Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-19774

Proposed Rule2026-19774

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gasoline Distribution Facilities and Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Reconsideration

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 28, 2026

Effective

November 12, 2026

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals final rule ("2024 Final Rule"). The EPA is reconsidering various provisions of the 2024 Final Rule in this proposed rule, including the operating limits and continuous compliance requirements for air emission control devices, and the vapor tightness requirements for gasoline cargo tanks. The EPA is also reconsidering the modification criteria in the NSPS and proposing other technical corrections and clarifications. The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed action will impact volatile organic compound (VOC) or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions generated by gasoline distribution facilities because the proposed amendments do not impact the stringency of the emission standards set by the 2024 Final Rule. As such, the EPA expects the proposed amendments will have no impact on air quality or overall human health. The EPA is not reopening any other aspect of the 2024 Final Rule and does not intend to respond to comments addressing any other issues or provisions not specifically addressed in this proposed rulemaking.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 186 (Monday, September 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61175-61199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19774]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0302; FRL-8202.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW66

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Gasoline Distribution Facilities and Standards of Performance for Bulk
Gasoline Terminals Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reconsideration of final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP): Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals final
rule (``2024 Final Rule''). The EPA is reconsidering various provisions
of the 2024 Final Rule in this proposed rule, including the operating
limits and continuous compliance requirements for air emission control
devices, and the vapor tightness requirements for gasoline cargo tanks.
The EPA is also reconsidering the modification criteria in the NSPS and
proposing other technical corrections and clarifications. The EPA does
not anticipate that this proposed action will impact volatile organic
compound (VOC) or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions generated by
gasoline distribution facilities because the proposed amendments do not
impact the stringency of the emission standards set by the 2024 Final
Rule. As such, the EPA expects the proposed amendments will have no
impact on air quality or overall human health. The EPA is not reopening
any other aspect of the 2024 Final Rule and does not intend to respond
to comments addressing any other issues or provisions not specifically
addressed in this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2026.
Comments on the information collection provisions of the proposed rule
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) must be received by the Office
of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OMB-OIRA) on or before October 28, 2026. Please refer to the PRA
section under ``Statutory and Executive Order Reviews'' in this
preamble for specific instructions.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before October 5, 2026, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2025-0302, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39581458575d144b145d565a525c4d795c4958175e564f">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2025-0302 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0302, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this proposed
rule, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Rudolf Abdelmessih, Industrial Processing
and Power Division (E143-01), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-2928; and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88e9eaecede4e5edfbfbe1e0a6fafdece7e4eec8edf8e9a6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eca5bcbca89c998e80858f84898d9e85828bac899c8dc28b839a">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If the EPA receives a request for a
public hearing,

[[Page 61176]]

the Agency will hold a hearing via virtual platform on October 13,
2026.
If the EPA receives a request for a public hearing, the Agency will
begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than one
business day after receiving the request. To register to speak at the
virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards</a> or contact the
public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387168687c484d5a54515b505d594a51565f785d4859165f574e">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be October 13, 2026. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will
post a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers at:
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards</a>.
Each commenter will have four minutes to provide oral testimony.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. The EPA encourages
commenters to submit the text of your oral testimony as written
comments to the rulemaking docket. The EPA will consider written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting
information presented at the public hearing.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, the Agency may close a
session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified
if there are no additional speakers. Please plan for the hearings to
run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Please note that the EPA will post updates to any aspect of the
hearing online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards</a>. While
the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth earlier in this
preamble, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team
at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6ffe6e6f2c6c3d4dadfd5ded3d7c4dfd8d1f6d3c6d798d1d9c0">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine
if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document
in the Federal Register (FR) announcing updates.
If you require special accommodation, such as audio description,
please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and
describe your needs by October 5, 2026. The EPA may not be able to
arrange accommodation without advance notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0302. All documents in the docket are
listed at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The EPA does not place certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, on the internet; this material is publicly
available only as portable document format (PDF) versions accessible
only on EPA computers in the docket office reading room. The public
cannot download certain databases and physical items from the docket
but may request these items by contacting the docket office at (202)
566-1744. The docket office has 10 business days to respond to such
requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available
docket materials are available electronically at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or on EPA computers in the docket office reading
room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday
(except for Federal holidays). The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Written Comments. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2025-0302. The EPA's policy is that the public docket will contain all
comments received without change and made available online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other
information for which a statute restricts disclosure. Do not submit
electronically to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> any information that you
consider to be CBI or other information for which a statute restricts
disclosure. You should submit this type of information as described in
the Submitting CBI section of this preamble.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. A
written comment must accompany multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.). The EPA considers the written comment to be the official
comment, and it should include discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that the EPA places in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the Agency may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and
should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information
about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
The EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of this proposed
rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an identifier
(e.g., ``C-1, C-2, . . .'') to provide a consistent framework for
effective and efficient provision of comments. Accordingly, the EPA
asks that commenters include the corresponding identifier when
providing comments relevant to that comment solicitation. The EPA asks
that commenters include the identifier either in a heading or within
the text of each comment (e.g., ``In response to C-1, . . .'') to make
clear which comment solicitation they are addressing. The EPA
emphasizes that the Agency is not limiting comment to these identified
areas and encourages commenters to provide any other comments relevant
to this proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Clearly mark the part or all the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to

[[Page 61177]]

one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through
the procedures outlined in the Written Comments section of this
preamble. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI and note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI
will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public
docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
Office of Clean Air Programs (OCAP) at the email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#305f535140535259705540511e575f46">[email&#160;protected]</a> and, as described earlier in this preamble, should
include clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is
needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size
limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file
sharing service, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble to receive instructions.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' refers to the EPA. The EPA uses
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AFPM American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
API American Petroleum Institute
AVO audio, visual, or olfactory
BSER best system of emission reduction
Btu British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EAV equivalent annualized value
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
ft\2\ square foot
GACT generally available control technologies or management
practices
HAP hazardous air pollutant
ICR Information Collection Request
ILTA International Liquid Terminals Association
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/L milligram per liter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHV net heating value
NHV<INF>cz</INF> combustion zone net heating value
NHV<INF>dil</INF> net heating value dilution
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OCAP Office of Clean Air Programs
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppmv part per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
scf standard cubic foot
scfm standard cubic foot per minute
TOC total organic compounds
tpy ton per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound

Table of Contents

I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What is the statutory authority for the reconsideration
action?
D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What petitions for reconsideration did the EPA receive?
B. What is the scope of this reconsideration proposal?
III. Reconsideration and Other Issues, Proposed Changes, and
Rationale
A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
reconsideration, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
B. What other amendments are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for those amendments?
C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the costs?
D. What are the benefits?
E. What are the economic impacts?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

On May 8, 2024, the EPA published the 2024 Final Rule.\1\ This
final action included revisions to two existing NESHAP rules (40 CFR
part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB) (``NESHAP subpart R'' and ``NESHAP
subpart BBBBBB,'' respectively) and a new NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXa) (``NSPS subpart XXa''). Following the promulgation of the 2024
Final Rule, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration. On
February 28, 2025, the EPA granted reconsideration of the 2024 Final
Rule as a matter of voluntary discretion. After reviewing the 2024
Final Rule and issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration, the
EPA proposes to clarify the modification criteria associated with
equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements under NSPS
subpart XXa. In addition, the EPA proposes changes to address equipment
leak compliance provisions, thermal oxidation systems compliance
provisions, and vapor recovery system compliance provisions under the
NESHAP and NSPS rules. Furthermore, the EPA proposes changes to address
vapor tightness requirements for gasoline cargo tanks under the NESHAP
and NSPS rules. Finally, the EPA is proposing minor editorial and
technical revisions. Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 111 and 112, as
amended, provide the statutory authority for this action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 89 FR 39304 (May 8, 2024).
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed revisions to the modification criteria include: (1)
adding a capital expenditure threshold to help determine if certain
process improvement changes to a facility qualify as modifications, and
(2) adding a definition to clarify the meaning of ``process
improvement.''
The proposed revisions to equipment leak compliance provisions
include: (1) requiring affected facilities under NSPS

[[Page 61178]]

subpart XXa to conduct the first instrument monitoring survey within
180 calendar days of becoming subject to the monitoring requirements;
(2) clarifying that affected facilities must conduct monitoring
inspections when actively loading gasoline into a gasoline cargo tank;
(3) enumerating the connector leak monitoring exceptions within NSPS
subpart XXa instead of cross-referencing 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa
(``NSPS subpart VVa''); (4) clarifying that the detection of fugitive
emissions during pre-performance test screening does not in itself
constitute a violation of the standards, provided that the affected
facility subsequently meets the applicable repair requirements; and (5)
clarifying that equipment leak compliance provisions require facilities
to monitor backup or secondary control devices only when actively using
these devices to process gasoline or gasoline vapors.
The proposed revisions to the thermal oxidation system compliance
provisions include: (1) simplifying the recordkeeping requirements for
affected facilities that--as an operational practice--control displaced
vapors during liquid product loading, assuming all loading operations
involve gasoline cargo tanks; (2) revising the definition of diameter
in the net heating value dilution (NHV<INF>dil</INF>) parameter
equation to account for the differences in air mixing patterns when
using multi-burner thermal oxidation systems; (3) revising the
requirements for the temperature operating limit, by co-proposing two
compliance options for the operating limit: Option 1 based on revised
requirements for the performance test, and Option 2 based on a fixed
minimum mid-stack temperature operating limit of 400 degrees
Fahrenheit; (4) requiring affected facilities to set the maximum air
assist rate at the rate used during the performance test, if using air-
assisted thermal oxidation systems, and to set the maximum air assist
rate at the minimum needed to maintain smokeless operations at high
gasoline loading rates, if using air-assisted flares; and (5) revising
the 14-day sampling period--used for determining the minimum net
heating value (NHV) content of gas streams--to allow facilities that
comply with the flare monitoring alternative to conduct sampling over a
shorter period.
The proposed revisions to the vapor recovery system compliance
provisions include: (1) increasing the averaging period for the
concentration emission limits from a 3-hour rolling average to a 6-hour
rolling average, and (2) revising the limited alternative monitoring
plan requirements--during continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)
downtime--to require the development and submittal of a site-specific
monitoring plan, rather than requiring affected facilities to rely on
the parameters of the 10 previous operational cycles.
The EPA anticipates that this proposed action, specifically the
proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements for thermal
oxidation systems, would result in cost savings for area source
gasoline distribution facilities subject to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB if
finalized as proposed. The EPA estimates that these proposed amendments
would result in total average annual compliance cost savings of
$713,400 or $565,800 (in 2024 dollars), depending on the finalized
monitoring option. The EPA does not anticipate this proposed action to
have a net cost impact on major source gasoline distribution facilities
subject to NESHAP subpart R.
In addition, the EPA does not anticipate that this proposed action
will impact VOC or HAP emissions generated by gasoline distribution
facilities because the proposed amendments do not impact the stringency
of the emission standards set by the 2024 Final Rule. The EPA expects
that the proposed amendments to the compliance provisions will assist
affected sources to achieve compliance with the relevant emission
limits. As such, the EPA expects the proposed amendments will have no
impact on air quality and no impact on overall human health.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated entities. This proposal addresses the Gasoline
Distribution source categories regulated under NESHAP subparts R and
BBBBBB and the Petroleum Transportation and Marketing source category
regulated under NSPS subpart XXa. Table 1 of this preamble lists the
categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule.

Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source categories NAICS \a\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries................................. 324110
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals................ 424710
Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products 486910
Other Warehousing and Storage........................ 493190
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

The EPA provides table 1 of this preamble as a guide, not as an
exhaustive list of entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. To determine whether this action affects your facility, examine
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP and NSPS rules. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of
these NESHAP and NSPS rules, contact the appropriate person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
Once promulgated, the proposed standards will apply directly to the
affected sources. This proposed action would not affect Federal, State,
local, or Tribal government entities.
As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 \3\ and
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final
Report,\4\ the Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) source category relates
to ``the storage and transfer facilities associated with the movement
of gasoline. This category includes, but is not limited to, the
gasoline vapor emissions associated with the loading of transport
trucks or rail cars, storage tank emissions, and equipment leaks from
leaking pumps, valves, and connections at bulk terminals, bulk plants,
and pipeline facilities.'' On July 19, 1999, the EPA added this
category to the list of area source categories for regulation under a
Federal Register publication for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 57 FR 31576 (July 16, 1992).
\4\ EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992.
\5\ 64 FR 38706 (July 19, 1999).
\6\ In addition to those identified emissions points, the listed
Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) source category includes storage
tank filling operations--regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCCC (``NESHAP subpart CCCCCC'')--that occur at public and private
gasoline dispensing facilities (e.g., service stations and
convenience stores). The EPA did not review NESHAP subpart CCCCCC
during the rulemaking process of the 2024 Final Rule, and NESHAP
subpart CCCCCC is not part of this proposed rule.

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

[[Page 61179]]

The EPA included Petroleum Transportation and Marketing on its
Priority List as a source category requiring standards of performance
under CAA section 111.\7\ The NSPS for this source category applies to
the total of all the loading racks at a bulk gasoline terminal that
deliver liquid product into gasoline cargo tanks. The EPA defines a
bulk gasoline terminal as any gasoline facility that receives gasoline
by pipeline, ship, barge, or cargo tank and has a gasoline throughput
greater than 75,700 liters per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 40 CFR 60.16; 44 FR 49222 (August 21, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the statutory authority for the reconsideration action?

The statutory authority for this action is provided by both CAA
section 112, as amended,\8\ and section 111, as amended.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7412.
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NESHAP
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a multi-stage regulatory process
to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards that reflect the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) or appropriate alternative.\10\
The second stage involves evaluating those standards within eight years
under CAA section 112(f)(2) to determine whether additional standards
are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP
emissions.\11\ This second stage is commonly referred to as the
``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, CAA
section 112(d)(6) also requires the EPA to review the standards every
eight years and to ``revise as necessary,'' taking into account any
``developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.''
\12\ This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(1)-(3).
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2).
\12\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard-setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.\13\ All other sources are ``area sources.'' For
major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Id. 7412(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA establishes a minimum control level
for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor,'' based on emission
controls achieved in practice by the best performing sources. The EPA
also considers control options that are more stringent than the floor.
Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as
``beyond-the-floor'' standards. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot
be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source. For existing sources, the MACT
standards can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but the
standards cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the
category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).\14\ In certain
instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work
practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards. The EPA
must also consider control options that are more stringent than the
floor and may establish standards more stringent than the floor taking
into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reductions, and
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Id. 7412(d)(3)(A) and (B).
\15\ Id. 7412(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the second stage of the regulatory process, for categories of
major sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards,
CAA section 112 requires the EPA to address any remaining (i.e.,
``residual'') risk within eight years pursuant to CAA section (f)(2)
and to conduct a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
This latter provision requires the EPA to review the technology-based
standards and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no
less frequently than every eight years. In conducting this review,
which we call the ``technology review,'' the EPA is not required to
recalculate the MACT floors that were established in earlier
rulemakings.\16\ The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to
revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\17\ Finally,
the EPA reviews available data to determine if there are certain
unregulated emissions of HAP within the major source category and
evaluates these data for use in developing new emission standards.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2013); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2), (6); Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, 716
F.3d at 673-74.
\18\ La. Envtl. Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir.
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the residual risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section
112(f), the EPA must within eight years of promulgating the technology-
based standards for a source category evaluate the risk to public
health remaining after the application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors. For categories of area sources subject to
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT)
standards, there is no requirement to address residual risk. However,
all standards established under CAA section 112(d) require a technology
review, including GACT standards that apply to area sources.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards,
CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide that the EPA is not
required to conduct a residual risk review under CAA section
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is required to conduct periodic
technology reviews for such sources under CAA section 112(d)(6).

