

being used because in our judgement these new factors better reflect

emissions from this source category than the 1980 refinery data. The

EPA intends to issue new EPA emission factors in the near future.

2. Control Level

Several commenters expressed disagreement with the proposal to

require a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program at bulk terminals

and breakout stations, stating that the emissions from equipment leaks

are much smaller than the EPA had estimated. Consequently, the

commenters considered the EPA's estimated emission reductions due to an

LDAR program to be greatly overstated. As a result, the cost

effectiveness of such a program would be very poor. In lieu of an LDAR

program, many commenters felt that a mandatory visual inspection

program (similar to existing programs at many terminals) would be more

appropriate. The API performed a leak rate survey at bulk terminals,

including both terminals where an LDAR program was in effect and

terminals that were not carrying out a formal LDAR program. The API's

conclusion was that there was no statistically significant difference

in the leak rates found at the two groups of terminals. The commenters

concluded that LDAR programs are more appropriate for refineries, where

the equipment handles fluids at higher temperatures and pressures.

Before proposal of this MACT regulation, the EPA learned that few

existing terminals and pipeline breakout stations (less than 1 percent)

routinely use a portable organic vapor analyzer (OVA) to carry out LDAR

programs on their gasoline handling equipment. As a result, the

``floor'' for control of equipment leaks at existing terminals was

found to be periodic visual inspections (no formal, federally

enforceable inspection program). A monthly LDAR program using an OVA

was determined to be in practice at a few terminals associated with

refineries and therefore was determined to be the floor for equipment

at new terminals and breakout stations. As stated earlier, the EPA in

the proposal analysis used the refinery emission factors in AP-42 to

calculate baseline emissions from equipment leaks at existing

facilities and analyzed LDAR as an ``above the floor'' option. The EPA

found LDAR to be cost effective; however, the Agency noted that there

were industry concerns with the refinery factors and thus did not

select the higher emission reduction alternative (monthly instead of

quarterly LDAR). As discussed above, after reviewing equipment leak

data submitted by API, the EPA agrees that the equipment leak factors

at marketing terminals are much lower than the refinery factors,

resulting in much lower potential emission reductions due to an LDAR

program. As a result of this determination, the cost effectiveness of a

formal instrument LDAR program has been found to be much less favorable

for gasoline marketing facilities.

The new gasoline distribution equipment leak data submitted by API

showed only a slight difference (0.2 percent) between emission factors

at facilities performing periodic LDAR (with an instrument) and

facilities with a periodic visual program. Based on its review of these

data, the EPA agrees with API's assessment that this difference is

statistically insignificant. Therefore, the EPA is in agreement with

the majority of commenters that periodic visual inspection and LDAR

programs achieve essentially equal emission reductions for these

facilities.

Industry submitted survey information that 81 percent of terminal

facilities are implementing some type of periodic visual inspection

program. The survey data did not show the frequency of visual

inspections, but API has stated that current industry periodic visual

programs range in frequency from daily to quarterly. The API suggested

a quarterly program and provided language to make it enforceable and

verifiable through recordkeeping. The program suggested by API

included: (1) A quarterly determination of leaks by visual, audible,

and olfactory inspection of pumps and valves; (2) a log book listing

all of the equipment in gasoline service; (3) note all non-inspected

equipment; (4) if a leak is detected, repair as soon as practical

(considering safety); if the leak cannot be repaired immediately, then

the leak must be repaired or the equipment replaced within 15 calendar

days, unless not practical for reasons stated in the log book or, when

possible, use of the leaking equipment is to be suspended; (5) annual

checks of log book by facility supervisor; and (6) quarterly logs and

records of annual checks retained for 5 years and accessible for

inspection within 3 business days.

The NSPS for bulk gasoline terminals [40 CFR part 60, subpart XX,

Sec. 60.502(j)] requires monthly inspection of loading racks as

follows:

(j) Each calendar month, the vapor collection system, the vapor

processing system, and each loading rack handling gasoline shall be

inspected during loading of gasoline tank trucks for total organic

compounds liquid or vapor leaks. For the purposes of this paragraph,

detection methods incorporating sight, sound, or smell are

acceptable. Each detection of a leak shall be recorded and the

source of the leak repaired within 15 calendar days after it is

detected.

The visual inspection program in the final rule is similar to these

NSPS provisions; however, the provisions have been expanded based on

suggestions of the commenters and certain requirements in existing

Federal LDAR regulations. As in the NSPS, a monthly inspection using

sight, sound, and smell is required. Each detection of a leak is to be

recorded in a log book. Leaks must be repaired as soon as practicable,

but with the first attempt at repair made no later than 5 calendar days

after detection, and repair completed within 15 days after detection.

Delay of repair is allowed upon demonstration to the EPA that timely

repair is not feasible. Full records of each inspection are required,

including for each leak a record of the date of detection, nature of

the leak and detection method, dates of repair attempts and methods

used, and details of any delays of repairs.

The final rule contains a requirement for both new and existing

facilities to perform a visual inspection of equipment on a monthly

basis because it is achieved in practice on the same and similar

equipment under the 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX requirements as

described above and at some facilities that are covered under monthly

LDAR programs in response to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG, and

40 CFR part 61, subparts J and V. As noted earlier, the emission

reductions resulting from these visual inspection programs have not

been established, so the emission benefits cannot be quantified other

than to say that periodic inspections ensure low emission levels. The

national annual cost for monthly visual inspections under this final

rule is estimated to be $43,000.

C. Storage Vessel Requirements

1. Control Level

Several commenters claimed that the discussion in the proposal

concerning the ``floor'' level of control for storage vessels was

inadequate and unclear. The EPA's conclusion was that the NSPS

requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (NSPS subpart Kb)

constituted the floor for storage vessels at existing sources. One

commenter stated that the EPA had not performed an adequate evaluation

to establish the floating roof rim seal requirements of NSPS subpart Kb

as the floor. Several other commenters believed that the EPA had

demonstrated that NSPS subpart Kb's rim seal requirements are the floor

for existing sources, but not the additional NSPS subpart Kb

requirement to control the roof deck fittings. At proposal, the EPA

required gasoline storage vessels at existing facilities to meet all of

the control requirements in NSPS subpart Kb. Subpart Kb specifies

closure devices between the wall of the storage vessel and the edge of

the floating roof (``rim seals''), and the installation of gaskets on

specified lids and other openings in the floating deck (``controlled

fittings''). The EPA also proposed these same requirements as the floor

for new facilities. Subpart Kb is the most recent (1984) new source

performance standard applicable to all new, modified, and reconstructed

volatile organic liquid storage vessels (including gasoline liquid

storage vessels).

Regarding the comments concerning the floor determination for rim

seal requirements for existing sources, the EPA continues to maintain

its previous conclusion that the NSPS subpart Kb rim seal requirements

are the floor for storage vessels at gasoline distribution facilities

as proposed and presented in the proposal notice (February 8, 1994, 59

FR 5868) and further discussed in the promulgation BID. The EPA

believes it did perform a proper evaluation, and the commenter did not

provide any data or information to support a change in the finding that

NSPS subpart Kb rim seals are the floor level of control.

The EPA, however, does agree with the commenters' statements that

the discussion in the proposal preamble did not support the NSPS

subpart Kb fitting control requirements set in 1984 for new tanks as

part of the floor for storage vessels at existing facilities. The EPA

did not have access to any data regarding the number of gasoline

storage vessels that are equipped with controlled fittings. The

commenters also did not provide any data or information on the number

of storage vessels with or without fitting controls for these

subcategories. Information obtained in the tank survey conducted for

the refinery MACT standards was inconclusive regarding the use of

controlled fittings on storage vessels. As a result, the EPA has no

data to support the conclusion that controls on tank fittings are part

of the floor for existing sources. Therefore, the EPA has determined

the existing source MACT floor for fittings as ``uncontrolled.''

The Agency has considered controlled fitting requirements as an

option providing the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions

(``above the floor'') as required by the Act. The Administrator is

required under section 112(d) to set emission standards for new and

existing sources of HAP that require the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost

of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy requirements. New tanks at new or

existing facilities since 1984 are meeting the deck fitting control

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and, therefore, these

requirements are achievable. Controlling fittings to that level is also

considered the maximum degree of emission reduction.

Emission reductions and costs for controlled fittings were analyzed

on both a per model storage vessel and a nationwide basis using two

typical size and throughput vessels, and different potential HAP

contents in gasoline. Additionally, installation of controlled fittings

on many tanks requires degassing and cleaning of the tanks. Industry

reports that storage vessels are degassed and cleaned at least every 10

years for safety inspections and requested that the Agency require all

retrofits (fittings and rim seals) on storage tanks to occur

simultaneously. Therefore, the new analysis included two options, with

and without degassing and cleaning costs. If fitting controls were

required within 3 years of today's date, the cost impact for this

standard would include the degassing and cleaning costs along with the

cost of controlled fittings if a tank's routine safety inspection would

not have occurred during that 3-year time period. The option of waiting

until the next routine tank degassing and cleaning would avoid the

additional costs of cleaning and degassing as an impact of this

standard since the activity would have occurred anyway. A discussion

and presentation of the model tank analysis of fitting controls are

included in Appendix B of the promulgation BID.

Installing controlled fittings on floating roof tanks, without

degassing and cleaning costs, would result in a cost savings due to the

value of gasoline vapor prevented from evaporating through openings in

the floating roof deck. The capital costs of installing deck fitting

controls on the model tanks, without the cost of degassing and cleaning

of the tanks, ranged in the analysis from $1,200 to $2,800, annualized

costs ranged from a savings to a cost of $340 per year, and the cost

effectiveness ranged from a savings to a cost of $7,500 per megagram of

HAP reduced. When controlled deck fitting installation costs included

degassing and cleaning costs, the capital costs ranged from $21,000 to

$67,000, annualized costs ranged from $4,000 to $14,000 per year, and

the cost effectiveness ranged from $25,000 to $300,000 per megagram of

HAP reduced. Calculation of product price increases under either option

showed them to be insignificant (less than 0.05 cent per gallon). In

conclusion, installing controlled deck fittings is significantly less

costly if it can be done at the next scheduled tank degassing and

cleaning.

The Agency has decided to require installation of controlled deck

fittings on each existing external floating roof storage tank that is

required to be degassed and taken out of service for the purpose of

replacing or upgrading rim seals to meet 40 CFR 60, subpart Kb

requirements. Since these tanks must be degassed and cleaned and have

plant maintenance personnel on site, it is reasonable to require

installation of the fitting controls at the same time. A national

impact analysis was performed on this requirement. Table D-1 in

Appendix D of the promulgation BID presents the results of the national

analysis on storage tanks and other emission sources at bulk terminals

and pipeline breakout stations. Installing fitting controls on external

floating roof tanks is estimated to reduce 66 megagrams per year of HAP

at an annualized cost savings of $93,000.

