[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30402]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 14, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.5(d)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.5(e)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.5(f)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.5(f)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(a)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(b)(6)............................................. No Section reserved
63.6(b)(7)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(c)(1)............................................. No Subpart R specifies the compliance date
63.6(c)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)...................................... No Sections reserved
63.6(c)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(d)................................................ No Section reserved
63.6(e)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.6(f)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(f)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(f)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.6(g)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.6(h)................................................ No Subpart R does not require COMS
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)..................................... Yes ........................................
63.6(i)(15)............................................ No Section reserved
63.6(i)(16)............................................ Yes ........................................
63.6(j)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(a)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(a)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(a)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(b)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(c)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(d)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(e)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(e)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(e)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(e)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.7(f)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(g)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.7(h)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.8(a)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(a)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(a)(3)............................................. No Section reserved
63.8(a)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(b)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(b)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(b)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(c)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(c)(2)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(c)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(c)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(c)(5)............................................. No Subpart R does not require COMS
63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8)...................................... Yes ........................................
63.8(d)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.8(e)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)...................................... Yes ........................................
63.8(f)(6)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.8(g)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(a)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(b)(1)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.9(b)(2)............................................. No Sec. 63.428(a) specifies 1-year initial
notification requirement
63.9(b)(3)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.9(b)(4)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.9(b)(5)............................................. Yes ........................................
63.9(c)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(d)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(e)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(f)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(g)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)...................................... Yes ........................................
63.9(h)(4)............................................. No Section reserved
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)...................................... Yes ........................................
63.9(i)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.9(j)................................................ Yes ........................................
63.10(a)............................................... Yes ........................................
63.10(b)(1)............................................ Yes ........................................
63.10(b)(2)............................................ Yes ........................................
63.10(b)(3)............................................ Yes ........................................
63.10(c)(1)............................................ Yes ........................................
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)..................................... No Sections reserved
63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)..................................... Yes ........................................
63.10(c)(9)............................................ No Section reserved
63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)..................................... Yes ........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--General Provisions Applicability to Subparts F, G, and H (Concluded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies
to
Reference subpart Comment
R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(1)............................................... Yes ...........................................
63.10(d)(2)............................................... Yes ...........................................
63.10(d)(3)............................................... Yes ...........................................
63.10(d)(4)............................................... Yes ...........................................
63.10(d)(5)............................................... Yes ...........................................
63.10(e).................................................. Yes ...........................................
63.10(f).................................................. Yes ...........................................
63.11(a)-(b).............................................. Yes ...........................................
63.12(a)-(c).............................................. Yes ...........................................
63.13(a)-(c).............................................. Yes ...........................................
63.14(a)-(b).............................................. Yes ...........................................
63.15(a)-(b).............................................. Yes ...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-30402 Filed 12-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