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

[[Page 61180]]

Several additional CAA sections specifically address regulation of
HAP emissions from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(k)(3),
(c)(3), and (d)(5) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the
Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation
of area sources under CAA section 112.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at
least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban
areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As
discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, the EPA
identified 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are commonly
referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 64 FR 38706, 38715 (July 19, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources including the Gasoline
Distribution source category that is addressed in this action.
Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that the EPA may promulgate
standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use
of generally available control technology or management practices
[GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants'' in lieu of setting MACT standards (which are generally
required for major source categories). In developing GACT standards,
the EPA evaluates the control technologies and management practices for
reducing HAP emissions that are generally available for each area
source category. Consistent with the legislative history, the EPA can
consider costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes
GACT.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-228 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA set GACT standards for the Gasoline Distribution area
source category in 2008.\22\ The EPA set MACT standards for the
Gasoline Distribution major source category in 1994 and completed the
residual risk review and initial technology review for the major source
category in 2006.23 24 The 2024 Final Rule promulgated the
required CAA section 112(d)(6) technology reviews for the standards for
major and area sources in that source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 73 FR 1916 (January 10, 2008).
\23\ 59 FR 64303, December 14, 1994; FR Doc No: 94-30402.
\24\ 71 FR 17352 (April 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NSPS
Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to
promulgate a list of categories of stationary sources that the
Administrator, ``in his judgment,'' finds ``causes, or contributes
significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA has the authority under
this section to define the scope of the source categories; to
determine, consistent with the statutory requirements, the pollutants
for which standards should be developed; and to distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within categories in establishing the
standards.\25\ Once the EPA lists a source category that contributes
significantly to dangerous air pollution, the EPA must, under CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B), establish ``standards of performance'' for ``new
sources'' in the source category. These standards are referred to as
new source performance standards, or NSPS. The NSPS are national
requirements that apply directly to the sources subject to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(2) provides the EPA the authority to
establish subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under CAA section 111(a)(1), a ``standard of performance'' is
defined as ``a standard for emissions of air pollutants'' that is
determined in a specified manner. When the EPA establishes or revises a
performance standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that such standard
must ``reflect[ ] the degree of emission limitation achievable through
the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking
into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair
quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' Thus, the
term ``standard of performance'' as used in CAA section 111 makes clear
that the EPA must determine both the ``best system of emission
reduction . . . adequately demonstrated'' (BSER) for emissions of the
relevant air pollutants by regulated sources in the source category and
the ``degree of emission limitation achievable through the application
of the [BSER].'' \26\ As explained further below, to determine the
BSER, the EPA first identifies the ``system[s] of emission reduction''
that are ``adequately demonstrated,'' and then determines the ``best''
of those adequately demonstrated systems, ``taking into account''
factors including ``cost,'' ``nonair quality health and environmental
impact,'' and ``energy requirements.'' The EPA then derives from that
system an ``achievable'' ``degree of emission limitation.'' The EPA
must then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate ``standard[s] for
emissions''--the NSPS--that reflect that level of stringency. The EPA
may determine that different sets of sources have different
characteristics relevant for determining the BSER for emissions of the
relevant air pollutants and may subcategorize sources accordingly.\27\
CAA section 111(b)(5) generally precludes the EPA from prescribing a
particular technological system that must be used to comply with a
standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or
combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 709 (2022).
\27\ 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
modification, or reconstruction after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
Key Elements of Determining a Standard of Performance
Congress first defined the term ``standard of performance'' when
enacting CAA section 111 in the 1970 Clean Air Act, amended the
definition in the Clean Air Act Amendments

[[Page 61181]]

(CAAA) of 1977, and then amended the definition again in the 1990 CAAA
to largely restore the definition as it read in the 1970 CAA. The D.C.
Circuit has reviewed CAA section 111 rulemakings on numerous occasions
since 1973 and has developed a body of caselaw that interprets the
term.\28\ The basis for standards of performance is the ``degree of
emission limitation'' that is ``achievable'' by sources in the source
category by application of the ``best system of emission reduction''
that the EPA determines is ``adequately demonstrated'' (BSER). As
explained further below in this section, the D.C. Circuit has explained
that systems are not ``adequately demonstrated'' if they are ``purely
theoretical or experimental.'' \29\ The D.C. Circuit has stated that in
determining the ``best'' adequately demonstrated system for the
pollutants at issue, the EPA must also take into account ``the amount
of air pollution'' reduced.\30\ The D.C. Circuit has also stated that
the EPA may weigh the various factors identified in the statute and
caselaw to determine the ``best'' system and has emphasized that the
EPA has significant discretion in weighing the factors.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.
Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427 (D.C.
Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981);
Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1999);
Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011);
American Lung Ass'n v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2021), rev'd in
part, West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022). See also Delaware
v. EPA, 785 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
\29\ Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433-34
(D.C. Cir. 1973).
\30\ See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir.
1981). The D.C. Circuit has stated that EPA must also take into
account ``technological innovation.'' See id. at 347.
\31\ See Lignite Energy Council, 198 F.3d at 933 (``Because
section 111 does not set forth the weight that should be assigned to
each of these factors, we have granted the agency a great degree of
discretion in balancing them.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After determining the BSER, the EPA sets an achievable emission
limit based on application of the BSER.\32\ For a CAA section 111(b)
rule, the EPA determines the standard of performance that reflects the
achievable emission limit. To qualify for selection as the BSER, the
system of emission reduction must be ``adequately demonstrated'' as
``the Administrator determines.'' The plain text of CAA section
111(a)(1), and in particular the terms ``adequately'' and ``the
Administrator determines,'' confer discretion to the EPA in identifying
the appropriate system, including making scientific and technological
determinations and considering a broad range of policy
considerations.\33\ However, the terms ``adequately'' and
``demonstrated,'' as well as applicable caselaw, make clear that the
EPA may not determine that a ``purely theoretical or experimental''
system is ``adequately demonstrated.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See, e.g., Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source
Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air pollutants Reviews (77 FR 49494 (August 16, 2012)) (describing
the three-step analysis in setting a standard of performance).
\33\ Nat'l Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775, 786
(D.C. Cir. 1976); Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427,
434 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
\34\ Essex Chem. Corp., 486 F.2d at 433-34; see Portland Cement
Assn. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391-92 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (EPA may
not base an ``adequately demonstrated'' determination on a ``
`crystal ball' inquiry'') (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, CAA section 111(a)(1) requires the EPA to account for
``the cost of achieving [the emission] reduction'' in determining the
adequately demonstrated BSER. Although the CAA does not describe how
the EPA is to account for costs to affected sources, the D.C. Circuit
has formulated the cost standard in various ways, including stating
that the EPA may not adopt a standard the cost of which would be
``excessive'' or ``unreasonable.'' \35\ The EPA has considerable
discretion in considering cost under CAA section 111(a), both in
determining the appropriate level of costs and in balancing costs with
other BSER factors.\36\ The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly upheld the
EPA's consideration of cost in reviewing standards of performance.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
See 79 FR 1430, 1464 (January 8, 2014); Lignite Energy Council, 198
F.3d at 933 (costs may not be ``exorbitant''); Portland Cement Ass'n
v. EPA, 513 F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (costs may not be
``greater than the industry could bear and survive'').
\36\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
\37\ See Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 440
(D.C. Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
375, 387-88 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298,
313 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take into
account ``any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements'' in determining the BSER. Non-air quality health and
environmental impacts may include the impacts of the disposal of
byproducts of the air emission controls, or requirements of the air
pollution control equipment for water.\38\ Energy requirements may
include the impact, if any, of the air emission controls on the
source's own energy needs.\39\ In addition, based on the D.C. Circuit's
interpretations of CAA section 111, energy requirements may also
include the impact, if any, of the air emission controls on the energy
supply for a particular area or nationwide.\40\ In addition, the EPA
has considered under this statutory factor whether possible controls
would create risks to the reliability of the electric system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 465 F.2d 375, 387-88
(D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974).
\39\ For details on the modeled energy requirements associated
with CCS, please see section 6.4 of the RIA for this rule.
\40\ See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 327-28 (quoting 44
FR 33583-84; June 11, 1979); 79 FR 1430, 1465 (January 8, 2014)
(citing Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 351).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors with respect to
adequately demonstrated control technologies, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The D.C. Circuit has also
held that the term ``best'' authorizes the EPA to consider factors in
addition to the ones enumerated in CAA section 111(a)(1) that further
the purpose of the statute. In particular, consistent with the plain
language and the purpose of CAA section 111(a)(1), which requires the
EPA to determine the ``best system of emission reduction'' (emphasis
added), the EPA must consider the quantity of emissions at issue.\41\
In determining which adequately demonstrated system of emission
reduction is the ``best,'' the EPA has broad discretion. In Sierra Club
v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the D.C. Circuit explained
that ``section 111(a) explicitly instructs the EPA to balance multiple
concerns when promulgating a NSPS'' \42\ and emphasized that ``[t]he
text gives the EPA broad discretion to weigh different factors in
setting the standard,'' including the amount of emission reductions,
the cost of the controls, and the non-air quality environmental impacts
and energy requirements.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
The D.C. Circuit has also held that Congress intended for CAA
section 111 to create incentives for new technology and therefore
that the EPA is required to consider technological innovation as one
of the factors in determining the ``best system of emission
reduction.'' See id. at 346-47.
\42\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 319; see also AEP v.
Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 427 (2011).
\43\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 321; see also New York
v. Reilly, 969 F.2d at 1150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA then establishes a standard of performance that reflects
the degree of emission limitation achievable through the implementation
of the BSER. A standard of performance is ``achievable'' if a
technology can reasonably be projected to be available to an individual
source at the time it is constructed so as to allow it to meet the
standard.\44\ For purposes of evaluating the source category and
determining BSER, the EPA can determine whether

[[Page 61182]]

subcategorization is appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of
sources, and may identify a different BSER and establish different
performance standards for each subcategory. The result of the analysis
and BSER determination leads to standards of performance that apply to
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification
after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal
Register. Because the NSPS reflects the BSER under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 364, n.276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA promulgated the NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals in 1983
and promulgated the required NSPS review for that source category in
the 2024 Final Rule.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ For information on how the EPA conducts an NSPS review, see
89 FR 39304 (May 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Reconsideration
The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the 2024
Final Rule. The International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA)
submitted two petitions: one on June 28, 2024, and one on July 8, 2024.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American
Petroleum Institute (API) submitted a joint petition on July 8, 2024.
On February 28, 2025, the EPA granted reconsideration on one specific
issue of the 2024 Final Rule--namely, the modification criteria
associated with equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements
under NSPS subpart XXa--as a matter of voluntary discretion, while
continuing review of other issues for which parties requested
reconsideration.\46\ In this action, the EPA is proposing amendments to
certain provisions in the 2024 Final Rule after reviewing the 2024
Final Rule and the petitions for reconsideration. These provisions
pertain to operating limits and continuous compliance requirements for
control devices used during gasoline loading operations in the NESHAP
and NSPS rules. The provisions under reconsideration also pertain to
modification criteria for the ``collection of equipment at a bulk
gasoline terminal affected facility'' in the NSPS. Furthermore, in this
proposed rule, the EPA addresses concerns with the feasibility of
revised vapor tightness requirements for gasoline cargo tanks that the
Agency amended in the 2024 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The EPA granted voluntary, discretionary reconsideration of
the provisions in NSPS subpart XXa in the 2024 Final Rule related to
the modification of each collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline
terminal affected facility and the associated need for a capital
expenditure test similar to other equipment leak new source
performance standards, and the Agency stated that it was continuing
to review other issues raised in the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4), the EPA provides a brief summary of this rule at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0302. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
proposed action at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards</a>. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical
documents at this same website.
The EPA has placed in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-
0302) a memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB and 40
CFR part 60, subpart XXa proposed in this action.

II. Background

On June 10, 2022, the EPA proposed amendments to NESHAP subparts R
and BBBBBB (``2022 Proposal'') and proposed new NSPS subpart XXa.\47\
On May 8, 2024, after considering public comments on the proposed rule,
the EPA published the 2024 Final Rule that included final amendments to
NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB for gasoline distribution facilities and
final standards for bulk gasoline terminals in NSPS subpart XXa.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ 87 FR 35608 (June 10, 2022).
\48\ 89 FR 39304 (May 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What petitions for reconsideration did the EPA receive?

Following promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA received
three petitions for reconsideration. ILTA submitted two petitions: one
on June 28, 2024, and one on July 8, 2024. AFPM and API submitted a
joint petition on July 8, 2024. The June 28, 2024, ILTA petition
focused on the modification provisions for the ``collection of
equipment at a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility'' in NSPS
subpart XXa. ILTA requested that the EPA include a minimum capital
expenditure to trigger a modification, similar to that provided in the
equipment leak NSPS for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry.\49\ The July 8, 2024, ILTA petition raised issues regarding
the monitoring requirements for emission control devices, including a
request to assume the previous load of a cargo tank is the same as its
current load. In addition, this petition raised issues related to the
equipment leak provisions, including a request for skip monitoring
periods and a correction to the cross-references to connector
monitoring requirements in NSPS subpart VVa (which the EPA later
removed from that other rule). The July 8, 2024, AFPM and API petition
raised issues regarding equipment leak provisions and monitoring
requirements for emission control devices similar to those raised in
ILTA's July petition. Additionally, AFPM and API requested that the EPA
clarify and harmonize equipment leak provisions with other equipment
leak NSPS rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the scope of this reconsideration proposal?