The cost analyses show that installing controlled fittings when

installing or replacing rim seals on existing external floating roof

tanks involves a small capital cost (approximately $2,000 per tank),

with an annualized cost savings, and insignificant change in gasoline

prices. Given these low costs and the simplicity of these control

measures when tanks are otherwise out of service, the EPA has concluded

that fitting controls are practical and affordable for existing

external floating roof storage tanks. These controls also prevent

pollution and conserve energy by preventing liquid gasoline from

evaporating. Having given full consideration to the directives in the

Act, the Administrator is requiring gasoline storage vessels at

existing facilities to control the deck fittings when replacing or

installing rim seals on external floating roof storage tanks to comply

with the requirements in this final rule. Given the small national HAP

emission reduction, the Agency has decided not to require fitting

controls on existing internal floating roof storage tanks. While the

EPA is not at this time requiring these controls nationally on internal

floating roofs, the EPA encourages industry to consider the

installation of these controls on a case-by-case basis. All new storage

tanks at both new and existing facilities are already required under

NSPS requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb to install these same

fitting controls. Those NSPS requirements are cross-referenced and are

therefore part of today's final rule. This level of control for roof

deck fittings for new sources and for existing external floating roof

tanks upgrading to rim seal requirements under this rule, is the same

level as proposed on February 8, 1994. The storage vessel compliance

period is discussed and analyzed in the next section.

While this final rule does not require fitting controls for

existing internal floating roof storage tanks or the existing external

floating roof storage tanks currently meeting the rim seal requirements

in this rule, the Agency believes it is appropriate and recommends the

inspection, repair, and upgrading of gasketing materials on fittings in

the tank roof when any storage tank is taken out of service. It is a

major part of the normal safety and maintenance procedure to inspect,

repair, and upgrade the physical and mechanical condition of all the

tank components. Additionally, requiring fittings to be installed on

all tanks will reduce additional air toxics and volatile organic

compounds, and will upgrade all tanks to the same level of control. An

effective mechanism to get controlled fittings in place on all tanks is

the combination of this rule, the air toxics programs under section

112(l) of the Act, and the national ambient air quality programs for

control of ambient ozone under the Act. The EPA recommends that State

and local air pollution control agencies pursue implementation of

fitting controls on the remaining tanks under those programs.

2. Compliance Period

Several commenters said that the proposed 3-year compliance period

for storage tanks is unreasonable and is more stringent than the

compliance schedule in other Federal regulations. To install the

required controls, tanks would have to be taken out of service,

cleaned, and degassed. Requiring all storage tanks to comply in a 3-

year period could potentially disrupt the nation's gasoline supply,

causing a gasoline shortage, especially in light of the new

reformulated/oxygenated fuel requirements. One commenter stated that

limited contractor resources could make the schedule logistically

unworkable. Additionally, the cleaning and degassing of a storage tank

creates an air emissions event that in many cases will exceed the

emission reductions resulting from the new controls (e.g., the retrofit

of an internal floating roof tank already meeting 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ka rim seal requirements). One commenter stated that the EPA

must perform a cost effectiveness analysis to support a 3-year

compliance date. All of the commenters suggested that the EPA relax the

compliance schedule and allow storage tank owners and operators to

comply at the next scheduled tank inspection or within 10 years,

whichever comes first. One of the commenters felt that a 10-year period

is an integral part of the floor for existing sources. This commenter

recommended that, should the EPA not allow up to 10 years for

compliance for all tanks currently equipped with floating roofs, at a

minimum internal floating roof tanks currently meeting NSPS subpart Ka

requirements should be provided a compliance period up to 10 years, or

the next regular inspection cycle, whichever occurs first.

Section 112(i)(3) of the Act requires the Administrator to

establish a compliance date which shall provide for compliance as

expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after

the effective date (promulgation) of the standards. In addition, the

Administrator (or a State with a program approved under title V) may

issue a permit which grants up to a 1-year extension to comply with the

standards if an additional period is necessary for installation of

controls. However, some commenters suggest that taking a tank out of

service before its normal cleaning and inspection schedule to comply

with the regulation may generate more emissions than the added controls

would reduce or control in the 3-year period.

To determine whether any tanks should be allowed an extension of

the compliance time to achieve the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP, the EPA compared the emission reductions achieved by

the controls (i.e., rim seals and fittings controls) to the emissions

generated from degassing and cleaning of fixed-roof and internal and

external floating roof tanks for various tank diameters and gasoline

turnover rates. The results of this analysis showed that additional

degassing and cleaning emissions do not exceed the emission reductions

from tanks complying with this final rule within the required 3-year

compliance period. The analysis did show net emissions increases for

some very large tanks either installing secondary seals without

installing fitting controls, or installing fitting controls alone.

However, these final standards require a facility to install fitting

controls when installing secondary rim seals, and no tanks are required

to install fitting controls alone. A complete discussion of this

analysis of emissions generated from tank cleaning and degassing is

presented in Appendix B of the promulgation BID.

D. Cargo Tank Requirements

1. Emission Factors

Several commenters stated that the EPA's assumption at proposal

that tank trucks that have passed the EPA Method 27 annual vapor

tightness test leak 10 percent of their emissions during controlled

loading is outdated and inaccurate. Consequently, the baseline

emissions calculated for tank trucks are grossly overstated. New data

suggest that very few tank trucks leak due to today's better

construction standards and the test requirements in effect under

current Federal and State rules. One commenter provided calculations

indicating that, under the proposed pressure decay standard (which is

the same as the 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX NSPS requirement), a typical

controlled tank truck would have a leakage emission factor for loading

of 5.6 mg/liter (at the allowable maximum of 18 in. H2O

backpressure). Another commenter estimated, on the basis of test

failure rate data from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) and several oil companies, that the overall average leak rate

is 0.88 percent of the total volume of vapors displaced during the

loading of tank trucks connected to a vapor recovery system.

The EPA's estimate of 10 percent vapor leakage from emission

sources in tank trucks while loading at controlled loading racks was

based on data collected in 1978 on 27 tank trucks in California. These

tank trucks were under a State requirement to be certified annually in

a vapor tightness test, and time periods ranging from 4 days to a full

year had elapsed since the last certification test for these trucks.

The volume losses among the trucks varied from 0.1 to 35.8 percent,

with the average leakage being about 10 percent. The data from these

tests were further described, and the 10 percent figure derived, in the

BID for the proposed NSPS for bulk gasoline terminals (docket item II-

A-14).

The commenter who supplied the 0.88 percent overall leakage

estimate relied upon vapor volume loss data for individual tank trucks

reported in the 1978 study, and combined these data with test failure

rate data from the BAAQMD (pressure test data) and from several oil

companies (combustible gas detector results gathered during loading

rack performance tests). Based on an assumption that a leak definition

of 10,000 ppm is equivalent to a 1 percent loss of vapors through

leakage, the commenter determined that the average leak rate for tanks

with leakage rates over 1 percent (``failing'' tanks) was 12.1 percent,

while the average leak rate for the remaining, ``passing'' tanks was

0.5 percent. On the basis of the failure rate data, the overall failure

rate during 1989 to 1994 was found to be 3.3 percent. Combining the

average leak rate figures with these failure prevalence data, the

commenter arrived at the overall leak rate for all tank trucks of 0.88

percent.

The EPA recognizes and agrees with the commenter that the available

data indicate that overall vapor leakage rates from tank trucks subject

to a regular test and repair program using the pressure decay procedure

have been reduced over the past 16 years. However, the use of

concentration data to estimate a volume leakage rate, as the commenter

has done, is uncertain. In addition, neither the EPA nor industry have

access to current data for several areas throughout the country that

would allow a national average calculation of this volume leakage to be

made. Therefore, any numerical result derived from the existing data

would be at best a broad estimate, which would not account for the full

range of truck ages, ownership scenarios, and local control programs.

In spite of these limitations, the EPA has made an estimate which

it feels more closely reflects actual overall emissions under a vapor-

tight cargo tank program than the emission factor used for the

proposal. The Agency's new emission factor, 0.8 percent of the total

vapors displaced or 8 mg of VOC/liter, is based on the use of a volume

loss equation found in Appendix C of the tank truck CTG (EPA-450/2-78-

051) combined with the test failure rate data submitted by the

commenter and measured leakage from trucks that failed the test. This

new emission factor represents the emissions after control to the level

of today's final standards as discussed in the following sections. The

promulgation BID, Appendix A presents more details on the calculation

of this emission factor.

2. Control Level

a. Vacuum assist vapor collection. Many commenters expressed

opposition to the proposal to require use of ``vacuum assist''

technology at new bulk terminal loading racks. Most of the commenters

felt that annual vapor tightness testing is adequate to control tank

truck leakage emissions. Some commenters expressed safety concerns;

e.g., the potential for fires and tank truck implosion. One of them

said that internal tank vacuums can (and already do) damage the

internal compartment heads of tank trucks by reversing those heads and

weakening the tank's outer shell, which compromises product retention

capability. Several do not believe that vacuum assist technology has

been demonstrated as ``achievable in practice.'' The technology has

been used in only one State (Texas) and has not been tested under

various climatic conditions, such as combined low temperatures and high

humidity levels. Others believe that the complexity of the loading

system would increase. Also, due to rapid fluctuations in gasoline flow

rates and the requirement to maintain a vacuum at all times during

loading, nuisance shutdowns of the loading operation could be a

problem. One commenter said that such a system may adversely affect the

efficiency of the vapor control device because air can leak into the

vapor collection system and dilute the inlet VOC concentration. Another

commenter felt that volatilization of fuel in the cargo tank would be

increased due to the vacuum, sending more vapors to the control device.

This would require a larger device which may have greater emissions,

and more solid waste impact for the case of a carbon system. One

commenter said that vacuum assist systems will increase electrical

power consumption 15 to 400 percent depending on the type of emission

control device used. Others said that vacuum assist is unnecessary,

because tank trucks do not leak enough during loading to justify vacuum

assist as a means of reducing the losses. Recent API data show that

tank truck leakage has been significantly reduced since the EPA study

performed in 1978. Three commenters said that the system addresses

losses from the tank truck only while loading at the terminal and not

while in transit or while operating at bulk plants and service

stations. Other commenters said that vacuum assist is very expensive

and not cost effective.