On February 28, 2025, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners that
granted reconsideration of the modification provisions in subpart XXa
as a matter of voluntary discretion.\50\ In that letter, the EPA
addressed the modification provisions for ``each collection of
equipment at a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility,'' and the
associated need for a capital expenditure threshold similar to other
equipment leak NSPS rules.\51\ The EPA also stated that the Agency
would continue to review all issues raised in the petitions. The EPA
will not respond to comments addressing any other issues or any other
provisions of the final rule that the Agency does not specifically
address in this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the
docket for the 2024 Final Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).
See the document titled Response Letter to William Wehrum and
Leakhena Swett (Document ID No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371-0158).
\51\ E.g., 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV, VVa, VVb, GGG, and GGGa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA identified the following additional reconsideration issues
that the Agency is addressing in this proposal: (1) equipment leak
compliance provisions--including compliance timing, connector
monitoring provisions, and ``no detectable emissions'' provisions; (2)
thermal oxidation systems compliance provisions--including
NHV<INF>dil</INF> for enclosed thermal combustors and

[[Page 61183]]

operating limits for thermal oxidation systems; and (3) vapor recovery
systems compliance provisions--including alternative monitoring
provisions during CEMS downtime and averaging periods for concentration
emission limits. The EPA also identified the vapor tightness
requirements for gasoline cargo tanks as a reconsideration issue that
was not included in the petitions for reconsideration.

III. Reconsideration and Other Issues, Proposed Changes, and Rationale

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
reconsideration, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

On February 28, 2025, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners that
granted reconsideration of the modification provisions in subpart XXa
as a matter of voluntary discretion.\52\ Based on the EPA's
reconsideration of these provision, the Agency is proposing to add a
provision in 40 CFR 60.500a(e)(3) that includes a capital expenditure
threshold for modification, specific to the ``collection of equipment
at a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility.'' In addition, the EPA
is proposing to add a definition for ``process improvement'' projects.
Those revisions will allow facilities to complete small projects
without triggering the applicability of NSPS subpart XXa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the
docket for the 2024 Final Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).
See the document titled Response Letter to William Wehrum and
Leakhena Swett (Document ID No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371-0158).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petitioners noted that most equipment leak provisions--such as
those in the equipment leak NSPS rules at 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV,
VVa, and VVb--include a capital expenditure threshold for modification.
According to the petitioners, minimal changes to a facility, such as
adding a crossover line to improve operational flexibility and safety,
would constitute a modification of the ``collection of equipment at a
bulk gasoline terminal affected facility'' without a capital
expenditure threshold, because this modification would slightly
increase the total number of equipment pieces at the facility, which
consequently ``increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which a
standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility''
through potential equipment leaks.\53\ According to the petitioners,
facilities can generally accomplish these small projects without permit
modification. However, triggering NSPS subpart XXa applicability would
require permit modification and cause extensive delays for these small
projects. Accordingly, the petitioners requested that the EPA include a
capital expenditure threshold for modification so that facilities can
complete small projects, such as those to improve operational
flexibility and safety, without triggering the applicability of NSPS
subpart XXa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ 40 CFR 60.2 Definition of ``Modification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA reviewed the current capital expenditure thresholds in NSPS
subparts VV, VVa, and VVb. The EPA agrees with petitioners that a
capital expenditure threshold for equipment leaks has been available in
these rules, and that small process improvement projects should be able
to proceed without triggering the applicability of NSPS subpart XXa.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add a provision in 40 CFR
60.500a(e)(3), in parallel with the equipment leak NSPS subpart VVb.
The proposed provision includes a capital expenditure threshold
(equation) for modification, specific to the ``collection of equipment
at a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility.'' Equation 1 of this
preamble shows the proposed capital expenditure equation.
Equation 1--Capital Expenditure Equation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE26.000

Where:

P = Maximum allowed price of repair allowance ($).
R = Replacement cost, which is the capital needed to purchase all
the depreciable components in the collection of equipment at a bulk
gasoline terminal affected facility ($).
Y = Consumer Price Index (CPI) ratio = CPI of date of construction/
most recently available CPI of date of project. You must use the
``CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items'' for each CPI value.
B = Basic annual asset guideline repair allowance. You must use B =
8.0.

In this equation, the EPA is proposing that the value of the basic
annual asset guideline repair allowance, B, is 8.0 for this industry
sector.\54\ Accordingly, if the cost of a process improvement project
does not exceed 8 percent of the product of the replacement cost of all
the depreciable components in the ``collection of equipment at a bulk
gasoline terminal affected facility'' and the CPI ratio (as defined in
the capital expenditure equation), then the project does not constitute
a modification and will not trigger the applicability of the
modification provisions in NSPS subpart XXa. In addition, the EPA is
proposing to add the following definition of ``process improvement'':
``Process improvement means routine changes made for safety and
occupational health requirements, for energy savings, for better
utility, for ease of maintenance and operation, for correction of
design deficiencies, for bottleneck removal, for changing product
requirements, or for environmental control.'' The EPA solicits comment
on the proposal to add a capital expenditure threshold, which would
prevent small process improvement projects from triggering modification
of the ``collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline terminal affected
facility'' under NSPS subpart XXa (C-1). As part of this C-1 request
for comment, the EPA also solicits comment on the proposal to add a
definition of ``process improvement,'' and whether the proposed
definition is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Distributive trade and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What other amendments are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for those amendments?

1. Equipment Leak Compliance Provisions
a. Timing of the First Instrument Monitoring Survey for Equipment Leaks
The EPA is proposing to require affected facilities under NSPS
subpart XXa to conduct the first instrument monitoring survey for
equipment leaks within 180 calendar days of becoming subject to the
equipment leak monitoring requirements.
In the preamble to the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA stated, ``The
effective date of the final rule requirements in NSPS subpart XXa, will
be July 8, 2024. Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after June 10, 2022, must comply with
all requirements of NSPS subpart XXa, no later than the effective date
of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.'' The
petitioners noted that this timing provided only 60 days for facilities
that may have modified the ``collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline
terminal affected facility'' to comply with the rule, a timeframe that
petitioners viewed as inadequate. The petitioners argued that
facilities needed more time to determine if they had modified the
``collection of equipment'' between June 10, 2022, and May 8, 2024, and
subsequently, to implement an LDAR program that complies with the
monitoring provisions in NSPS subpart XXa. The petitioners requested an
extension of the compliance deadline for the ``collection of equipment
at a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility'' for modified sources,

[[Page 61184]]

particularly for sources modified between proposal (June 10, 2022) and
promulgation (May 8, 2024).
The EPA reviewed the compliance times provided in other equipment
leak NSPS rules and found compliance requirements within 180 days of
initial startup.\55\ In addition, per the General Provisions of 40 CFR
part 60, a modified affected facility generally has 180 days after
completion of any physical or operational changes to achieve compliance
with all applicable standards.\56\ For consistency with similar
standards, the EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 60.502a(j)(1) to
require bulk gasoline terminal affected facilities to conduct the first
LDAR monitoring survey under NSPS subpart XXa within 180 calendar days
of becoming subject to the equipment leak monitoring requirements. The
EPA solicits comment on the proposal to require owners and operators of
the ``collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline terminal affected
facility'' to conduct the first instrument monitoring survey for
equipment leaks no later than 180 days after becoming subject to NSPS
subpart XXa (C-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV, VVa, VVb, GGG, and GGGa.
\56\ 40 CFR 60.14(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gasoline distribution NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB cross-reference
the equipment leak provisions in NSPS subpart XXa, but the NESHAP rules
provide existing sources up to three years to comply with the cross-
referenced provisions. As such, an additional 180 days to complete the
first instrument monitoring survey for equipment leaks when cross-
referencing NSPS subpart XXa is not warranted. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to add a clarification in 40 CFR 60.502a(j)(1) that affected
facilities must conduct the first required instrument monitoring survey
for equipment leaks--when these provisions are cross-referenced by
another subpart--by the compliance date of the cross-referencing
subpart that specifies these provisions as a monitoring requirement.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to specify that facilities
required by a cross-referencing subpart to comply with the equipment
leak provisions in NSPS subpart XXa must conduct the first instrument
monitoring survey for equipment leaks no later than the compliance date
of the cross-referencing subpart that specifies these provisions as a
monitoring requirement, without an additional 180 days (C-3).
b. Timing of Instrument Monitoring Surveys for Equipment Leaks
Concurrently With Active Gasoline Loading
The EPA is proposing to clarify the equipment leak monitoring
provisions so that they clearly state that the affected facility must
conduct instrument monitoring inspections when actively loading
gasoline into a gasoline cargo tank.
For either EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 \57\
(``EPA Method 21'') or optical gas imaging \58\ (OGI) to effectively
detect leaks from vapor collection systems or control devices, the
systems and devices must be processing gasoline vapors at the time of
the inspection. The pre-performance test monitoring requirements in 40
CFR 60.503a(a)(2) specify that affected facilities must conduct
instrument monitoring surveys for equipment leaks when actively loading
gasoline into a gasoline cargo tank, but the equipment leak provisions
in 40 CFR 60.502a(j)(1) do not include this specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. Method 21--Determination of
volatile organic compound leaks.
\58\ 40 CFR part 60, appendix K--Determination of Volatile
Organic Compound and Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to clarify that affected facilities
must conduct instrument monitoring surveys for equipment leaks required
under 40 CFR 60.502a(j)(1) while actively loading gasoline into a
gasoline cargo tank. The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to
specify that facilities must conduct instrument monitoring surveys for
equipment leaks during the active loading of gasoline into a gasoline
cargo tank (C-4).
c. Connector Monitoring Requirements
The EPA is proposing to enumerate the connector leak monitoring
exceptions within NSPS subpart XXa instead of cross-referencing NSPS
subpart VVa.
NSPS subpart XXa cross-referenced the connector monitoring
provisions in NSPS subpart VVa that listed exceptions to the connector
monitoring requirements. However, on May 14, 2024, the EPA promulgated
revisions to NSPS subpart VVa that removed the connector monitoring
provisions because the Agency had finalized them without proper
proposal and opportunity for comment. ILTA requested that the EPA
remove cross-references to the connector monitoring provisions from
NSPS subpart XXa, which the Agency had removed from NSPS subpart VVa.
The EPA agrees that the monitoring requirements for connectors in NSPS
subpart XXa need revision based on the removal of the section in NSPS
subpart VVa that the monitoring requirements in NSPS subpart XXa
currently cross-reference. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to enumerate
the connector monitoring exceptions within NSPS subpart XXa at 40 CFR
60.502a(j)(1)(ii)(C) and (D). Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
reference the pumps and valves paragraphs (in addition to the
connectors paragraph) to clarify that these provisions apply to all
component types. The unsafe-to-monitor or inaccessible provisions
already apply to pumps and valves based on the cross-referenced
sections in NSPS subpart VVa; referencing only the connectors paragraph
in the unsafe-to-monitor or inaccessible provisions could incorrectly
suggest they do not apply to pumps and valves. The proposed revisions
to 40 CFR 60.502a(j)(1)(ii)(C) and (D) are substantively equivalent to
the provisions that the Agency had proposed and finalized prior to
revising NSPS subpart VVa.\59\ These revisions simply clarify the
connector monitoring exceptions that the EPA intended to provide in the
2024 Final Rule. The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to remove the
NSPS subpart VVa cross-references and to enumerate the monitoring
requirements for all component types (i.e., connectors, pumps, and
valves) in NSPS subpart XXa (C-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 87 FR 35608 (June 10, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Repair Provisions for Pre-Performance Test Leak Monitoring
The EPA is proposing to clarify that detecting fugitive emissions
above an EPA Method 21 instrument reading of 500 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) during the pre-performance test screening for equipment
leaks does not in itself constitute a violation of the standards,
provided that the affected facility subsequently meets the applicable
repair requirements.
In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA included LDAR provisions in NSPS
subpart XXa requiring the monitoring and repair of leaks in the
terminal's vapor collection system prior to conducting the performance
test.\60\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX (``NSPS subpart XX'') includes
similar provisions requiring the repair of detected leaks, with a leak
defined as an instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv or greater. However,
the EPA revised these provisions in NSPS subpart XXa to require no
detectable emissions, with a leak defined as an instrument reading of

[[Page 61185]]

500 ppmv or greater above background, using EPA Method 21.
Additionally, the EPA included periodic LDAR requirements in NSPS
subpart XXa that define a leak as an instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv
or greater.\61\ Petitioners (AFPM and API) requested that the EPA
clarify that identifying fugitive emissions above an instrument reading
of 500 ppmv is not a violation of the equipment leak standards.
According to the petitioners, equipment leak standards are work
practice standards, and identifying a leak should only trigger
corrective action for repair. The petitioners requested that the EPA
clearly state in the rule that detection of fugitive emissions from
equipment subject to LDAR requirements do not constitute a violation of
the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2).
\61\ 40 CFR 60.502a(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA considers the current provisions to clearly indicate that
identified equipment leaks trigger repair requirements. The EPA notes
that the pre-performance test screening requirements use the term ``no
detectable emissions'' and a leak definition of 500 ppmv, but these
requirements also contain provisions stating that facilities must
repair leaks identified during the instrument monitoring survey prior
to conducting the performance test.\62\ Nonetheless, the EPA agrees
that the term ``no detectable emissions'' could suggest an operating
limit that affected facilities must meet at all times, even though that
was not EPA's intent in adopting that phrase. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to remove the phrase ``. . . is operated with no detectable
emissions . . .'' and replace it with ``. . . has no leaks at or above
an instrument reading of 500 ppmv.'' The EPA clarifies in this preamble
that the pre-performance test monitoring requirement is simply an LDAR
inspection to ensure that the vapor collection system conveys all
gasoline vapors displaced from cargo tanks to the control device and
that the performance test accurately assesses the effectiveness of the
control device. Any leaks identified during this inspection only
trigger the applicable repair requirements. The EPA expects that the
proposed replacement of the phrase ``no detectable emissions'' with the
term ``leak'' provides adequate clarification that the 500 ppmv value
is a work practice standard rather than an operating limit that
affected facilities must meet at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, though the final sentence in 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2)
clearly indicates that affected facilities must repair all leaks
identified during the pre-performance test instrument monitoring survey
prior to conducting the performance test, the EPA is concerned that
affected sources may incorrectly read the reference to the timeframe in
40 CFR 60.502a(j)(7) to allow delay of repair of some of these leaks.
Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to clarify that the ``delay of
repair'' provisions do not apply for leaks identified during the pre-
performance test instrument monitoring survey.
Because NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB cross-reference the pre-
performance test requirements in NSPS subpart XXa, the EPA does not
need to revise those standards to address this issue.
With these proposed minor edits to 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2), the EPA
considers the provisions to clearly indicate that leaks identified
during the pre-performance test equipment monitoring and regular
periodic equipment monitoring always trigger the repair requirements.
In addition, leaks identified during either of these surveys are not
considered violations of the equipment leak work practice standards.
However, not repairing leaks identified during the pre-performance test
equipment monitoring prior to conducting the performance test would be
a violation of the provisions in 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2), just as not
repairing leaks identified according to the provisions in 40 CFR
60.502a(j) would be a violation of the equipment leak work practice
standards.
The EPA solicits comment on whether the proposed revisions to 40
CFR 60.503a(a)(2) adequately clarify that the pre-performance test
instrument monitoring survey is a work practice standard--not an
operating limit--and that identifying leaks during this survey simply
triggers the requirement to repair all identified leaks prior to
conducting the performance test (C-6).
e. Requirements for Leak Monitoring of Backup Control Systems
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``in gasoline
service'' to clarify that a facility must monitor backup or secondary
control systems for leaks only when actively using these systems to
process gasoline or gasoline vapors.
The EPA notes that equipment leak monitoring requirements,
including periodic instrument monitoring, are specific to equipment
``in gasoline service.'' Backup systems that are closed off from
gasoline or gasoline vapors would not have VOC emissions or
identifiable ``leaks'' during instrument monitoring. Therefore,
periodic monitoring of equipment that is not ``in gasoline service'' is
unnecessary. Backup control systems are subject to leak detection using
audio, visual, or olfactory (AVO) methods while used during normal
duties. In addition, backup control systems are subject to instrument
monitoring requirements if a facility uses the backup control systems
during a regularly scheduled instrument monitoring survey. However, a
facility is not required to conduct an additional instrument monitoring
survey to specifically test for equipment leaks while using the backup
control system. The EPA understands that the current definition of ``in
gasoline service'' could suggest that facilities must periodically
monitor backup control systems because these systems occasionally
transfer gasoline or gasoline vapors. To clarify that a piece of
equipment is only ``in gasoline service'' when contacting or containing
gasoline or gasoline vapors, the EPA is proposing to amend the
definition of ``in gasoline service'' in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB
and NSPS subpart XXa, replacing the phrase ``. . . is used in a system
that transfers . . .'' gasoline or gasoline vapors with the phrase ``.
. . contains or contacts . . .'' gasoline or gasoline vapors. The EPA
solicits comment on the proposed revision to the definition of ``in
gasoline service'' to clarify equipment monitoring requirements for
backup or secondary control systems (C-7).
f. Requirements for Leak Monitoring at Bulk Gasoline Plants and
Pipeline Pumping Stations
The EPA is not proposing to revise the equipment leak monitoring
requirements for bulk gasoline plants and pipeline pumping stations.
In their petition, ILTA requested that the EPA reconsider the
annual instrument monitoring and repair requirements for equipment
leaks at bulk gasoline plants and pipeline pumping stations in NESHAP
subpart BBBBBB. According to the petitioner, the EPA understated the
costs of the final equipment leak monitoring requirements. In their
petition, ILTA included a table comparing EPA's cost estimates with
those from two vendor quotes--included as petition exhibits (Proposals
1 and 2)--to support ILTA's argument that the Agency understated the
costs for the equipment leak monitoring requirements. According to the
petitioner, the higher costs, as provided by the vendor quotes,
indicate that the annual instrument monitoring requirement is not cost-
effective for HAP emission reductions.
The EPA interprets ILTA's table comparison of EPA Method 21 startup
costs with the vendor quotes as a

[[Page 61186]]

misunderstanding of the costs that the Agency included in EPA Method 21
startup costs. EPA Method 21 startup costs only include initial
identification and labeling of equipment components that the facility
must monitor. EPA Method 21 startup costs do not include the costs for
conducting the initial monitoring event. Essentially, EPA Method 21
startup costs are the difference between the costs of conducting the
initial monitoring event and the costs to conduct subsequent monitoring
events. Only the full ``Proposal 2'' vendor quote differentiated these
costs, not the table in the petition or Proposal 1. EPA Method 21
startup costs in Proposal 2 are $1,970 per facility. While this is
higher than the EPA's estimate of $508 to $540 for EPA Method 21
startup costs, it is much more comparable than the values presented in
the petitioner's table.
In addition, the values for the ongoing monitoring costs presented
in the petitioner's table based on the vendor quotes appear to be
higher than the EPA had estimated. The EPA recognizes that different
vendors can provide different quotes depending on the experience of the
vendor, the location of vendor relative to the monitored facility, and
other similar factors. Based on the EPA's review of the provided vendor
quotes, monitoring costs for some facilities, particularly remotely
located facilities, could be higher than the average costs per facility
that the Agency projected.
The key issue with the Proposal 1 vendor quote is that the vendor
requires a minimum of two days to cover travel and monitoring. The EPA
estimated that monitoring all components using EPA Method 21 would take
approximately four hours at a bulk gasoline plant or pipeline pumping
station based on the number of equipment components at these smaller
facilities and the average component monitoring rate via Method 21
based on information collected from monitoring vendors. The EPA
included additional costs for traveling to the facility, but the Agency
projected that typical bulk gasoline plants and pipeline pumping
stations require only one day (excluding overnight) to travel and
monitor for leaks. The daily rate included in the Proposal 1 vendor
quote was $2,150. The EPA expects that other vendors are available that
do not apply this two-day minimum charge or that the facility could
negotiate the daily rate for subsequent monitoring events depending on
the location of the facility relative to the vendor's location. The EPA
understands that some facilities may have remote locations and require
an overnight stay. However, based on information collected from
monitoring vendors used to develop EPA's cost estimates,\63\ the Agency
expects that the one-day fee in this quote is likely more
representative of the costs incurred by typical small gasoline
distribution facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ For more detail on the EPA's cost analysis, see the
memorandum titled Updated Control Options for Equipment Leaks at
Gasoline Distribution Facilities available in the docket for the
2024 Final Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs in the Proposal 2 quote provides the costs for monitoring two
facilities (``terminals located at multiple facilities,'' noted in the
first sentence of the Scope of Work section of the proposal). In
addition, while the proposal refers to the facilities as ``terminals'',
this quote appears to cover a bulk gasoline plant or pipeline pumping
station based on the number of component tags indicated in the vendor
quote. The costs for ongoing (subsequent) monitoring for individual
facilities ranged from $3,125 to $3,455 if using EPA Method 21, and
$2,680 to $4,180 if using OGI. Although the vendor's quotes for per-
facility ongoing monitoring costs are higher than the EPA's cost
estimates, the costs are not four or five times higher, as the
petitioner suggested.
Industry stakeholders indicated in subsequent conversations that
their primary concern is pipeline pumping stations, as these facilities
are usually remote and have higher projected monitoring costs due to
the required travel time. The EPA understands that remote facilities
may require longer travel times and therefore have higher than average
monitoring costs. Nonetheless, based on the EPA's review of the ILTA
petition and the provided vendor quotes, the Agency disagrees with the
petitioner's conclusion that actual costs for typical bulk plants or
pipeline pumping stations are at least four times higher than EPA
projected such that instrument monitoring is not cost-effective for
bulk plants and pipeline pumping stations. Therefore, the EPA is not
proposing to revise the requirement to conduct annual instrument
monitoring using either EPA Method 21 or OGI for bulk gasoline plants
and pipeline pumping stations, as finalized in the 2024 Final Rule. The
EPA maintains that annual instrument monitoring and leak repair
requirements, including repair of leaks identified by AVO methods
during normal operating duties, achieve greater emission reductions at
reasonable costs in comparison to the historical monthly AVO
inspections that NESHAP subpart BBBBBB previously required before the
promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule. In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA
estimated that the annual instrument monitoring requirements--compared
to historical monthly AVO inspections--would achieve HAP emission
reductions of approximately 60 tons per year (tpy) and VOC emission
reductions of approximately 600 tpy across 1,800 pipeline pumping
stations. The EPA understands that some remote facilities may have
higher than average costs, but the Agency concludes that the cost of
achieving the projected emission reductions is reasonable considering
the average nationwide costs for bulk plants and pipeline pumping
stations.
The EPA solicits comment on its determination to not propose to
revise the annual instrument monitoring requirements for bulk gasoline
plants and pipeline pumping stations in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB (C-8). As
part of this C-8 request for comment, the EPA also solicits comment and
supporting information on alternative options to revising pipeline
pumping station monitoring requirements. Specifically, monitoring
alternatives could include allowing instrument monitoring once every
two years based on performance (i.e., a skip period) or reverting to
monthly AVO monitoring inspections. Additionally, the EPA solicits
comment on restricting the less stringent equipment leak monitoring
requirements to ``small'' pipeline pumping stations, or alternatively
to ``remote'' pipeline pumping stations. The EPA solicits comment on
how to clearly define a ``small'' facility (e.g., based on a certain
number of pumps), or alternatively how to clearly and effectively
define a ``remote'' facility (e.g., located more than a certain
distance from the boundary of the nearest metropolitan statistical
area). Furthermore, for pipeline pumping stations that qualify for
``remote'' status, the EPA solicits comment on how often these
facilities must re-evaluate whether they continue to meet the
definition of a ``remote'' facility.
2. Thermal Oxidation System Compliance Provisions
a. Previous Load Assumption
The EPA is not proposing to revise the definition of ``gasoline
cargo tank'' or the requirement that a cargo tank be considered a
gasoline cargo tank when the content of the immediate previous load is
not known. However, the EPA is proposing to clarify certain associated
recordkeeping requirements.
Since 1980, NSPS subpart XX has defined a ``gasoline tank truck''
as ``a delivery tank truck used at bulk gasoline terminals which is
loading gasoline, or

[[Page 61187]]

which has loaded gasoline on the immediately previous load.'' \64\
Industry representatives have long indicated that they control vapors
displaced from gasoline cargo tanks during all product loading
operations, regardless of the immediate previous load of the gasoline
cargo tank. NSPS subpart XXa expands the term ``gasoline cargo tank''
by adding railcars to the historical definition in NSPS subpart XX.
Specifically, NSPS subpart XXa states that ``Gasoline cargo tank means
a delivery tank truck or railcar which is loading gasoline, or which
has loaded gasoline on the immediately previous load.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ See 48 FR 37590 (August 18, 1983).
\65\ See 89 FR 39344 (May 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on comments that the EPA received on the 2022 Proposal
regarding the proposed definition of ``3-hour rolling average,'' the
Agency clarified in the 2024 Final Rule which time periods qualify to
provide ``valid operating data,'' based on control device type and
monitored parameter. Specifically, for thermal oxidation systems using
the combustion zone temperature operating parameter, the EPA noted that
``[v]alid operating data must exclude periods when there is no liquid
product being loaded. If previous contents of the cargo tanks are
known, you may also exclude periods when liquid product is loaded but
no gasoline cargo tanks are being loaded provided that you excluded
these periods in the determination of the combustion zone temperature
operating limit according to the provisions in Sec.
60.503a(c)(8)(ii).'' \66\ The provision in 40 CFR 60.503a(c)(8)(ii)
states ``[u]sing only the 5-minute periods in which liquid product is
loaded into gasoline cargo tanks, determine the 1-hour average
temperature for each hour of the performance test. If you do not know
the previous contents of the cargo tank, you must assume liquid product
loading is performed in gasoline cargo tanks such that you use all 5-
minute periods in which liquid product is loaded into gasoline cargo
tanks when determining the 1-hour average temperature for each hour of
the performance test.'' Similarly, for flares and thermal oxidation
systems for which the flare operating limits are selected, the EPA
required that ``[f]or the purpose of this subpart, `regulated
materials' refers to `vapors displaced from gasoline cargo tanks during
product loading'. If you do not know the previous contents of the cargo
tank, you must assume that cargo tank is a gasoline cargo tank.'' \67\
Consistent with these provisions, 40 CFR 60.502a(g) requires that the
``[l]oading of liquid product into gasoline cargo tanks at a gasoline
loading rack affected facility shall only be conducted when the
terminal's and the cargo tank's vapor collection systems are connected.
If you do not know the previous contents of a cargo tank, you must
assume that cargo tank is a gasoline cargo tank.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ See 40 CFR 60.502a(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(ii).
\67\ See 40 CFR 60.502a(c)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petitioners requested that the EPA revise these provisions to
allow terminals to assume that--unless there is information to the
contrary--the immediate previous content of the cargo tank is the same
as the liquid being loaded. ILTA went further to request revision of
the definition of ``gasoline cargo tank'' to invoke the same
assumption. All petitioners indicated that reliable information on the
previous load of a cargo tank is difficult to obtain. In addition,
petitioners suggested that ``switch loading'' is uncommon, so in most
instances it is likely that the previous content of the cargo tank is
the same as the product being loaded. The petitioners indicated that
the requirement to consider a cargo tank with unknown previous load as
a gasoline cargo tank would require the use of auxiliary fuel to
maintain vapor combustion unit operating temperatures when loading only
non-gasoline fuel (e.g., diesel). In addition, some industry
representatives expressed concern over the recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(2)(viii) and (8). Industry suggested that affected
sources could construe these provisions to require operators to obtain
knowledge of the previous cargo tank loads, and industry recommended
revising or deleting these recordkeeping requirements.
The ``previous load'' requirement has been part of the gasoline
loading control requirements for more than 40 years. If the previous
content of a cargo tank is gasoline, and switch loading does occur,
significant quantities of gasoline vapors could be released into the
atmosphere uncontrolled (if there is a revision to the ``gasoline cargo
tank'' definition) or poorly controlled (if the operating limits do not
apply during these periods). Furthermore, the control of these cargo
tanks whose previous load was gasoline is a bedrock assumption for HAP
control as part of the NESHAP for gasoline dispensing facilities.\68\
The petitioners' suggestion that facilities should assume that the
immediate previous content of the cargo tank is the same as the liquid
being loaded, unless there is information to the contrary, is not
sufficiently protective as petitioners stated that operators generally
do not know the previous contents of cargo tanks. Including that
language would likely disincentivize terminal operators from attempting
to ``know'' the previous contents in order to avoid any compliance
requirements. The EPA is not proposing to revise the requirement that
if the previous content of a cargo tank is not known, the cargo tank
must be considered a gasoline cargo tank, or the requirement that the
operating limits apply during all periods when liquid product is loaded
into a gasoline cargo tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the petitioners suggested that they do not have reliable
information on a tank's previous load, they indicated in meetings with
the EPA that cargo tank dispatchers can provide information regarding
previous loads on a targeted basis. Therefore, if switch loading is
infrequent, and dispatchers have information on the previous load,
terminals should be able to demand either that operators do not
dispatch cargo tanks that entail switch loading, or, at a minimum, that
operators notify the terminal when dispatching for non-gasoline loading
a cargo tank whose previous load was gasoline. Additionally, the EPA is
not proposing to revise the provisions that allow affected facilities
to use knowledge of the previous load when establishing the operating
limits and when calculating the 3-hour rolling average for compliance
with the established operating limit. These provisions will help
minimize the need for auxiliary fuel use when loading only non-gasoline
fuel given that the previous content of the cargo tank is known not to
have been gasoline. In addition, the EPA is proposing alternative
provisions for establishing the temperature operating limit for thermal
oxidation systems that the Agency expects will reduce the need for
auxiliary fuel use.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ See section III.B.2.c. of this preamble for more detail on
these proposed revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA solicits comment on its proposal to not revise the
definition of ``gasoline cargo tank'' or the requirement that a cargo
tank must be considered a gasoline cargo tank when the contents of the
immediate previous load are not known (C-9).
While the EPA is proposing to not revise the current definition of
``gasoline cargo tank,'' the Agency is proposing to clarify the
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(2)(viii) and (8). The
proposed revisions would simplify the recordkeeping requirements for
affected facilities that as an operational practice control displaced
vapors during liquid product loading using the assumption that all
loading operations