The vacuum assist system was proposed for new source bulk terminals

to control HAP emissions due to vapor leaks from cargo tanks during

gasoline loading operations. This system creates a negative pressure in

the vapor collection system during loading to ensure that vapors will

not be forced out into the air through any leakage points. The proposal

rationale was based on the following information. Vacuum assist systems

are in use at a few bulk gasoline terminals (in addition to the annual

vapor tightness test for truck tanks) in Texas, so it meets the Act

requirement to consider the best controlled similar source in

establishing the floor level of control for new terminals. Since less

than 1 percent of terminals use this vacuum assist system, it is not

considered the floor for cargo tank leakage at existing terminals.

Annual vapor tightness testing of cargo tanks was considered at

proposal to be the floor for existing terminals (this floor

determination has been modified on the basis of public comments; see 59

FR 42788, August 19, 1994). Based on field tests in the late 1970's, an

annual vapor tightness testing program was estimated to reduce the

leakage rate from baseline levels at 30 percent leakage to about 10

percent leakage. The vacuum assist system was estimated to reduce the

10 percent leakage rate under the annual vapor tightness test program

by nearly 100 percent.

Industry sources had expressed concerns before proposal regarding

the operational reliability of a vacuum assist system, especially under

extreme cold weather conditions. Those commenters also believed that

the system could present a safety hazard if excess negative pressures

were developed within a tank truck fuel compartment. To the Agency's

knowledge, the systems in operation have not experienced any

significant problems, and one of the systems has been operating for

over 3 years. These systems contain safety pressure relief devices in

combination with the pressure-vacuum vents already installed on each

tank truck compartment. However, safety concerns are important to the

Agency. The Agency specifically requested comment at proposal,

including technical documentation and data where available, on the

reliability, effectiveness, safety aspects, and any other issue

concerning vacuum producing equipment for bulk terminal vapor

collection systems. No technical documentation or data on installed

systems was provided during the comment period.

As discussed above in Section III.D.1, the leakage emission factor

for controlled cargo tanks under an annual vapor tightness program was

adjusted to reflect current data on the frequency with which cargo

tanks pass the test on the first attempt. Emissions lost from cargo

tanks under test programs with a pressure decay limit of 3 in. H2O

are now estimated to be 1.3 percent of total vapor displaced during

loading operations (just under 99 percent collection efficiency). In

California, where an annual pressure decay limit of 1 inch of water is

in effect, the emission losses during loading are estimated at 0.8

percent (slightly over 99 percent collection). The corresponding HAP

emission factors are 0.4 and 1.3 mg/liter of HAP for normal and

oxygenated gasolines, respectively. At proposal, the leakage emission

rate was estimated to be a 10 percent loss (90 percent collection

efficiency). Thus, while vacuum assist systems were previously thought

to have the potential to capture an additional 10 percent of the

loading emissions, they now appear to have the potential to capture

about 1 percent.

The EPA shares commenters' concerns that the emission control

achieved with the vacuum assist system is uncertain. The Agency's

uncertainty centers on the system's effectiveness in accurately

maintaining a slight vacuum to collect a small leak (1 percent of the

volume displaced to the collection system) while handling the

variability of flows and pressures and limiting the ingestion of air

into the system to a degree where it does not affect the control

effectiveness of the processor. The vapor volume collected by the

system and internal pressures within the vapor collection system vary

widely throughout the day. Each cargo tank loading and displacing

vapors influences the pressures and flows in the system. Terminals

operate on demand, just like gasoline service stations. The number of

tanks loading at any given time varies from none, to a few, to 10 or

more tanks. Additionally, vapor processor control efficiency may be

adversely influenced by increased amounts of air sent to the control

system. A vacuum assist system draws additional air into the system.

Even small malfunctions in the system would be likely to increase

emissions above the 1 percent control target. Finally, the Agency

agrees that it lacks sufficient information to determine whether

conditions outside of Texas may affect the control performance of

vacuum assist methods.

The proposal of vacuum assist was based on the minimum baseline

(floor) at which standards may be set. Under section 112(d)(3) of the

Act, the floor for new sources

shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator.

The Administrator has determined that emission control is not being

achieved in practice given the technical uncertainties about achieving

emission reduction from this source as discussed in the previous

paragraph. Consequently, the proposed vacuum assist requirement for new

bulk terminals has been deleted from the final rule.

b. Vapor tightness standards. Two commenters recommended during the

proposal's comment period that the EPA implement the cargo tank vapor

tightness program in effect within the State of California since 1977.

The California standard requires annual certification that cargo tanks

meet 5-minute pressure and vacuum decay standards of 1 inch of water

column (in. H2O). Based on a BAAQMD survey of 200 tank truck

owners which quantified actual pressure change values, California is

proposing to lower this annual standard to 0.5 in. H2O. In

addition, the same commenters recommended that the EPA apply the

California year-round standard of 2.5 in. H2O pressure loss in 5

minutes. The EPA published a supplemental Federal Register notice (59

FR 42788, August 19, 1994) and opened a comment period for

consideration of the existing California standards as the level of

control for new and existing sources in the final MACT rule. The

following comments were received on the floor determination and on the

level of control that is appropriate for controlling cargo tank

leakage. The promulgation BID summarizes additional comments and

responses to comments received on the proposal and supplemental notice.

Five commenters felt that the existing California standards should

be specified for cargo tanks at new sources, but would be inappropriate

for existing sources. These commenters based their opinion on the

conclusion that the EPA had inappropriately based its floor

determination on California's gasoline throughput, or number of tank

trucks operating in the State. They felt that, since the legal

responsibility for compliance would be on the terminal owner or

operator, the basis should be the number of terminals in California.

One commenter said that this figure is 71, out of a total of 1,125

terminals nationwide (6.3 percent). Since this value is less than the

required 12 percent, applying this control level to existing sources

would be an ``above the floor'' option. Thus, a cost effectiveness

analysis should be provided to justify the California standards as the

existing source floor. Another commenter stated that the California

Highway Patrol, which monitors California's tank testing program, does

not include vapor tightness testing in its 44-point program for

inspecting out-of-State cargo tanks. The commenter felt that this issue

could impact the foundation upon which the EPA had reopened the

proposal action. Two commenters favored incorporation of the California

standards for both new and existing sources.

Several commenters responded to the EPA's request for comments on

whether the level of control for cargo tanks at new and existing

facilities should be based on the existing or the proposed California

standards. Commenters were unanimous in asserting that only the

existing, and not the proposed, California standards should be

considered. Two of the commenters felt that BAAQMD's survey of 200 tank

truck owners was not sufficiently representative to indicate that the

more stringent proposed standards should be applied. Another commenter

said the proposed requirements should not be adopted because: (1) the

testing in the survey has not been properly peer reviewed, (2) the

proposal has yet to be adopted by the California Air Resources Board

(ARB), and (3) there is no conclusive demonstration of any significant

emissions difference between the current and proposed standards. Two

other commenters echoed that there is no basis for considering the more

stringent standards because the effect on tank truck emissions is

unknown. Finally, one commenter requested that the EPA consider the

proposed California standards for new and existing facilities, feeling

that this would standardize regulations nationwide and result in lower

costs for equipment and remove some burden from the California ARB.

The California ARB and the California air pollution control

districts have been implementing tank truck leakage standards since the

late 1970's. Currently, all tank trucks transporting gasoline in

California, including tank trucks from neighboring States that operate

in California, must meet the California standards and are checked by

the California air pollution control districts. In summary, they

include three major standards: an annual certification, a year-round

standard for the tank and its vapor piping and hoses, and a year-round

pressure standard for the tank truck's internal vapor valve. The annual

certification standards include initially pressurizing and later

evacuating the tank and associated vapor piping and hoses to 18 in.

H2O and to 6 in. H2O, respectively. In 5 minutes the

allowable pressure change may be no more than the values shown in Table

1. Further details on the performance requirements and test procedures

used in the California program were discussed at 59 FR 42788. The EPA's

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document and NSPS, subpart XX

contain annual pressure and vacuum test levels of initial pressures and

test duration which are the same as California's. However, a less

stringent pressure change of 75 mm of water column (3 in. H2O) is

allowed for all tank trucks under the NSPS, the CTG, and the proposal.

Table 1.--Allowable Cargo Tank Test Pressure or Vacuum Change

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

Annual

certification- Allowable

allowable pressure

Cargo tank or compartment capacity, pressure or change in 5

liters (gal) vacuum change minutes at any

in 5 minutes, time, mm H2O

mm H2O (in. (in. H2O)

H2O)

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

9,464 or more (2,500 or more)........... 25 (1.0) 64 (2.5)

9,463 to 5,678 (2,499 to 1,500)......... 38 (1.5) 76 (3.0)

5,679 to 3,785 (1,499 to 1,000)......... 51 (2.0) 89 (3.5)

3,782 or less (999 or less)............. 64 (2.5) 102 (4.0)

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

In the August 19, 1994 supplemental notice, the EPA stated that the

gasoline throughput in California accounts for nearly 12 percent of the

national gasoline consumption (13.46 out of 117.9 billion gallons per

year). Essentially all of this gasoline would be transported by tank

trucks, which include both California and out-of-State cargo tanks, all

of which are subject to the State's vapor tightness standards. For this

reason, it was assumed that about 12 percent of the national tank truck

population is under a requirement for annual certification and periodic

testing in accordance with the California vapor tightness standards. On

the basis of public comments, however, the EPA has examined the effect

of considering the number of terminals in California on the floor

determination. As pointed out by one of the commenters, California

terminals account for 6.3 percent of the national total. In determining

the floor for existing sources, the EPA looks at emission limitations

achieved by each of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources,

and averages those limitations (59 FR 29196). In this case, the ``best

performing'' cargo tanks are presumed to be those subject to the most

stringent vapor tightness standards. The Agency interprets ``average''

to mean a measure of central tendency such as the arithmetic mean,

mode, or median. It can be seen here that on the basis of the number of

terminal facilities, the California standards meet this test by

constituting certainly the 94th percentile or median, and mode.

Therefore, even when the number of terminals is used in the floor

determination, the existing California standards constitute the floor

level of control for cargo tanks at existing bulk terminals affected by

the final MACT standards. As proposed and discussed in the promulgation

BID, it has also been determined that the same tests can be applied to

railcars since they are similar sources. Therefore, the final rule

incorporates the existing California standards for cargo tanks (tank

trucks and railcars) loading at existing and new facilities.