[[Page 61188]]

involve gasoline cargo tanks. These facilities must keep records only
of liquid product loading periods, as for facilities using that
assumption, this is the information needed to identify periods when the
emission limits apply.
Additionally, the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
60.505a(a)(2)(viii)--for flares and thermal oxidation systems that
elect to comply with the flare monitoring alternative--are largely
duplicative of the general recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
60.505a(a)(8). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to exclude sources
subject to the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(2) from
the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(8). Furthermore,
the EPA is proposing to revise the recordkeeping requirements for the
flare monitoring alternative to clearly indicate that the ``time
periods'' for the associated requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(2)(viii)
are 15-minute block periods. The EPA notes that only flares or thermal
oxidation systems electing to set minimum gasoline loading rates and
minimum gasoline to total liquid product loading rates must comply with
the 5-minute period recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
60.505a(a)(2)(v). The EPA solicits comment on its proposal to revise
the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(2)(viii) and (8) to
clarify these requirements and eliminate duplicative requirements (C-
10).
b. NHV<INF>dil</INF> for Thermal Oxidation Systems
The EPA is proposing to retain NHV<INF>dil</INF> as an operating
limit for air-assisted flares and thermal oxidation systems. However,
the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of diameter (``Diam'') in
the NHV<INF>dil</INF> equation to account for the differences in air
mixing patterns when using multi-burner thermal oxidation systems.
In the 2022 Proposal, for NESHAP subpart R and NSPS subpart XXa,
the EPA proposed requiring combustion zone temperature as the operating
limit for all thermal oxidation systems. However, in NESHAP subpart
BBBBBB, the EPA proposed that operators subject to the 35 milligrams
per liter (mg/L) gasoline loaded emission limit could elect either to
use combustion zone temperature as the operating limit or alternatively
to comply with the flare monitoring requirements.\70\ This alternative
requires a minimum combustion zone net heating value (NHV<INF>cz</INF>)
of 270 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf); for
air-assisted flares, it also requires a minimum NHV<INF>dil</INF> of 22
Btu per square foot (Btu/ft\2\). In response to public comments, the
EPA expanded the use of this flare monitoring alternative to NESHAP
subpart R and NSPS subpart XXa for sources subject to the 10 mg/L
gasoline loaded emission limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ The flare monitoring requirements are based on the
requirements in the petroleum refineries NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In their comments on the 2022 Proposal, ILTA suggested that the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> operating limit should not apply to enclosed thermal
oxidation systems but did not provide data to support that position.
After publication of the 2024 Final Rule, ILTA funded a study at the
Zeeco Global Technology Center testing facility in Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma.\71\ The study was conducted on the Zeeco Zephyr #8 portable
enclosed combustion unit using mixtures of propane and air to evaluate
whether NHV<INF>dil</INF> is an appropriate operating limit for thermal
oxidation systems complying with the flare monitoring requirements.
Petitioners submitted the results along with a summary of findings from
the study.\72\ According to the petitioners, the data indicated that
there was no reduction in performance with lower NHV<INF>dil</INF>
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ A copy of the test plan, test report, and data analysis
submitted by ILTA are available in the docket for this proposed rule
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0302).
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA reviewed the data that petitioners submitted. The data
raised many questions as it showed substandard performance (i.e., less
than 98 percent destruction efficiency) at times when the combustion
unit met the flare operating limits (i.e., the NHV<INF>cz</INF> and
NHV<INF>dil</INF> operating limits) and indicated excellent performance
at times when the unit did not meet the flare operating limits. In
their summaries, the petitioners excluded runs with what they
considered to be excessively high air assist rates, indicating that the
blower on the tested unit is larger than those commonly installed in
the industry. The test runs in the culled data set had destruction
efficiencies of 90 percent or greater. In addition, the data excluded
from the culled data set included four test runs where destruction
efficiencies dropped to near zero. For two of these runs, both the
NHV<INF>cz</INF> and the NHV<INF>dil</INF> parameters indicated poor
performance. For the other two test runs, only the NHV<INF>dil</INF>
parameter indicated poor performance. Nonetheless, the test data
indicated that any significant drop in performance occurred at much
lower NHV<INF>dil</INF> values than expected (i.e., well below 22 Btu/
ft\2\). The EPA expects that this is because the enclosed flare has a
multi-burner design, and there are significant differences in how the
assist air is mixed at the burner tips as compared to assist air added
around the perimeter of larger single-burner flare stacks.
Because the NHV<INF>dil</INF> parameter was the only flare
operating parameter indicating the significant performance drop for two
of the test runs, the EPA is proposing to retain NHV<INF>dil</INF> as
an operating limit for air-assisted thermal oxidation systems.
In addition, the EPA evaluated ILTA's data to determine if the
Agency should provide a lower NHV<INF>dil</INF> value for enclosed
thermal oxidation systems. However, with only one unit tested, the EPA
is uncertain how well the data represent the performance of other
thermal oxidation system designs. Because the study used a system with
two burner tips, the EPA evaluated the impact of revising the
definition of the effective diameter of the flare tip when calculating
NHV<INF>dil</INF> as the effective diameter of the multi-burner system.
Using the effective diameter of the multi-burner system yielded
calculations of NHV<INF>dil</INF> values below the 22 Btu/ft\2\
operating limit in only a few cases where performance was high (i.e.,
destruction efficiencies of 98 percent or more) but continued to
identify the poor performance of all four runs where the destruction
efficiency dropped to near zero.
While the EPA will require additional data to effectively evaluate
the performance of other enclosed combustor designs, for thermal
oxidation systems that have multiple burner tips, the Agency is
proposing to add at 40 CFR 60.502a(c)(3) an additional subparagraph (x)
to allow those systems to use the ``distance from the outer edge of one
burner tip to the outer edge of the furthest burner tip, ft'' for the
definition of the ``Diam'' term in the NHV<INF>dil</INF> calculation
rather than the ``effective diameter of the unobstructed flare tip for
flare gas flow, ft.'' The EPA expects this proposed revision to account
for the differences in air mixing patterns when using thermal oxidation
systems that have multiple burner tips while retaining the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> operating limit. The EPA maintains that retaining the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> operating limit is critical for identifying
significant degradation in control efficiencies.
The EPA solicits comment on the need to retain the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> operating limit for air-assisted thermal oxidation
systems and the proposed revision to the definition of the diameter
term used in calculating NHV<INF>dil</INF> for thermal oxidation
systems with multiple burner

[[Page 61189]]

tips (C-11). To the extent available, the EPA requests commenters to
provide additional operating and test data that evaluate the
performance of different air-assisted thermal oxidation system designs
while processing gasoline vapors--rather than propane--to support their
position.
c. Temperature Operating Limit for Thermal Oxidation Systems
The EPA is co-proposing two options for the monitoring requirements
applicable to thermal oxidation systems complying with the temperature
operating limit. The EPA based Option 1 on revised requirements for
conducting the performance test for sources subject to the 1 mg/L, 10
mg/L, and 35 mg/L emission limits, and based Option 2 on a fixed
minimum mid-stack temperature operating limit of 400 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F) for sources subject to either the 10 mg/L or 35 mg/L emission
limit.
In their assessment of the data from the Zeeco Zephyr #8 portable
enclosed combustion unit, ILTA suggested that the data support an
operating limit of 400 [deg]F for thermal oxidation systems.\73\ ILTA
argued that the operating limit determined based on the current
performance test requirements will be artificially high due to the
minimum gasoline loading quantity required for the performance test.
ILTA suggested that the test data from the Zeeco facility indicated
that the vapor combustion unit obtained high destruction efficiencies
at mid-stack temperatures of 400 [deg]F or higher. Hence, ILTA
requested that the EPA set a fixed minimum temperature operating limit
of 400 [deg]F for sources subject to either the 10 mg/L or 35 mg/L
emission limit. Additionally, ILTA suggested a shorter evaluation
period of the fixed temperature operating limit (i.e., each 5-minute
period) when loading liquid product into gasoline cargo tanks as a way
to ensure that the unit is always at the minimum operating
temperature.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ See section III.B.2.b of this preamble for further
description of the tests conducted.
\74\ This commenter also wanted to re-define ``gasoline cargo
tank'' to eliminate consideration of the immediate previous load;
see discussion in section III.B.2.a of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA reviewed the data that ILTA submitted. The performance
data, including for runs with air assist rates over 4,500 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm), raised concerns for EPA due to several
runs having destruction efficiencies under 90 percent, even with mid-
stack temperatures exceeding 400 [deg]F. In addition, the EPA is
concerned about using test data from a single thermal oxidation system
to set a fixed temperature operating limit for all thermal oxidation
systems. These systems can have different burner designs, locations for
temperature measurements, louver designs, air flow characteristics, and
stack lengths than the tested unit, potentially impacting the
combustion properties and the zone of combustion, which consequently
would impact the temperature operating limit necessary to achieve the
required destruction efficiency. Furthermore, the petitioner conducted
the study using mixtures of air and propane, not gasoline. Unlike
propane, which is a homogenous substance with a uniform composition,
gasoline is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with physical properties
that are different than those of propane (e.g., vapor pressure, heat
content, flash point, etc.). Therefore, these data may not be
adequately representative of temperatures and destruction efficiencies
when burning gasoline vapors. The EPA finds that establishing a unit-
specific operating limit, based on a representative performance test of
the thermal oxidation system while loading gasoline cargo tanks, is
more reliable.
The EPA recognizes that the current testing requirements require a
minimum gasoline loading volume so that the temperature operating limit
can represent conditions of high gasoline loading rates. In addition,
the EPA agrees with the petitioners that at lower gasoline loading
rates or during mixed product loading (e.g., at facilities where some
racks are loading gasoline and other racks are loading diesel fuel) the
temperature in the combustion zone will likely be lower. The question
is whether the unit meets the 10 mg/L or 35 mg/L operating limit, as
applicable, at these lower gasoline loading rates and under mixed
product loading scenarios. Because loading a mixture of products is
common practice in the industry and will likely yield lower combustion
zone temperatures (due to lower NHV in the vapors routed to the thermal
oxidation system), the EPA is considering an option for operators to
demonstrate compliance at these lower gasoline loading rates and under
mixed product loading scenarios as an alternative to the petitioner's
suggested option. Upon considering these points, the EPA is co-
proposing two options as described below.
Co-proposed Option 1 is to revise the testing requirements to
provide operators with testing flexibility over a broader range of
gasoline loading rates and to encourage testing under mixed product
loading scenarios. This will help to develop a temperature operating
limit representative of normal operating conditions--instead of
conditions of high gasoline loading rates--while demonstrating
compliance with the emission limit under these scenarios. Under this
option, the EPA would retain the 3-hour rolling average temperature
operating limit. The EPA anticipates that this revision would yield
lower 3-hour rolling average temperature limits while still ensuring
that adequate combustion consistently occurs. Specifically, under
Option 1, the EPA is proposing to revise the testing provisions in 40
CFR 60.503a(c)(1) to require that the performance test be a minimum of
three hours long--instead of six--and include a minimum of thirty-six
5-minute testing intervals of either loading gasoline or loading liquid
product into cargo tanks that facilities know contained gasoline on
their previous load (``known'' gasoline cargo tanks). Facilities could
test for longer than the minimum of three hours to evaluate performance
over a broader range of operating conditions. The EPA is proposing that
facilities conduct testing under conditions representative of normal
operations. Facilities may use any ratio of gasoline to other products
being loaded as long as the ratio is representative of the site's
operation and the per loading-rack loading rate is representative of
typical loading-rack loading rates used at the facility. Furthermore,
the EPA is proposing revisions to the testing requirements in 40 CFR
63.503a(c)(8) to specify that the 3-hour rolling average temperature
operating limit only includes the 5-minute intervals of either active
gasoline loading or loading of other liquid products into ``known''
gasoline cargo tanks. Under Option 1, the revised testing requirements
would apply to all bulk gasoline terminals, regardless of whether the
source is new, modified, reconstructed, or subject to the requirements
due to cross-referencing. Under Option 1, the EPA is not proposing
revisions to 40 CFR 60.502a(b)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(ii). The proposed
revisions to the operating limit calculation allow facilities to
calculate numerous 3-hour rolling averages--if the test is extended for
several minutes or an hour--and to select the lowest 3-hour rolling
average determined during a compliant performance test. The proposed
revisions to the calculation procedure improve alignment with the
calculations that facilities use in determining compliance with the
operating limit.
Industry representatives have indicated reluctance to revise the
performance test requirements for thermal oxidation systems, suggesting