Commenters had several concerns on the level of control for cargo

tanks. In the supplemental notice, the EPA had discussed promulgating

cargo tank leakage control levels based either on the existing or the

proposed California certification annual leak rate, 1 in. H2O or

0.5 in. H2O pressure change, respectively. Some commenters

questioned the data collected on the number of tank trucks meeting the

lower proposed California standard as not representative, not peer

reviewed, and not providing a conclusive demonstration of increased

emission reduction. Also, some commenters were concerned that the

proposed standards based on those data have not at this time been

adopted by the California ARB. The EPA shares the commenters' concerns

and is reluctant to move forward and recommend a final standard based

on data the California ARB has not acted on by adopting and

implementing the standards that have been proposed within the State.

Thus, the Agency is setting the level of cargo tank leak standards for

new and existing facilities on the basis of the existing California

standards.

E. Continuous Monitoring

One commenter stressed that, while continuously monitoring a key

operating parameter of a vapor processing device may serve as a guide

to warn of potential problems and to gauge efficient operation, such

monitoring would not be sufficient to assure compliance with the

pertinent emission standard. This commenter and others were concerned

that a value of the monitored process variable could be selected that

is more stringent than necessary to indicate compliance with the

proposed 10 mg/liter emission standard. They felt that requiring a

facility to continuously maintain a parameter value determined during

an initial performance test to maintain compliance and then consider

the facility out of compliance if it exceeds that value would be

unfair. It is highly probable that during an initial performance test

the vapor control device while operating at a particular value will

perform much better than the emission limit. One commenter said that,

as an example, thermally controlled combustion systems do not require

elevated temperatures all of the time to achieve 10 mg/liter. The

commenter recommended that, for these units, a single high temperature

value should not be set because assist fuel gas consumption would be

very high and the unit would be made to operate at control efficiencies

substantially higher than the standard.

One commenter suggested that facilities be allowed to use an

extrapolative method to predict the operating parameter value at the

regulated emission standard based upon the operating parameter value

associated with the lower emission level recorded during the

performance test. Such an allowance is needed because it is usually not

possible to operate a vapor processing system at maximum design

conditions. Another commenter recommended that the operating parameter

value be set by the least stringent parameter value obtained during the

test while the unit is in compliance with the standard.

Section 114(a)(3) of the Act requires enhanced monitoring and

compliance certification of all major stationary sources. The annual

compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been

continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of

detecting deviations from each applicable emission limit or standard

with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, reliability,

frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is continuous

during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation satisfies

the requirements of enhanced monitoring.

The required performance test is a minimum of 6 hours in duration,

with outlet organic concentration and flow rate data recorded every 5

minutes. While it seems reasonable to base the selection of the

parameter range or limit on a 6-hour period to be consistent with the

length of the test (as the Agency did at proposal), the Agency has

decided this is too long a period to calculate a meaningful average on

a continuous basis. One commenter requested that the EPA consider using

an extrapolative method (not specified by commenter), using a single

high temperature, or setting the parameter based on data just meeting

the 10 mg/liter standard. As noted at proposal, the EPA proposed that a

site-specific monitoring parameter value be used to account for the

different types and designs of control equipment available and the

site-specific facility operating conditions. The proposal required a

performance test recording 5-minute readings of outlet concentrations

and flow rates while continuously recording the specified parameter

values. An engineering assessment of those data, along with the

manufacturer's recommendations, could be used to find the appropriate

parameter value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time that is

equivalent to the emission standard. This approach, which is

incorporated into the final rule, is the most straightforward way of

accounting for both the emission standard and the variability of the

control equipment design and facility operations. Under this approach,

the Agency is allowing some latitude for the method by which the

parameter range of the ``not to exceed'' limit is developed under the

final standards. The engineering assessment and manufacturer's

recommendations must be documented (recorded in facility files) and

reported to the Administrator for approval.

IV. Summary of the Final Rule

The final rule will be codified under part 63 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The General Provisions of part 63

(59 FR 12408, March 16, 1994) are located in subpart A and codify

procedures and criteria to implement emission standards for stationary

sources that emit one or more HAP's, and provide general information

and requirements that apply under the section 112 NESHAP promulgated

under the Act. The applicability of the General Provisions to affected

sources is clarified in subpart R, Table 1, General Provisions

Applicability.

A. Sources Covered

Sources in the gasoline distribution category are a combination of

major sources and area sources. Some pipeline breakout stations and

bulk gasoline terminals have been determined to be major sources, since

gasoline operations at the larger breakout stations and terminals may

have the potential to emit either 10 tpy or greater of an individual

HAP (e.g., hexane or MTBE) or 25 tpy or greater of a combination of

HAP's, or they are contiguous with a major source plant site that

contains additional HAP emission sources other than the affected

gasoline operations. For purposes of this final rulemaking, the Agency

is requiring that pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline

terminals that are major sources on their own or are contiguous with a

major source plant site be regulated under maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) standards. The term ``affected source'' means the

total of all HAP emission points at a subject bulk gasoline terminal or

pipeline breakout station. In addition to affected sources, some

nonmajor pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals will be

subject to modest recordkeeping and reporting requirements to monitor

their potential to emit HAP's. The following is a summary of the

methods used to determine applicability of the final rule.

1. Applicability Determination

The final emission standards apply to all pipeline breakout

stations and bulk gasoline terminals that themselves are major sources

of HAP's or are located at plant sites that are major sources of HAP's.

The standards provide two ways to determine whether a facility's

potential to emit (PTE) HAP's may make it a major source. They are:

(1) The appropriate emission equation listed in Sec. 63.420 is used

(under specified conditions) to ``screen'' the facility for its

potential HAP emissions, or (2) the owner or operator provides

documentation to the Administrator of the facility's PTE by completing

an emissions inventory for the facility.

The screening equations in the rule are only allowed to be used at

facilities that only emit HAP from gasoline operations. Certain

assumptions used by all nonmajor sources in the emission screening

equations will become enforceable limitations on the facility's

operations under this rule. Federally enforceable limitations must be

established outside the provisions of this rule, for facilities using

the emission inventory for determination of their major source status,

and for some parameters used by facilities in the emission screening

equation. Facilities using the emission screening equations in the rule

are required to record their assumptions and calculations, notify the

Administrator that the facility is using the screening equations and

provide the results of the calculations, and operate the facility in a

manner not to exceed the operational parameters used in the

calculations. Larger facilities (those that, in and of themselves, have

HAP emissions over 50 percent of the major source emissions thresholds

above and use the emission screening equations in the rule) are

additionally required to submit to the Administrator for approval their

assumptions and calculations, maintain records to document the

parameters have not been exceeded, and submit an annual certification

that the operational parameters established for the facility have not

been exceeded. However, these nonmajor sources are not subject to any

of the control requirements of this final rule. The need for and level

of reporting and recordkeeping procedures for facilities using emission

inventories to demonstrate nonmajor source status are established when

federally enforceable limits were set for those facilities. All

facilities (major and nonmajor) upon request by the Administrator or

delegated State must demonstrate compliance with the applicability

determination.

2. Emission Points Covered

Emission points affected under the final standards at bulk gasoline

terminals are storage vessels that contain or have the potential to

contain gasoline, leaks from the piping system and equipment that

handle gasoline or gasoline vapors, loading racks that load gasoline

into cargo tanks (tank trucks or railcars), and gasoline vapor leakage

from sealed cargo tanks during loading. Emission points affected under

the final standards at pipeline breakout stations are individual

storage vessels that contain or have the potential to contain gasoline,

and equipment leaks from the entire breakout station piping system that

handles gasoline.

B. Standards for Sources

The final rule specifies an equipment standard for storage vessels

at affected bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. The

final existing storage vessel provisions require that external floating

roof storage vessels not already meeting the NSPS subpart Kb rim seal

specifications comply within 3 years to meet the full NSPS subpart Kb

specifications (both rim seal and controlled fitting requirements, and

reporting and recordkeeping requirements). Any existing storage vessel

currently meeting only the rim seal requirements of NSPS subpart Kb is

not required to install additional equipment, but must meet the rim

seal monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. New,

modified, or reconstructed storage vessels at existing and new affected

sources must comply with the NSPS subpart Kb requirements at startup

(as required under the NSPS).

Additionally, the rule specifies an emission limit standard of 10

milligrams (mg) of total organic compounds (TOC) per liter of gasoline

loaded (10 mg TOC/liter) for the process stream outlet of control

devices and continuous compliance monitoring of certain operating

parameters of control devices installed at the cargo tank loading racks

of new and existing affected bulk gasoline terminals. Operating the

control device in a manner that exceeds or fails to maintain, as

appropriate, the monitored operating parameter value established during

the emission performance test is an exceedance and constitutes a

violation of the emission limit standard.

The Agency is also requiring equipment and performance standards

for all cargo tanks loading gasoline at existing and new affected bulk

gasoline terminals. Cargo tanks loading at these facilities are

required to pass an annual vapor tightness test, and are subject to a

vapor tightness standard and test procedures for the tank, vapor

piping, and hoses, and a pressure standard for the internal vapor valve

at any time. Although the cargo tanks are subject to the ``year-round''

vapor tightness standard, facility owners and operators are not

required to test them at specified intervals. However, as under the

NSPS subpart XX, owners and operators will be required to maintain

certain records on the vapor-tight status of gasoline cargo tanks and

to take steps to assure that nonvapor-tight cargo tanks will not be

reloaded until vapor tightness documentation has been obtained.

New and existing affected bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations are required to perform a monthly visual (sight,

sound, and smell) inspection of all pumps, valves, and other equipment

components in gasoline liquid or vapor service and to maintain records

of these inspections. When a leak is identified, the owner or operator

must record the presence of the leak, and then has 5 calendar days in

which to make an initial repair attempt and 15 calendar days in which

to complete the repair. Any leaks for which repair is not attempted

within 5 days or completed within 15 days must be reported as excess

emissions. The final rule also includes a housekeeping provision

requiring spills and open sources of gasoline vapor emissions to be

minimized, and for spills to be cleaned up as quickly as possible.

C. Effective Date for Compliance

Section 112(i)(3)(A) of the Act requires compliance by existing

sources as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3

years after rule promulgation (today's date), notwithstanding the

provisions of sections 112(i) (1) and (2). New affected facilities are

required to comply with all provisions of the standards upon startup.

D. Compliance Extensions

Section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act allows the Administrator (or a

State with a program approved under title V) to grant existing sources

an extension of compliance of up to 1 year, upon application by an

owner or operator of an affected facility, if such time period is

necessary for the installation of controls.