[[Page 61190]]

that: (1) coordination of certain loading configurations on a single
test day is impractical due to customer-driven loading schedules, (2)
regulatory inconsistencies with test requirements may necessitate
permit modification or require dual testing when subject to both NESHAP
subpart BBBBBB and NSPS subpart XX, and (3) mixed loading scenarios are
likely to make meeting the mass emission limit--which is based only on
gallons of gasoline loaded--more challenging.
With respect to the concern that more loading configuration
logistics may be associated with the proposed revisions to the
performance test requirements compared to the current 6-hour
performance test, the EPA anticipates that the proposed revisions will
provide affected facilities greater flexibility in conducting
performance tests. First, the proposed revisions do not require a
minimum gasoline loading quantity. Under the current testing
requirements, operators tend to configure loading of primarily--if not
only--gasoline over the 6-hour testing period because of the minimum
amount of gasoline operators must load during the performance test.
Second, the proposed revisions do not specify certain loading
configurations; rather, they require testing under conditions that are
representative of normal operations. Therefore, the proposed revisions
should allow affected facilities to easily conduct testing with minimal
or no changes to the daily operation of the site. Although operators
may test using loading configurations that optimize the combustion zone
temperature operating limit, there is no requirement to change the
operating conditions at the site for the purpose of conducting the
performance test. Third, the proposed duration of the performance test
is shorter than the current requirement, so a facility choosing to
operate at a targeted loading configuration will be required to do so
for less time. Additionally, the EPA expects facilities would continue
to ensure that no non-gasoline fuel is loaded into a cargo tank whose
previous load was gasoline under the proposed testing requirements. In
conclusion, the EPA finds that the proposed testing requirement entails
less loading configuration planning than the current 6-hour performance
test requirement.
With respect to the concern that revisions to the testing
requirements in NSPS subpart XXa, which NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB
cross-reference, may require a permit modification, the EPA expects
very limited impacts, if any. Most permits do not specify testing
requirements; rather, most permits reference the applicable rules and
require compliance with those provisions. Additionally, if a facility
is subject to both a NESHAP (subpart R or BBBBBB) and NSPS subpart XX,
the EPA disagrees that such a facility would need to conduct dual tests
to meet both testing requirements; NSPS subpart XX only has initial
testing requirements, and affected facilities have already conducted
all initial performance tests under NSPS subpart XX.\75\ Even though 40
CFR 60.8 states ``or at such other times specified by this part. . .'',
and the procedures for conducting the periodic performance testing
required under NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB are specified in NSPS
subpart XXa, the language in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60
taken with the periodic testing requirement of 40 CFR part 63 do not
together require periodic testing under NSPS subpart XX, as NSPS
subpart XX does not prescribe periodic performance testing or have any
timeframes for conducting periodic performance testing. Because the
NSPS subpart XX does not require conduction of periodic performance
tests, the testing procedures prescribed in NSPS subpart XX do not
apply to these periodic performance tests. Therefore, only the periodic
performance test procedures of the applicable NESHAP apply to
facilities subject to both NESHAP (subpart R or BBBBBB) and NSPS
subpart XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ See 40 CFR 60.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to concerns about the form of the emission limit,
which is based only on the volume of gasoline loading, the EPA notes
that the vapor pressure of diesel fuel--the liquid product of which the
sector loads the second-largest volume after gasoline--is less than one
one-thousandth that of gasoline, and the vapor pressure of kerosene is
roughly one one-hundredth that of gasoline. As such, the EPA does not
expect the loading of non-gasoline liquid products to significantly
impact the quantity of the total organic compounds (TOC) displaced from
these cargo tanks. The EPA has always based the form of the emission
standards on the TOC emissions per volume of gasoline loaded for this
reason. The EPA expects that industry is more concerned about the
reduced flammability of gasoline vapors under mixed product loading
scenarios, which could reduce the destruction efficiency of thermal
oxidation systems. The EPA finds that this concern highlights the need
to test under mixed loading scenarios.
Co-proposed Option 2 is to revise the temperature operating limit
that facilities use to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
applicable mass emission limit. Currently, the combustion zone
temperature operating limit is based on the average temperature that
the thermal oxidation system achieves during the performance test.
Under Option 2, based on ILTA's test data, the EPA is proposing to
revise the temperature operating limit provision at 40 CFR
60.502a(c)(1)(ii) to require thermal oxidation systems at facilities--
subject to either the 10 mg/L or 35 mg/L mass emission limit--to
maintain a mid-stack temperature at or above 400 [deg]F for each 5-
minute period during active loading of liquid product into gasoline
cargo tanks. These facilities must demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standard when using the mid-stack temperature
operating limit of 400 [deg]F or higher during the performance test.
Under Option 2, affected facilities would not be able to set the
temperature operating limit below 400 [deg]F, because the EPA is
proposing that sources using this alternative must maintain each 5-
minute lower mid-stack temperature at or above 400 [deg]F during the
performance test. In addition, the EPA is proposing revisions to the
operating temperature calculation requirements for new sources subject
to the 1.0 mg/L mass emission limit. As proposed, new sources would set
their 3-hour average combustion zone temperature operating limit based
on the minimum 3-hour rolling average combustion zone temperature
during the performance test--considering only 5-minute periods during
either active gasoline loading or during liquid product loading into
``known'' gasoline cargo tanks--and would maintain the temperature at
or above that limit as required in 40 CFR 60.502a(b)(1)(ii).
As part of Option 2, the EPA proposes to define ``mid-stack
temperature'' as the temperature taken at a location that is at least
19 feet above the top of the thermal oxidation system burners or as the
temperature 3 feet from the top of a stack that is less than 22 feet
above the top of the burners. The EPA is basing this specification on
the location of the temperature measurement in the petitioner's
submitted test data. The EPA solicits comment on whether this
definition of mid-stack temperature is appropriate, or if not, what
alternative definition would be appropriate and why.
Under the CAA, finalized changes become effective on the date of
the promulgation of the final rule. Therefore, for sources that
conducted performance tests earlier (i.e., before the compliance
deadline of the 2024 Final Rule), the EPA is proposing provisions that
allow facilities to maintain those

[[Page 61191]]

recently established operating limits until the next required
performance test. Although facilities may elect to conduct performance
tests under the testing or operational limit requirements in the
proposed rule (if finalized as proposed), the EPA is not proposing to
require facilities to re-test their thermal oxidizers before the next
required performance test.
The EPA solicits comment and supporting data on the two co-proposed
options to establish an effective temperature operating limit that
ensures continuous compliance with the applicable mass emission limit
while accounting for the differences in gasoline loading rates (C-12).
As part of this request for comment, the EPA also solicits information
and supporting data for other options to ensure continuous compliance
with the applicable mass emission limit for thermal oxidation systems.
Specific questions to consider under this request for comment include:
<bullet> Should the EPA be more prescriptive regarding the
requirements for testing conditions (e.g., require performance testing
to include both high and low gasoline loading rate scenarios)?
<bullet> Are there thermal oxidation system designs or operational
scenarios for which a default minimum mid-stack temperature of 400
[deg]F would not ensure continuous compliance with the mass emission
limit?
<bullet> Are there available data to either support or refute that
a mid-stack temperature limit of 400 [deg]F demonstrates continuous
compliance with the emission standards or that indicate that the
temperature does or does not vary based on different design
configurations (e.g., burner design, louver design, thermal oxidation
system size, stack height)?
<bullet> Is the proposed definition for the location of mid-stack
temperature appropriate, or is another definition more appropriate
(e.g., defining mid-stack as the true mid-point of the stack height
versus some height from the top of the thermal oxidation system
burners)?
<bullet> Should the EPA consider other options to ensure that
thermal oxidation systems continuously meet the mass emission limit
(e.g., through the monitoring of other parameters)?
<bullet> Are the proposed provisions to transition to the proposed
testing requirements or operating limits (if finalized as proposed)
clear and reasonable?
d. Maximum Air Assist Rate Requirements for Flares and Thermal
Oxidation Systems
The EPA is proposing to add a requirement for affected facilities
to set the maximum air assist rate at the rate that was used during the
performance test, if using air-assisted thermal oxidation systems, and
to set the maximum air assist rate at the minimum rate needed to
maintain smokeless operations at high gasoline loading rates, if using
air-assisted flares.
As noted in the discussion of the enclosed combustor study funded
by ILTA in sections III.B.2.b and c of this preamble, test runs with
high air assist rates showed poor performance. In addition, the
petitioner excluded runs when the air assist rate exceeded 4,500 scfm
in developing their recommendations regarding both the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> requirement and setting a minimum combustion zone
temperature operating limit of 400 [deg]F. According to the petitioner,
the portable test unit had a larger air blower than typical thermal
oxidations systems, and facilities would not normally operate their
thermal oxidation systems at those blower settings. In addition, the
petitioner indicated that tuning the air assist rates is common
practice when first installing the thermal oxidation unit (and not
adjusting the air blowers thereafter). The petitioners suggested that
the EPA could require air assist rate tuning to the minimum rate that
ensures smokeless operation of the combustion device during periods of
high gasoline loadings and require conducting daily inspections of the
blower and dampers to ensure the air assist rate remains constant for
thermal oxidation systems electing to comply with the NHV operating
limit. Based on the EPA's assessment of ILTA's test data, air-assisted
thermal oxidation systems meeting the 400 [deg]F temperature operating
limit would require similar provisions due to the exclusion of runs
with air assist rates exceeding 4,500 scfm in developing that operating
limit.
Considering the petitioners' recommendations and the EPA's
independent review of the submitted test data, the Agency is proposing
to require that all air-assisted flares and air-assisted thermal
oxidation systems set a maximum air assist rate and conduct daily (each
operating day) inspections of the blower settings and damper positions
to prevent exceedances of the maximum established air assist rates. For
air-assisted thermal oxidation systems, the EPA is proposing that
affected facilities set the maximum air assist rate at the rate used
during the performance test. For air-assisted flares, the EPA is
proposing that: (1) affected facilities conduct an initial air assist
tuning to the minimum rate needed for maintaining smokeless operations
at high gasoline loading rates, and (2) the established air assist rate
from this initial tuning is the maximum air assist rate for that flare.
In addition, the EPA is proposing that affected facilities evaluate the
maximum air assist rate based on the blower setting and damper
position. Moreover, the EPA is proposing to require daily inspections
(each operating day) of the blower setting and damper position to
ensure that the air assist rate does not exceed the established maximum
rate. Furthermore, in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB, and NSPS subpart
XXa, the EPA is proposing to add (1) recordkeeping requirements for the
established maximum air assist rate and daily inspections, and (2)
reporting requirements for exceedances of the maximum air assist rate
based on observed blower setting and damper position. Based on the
EPA's review of the submitted test data for runs with high air assist
rates, the Agency determined that these proposed requirements are
necessary to ensure that air-assisted flares and thermal oxidation
systems meet the required mass emission limits at all times.
The EPA solicits comment on its proposal to establish a maximum air
assist rate for air-assisted flares and thermal oxidation systems and
to add the associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (C-13).
e. Minimum NHV Determination
The EPA is proposing to revise the flare requirements referenced at
40 CFR 60.502a(c)(3)(vii)(C). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
revise the 14-day sampling period for determining the minimum NHV
content of gas streams that have a consistent composition or fixed
minimum NHV. The proposed revision reduces the required time interval
between the collection of the grab samples, allowing the affected
facilities to conduct sampling over a shorter period.
The 2022 Proposal and the 2024 Final Rule both included cross-
references to the flare provisions in the Refinery NESHAP subpart
CC.\76\ In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA included additional details for
using the 14-day sampling demonstration to determine minimum gasoline
loading rates and minimum ratio of gasoline to total liquid loading
rates that would ensure sufficient NHV

[[Page 61192]]

to comply with the flare monitoring provisions--facilities that comply
with the 10 or 35 mg/L emission limit can elect to comply with the
flare monitoring provision for their thermal oxidation systems.
Petitioners suggested that the 14-day sampling period is arbitrary and
unnecessary to demonstrate the NHV at a given gasoline loading rate or
ratio of gasoline to total liquid loading rates. According to the
petitioners, the NHV for gasoline will be consistent, and the
contribution of other product loading will be minimal, so the impacts
of dilution on NHV will also be consistent. As such, the petitioners
suggested a single test should be sufficient to determine the minimum
NHV associated with a minimum gasoline loading rate and minimum ratio
of gasoline to other product loading rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA disagrees that the 14-day sampling period is arbitrary; the
EPA based this period on the Refinery NESHAP provisions. The EPA
expects that the NHV will vary slightly more than the petitioners
suggest because the amount of displaced gasoline vapors during loading
will depend on the ambient temperature, and could vary based on the
type of loaded gasoline (e.g., regular versus premium) and the current
fill level of the gasoline cargo tank. All these variables will impact
the NHV of the vapors that are directed to the control device.
Additionally, the loading of non-gasoline fuel into a gasoline cargo
tank (i.e., a cargo tank containing gasoline on its immediate previous
load) will contribute significant NHV and displace gasoline vapors. The
intent of the requirement to obtain 14 samples is to assess the
variability of NHV during similar loading scenarios and account for
these factors.
However, the EPA agrees that affected facilities can conduct the
sampling over shorter time intervals without compromising the purpose
of this minimum NHV sampling demonstration. The EPA understands a
typical cargo tank may take 15 to 20 minutes to load. If facilities
conduct sampling at intervals of no less than 20 minutes, then
facilities could collect 14 grab samples within approximately 4.5
hours. This sample collection period would still account for variations
in NHV due to changes in temperature, gasoline products loaded, and
liquid level in the cargo tank. The EPA considers the collection of 14
grab samples necessary because this number of samples--as opposed to
fewer--ensures representative testing, where the majority of sampling
does not occur during infrequent switch loading events (i.e., the
loading of non-gasoline fuel into a gasoline cargo tank). Therefore,
the EPA is proposing to revise the provisions at 40 CFR
60.502a(c)(3)(vii)(C) to allow the collection of 14 grab samples over a
shorter period, given that there are at least 20 minutes between the
collection of each grab sample. This provision will reduce the burden
of the minimum NHV sampling demonstration while still accounting for
changes in NHV due to temperature and other process conditions.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to reduce the
required time interval between the collection of grab samples when
conducting the minimum NHV sampling demonstration (C-14).
3. Vapor Recovery System Compliance Provisions
a. Emission Limit Averaging Time
The EPA is proposing to revise the compliance provisions for vapor
recovery systems to allow affected facilities to evaluate the
applicable operating limit on a 6-hour, rather than 3-hour, rolling
average basis.
The petitioners requested that the EPA restore the historical 6-
hour averaging time for the vapor recovery operating limit. The
petitioners noted that historically performance tests for vapor
recovery units were six hours long, and the EPA therefore determined
operating limits for these units based on a 6-hour averaging period.
According to the petitioners, facilities sized their vapor recovery
units based on a 6-hour averaging period, which allows balance between
high and low gasoline loading rates. ILTA conducted an informal survey
of member companies that suggested five of 15 vapor recovery units
would have to either upgrade or curtail gasoline loading because of the
change in the averaging period. ILTA recommended revising NESHAP
subpart BBBBBB to allow a 6-hour averaging period for vapor recovery
units; API and AFPM suggested that the EPA should allow all previously
installed vapor recovery units (i.e., those installed prior to the
effective date of the 2024 Final Rule) to use a 6-hour averaging
period.
The EPA reviewed the information that petitioners provided and the
data that the Agency used to assess the new source standards in NSPS
subpart XXa. The EPA acknowledges that all the historical data the
Agency used to establish these operating standards are based on 6-hour
averaging periods. The concentration emission limit for vapor recovery
units is calculated directly from the mass emission limit (mg/L
gasoline loaded), and the EPA agrees that compliance with this standard
has been historically evaluated on a 6-hour average basis. Therefore,
to provide consistency between the concentration emission limits and
the test data used to establish the performance standards, the EPA is
proposing to revise the standards in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB and
in NSPS subpart XXa to evaluate the concentration emission limits on a
6-hour rolling average basis. The EPA is proposing to add a definition
of ``6-hour rolling average'' in NSPS subpart XXa that applies to vapor
recovery units and is structurally analogous to the definition of ``3-
hour rolling average,'' i.e., the 6-hour rolling average consists of
seventy-two 5-minute periods rather than thirty-six 5-minute periods.
In addition, the EPA is proposing minor edits to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB and NSPS subpart
XXa to refer to the vapor recovery system concentration limit as a 6-
hour rolling average rather than a 3-hour rolling average.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to increase the
averaging period for the concentration emission limits for vapor
recovery systems from a 3-hour rolling average to a 6-hour rolling
average (C-15).
b. Periods When Vapor Recovery Emission Limit Applies
The EPA is not proposing revisions to the requirement that affected
facilities must meet the applicable concentration emission limit at all
times while operating a vapor recovery system, including during periods
of carbon bed regeneration and purging cycles, when there is no active
loading of liquid products.
ILTA suggested revising or clarifying the language regarding the
application of the concentration operating limit. ILTA suggested that
the concentration limit should apply only ``when the vapor recovery
unit is available as the active vapor collection system for the loading
rack.'' In the suggested paradigm, the operating limit would not apply
during periods without active liquid product loading because during
those periods the loading rack would be isolated from the vapor
recovery unit. The petitioner indicated that this ``clarification'' is
especially important given the 2024 Final Rule's 3-hour rolling average
concentration limit.
The EPA disagrees with this suggestion because the vapor recovery
system still processes gasoline vapors even when there is no active
loading. While there may be no flow directly from the loading racks to
the ``adsorbing