Under the early reduction provisions of section 112(i)(5), existing

sources may be granted a 6-year extension of compliance with an

otherwise applicable section 112(d) standard (MACT standard) upon

demonstration by the owner or operator of the source that HAP emissions

have been reduced by 90 percent or more prior to February 8, 1994 (the

proposal date of this rule), or the source made an enforceable

commitment to achieve such reduction prior to January 1, 1994. The

general notice governing early reduction compliance extensions was

published in the Federal Register on June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27338).

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

The tests required under the final standards include initial

performance testing of the bulk terminal vapor processing system, vapor

leak monitoring and repair of the vapor collection system before each

performance test, and annual vapor tightness testing of gasoline cargo

tanks. In addition, gasoline cargo tank owners and operators are

subject to test procedures to determine compliance with year-round leak

rate requirements on cargo tanks, vapor collection systems, and

internal vapor valves. Storage vessels at bulk terminals and pipeline

stations require periodic visual inspections and/or seal gap

measurements. Continuous monitoring of an operating parameter is

required for vapor processing systems to ensure continuous compliance

with the 10 mg TOC/liter emission limit.

Sehedule for performance testing is provided in Sec. 63.7 of the

General Provisions. The initial performance test is required 180 days

after the effective date of the standards or after initial startup for

a new facility, or 180 days after the compliance date specified for an

existing facility.

Methods 2A, 2B, 25A, and 25B in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 are

specified for measurement of total organic compound emissions from the

vapor collection and processing systems. Due to the inherent inability

to measure mass emissions from elevated flares (an elevated flare's

flame is open to the atmosphere and therefore the emissions cannot be

routed through stacks), these test methods are not applicable.

Therefore, the Agency has established performance requirements for

flares. These performance requirements, including a limitation on

visible emissions, are provided in Sec. 63.11(b), which specifies the

use of Method 22 for determining visible emissions from flares.

Before each performance test on the vapor processing system, the

owner or operator is required to use Method 21 to monitor potential

leak sources in the terminal's vapor collection system during the

loading of a gasoline cargo tank. Any leaks from the vapor collection

and processing systems must be repaired before the performance test is

conducted.

The final emission standards include continuous monitoring of an

operating parameter as a requirement for vapor processing systems to

ensure continuous compliance with the 10 mg TOC/liter emission limit.

The vapor processing system's operating parameter ``value,'' monitoring

frequency, and averaging time are to be established based on data

collected in performance tests of the vapor processor. The facility

documents and reports their recommended value, monitoring frequency,

and averaging time to the Administrator for approval. Exceeding or

failing to maintain, as appropriate, the approved operating parameter

value will constitute a violation of the emission limit standard. The

standards also require the maintenance and repair of the system

necessary to maintain the parameter value and documentation of any

exceedances in a quarterly excess emissions report to the

Administrator. The parameters that may be monitored include organic

compounds concentration for carbon adsorption and refrigeration

condenser systems, and combustion or condenser temperature for thermal

oxidation and refrigeration condenser systems. An owner or operator may

substitute an alternative parameter or vapor processor type upon the

approval of the Administrator.

Each gasoline cargo tank loading at an affected bulk terminal is

required to undergo an annual certification test by following the

procedures in Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, which is

entitled ``Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank

Using Pressure-Vacuum Test.'' Method 27 tests the vapor tightness of

the cargo tank (or compartment) under two conditions, positive pressure

and negative pressure (vacuum). The procedure for testing the cargo

tank for vapor tightness is as follows. The cargo tank is sealed and

pressurized to 460 mm H2O (18 in. H2O), gauge. [If conducting

a vacuum test, the cargo tank (or compartment) is evacuated to 150 mm

H2O (6.0 in. H2O), gauge.] The source of pressure is removed,

the cargo tank is sealed, and then the pressure in the tank is recorded

at the end of 5 minutes. The actual change in pressure (or vacuum)

after 5 minutes is compared to the maximum change allowed in the

regulation.

The annual certification test also consists, in addition to the

procedures in Method 27, of a leak test of the tank's internal vapor

valve. A summary of these procedures, which are detailed in

Sec. 63.425(e)(2), is as follows. The cargo tank is repressurized and

the leak rate across the internal vapor valve is measured after 5

minutes. This value is compared to the maximum allowable 5-minute

pressure change to determine the vapor tightness of the valve.

In addition to the annual tests, cargo tanks are subject at any

time to a leak detection test as described in Sec. 63.425(f) using

Method 21, and may also be subject to other procedures as discussed

below. Method 21 is also in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and is entitled

``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Leaks.'' The principle of

Method 21 is that organic vapors cause a positive response in a variety

of portable hand-held detectors. Thus, a positive detector response

indicates the presence of a source of emissions (leak). During a Method

21 test, the tester holds the probe 3 cm (1 inch) from the sources of

possible leaks. Any organic vapor concentration in excess of 21,000 ppm

as propane is an indication of a leak. If leaks are found, the cargo

tank must be repaired and must pass the following tests before it can

be reloaded at the facility.

Cargo tanks are subject at any time to being tested for vapor

tightness using the test procedures in Sec. 63.425(g), referred to as

the nitrogen pressure decay field test, and may also be subject to the

procedures discussed below. A summary of this test, which includes

procedures for the cargo tank and the internal vapor valve, is as

follows. The headspace of a cargo tank that has been filled is

pressurized to a pressure of 460 mm H2O (18.0 in. H2O), gauge

with nitrogen gas. Vapor tightness is determined by measuring the

pressure decay, if any, over time and comparing the pressure decay to

the maximum allowable calculated value, which is determined using

procedures described in Sec. 63.425(g). If the pressure decay exceeds

the maximum allowable value, the cargo tank must be repaired and must

pass the procedure below.

Cargo tanks are also subject at any time to a test of vapor

tightness using the test procedures in Sec. 63.425(h). These procedures

are similar to the procedures in Sec. 63.425(e) except that only the

positive pressure test is conducted and the acceptance criteria are

less stringent.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

The final standards require four types of reports: initial

notification, notification of compliance status, periodic reports, and

other reports.

The initial notification report (Sec. 63.9(b)) apprises the

regulatory authority of the results of the applicability determination

for existing sources or of the intent to construct for new sources.

This report also includes a statement as to whether the facility can

achieve compliance by the required compliance date. The initial

notification report under this rule is required to be submitted not

later than 1 year from today's date.

The notification of compliance status (Sec. 63.9(h))demonstrates

that compliance has been achieved. This report lists the methods used

to determine compliance, the results of the initial performance test

and the continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation,

which include a description of the continuous monitoring program and

supporting data for the monitored operating parameter value for the

vapor processor, and a list of equipment subject to the standard.

Periodic reports to the Administrator are required on a semiannual

basis. These reports will include loadings of gasoline cargo tanks for

which vapor tightness documentation was not on file at the facility,

reports of storage vessel control systems and inspections, and the

excess emissions and CMS performance report and/or summary report

required under Sec. 63.10(e)(3). Excess emissions and continuous

monitoring reports are also required to be submitted quarterly if a

listed exceedance has occurred. Procedures have been established in

Sec. 63.10(e)(3) to reduce the reporting frequency once exceedances no

longer occur. Excess emissions and continuous monitoring exceedances

reported quarterly will include exceedances or failures to maintain the

monitored operating parameter value, failures to take steps to assure

that a nonvapor-tight gasoline cargo tank will not be reloaded at the

facility before vapor tightness documentation is obtained, reloadings

of such gasoline cargo tanks, and equipment leaks for which repair is

not attempted within 5 days or completed within 15 days.

Certain additional reporting is occasionally necessary because a

short-term response may be needed from the reviewing authority. For

example, the Administrator may request more frequent reports of the

monitored operating parameter or visual inspection data if it is deemed

necessary to ensure compliance with the standard.

Records, reports, and notifications required under the final

standards must be available for inspection for 5 years, in accordance

with Sec. 63.10(b). The records include the applicability determination

for all bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations, regardless of

their size and the outcome of the determination. For affected sources,

the records also include (but are not limited to) gasoline cargo tank

vapor tightness test results, as well as CMS monitoring data from the

vapor processor. Records from the visual inspection program and storage

vessel inspections, and records of startups, shutdowns, and

malfunctions of the vapor processor are required to ensure that the

controls in place are continuing to be effective. Section 63.10(b)

allows the records to be retained at the facility for 2 years and off

site for the remaining 3 years.

All pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals using

the emission screening equations will have additional modest

recordkeeping and reporting requirements to monitor their potential to

emit HAP's. Only facilities that are within 50 percent of the major

source criteria, as determined from using the appropriate emission

screening equation, must report the calculations and support

information for their nonmajor source determination. Once this

determination is approved by the Administrator, the source must keep

records and certify annually that it has continued to not exceed any of

the enforceable operating limitations contained in its most recent

applicability determination. That report of calculations and

assumptions must be submitted to the Administrator by the owner or

operator within 1 year of the date of today's notice. Nonmajor sources

using the screening equations with HAP emissions under the 50 percent

threshold must keep records of their determination for possible

inspection by the Administrator, operate the facility in a manner not

to exceed the parameters used in the equation, and notify the

Administrator of the use and the results of the emission screening

equation. That notification must be submitted to the Administrator by

the owner or operator within 1 year of the date of today's notice. The

owner or operator is also required to demonstrate, upon request,

compliance with the facility operating limits used in the applicability

determination.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the

information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket

are: (1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking

process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review

(except for interagency review materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the

Act).

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA

must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore

subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order. The criteria set forth in section

1 of the Order for determining whether a regulation is a significant

rule are as follows:

(1) Is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and materially affect a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;

(2) Is likely to create a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Is likely to materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Is likely to raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined to treat this action as a ``significant regulatory action''

within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket listed

at the beginning of this notice under ADDRESSES. The docket is

available for public inspection at the Agency's Air Docket Section,

which is listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been

approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., and have been assigned OMB control number 2060-0325. An

Information Collection Request document has been prepared by the EPA

(ICR No. 1659.02) to reflect the changed information requirements of

the final rule and has been submitted to OMB for review. A copy may be

obtained from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW. (mail code 2136),

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

This collection of information has an estimated annual reporting

burden averaging 155 hours per bulk gasoline terminal respondent and 45

hours per pipeline breakout station respondent. Similarly, the

estimated annual recordkeeping burden is approximately 125 hours per

bulk gasoline terminal respondent and 20 hours per pipeline breakout

station respondent. These estimates include time for reviewing

instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing

and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., (mail code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.''

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the

EPA to consider potential impacts of regulations on small business

``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a regulation

would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared.

However, regulatory alternatives that would alleviate the potential

impact of the standards on directly affected companies were not

selected because the Act requires all facilities that are members of a

category or subcategory of major sources to meet, at a minimum, the

requirements of the MACT floor.