[[Page 61193]]

bed,'' the ``desorbing bed'' will be releasing gasoline vapors. The
gasoline vapors that are not knocked out and captured in the recovery
system will be diverted to the adsorbing bed. Thus, there are still
emissions from the stack even when there is no active product loading.
The EPA considers the language in 40 CFR 60.502a(b)(2)(i) and (ii) to
be clear that affected facilities must operate the vapor recovery
system when ``liquid product is being loaded, during carbon bed
regeneration, and when preparing the beds for reuse'' (the latter
including a purging cycle). The EPA considers the requirement to
operate the carbon bed adsorption system during carbon bed regeneration
and when preparing the beds for reuse to apply whether or not liquid
product loading is occuring during these times. As such, the EPA
maintains that facilities must include these periods in the rolling
average concentration limit.
In addition, the EPA finds that including these periods is
consistent with operations during the performance test. There may be 5-
minute periods during the performance test without the loading of
liquid product due to switching vehicles, but the TOC emitted during
the performance test still includes emissions from these periods.
Furthermore, based on the phrasing of the petitioner's request, the EPA
expects that reverting to a 6-hour rolling average for vapor recovery
units--as described in section III.B.3.a of this preamble--effectively
renders this issue moot. Regardless, the EPA maintains that the
emission limit applies while the vapor recovery system is ``operating''
during all periods as specified in 40 CFR 60.502a(b)(2)(i) or
(c)(2)(i), even though some period may not include active loading of
liquid product. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing additional
revisions to the periods that facilities must include in the proposed
6-hour rolling average concentration limit for vapor recovery units.
In reviewing the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(8)
as described in section III.B.2.a of this preamble, the EPA realized
that this paragraph does not specify the requirement to maintain
records of each 5-minute period while the vapor recovery system is
operating. This information is necessary for calculating the 6-hour
rolling average TOC concentration to compare with the applicable TOC
concentration emission limit, so operators would already need records
of this information. To directly require these records, the EPA is
proposing to revise 40 CFR 60.505a(a)(8) to clarify that records for
vapor recovery systems must include each 5-minute period while the
vapor recovery system is operating.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to not revise the
requirement to meet the applicable concentration emission limit at all
times that the vapor recovery system is operating, which includes
periods of carbon bed regeneration and purging cycles, when there is no
active loading of liquid products, and to clarify that operators must
maintain records of each 5-minute period while the vapor recovery
system is operating (C-16).
c. Limited Alternative Provisions for Vapor Recovery Systems
The EPA is proposing to revise the limited alternative monitoring
plan requirements for vapor recovery systems during CEMS downtime. The
revisions will allow affected facilities to develop and submit a site-
specific monitoring plan instead of relying on the 10 previous
operational cycles.
The petitioners indicated that the limited alternative monitoring
plan provisions for vapor recovery units during CEMS downtime are
impractical and could be unworkable in cases when there is limited or
no gasoline loaded during the previous 10 adsorption cycles. According
to the petitioners, having to evaluate and set different operating
parameters for different CEMS outage periods is burdensome and
difficult to implement immediately when there is a CEMS outage.
Additionally, the previous 10 cycles could include periods of low
product loading, and this would, according to the petitioners,
needlessly restrict loading rates or cycle times during higher product
loading times. ILTA noted that operators do not commonly know the purge
gas quantities but only know when the valves cycle open or closed. The
petitioners requested that the EPA allow facilities to develop a
limited alternative operating plan consistent with the design of the
vapor recovery system so that operators have a clear and consistent set
of operating limits to maintain during any given CEMS outage period.
In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA required that facilities base the
operating limits of the limited alternative plan for vapor recovery
systems on the 10 previous operational cycles because of the reduced
adsorption capacity of used carbon beds over time. By using ``recent''
cycle information, the EPA expected the established operating limits
would be more directly tied to the adsorption capacity of the carbon
beds. The EPA met with the petitioners to better understand why they
would initiate regeneration cycles during periods of low product
loading. According to the petitioners, many facilities use fixed
cycling times and do not extend these cycles during periods of low
product loading. The EPA considered adding fixed cycle times as an
alternative, while maintaining the 10 previous cycle evaluation for
facilities that do not use timed cycles. However, the EPA acknowledges
that it is difficult for operators to assess the information and
establish downtime-specific operating limits, given that the typical
cycle time is approximately 30 minutes. In addition, this option does
not address facilities that do not have a means to measure purge gas
quantities.
Based on the EPA's evaluation of this issue, the Agency is
proposing to base the limited alternative monitoring plan requirements
for vapor recovery systems during CEMS downtime on a site-specific
monitoring plan. The EPA is proposing that facilities must develop and
submit the ``limited alternative monitoring plan'' to the Agency
through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) as a record. The EPA is proposing minimum requirements for the
monitoring plan, using timed cycles or operating limits similar to
those used in the current ``10-cycle'' assessment. The EPA is proposing
to allow the determination of the duration of the purge cycle based on
valve sequencing and timing. The EPA expects that the proposed limited
alternative monitoring plan requirements will provide adequate
assurance that the vapor recovery system is operating efficiently for
the short periods that affected facilities are allowed to use this
plan.
These proposed revisions also impact the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB and in NSPS
subpart XXa regarding periods when affected facilities use the limited
alternative monitoring plan. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include
new requirements to retain records of the most recently approved
limited alternative monitoring plan. In addition, the EPA is proposing
to require a record of the start and end dates (including times) for
each use of the plan. The latter requirement is necessary for
demonstrating compliance with the 240-hour per calendar year time limit
for using the limited alternative monitoring plan. Other proposed
revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are primarily
wording changes to reference the operating limits in the monitoring
plan, rather than the 10 previous cycles, and to include ``and plans''
to the

[[Page 61194]]

CEDRI report submittal requirements in 40 CFR 60.605a(e).
The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to require facilities to
develop and comply with a site-specific monitoring plan during CEMS
downtime. In addition, the EPA solicits comment on the sufficiency of
the specific monitoring elements required in the plan (C-17).
4. Vapor Tightness Requirements for Gasoline Cargo Tanks
The EPA is proposing to revise the vapor tightness requirements for
gasoline cargo tanks. The proposed revisions would allow owners and
operators of all gasoline cargo tanks that load liquid product at a
gasoline loading rack affected facility to meet the annual
certification test requirements by complying with the maximum allowable
pressure or vacuum change that NESHAP subpart R required prior to the
promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule.
The EPA was notified of concerns from cargo tank fleet operators
regarding the frequency of cargo tanks failing the 0.5 inches of water
column pressure drop threshold for certifying that a cargo tank is
vapor-tight. According to the operators, this threshold requires
unrealistic temperature equilibration to achieve that level of
precision and may falsely trigger replacement of equipment or
unnecessary re-tests. As the EPA began evaluating the concerns, the
Agency examined the precision of the test method and found that EPA
Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 (``EPA Method 27''), which
operators must use to conduct the ``pressure vacuum test'' on gasoline
cargo tanks, has a reported precision of <plus-minus> 0.5 inches of
water column and that operators must repeat the test until two
consecutive runs agree within 0.5 inches of water
column.77 78 Given that the current vapor pressure limits
are set at a value equal to the precision level of the test method, the
EPA expects that false indications of failures of the test may result
in situations where the cargo tank is actually vapor-tight. Using the
ideal gas law, a temperature change of only 1 [deg]F could cause a
pressure change of over 0.5 inches of water. The EPA recognizes that
one State (California) implemented the graduated limits from 0.5 to
1.25 inches of water column; however, the Agency does not have data
demonstrating that a pressure drop limit of 0.5 inches of water column
can be accurately and universally demonstrated in practice using EPA
Method 27, especially in other States that have less temperate
climates.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. Method 27--Determination of
Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure Vacuum
Test; sections 13.1 and 8.2.2.5, respectively.
\78\ An alternative test method is available only for railcar
gasoline cargo tanks, provided the railcar tank meets certain
requirements. See 40 CFR 60.503a(f)(3).
\79\ CP-204, Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems
of Cargo Tanks, California Air Resources Board, amended November 7,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA re-evaluated the assumed failure rate of testing and other
assumptions the Agency made in assessing the impacts of the vapor
tightness requirements during the rulemaking for the 2024 Final Rule.
The EPA found the original NESHAP subpart R requirements for vapor
tightness (graduated limits from 1.0 to 2.5 inches of water column
depending on the size of the cargo tank compartment) were cost-
effective compared to a limit of 3.0 inches of water column (as in NSPS
subpart XX and the original NESHAP subpart BBBBBB) under all
alternative assumptions the Agency evaluated. However, the incremental
cost-effectiveness of going from the original NESHAP subpart R
requirements to the more stringent standards in the 2024 Final Rule
(graduated limits from 0.5 to 1.25 inches of water column) highly
depended upon the modeling assumptions and was often not cost-effective
based on reasonable alternative assumptions.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ For more detail on the analysis conducted, see the
memorandum titled Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Cargo Tank Vapor
Tightness Requirements, included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-
0302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the EPA's evaluation of EPA Method 27 precision limits and
the additional analyses for assessing the uncertainty in the Agency's
original impact assessment, the Agency concludes that the more
stringent standards in the 2024 Final Rule are not achievable in
practice nationwide and are likely not cost-effective.\81\ Therefore,
the EPA is proposing that it was not ``necessary'' under CAA section
112(d)(6) to revise the standards in the 2024 Final Rule. Accordingly,
the EPA is proposing to revise the vapor tightness standards in all
gasoline distribution rules to the graduated limits from 1.0 to 2.5
inches of water column, as originally provided in NESHAP subpart R
prior to the promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule. The EPA solicits
comment on the proposed revisions to the vapor tightness requirements
and solicits comment and supporting information related to: (1) the
precision of EPA Method 27; (2) the lower limit of pressure or vacuum
change that can be accurately assessed in practice, particularly in
climates with extreme low or high temperatures; and (3) potential
alternative vapor tightness standards (C-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Editorial Revisions
The EPA is proposing the following editorial revisions:
<bullet> Replace all references to ``parts per million'' (or
``ppm'') to ``parts per million by volume'' (or ``ppmv''). Most of
these edits are specific to leak thresholds for the equipment leak
provisions and more accurately reflect the units of these measurements.
These proposed revisions appear in NESHAP subparts R and BBBBBB and in
NSPS subpart XXa.
<bullet> Add ``, as applicable for the parameter(s) for which there
was a deviation during this event'' to the deviation reporting
requirements at the end of the first sentence at each of 40 CFR
60.505a(c)(2)(i)(C), 63.428(m)(2)(i)(C), and 63.11095(d)(2)(i)(C). The
EPA intends this proposed revision to clarify that, for a given
deviation event, only the operating values for the parameter(s) that
had a deviation during that event require reporting. For example,
facilities may be subject to both the temperature operating limit and
the maximum loading pressure operating limit. If there is a deviation
of only the temperature operating limit, facilities must only report
the operating temperatures during that deviation and are not required
to report the operating pressures during that deviation.
<bullet> Revise the definition of ``vapor-tight gasoline cargo
tank'' in NESHAP subpart BBBBBB to refer to 40 CFR 63.11092(g) rather
than 63.11092(f) to correct a cross-reference error.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed editorial revisions and
other potential revisions to correct cross-references or add clarity to
the requirements in the gasoline distribution rules (C-19).

C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

The EPA is not proposing new emission limits in this proposal. As
such, the EPA is not proposing changes to the compliance dates as set
by the 2024 Final Rule. All revisions will become effective as of the
date of the promulgation of the final rule.\82\ However, in this
proposal, the EPA is clarifying that facilities must conduct the first
instrument monitoring survey for equipment leaks, for new, modified, or
reconstructed sources, no later than

[[Page 61195]]

180 days of becoming a ``collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline
terminal affected facility'' subject to NSPS subpart XXa. Additionally,
the EPA is clarifying that existing sources subject to NESHAP subpart R
or BBBBBB must conduct the first instrument monitoring survey for
equipment leaks by the compliance date specified in those rules (i.e.,
May 8, 2027). Regarding the proposed options for thermal oxidation
systems, the EPA expects that, if finalized, either the proposed
changes to the testing requirements or the proposed changes involving
the operating limits will become effective on the date of the
promulgation of the final rule, and the Agency is proposing to allow
retention of operating limits established under recent tests until the
next required performance test. The EPA also notes that while the
Agency is not proposing changes to the compliance date, industry
representatives have requested a compliance date extension in order to
provide sufficient time to meet the amended requirements of the rule.
The EPA solicits comment on the sufficiency and clarity of the proposed
compliance dates (C-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ See CAA sections 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

There are approximately 9,500 facilities subject to the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP rules and the Bulk Gasoline Terminals NSPS. An
estimated 210 facilities are classified as major sources and 9,260 are
area sources. The EPA estimated that there will be five new facilities
and 15 modified/reconstructed facilities subject to NSPS subpart XXa in
the next five years.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

This proposed action will have no impact on VOC or HAP emissions
from gasoline distribution facilities. The amendments proposed in this
action do not impact the stringency of the 2024 Final Rule emission
standards. The EPA expects that the proposed amendments to the
compliance provisions will assist affected sources achieve compliance
with the relevant emission limits. In addition, the EPA does not expect
the changes to the cargo tank vapor tightness standards to impact air
quality because the Agency has determined the previous standards to be
practically infeasible. As such, the EPA expects the proposed
amendments will have no impact on air quality and no impact on overall
human health.