For the affected industry sectors, the Small Business

Administration's definition of small business is independently owned

companies with 100 or fewer employees. The promulgated standards

directly impact small companies owning bulk gasoline terminals and

pipeline breakout stations. Also, due to downstream wholesale gasoline

price increases, the promulgated standards will indirectly impact small

companies owning gasoline bulk plants and gasoline service stations.

A definitive estimate of the number of small businesses that will

be directly or indirectly affected by the promulgated standards could

not be feasibly obtained because of the lack of data related to the

extent of vertical integration in the gasoline distribution chain.

However, the EPA believes that a maximum of 56 percent of all bulk

gasoline terminals are owned by small companies. Potentially, up to 99

percent of the indirectly affected gasoline bulk plants and service

stations are owned by small companies. The actual percentage of small

companies in these sectors, especially the bulk gasoline terminal

sector, is projected to be much smaller due to vertical integration

with petroleum refiners. No estimate has been made of the percentage of

pipeline breakout stations owned by small companies, but since they are

typically affiliated with petroleum refiners, the percentage is

projected to be small.

The EPA believes that the promulgated regulation will not result in

financial impacts that significantly or differentially stress affected

small companies. The per unit compliance cost differentials between

large throughput and small throughput facilities are minor. Small

facilities are likely to be serving small or specialized markets, which

makes it unlikely that the minor differential in unit control costs

between large throughput and small throughput facilities will seriously

affect the competitive position of small companies, even assuming that

small companies own small facilities.

E. Regulatory Review

In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act,

this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of

promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative methods of control,

enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Petroleum bulk stations and terminals, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 23, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40,

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345

(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp.,

p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,

300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,

300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,

11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under

the indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

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

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

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

*****

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories....................

*****

63.420............................................... 2060-0325

63.422-63.428........................................ 2060-0325

*****

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

4. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart R to read as follows:

Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution

Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)

Sec.

63.420 Applicability.

63.421 Definitions.

63.422 Standards: Loading racks.

63.423 Standards: Storage vessels.

63.424 Standards: Equipment leaks.

63.425 Test methods and procedures.

63.426 Alternative means of emission limitation.

63.427 Continuous monitoring.

63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.

63.429 Delegation of authority.

Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution

Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)

Sec. 63.420 Applicability.

(a) The affected source to which the provisions of this subpart

apply is each bulk gasoline terminal, except those bulk gasoline

terminals:

(1) For which the owner or operator has documented and recorded to

the Administrator's satisfaction that the result, ET, of the

following equation is less than 1, and complies with requirements in

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section:

ET = CF [0.59 (TF) (1-CE) + 0.17 (TE) + 0.08 (TES)

+ 0.038 (TI) + 8.5 x 10-6 (C) + KQ]

where:

ET = emissions screening factor for bulk gasoline terminals;

CF = 0.161 for bulk gasoline terminals that do not handle any

reformulated or oxygenated gasoline containing methyl tert-butyl ether

(MTBE), OR

CF = 1.0 for bulk gasoline terminals that handle reformulated or

oxygenated gasoline containing MTBE;

CE = federally enforceable control efficiency of the vapor processing

system used to control emissions from fixed-roof gasoline storage

vessels [value should be added in decimal form (percent divided by

100)];

TF = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage vessels without

an internal floating roof;

TE = total number of external floating roof gasoline storage

vessels with only primary seals;

TES = total number of external floating roof gasoline storage

vessels with primary and secondary seals;

TI = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage vessels with an

internal floating roof;

C = number of valves, pumps, connectors, loading arm valves, and open-

ended lines in gasoline service;

Q = federally enforceable gasoline throughput limit or gasoline

throughput limit in compliance with paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of

this section (liters/day);

K = 4.52 x 10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with uncontrolled

loading racks (no vapor collection and processing systems), OR

K = (4.5 x 10-9)(EF + L) for bulk gasoline terminals with

controlled loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and

processing systems installed on the emission stream);

EF = federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor processor

outlet emissions (mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline

loaded);

L = 13 mg/l for gasoline cargo tanks meeting the requirement to satisfy

the test criteria for a vapor-tight gasoline tank truck in Sec. 60.501

of this chapter, OR

L = 304 mg/l for gasoline cargo tanks not meeting the requirement to

satisfy the test criteria for a vapor-tight gasoline tank truck in

Sec. 60.501 of this chapter; or

(2) For which the owner or operator has documented and recorded to

the Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major

source, or is not located within a contiguous area and under common

control of a facility that is a major source, as defined in Sec. 63.2

of subpart A of this part.

(b) The affected source to which the provisions of this subpart

apply is each pipeline breakout station, except those pipeline breakout

stations:

(1) For which the owner or operator has documented and recorded to

the Administrator's satisfaction that the result, EP, of the

following equation is less than 1, and complies with requirements in

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section:

EP = CF [ 6.7 (TF) (1-CE) + 0.21 (TE) + 0.093 (TES)

+ 0.1 (TI) + 5.31 x 10-6 (C) ]

where:

EP = emissions screening factor for pipeline breakout stations,

and

the definitions for CF, TF, CE, TE, TES, TI, and C

are the same as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or

(2) For which the owner or operator has documented and recorded to

the Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major

source, or is not located within a contiguous area and under common

control of a facility that is a major source, as defined in Sec. 63.2

of subpart A of this part.

(c) A facility for which the results, ET or EP, of the

calculation in paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this section has been

documented and is less than 1.0 but greater than or equal to 0.50, is

exempt from the requirements of this subpart, except that the owner or

operator shall:

(1) Operate the facility such that none of the facility parameters

used to calculate results under paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this

section, and approved by the Administrator, is exceeded in any rolling

30-day period; and

(2) Maintain records and provide reports in accordance with the

provisions of Sec. 63.428(i).

(d) A facility for which the results, ET or EP, of the

calculation in paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this section has been

documented and is less than 0.50, is exempt from the requirements of

this subpart, except that the owner or operator shall:

(1) Operate the facility such that none of the facility parameters

used to calculate results under paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this

section is exceeded in any rolling 30-day period; and

(2) Maintain records and provide reports in accordance with the

provisions of Sec. 63.428(j).

(e) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of this section

shall not be used to determine applicability to bulk gasoline terminals

or pipeline breakout stations that are either:

(1) Located within a contiguous area and under common control with

another bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station, or

(2) Located within a contiguous area and under common control with

other sources not specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this

section, that emit or have the potential to emit a hazardous air

pollutant.

(f) Upon request by the Administrator, the owner or operator of a

bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station subject to the

provisions of any paragraphs in this section shall demonstrate

compliance with those paragraphs.

(g) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart that is also

subject to applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or XX of

this chapter shall comply only with the provisions in each subpart that

contain the most stringent control requirements for that facility.

(h) Each owner or operator of an affected source bulk gasoline

terminal or pipeline breakout station is subject to the provisions of

40 CFR part 63, subpart A--General Provisions, as indicated in Table 1.

Sec. 63.421 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have

the meaning given them in the Act; in subparts A, K, Ka, Kb, and XX of

part 60 of this chapter; or in subpart A of this part. All terms

defined in both subpart A of part 60 of this chapter and subpart A of

this part shall have the meaning given in subpart A of this part. For

purposes of this subpart, definitions in this section supersede

definitions in other parts or subparts.

Controlled loading rack, for the purposes of Sec. 63.420, means a

loading rack equipped with vapor collection and processing systems that

reduce displaced vapor emissions to no more than 80 milligrams of total

organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded, as measured using the

test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.503 (a) through (c) of this

chapter.

Equipment means each valve, pump, pressure relief device, sampling

connection system, open-ended valve or line, and flange or other

connector in the gasoline liquid transfer and vapor collection systems.

This definition also includes the entire vapor processing system except

the exhaust port(s) or stack(s).

Gasoline cargo tank means a delivery tank truck or railcar which is

loading gasoline or which has loaded gasoline on the immediately

previous load.

In gasoline service means that a piece of equipment is used in a

system that transfers gasoline or gasoline vapors.

Operating parameter value means a value for an operating or

emission parameter of the vapor processing system (e.g., temperature)

which, if maintained continuously by itself or in combination with one

or more other operating parameter values, determines that an owner or

operator has complied with the applicable emission standard. The

operating parameter value is determined using the procedures outlined

in Sec. 63.425(b).

Oxygenated gasoline means the same as defined in 40 CFR 80.2(rr).

Pipeline breakout station means a facility along a pipeline

containing storage vessels used to relieve surges or receive and store

gasoline from the pipeline for reinjection and continued transportation

by pipeline or to other facilities.

Reformulated gasoline means the same as defined in 40 CFR 80.2(ee).

Uncontrolled loading rack means a loading rack used to load

gasoline cargo tanks that is not a controlled loading rack.

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. 63.425(e), and which is

subject at all times to the test requirements in Sec. 63.425 (f), (g),

and (h).

Volatile organic liquid (VOL) means, for the purposes of this

subpart, gasoline.

Sec. 63.422 Standards: Loading racks.

(a) Each owner or operator of loading racks at a bulk gasoline

terminal subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with

the requirements in Sec. 60.502 of this chapter except for paragraphs

(b), (c), and (j) of that section. For purposes of this section, the

term ``affected facility'' used in Sec. 60.502 of this chapter means

the loading racks that load gasoline cargo tanks at the bulk gasoline

terminals subject to the provisions of this subpart.

(b) Emissions to the atmosphere from the vapor collection and

processing systems due to the loading of gasoline cargo tanks shall not

exceed 10 milligrams of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline

loaded. Each owner or operator shall comply as expeditiously as

practicable, but no later than December 15, 1997 at existing facilities

and upon startup for new facilities.

(c) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall comply with Sec. 60.502(e) of this

chapter as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this section, the term ``tank truck'' as

used in Sec. 60.502(e) of this chapter means ``cargo tank.''

(2) Section 60.502(e)(5) of this chapter is changed to read: The

terminal owner or operator shall take steps assuring that the nonvapor-

tight gasoline cargo tank will not be reloaded at the facility until

vapor tightness documentation for that gasoline cargo tank is obtained

which documents that:

(i) The gasoline cargo tank meets the applicable test requirements

in Sec. 63.425(e);

(ii) For each gasoline cargo tank failing the test in Sec. 63.425

(f) or (g) at the facility, the cargo tank either:

(A) Before repair work is performed on the cargo tank, meets the

test requirements in Sec. 63.425 (g) or (h), or

(B) After repair work is performed on the cargo tank before or

during the tests in Sec. 63.425 (g) or (h), subsequently passes the

annual certification test described in Sec. 63.425(e).

Sec. 63.423 Standards: Storage vessels.

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall equip

each gasoline storage vessel with a design capacity greater than or

equal to 75 m3 according to the requirements in Sec. 60.112b(a)

(1) through (4) of this chapter, except for the requirements in

Secs. 60.112b(a)(1) (iv) through (ix) and 60.112b(a)(2)(ii) of this

chapter.

(b) Each owner or operator shall equip each gasoline external

floating roof storage vessel with a design capacity greater than or

equal to 75 m3 according to the requirements in

Sec. 60.112b(a)(2)(ii) of this chapter if such storage vessel does not

currently meet the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Each gasoline storage vessel at existing bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations shall be in compliance with

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 15, 1997. At

new bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations, compliance

shall be achieved upon startup.

Sec. 63.424 Standards: Equipment leaks.

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall

perform a monthly leak inspection of all equipment in gasoline service.

For this inspection, detection methods incorporating sight, sound, and

smell are acceptable. Each piece of equipment shall be inspected during

the loading of a gasoline cargo tank.

(b) A log book shall be used and shall be signed by the owner or

operator at the completion of each inspection. A section of the log

shall contain a list, summary description, or diagram(s) showing the

location of all equipment in gasoline service at the facility.

(c) Each detection of a liquid or vapor leak shall be recorded in

the log book. When a leak is detected, an initial attempt at repair

shall be made as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days

after the leak is detected. Repair or replacement of leaking equipment

shall be completed within 15 calendar days after detection of each

leak, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

(d) Delay of repair of leaking equipment will be allowed upon a

demonstration to the Administrator that repair within 15 days is not

feasible. The owner or operator shall provide the reason(s) a delay is

needed and the date by which each repair is expected to be completed.

(e) Initial compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (a)

through (d) of this section shall be achieved by existing sources as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 14, 1995. For

new sources, initial compliance shall be achieved upon startup.

(f) As an alternative to compliance with the provisions in

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, owners or operators may

implement an instrument leak monitoring program that has been

demonstrated to the Administrator as at least equivalent.

(g) Owners and operators shall 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 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.

Sec. 63.425 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Each owner or operator subject to the emission standard in

Sec. 63.422(b) or Sec. 60.112b(a)(3)(ii) of this chapter shall conduct

a performance test on the vapor processing system according to the test

methods and procedures in Sec. 60.503, except a reading of 500 ppm

shall be used to determine the level of leaks to be repaired under

Sec. 60.503(b). If a flare is used to control emissions, and emissions

from this device cannot be measured using these methods and procedures,

the provisions of Sec. 63.11(b) shall apply.

(b) For each performance test conducted under paragraph (a) of this

section, the owner or operator shall determine a monitored operating

parameter value for the vapor processing system using the following

procedure:

(1) During the performance test, continuously record the operating

parameter under Sec. 63.427(a);

(2) Determine an operating parameter value based on the parameter

data monitored during the performance test, supplemented by engineering

assessments and the manufacturer's recommendations; and

(3) Provide for the Administrator's approval the rationale for the

selected operating parameter value, and monitoring frequency and

averaging time, including data and calculations used to develop the

value and a description of why the value, monitoring frequency, and

averaging time demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission

standard in Sec. 63.422(b) or Sec. 60.112b(a)(3)(ii) of this chapter.

(c) For performance tests performed after the initial test, the

owner or operator shall document the reasons for any change in the

operating parameter value since the previous performance test.

(d) The owner or operator of each gasoline storage vessel subject

to the provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with Sec. 60.113b of this

chapter. If a closed vent system and control device are used, as

specified in Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of this chapter, to comply with the

requirements in Sec. 63.423, the owner or operator shall also comply

with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Annual certification test. The annual certification test for

gasoline cargo tanks shall consist of the following test methods and

procedures:

(1) Method 27, appendix A, 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 mm

H2O (18 in. H2O), gauge. The initial vacuum (Vi) for the

vacuum test shall be 150 mm H2O (6 in. H2O), gauge. The

maximum allowable pressure and vacuum changes (p, v)

are as shown in the second column of Table 2 of this paragraph.

Table 2.--Allowable Cargo Tank Test Pressure or Vacuum Change

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

Annual

certification- Allowable

allowable pressure

pressure or change (p) in 5

liters (gal) (p, minutes at any

v) in time, mm H2O

5 minutes, mm (in. H2O)

H2O (in. H2O)

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

9,464 or more (2,500 or more)........... 25 (1.0) 64 (2.5)

9,463 to 5,678 (2,499 to 1,500)......... 38 (1.5) 76 (3.0)

5,679 to 3,785 (1,499 to 1,000)......... 51 (2.0) 89 (3.5)

3,782 or less (999 or less)............. 64 (2.5) 102 (4.0)

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

(2) Pressure test of the cargo tank's internal vapor valve as

follows:

(i) After completing the tests under paragraph (e)(1) of this

section, use the procedures in Method 27 to repressurize the tank to

460 mm H2O (18 in. H2O), gauge. Close the tank's internal

vapor valve(s), thereby isolating the vapor return line and manifold

from the tank.

(ii) Relieve the pressure in the vapor return line to atmospheric

pressure, then reseal the line. After 5 minutes, record the gauge

pressure in the vapor return line and manifold. The maximum allowable

5-minute pressure increase is 130 mm H2O (5 in. H2O).

(f) Leak detection test. The leak detection test shall be performed

using Method 21, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60, except omit section 4.3.2

of Method 21. A vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank shall have no leaks at

any time when tested according to the procedures in this paragraph.

(1) The leak definition shall be 21,000 ppm as propane. Use propane

to calibrate the instrument, setting the span at the leak definition.

The response time to 90 percent of the final stable reading shall be

less than 8 seconds for the detector with the sampling line and probe

attached.

(2) In addition to the procedures in Method 21, include the

following procedures:

(i) Perform the test on each compartment during loading of that

compartment or while the compartment is still under pressure.

(ii) To eliminate a positive instrument drift, the dwell time for

each leak detection shall not exceed two times the instrument response

time. Purge the instrument with ambient air between each leak

detection. The duration of the purge shall be in excess of two

instrument response times.

(iii) Attempt to block the wind from the area being monitored.

Record the highest detector reading and location for each leak.

(g) Nitrogen pressure decay field test. For those cargo tanks with

manifolded product lines, this test procedure shall be conducted on

each compartment.

(1) Record the cargo tank capacity. Upon completion of the loading

operation, record the total volume loaded. Seal the cargo tank vapor

collection system at the vapor coupler. The sealing apparatus shall

have a pressure tap. Open the internal vapor valve(s) of the cargo tank

and record the initial headspace pressure. Reduce or increase, as

necessary, the initial headspace pressure to 460 mm H2O (18.0 in.

H2O), gauge by releasing pressure or by adding commercial grade

nitrogen gas from a high pressure cylinder capable of maintaining a

pressure of 2,000 psig.

(i) The cylinder shall be equipped with a compatible two-stage

regulator with a relief valve and a flow control metering valve. The

flow rate of the nitrogen shall be no less than 2 cfm. The maximum

allowable time to pressurize cargo tanks with headspace volumes of

1,000 gallons or less to the appropriate pressure is 4 minutes. For

cargo tanks with a headspace of greater than 1,000 gallons, use as a

maximum allowable time to pressurize 4 minutes or the result from the

equation below, whichever is greater.

T = Vh x 0.004

where:

T = maximum allowable time to pressurize the cargo tank, min;

Vh = cargo tank headspace volume during testing, gal.

(2) It is recommended that after the cargo tank headspace pressure

reaches approximately 460 mm H2O (18 in. H20), gauge, a fine

adjust valve be used to adjust the headspace pressure to 460 mm

H2O (18.0 in. H2O), gauge for the next 30 5

seconds.

(3) Reseal the cargo tank vapor collection system and record the

headspace pressure after 1 minute. The measured headspace pressure

after 1 minute shall be greater than the minimum allowable final

headspace pressure (PF) as calculated from the following equation:

TR14DE94.000

where:

Pf = minimum allowable final headspace pressure, in. H2O,

gauge;

Vs = total cargo tank shell capacity, gal;

Vh = cargo tank headspace volume after loading, gal;

18.0 = initial pressure at start of test, in. H2O, gauge;

N = 5-minute continuous performance standard at any time from the third

column of Table 2 of Sec. 63.425(e)(i), in. H2O.

(4) Conduct the internal vapor valve portion of this test by

repressurizing the cargo tank headspace with nitrogen to 460 mm

H2O (18 in. H2O), gauge. Close the internal vapor valve(s),

wait for 30 5 seconds, then relieve the pressure

downstream of the vapor valve in the vapor collection system to

atmospheric pressure. Wait 15 seconds, then reseal the vapor collection

system. Measure and record the pressure every minute for 5 minutes.

Within 5 seconds of the pressure measurement at the end of 5 minutes,

open the vapor valve and record the headspace pressure as the ``final

pressure.''

(5) If the decrease in pressure in the vapor collection system is

less than at least one of the interval pressure change values in Table

3 of this paragraph, or if the final pressure is equal to or greater

than 20 percent of the 1-minute final headspace pressure determined in

the test in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, then the cargo tank is

considered to be a vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank.

Table 3.--Pressure Change for Internal Vapor Valve Test

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

Interval

pressure

Time interval change, mm

H2O (in.

H2O)

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

After 1 minute............................................. 28 (1.1)

After 2 minutes............................................ 56 (2.2)

After 3 minutes............................................ 84 (3.3)

After 4 minutes............................................ 112 (4.4)

After 5 minutes............................................ 140 (5.5)

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

(h) Continuous performance pressure decay test. The continuous

performance pressure decay test shall be performed using Method 27,

appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60. Conduct only the positive pressure test

using a time period (t) of 5 minutes. The initial pressure (Pi)

shall be 460 mm H2O (18 in. H2O), gauge. The maximum

allowable 5-minute pressure change (p) which shall be met at

any time is shown in the third column of Table 2 of Sec. 63.425(e)(1).

Sec. 63.426 Alternative means of emission limitation.

For determining the acceptability of alternative means of emission

limitation for storage vessels under Sec. 63.423, the provisions of

Sec. 60.114b of this chapter apply.

Sec. 63.427 Continuous monitoring.

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, certify,

operate, and maintain, according to the manufacturer's specifications,

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) as specified in paragraph (a)(1),

(a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section, except as allowed in

paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

(1) Where a carbon adsorption system is used, a continuous emission

monitoring system (CEMS) capable of measuring organic compound

concentration shall be installed in the exhaust air stream.

(2) Where a refrigeration condenser system is used, a continuous

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) capable of measuring temperature

shall be installed immediately downstream from the outlet to the

condenser section. Alternatively, a CEMS capable of measuring organic

compound concentration may be installed in the exhaust air stream.

(3) Where a thermal oxidation system is used, a CPMS capable of

measuring temperature shall be installed in the firebox or in the

ductwork immediately downstream from the firebox in a position before

any substantial heat exchange occurs.

(4) Where a flare is used, a heat-sensing device, such as an

ultraviolet beam sensor or a thermocouple, shall be installed in

proximity to the pilot light to indicate the presence of a flame.

(5) Monitoring an alternative operating parameter or a parameter of

a vapor processing system other than those listed in this paragraph

will be allowed upon demonstrating to the Administrator's satisfaction

that the alternative parameter demonstrates continuous compliance with

the emission standard in Sec. 63.422(b) or Sec. 60.112b(a)(3)(ii) of

this chapter.

(b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall operate the vapor processing

system in a manner not to exceed the operating parameter value for the

parameter described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, or

to go below the operating parameter value for the parameter described

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and established using the

procedures in Sec. 63.425(b). In cases where an alternative parameter

pursuant to paragraph (a)(5) of this section is approved, each owner or

operator shall operate the vapor processing system in a manner not to

exceed or not to go below, as appropriate, the alternative operating

parameter value. Operation of the vapor processing system in a manner

exceeding or going below the operating parameter value, as specified

above, shall constitute a violation of the emission standard in

Sec. 63.422(b).

(c) Each owner or operator of gasoline storage vessels subject to

the provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with the monitoring

requirements in Sec. 60.116b of this chapter, except records shall be

kept for at least 5 years. If a closed vent system and control device

are used, as specified in Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of this chapter, to comply

with the requirements in Sec. 63.423, the owner or operator shall also

comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section.

Sec. 63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.

(a) The initial notifications required for existing facilities

under Sec. 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted not later than 1 year after a

facility becomes subject to the provisions of this subpart.

(b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall keep records of the test results

for each gasoline cargo tank loading at the facility as follows:

(1) Annual certification testing performed under Sec. 63.425(e);

and

(2) Continuous performance testing performed at any time at that

facility under Sec. 63.425 (f), (g), and (h).

(3) The documentation file shall be kept up-to-date for each

gasoline cargo tank loading at the facility. The documentation for each

test shall include, as a minimum, the following information:

(i) Name of test:

Annual Certification Test--Method 27 (Sec. 63.425(e)(1)),

Annual Certification Test--Internal Vapor Valve (Sec. 63.425(e)(2)),

Leak Detection Test (Sec. 63.425(f)),

Nitrogen Pressure Decay Field Test (Sec. 63.425(g)), or

Continuous Performance Pressure Decay Test (Sec. 63.425(h)).

(ii) Cargo tank owner's name and address.

(iii) Cargo tank identification number.

(iv) Test location and date.

(v) Tester name and signature.

(vi) Witnessing inspector, if any: Name, signature, and

affiliation.

(vii) Vapor tightness repair: Nature of repair work and when

performed in relation to vapor tightness testing.

(viii) Test results: Pressure or vacuum change, mm of water; time

period of test; number of leaks found with instrument and leak

definition.

(c) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall:

(1) Keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the continuous

monitoring data required under Sec. 63.427(a). This record shall

indicate the time intervals during which loadings of gasoline cargo

tanks have occurred or, alternatively, shall record the operating

parameter data only during such loadings. The date and time of day

shall also be indicated at reasonable intervals on this record.

(2) Record and report simultaneously with the notification of

compliance status required under Sec. 63.9(h):

(i) All data and calculations, engineering assessments, and

manufacturer's recommendations used in determining the operating

parameter value under Sec. 63.425(b); and

(ii) The following information when using a flare under provisions

of Sec. 63.11(b) to comply with Sec. 63.422(b):

(A) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-

assisted); and

(B) All visible emissions readings, heat content determinations,

flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during

the compliance determination required under Sec. 63.425(a).

(3) If an owner or operator requests approval to use a vapor

processing system or monitor an operating parameter other than those

specified in Sec. 63.427(a), the owner or operator shall submit a

description of planned reporting and recordkeeping procedures. The

Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping

requirements as part of the review of the permit application.

(d) Each owner or operator of storage vessels subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall keep records and furnish reports as

specified in Sec. 60.115b of this chapter, except records shall be kept

for at least 5 years.

(e) Each owner or operator complying with the provisions of

Sec. 63.424 (a) through (d) shall record the following information in

the log book for each leak that is detected:

(1) The equipment type and identification number;

(2) The nature of the leak (i.e., vapor or liquid) and the method

of detection (i.e., sight, sound, or smell);

(3) The date the leak was detected and the date of each attempt to

repair the leak;

(4) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak;

(5) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if the leak is

not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak;

(6) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if the leak

is not repaired within 15 days; and

(7) The date of successful repair of the leak.

(f) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.424

shall report to the Administrator a description of the types,

identification numbers, and locations of all equipment in gasoline

service. For facilities electing to implement an instrument program

under Sec. 63.424(f), the report shall contain a full description of

the program.

(1) In the case of an existing source or a new source that has an

initial startup date before the effective date, the report shall be

submitted with the initial notifications required under paragraph (a)

of this section, unless an extension of compliance is granted under

Sec. 63.6(i). If an extension of compliance is granted, the report

shall be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator.

(2) In the case of new sources that did not have an initial startup

date before the effective date, the report shall be submitted with the

application for approval of construction, as described in Sec. 63.5(d).

(g) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall

include in a semiannual report to the Administrator the following

information:

(1) Each loading of a gasoline cargo tank for which vapor tightness

documentation had not been previously obtained by the facility;

(2) Periodic reports required under paragraph (d) of this section;

and

(3) The number of equipment leaks not repaired within 5 days after

detection.

(h) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall

include in the excess emissions report to the Administrator required

under Sec. 63.10(e)(3) the following information:

(1) Each exceedance or failure to maintain, as appropriate, the

monitored operating parameter value determined under Sec. 63.425(b).

The report shall include the monitoring data for the days on which

exceedances or failures to maintain have occurred, and a description

and timing of the steps taken to repair or perform maintenance on the

vapor collection and processing systems or the CMS.

(2) Each instance of a nonvapor-tight gasoline cargo tank loading

at the facility in which the owner or operator failed to take steps to

assure that such cargo tank would not be reloaded at the facility

before vapor tightness documentation for that cargo tank was obtained.

(3) Each reloading of a nonvapor-tight gasoline cargo tank at the

facility before vapor tightness documentation for that cargo tank is

obtained by the facility in accordance with Sec. 63.422(c)(2).

(4) For each occurrence of an equipment leak for which no repair

attempt was made within 5 days or for which repair was not completed

within 15 days after detection:

(i) The date on which the leak was detected;

(ii) The date of each attempt to repair the leak;

(iii) The reasons for the delay of repair; and

(iv) The date of successful repair.

(i) Each owner or operator of a facility meeting the criteria in

Sec. 63.420(c) shall perform the requirements of this paragraph (i),

all of which will be available for public inspection:

(1) Document and report to the Administrator not later than

December 14, 1995 for existing facilities, within 30 days for existing

facilities subject to Sec. 63.420(c) after December 14, 1995 or at

startup for new facilities the methods, procedures, and assumptions

supporting the calculations for determining criteria in Sec. 63.420(c);

(2) Maintain records to document that the facility parameters

established under Sec. 63.420(c) have not been exceeded; and

(3) Report annually to the Administrator that the facility

parameters established under Sec. 63.420(c) have not been exceeded.

(4) At any time following the notification required under paragraph

(i)(1) of this section and approval by the Administrator of the

facility parameters, and prior to any of the parameters being exceeded,

the owner or operator may submit a report to request modification of

any facility parameter to the Administrator for approval. Each such

request shall document any expected HAP emission change resulting from

the change in parameter.

(j) Each owner or operator of a facility meeting the criteria in

Sec. 63.420(d) shall perform the requirements of this paragraph (j),

all of which will be available for public inspection:

(1) Document and report to the Administrator not later than

December 14, 1995 for existing facilities, within 30 days for existing

facilities subject to Sec. 63.420(d) after December 14, 1995 or at

startup for new facilities the use of the emission screening equations

in Sec. 63.420(a)(1) or (b)(1) and the calculated value of ET or

EP;

(2) Maintain a record of the calculations in Sec. 63.420 (a)(1) or

(b)(1), including methods, procedures, and assumptions supporting the

calculations for determining criteria in Sec. 63.420(d); and

(3) At any time following the notification required under paragraph

(j)(1) of this section, and prior to any of the parameters being

exceeded, the owner or operator may notify the Administrator of

modifications to the facility parameters. Each such notification shall

document any expected HAP emission change resulting from the change in

parameter.

Sec. 63.429 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a

State under section 112(l) of the Act, the authority contained in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator

and not transferred to a State.

(b) The authority conferred in Sec. 63.426 and Sec. 63.427(a)(5)

will not be delegated to any State.

Table 1 to Subpart R--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart R

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

Applies to

Reference subpart R Comment

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

63.1(a)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(5)............................................. No Section reserved

63.1(a)(6)(8).......................................... Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(9)............................................. No Section reserved

63.1(a)(10)............................................ Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(11)............................................ Yes ........................................

63.1(a)(12))-(a)(14)................................... Yes ........................................

63.1(b)(1)............................................. No Subpart R specifies applicability in

Sec. 63.420

63.1(b)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(b)(3)............................................. No Subpart R specifies reporting and

recordkeeping for some large area

sources in Sec. 63.428

63.1(c)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(c)(2)............................................. Yes Some small sources are not subject to

subpart R

63.1(c)(3)............................................. No Section reserved

63.1(c)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(c)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.1(d)................................................ No Section reserved

63.1(e)................................................ Yes ........................................

63.2................................................... Yes Additional definitions in Sec. 63.421

63.3(a)-(c)............................................ Yes ........................................

63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)...................................... Yes ........................................

63.4(a)(4)............................................. No Section reserved

63.4(a)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.4(b)................................................ Yes ........................................

63.4(c)................................................ Yes ........................................

63.5(a)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(a)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(b)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(b)(2)............................................. No Section reserved

63.5(b)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(b)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(b)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(b)(6)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(c)................................................ No Section reserved

63.5(d)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(d)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................

63.5(d)(3).............................................

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.