C. What are the costs?

The EPA expects this proposed action, if finalized as proposed, to
result in compliance cost savings to gasoline distribution facilities
from the proposed amendments to testing and monitoring requirements for
thermal oxidation systems and flares controlling VOC and HAP emissions
from the loading racks at these facilities. These proposed amendments
result in estimated total average annual compliance cost savings of
$713,400 (in 2024 dollars) for area sources subject to NESHAP subpart
BBBBBB under proposed Option 1 (revising the performance test duration
and requirements). For proposed Option 2 (fixed temperature operating
limit), the estimated total average annual compliance cost savings for
area sources subject to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB is $565,800 (in 2024
dollars). The EPA has calculated average annual costs by dividing costs
over five years by five.
Major source gasoline distribution facilities generally use vapor
recovery systems, so the proposed revisions to the testing and
monitoring requirements for thermal oxidation systems and flares do not
impact those facilities. The EPA expects gasoline distribution
facilities that use vapor recovery units (both major and area sources)
to have no net cost impacts regarding the proposed revisions to the
limited alternative for vapor recovery systems. All major sources would
incur initial costs to develop the limited alternative monitoring plan,
but the sources would have lower costs when implementing the plan as
compared to evaluating the 10 previous cycles each time a CEMS outage
occurs. Over the first one to three years (depending on the number of
CEMS outages that occur each year), the EPA expects these costs to
offset, so the Agency is not projecting any costs for major source
gasoline distribution facilities as a result of the proposed revisions
to the limited alternative for vapor recovery systems. In subsequent
years, the EPA expects the proposed use of the limited alternative
monitoring plan to result in slight annual cost savings.
The changes to the cargo tank vapor tightness standards are not
expected to result in compliance cost changes. The 2024 Final Rule
projected cost savings associated with the more stringent standards
(i.e., the graduated pressure/vacuum loss limits from 0.5 to 1.25
inches of water column) due to the value of the recovered product.
However, those cost savings are not realizable, as the EPA has
determined in this reconsideration proposal rulemaking that the
previous standards are practically infeasible. Therefore, reverting to
the originally provided standards in NESHAP subpart R prior to the
promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule, will not incur cost (i.e., loss of
cost savings) on the affected sources.

D. What are the benefits?

The EPA does not expect the proposed action to impact VOC or HAP
emissions from gasoline distribution facilities. The amendments
proposed in this action do not impact the stringency of the 2024 Final
Rule emission standards. The EPA expects that the proposed amendments
to the compliance provisions will assist affected sources achieve
compliance with the relevant emission limits. Therefore, the EPA does
not anticipate public health benefits or disbenefits from the proposed
action.

E. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), titled Economic
Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Review and Standards of
Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review: Reconsideration
Proposal, which is available in the docket for this proposed rule. The
EIA analyzes the potential cost and benefit impacts of the proposed
action, and the EPA presents potential impacts for the 2027 to 2041
timeframe. The EIA analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed
action to better inform the public about its potential effects.
The EPA estimates that the proposed rulemaking will result in
social cost savings discounted to 2025 of $9.1 million in present value
(PV) ($0.81 million equivalent annualized value (EAV)) using a 3
percent social discount rate and $6.9 million in present value ($0.87
million EAV) using a 7 percent social discount rate from 2027 to 2041.
The EAV are calculated to represent constant cost saving flows
occurring in each period from 2027 to 2041 that, when discounted to
2025, are equal in PV to the original stream of cost savings. Details
on the estimated social cost savings of the proposed rulemaking are in
the EIA.

V. Request for Comments

The EPA solicits comment on this proposed action. In addition to
general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in
additional data that may improve the analyses. Please refer to the
relevant sections for more detail on the specific points on which the
EPA seeks comment.

[[Page 61196]]

C-1: Should the EPA include a capital expenditure threshold for the
modification provisions for the ``collection of equipment at a bulk
gasoline terminal affected facility'' under NSPS subpart XXa?
C-2: Should the EPA clarify that affected facilities must conduct
the first instrument monitoring survey for equipment leaks under NSPS
subpart XXa within 180 days of becoming a ``collection of equipment at
a bulk gasoline terminal affected facility''?
C-3: Should the EPA clarify in NSPS subpart XXa that affected
facilities must conduct the first instrument monitoring survey for
equipment leaks under NESHAP R or BBBBBB (i.e., cross-referencing
subparts) by the compliance date of the applicable provisions in NESHAP
R or BBBBBB?
C-4: Should the EPA clarify that affected facilities must conduct
instrument monitoring surveys for equipment leaks during periods of
gasoline loading into gasoline cargo tanks?
C-5: Should the EPA specify the connector monitoring requirements
and directly enumerate monitoring exceptions for all component types
(i.e., connectors, valves, and pumps) in NSPS subpart XXa?
C-6: Do the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 60.503a(a)(2) adequately
clarify that the pre-performance test instrument monitoring survey for
equipment leaks is a work practice standard, not an operating limit,
and that affected facilities must repair leaks identified during this
survey prior to conducting the performance test?
C-7: Does the proposed revision to the definition of ``in gasoline
service'' adequately clarify equipment monitoring requirements for
backup or secondary control systems?
C-8: Should the EPA retain the annual instrument monitoring
requirements for bulk gasoline plants and pipeline pumping stations? Or
should the EPA provide reduced monitoring requirements for pipeline
pumping stations or ``remote'' facilities?
C-9: Should the EPA retain the historical definition of ``gasoline
cargo tank'' and the requirement that facilities must consider a cargo
tank as a gasoline cargo tank when the immediate previous load is not
known?
C-10: Do the revisions to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
60.506a(a)(2)(viii) and (8) adequately clarify these requirements and
eliminate duplicative recordkeeping requirements?
C-11: Is the proposed revision to the definition of diameter in the
NHV<INF>dil</INF> calculation for thermal oxidation systems with
multiple burner tips appropriate? Does the revision adequately address
differences in performance of enclosed combustors based on the
petitioners' data? Are there additional operating and test data
available for different air-assisted thermal oxidation system designs
that can inform revisions to NHV<INF>dil</INF> requirements?
C-12: Should the EPA revise the performance testing requirements to
allow a broader range of loading scenarios in order to establish an
effective combustion zone temperature operating limit that ensures
continuous compliance with the applicable mass emission limit while
accounting for the differences in gasoline loading rates? Or should the
EPA establish a default minimum mid-stack temperature operating limit
of 400 [deg]F or other default value?
C-13: Should the EPA establish a maximum air assist rate for air-
assisted flares and thermal oxidation systems and add associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
C-14: Is the proposed 20-minute interval between grab samples
sufficient to assess variability in minimum NHV sampling demonstration?
C-15: Should the EPA increase the averaging period for the
concentration emission limits for vapor recovery systems from a 3-hour
rolling average to a 6-hour rolling average?
C-16: Should the EPA maintain the requirements to meet the
applicable concentration emission limit at all times while operating
the vapor recovery system and clarify the recordkeeping requirements
for vapor recovery system operating time periods?
C-17: Are the EPA's proposed revisions for the limited alternative
requirements for vapor recovery systems sufficient and workable for
demonstrating continuous compliance during CEMS downtime?
C-18: Should the EPA revise the vapor tightness requirements to
graduated limits, ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 inches of water column, or
alternative limits based on the accuracy and precision of EPA Method 27
and considering the uncertainty in the impacts of revised vapor
tightness requirements?
C-19: Does the EPA need additional editorial revisions to correct
cross-references or add clarity to the rule requirements?
C-20: Are the compliance dates for the amendments clear and
appropriate?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

1. NESHAP Subpart R
The proposed amendments are not expected to alter the burden
associated with NESHAP subpart R because all facilities subject to
NESHAP subpart R are expected to use vapor recovery systems. The
proposed revisions to the averaging period for the concentration
emission limits applicable to facilities using vapor recovery systems
may eliminate the need for some facilities to have to upgrade their
control system, according to the petitioners. However, in the 2024
Final Rule, the EPA previously assumed no upgrades to the control
equipment would be needed to meet the concentration limit. Thus, the
impacts of shifting to a 6-hour rolling average helps ensure that the
impacts previously estimated for NESHAP subpart R are accurate and do
not need to be revised. Similarly, the EPA does not expect the proposed
revisions to the limited alternative monitoring provisions to alter the
average burden associated with the alternative monitoring provision as
included in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the 2024 Final
Rule. Therefore, we are not submitting an ICR document for approval to
the OMB under the PRA for NESHAP subpart R.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of gasoline
distribution facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart R).
Estimated number of respondents: 210 (assumes no new respondents
over next three years).

[[Page 61197]]

Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: 0 hours (per year) to comply with the
proposed amendments (incremental to the 2024 Final Rule promulgated
amendments) in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $ 0 (per year), including no annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with the proposed
amendments in the NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-
related comments in the final rule.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2237.09. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and the
EPA briefly summarizes the ICR here.
The EPA is proposing amendments to revise provisions related to the
compliance requirements for thermal oxidation systems and for flares
that will impact burden associated with large bulk gasoline terminals
subject to NESHAP BBBBBB. These revisions include options for either
altering the performance test requirements or establishing a set
minimum temperature operating limit, reducing the time interval between
samples when conducting the determination of a consistent or minimum
NHV for the vent gas, and addition of maximum air assist rate
requirements. The EPA is also proposing amendments to the compliance
requirements for vapor recovery systems at large bulk gasoline
terminals, but these proposed revisions are not expected to alter the
compliance burden relative to the 2024 Final Rule as discussed in
section VI.C.1 of this preamble. This information will be collected to
assure compliance with NESHAP subpart BBBBBB.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of gasoline
distribution facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (NESHAP subpart
BBBBBB).
Estimated number of respondents: 9,263 (assumes no new respondents
over the next three years); only 178 respondents are projected to have
revised burden.
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: Under Option 1, 1,135 hours (per year) to
comply with the proposed amendments in the NESHAP relative to the 2024
Final Rule. Under Option 2, 1,198 hours (per year) to comply with the
proposed amendments in the NESHAP relative to the 2024 Final Rule.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: Under Option 1, net cost savings of $713,373
per year (in 2024 dollars), including savings for reduced operation and
maintenance costs, to comply with the proposed amendments in the
NESHAP. Under Option 2, net cost savings of $565,753 per year (in 2024
dollars), including savings for reduced operation and maintenance
costs, to comply with the proposed amendments in the NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rulemaking. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB
must receive comments no later than October 28, 2026.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
The EPA does not expect the proposed amendments to alter the burden
associated with NSPS subpart XXa because the EPA expects most
facilities subject to NSPS subpart XXa to use vapor recovery systems as
discussed in section VI.C.1 of this preamble. The EPA expects that the
proposed clarification to the modification provision for the equipment
leak requirements for a ``collection of equipment at a bulk gasoline
terminal affected facility'' will limit the number of facilities that
become subject to NSPS subpart XXa. However, in the 2024 Final Rule,
the EPA assumed only four new sources would become subject to these
provisions each year. The proposed revisions to the equipment leak
modification provisions simply aligns the burden associated with these
provisions with the burden previously assumed for NSPS subpart XXa.
Therefore, we are not expecting the proposed revisions to alter the
current ICR, and we are not submitting an ICR revision document for
approval to the OMB under the PRA.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of bulk gasoline
terminals.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (NSPS subpart XXa).
Estimated number of respondents: 12 (assumes four new respondents
each year over the next three years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: 0 hours (per year) to comply with the
proposed amendments (incremental to NSPS subpart XXa in the 2024 Final
Rule). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $ 0 (per year), including no annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with the proposed
amendments (incremental to NSPS subpart XXa in the 2024 Final Rule).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

[[Page 61198]]

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of
concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on
small entities and the Agency is certifying that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small
entities subject to the rule. The EPA estimates that this proposed
action would result in estimated total average annual compliance cost
savings of $713,400 or $565,800 (in 2024 dollars)--depending on the
monitoring option for thermal oxidation systems the Agency ultimately
finalizes--for area sources subject to NESHAP subpart BBBBBB, including
small entities. In total, the EPA estimates that this proposed
rulemaking will result in social cost savings, discounted to 2025, of
$0.81 and $0.87 million in EAV using 3 and 7 percent social discount
rates, respectively, from 2027 to 2041. For a more detailed analysis,
please see the document titled Economic Impact Analysis for the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline
Distribution Technology Review and Standards of Performance for Bulk
Gasoline Terminals Review: Reconsideration Proposal available in the
docket for this proposed rule. The EPA has therefore concluded that
this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated
small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more (adjusted for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While
this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the
costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $100 million
or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA estimates there are approximately 210
major source and 9,260 area source gasoline distribution facilities;
however, the EPA had location information for only 117 of the major
source facilities and 1,229 of the area source facilities. The EPA has
not identified any facilities affected by this action as owned or
operated by Tribal governments or located within Tribal lands. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However,
consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer government-to-government consultation
with Tribes upon request.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and to explain why
the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed revisions do
not impact VOC or HAP emissions generated by gasoline distribution
facilities and are projected to have no impact on overall health,
including that of children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

The NTTAA requires the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) in addition to Agency methods in regulatory activities unless
doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. VCS are technical documents, such as test methods, that
are developed or adopted by VCS bodies using procedures that ensure
that the standards development process is open to all interested
parties. VCS bodies are generally private sector, not-for-profit
entities such as the American Society for Testing and Materials.
The EPA searched the Enhanced National Standards System Network
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute for VCS
that could be used in the Reconsideration of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution
Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk
Gasoline Terminals. The EPA also contacted VCS organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. While the EPA has made a
reasonable effort to identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS,
the Agency's findings do not necessarily represent all potential
alternative standards which may exist.
According to 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A--General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test
methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final
rule or subsequent amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable
VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
1. NESHAP Subpart R
The EPA searched for acceptable alternatives for EPA Methods 21 and
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; EPA Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8; and ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound and
Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K. The EPA found no VCS are acceptable alternatives for EPA
Methods 21, 22, and 27. The EPA found no VCS are an acceptable
alternative for ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound and
Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K.
2. NESHAP Subpart BBBBBB
The EPA searched for acceptable alternatives for EPA Methods 21 and
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; EPA Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8; and ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound and
Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K. The EPA found no VCS are acceptable alternatives for EPA
Methods 21, 22, and 27. The EPA found no VCS are an

[[Page 61199]]

acceptable alternative for ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound
and Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K.
3. NSPS Subpart XXa
The EPA searched for acceptable alternatives for EPA Method 2B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1; EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-6; EPA Methods 21, 22, 25, 25A, and 25B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7; EPA Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8; EPA Performance
Specifications 2, 8, 8A, and 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B;
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound and Greenhouse Gas Leaks
Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60, appendix K; and EPA
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The EPA found no VCS are
acceptable alternatives for EPA Methods 2B, 18, 21, 22, 25, 25A, 25B,
and 27. The EPA found no VCS are acceptable alternatives for EPA
Performance Specifications 2, 8, 8A, and 9. The EPA found no VCS are an
acceptable alternative for ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compound
and Greenhouse Gas Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging'' of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K.
The EPA found one VCS that is an acceptable alternative standard
for the purposes of this rule. ASTM D6348-03 (2010), ASTM D6348-12el,
and ASTM D6348-12 (R2020), ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,''
are acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 320, with caveats. When using
ASTM D6348-03 (2010), ASTM D6348-12el, or ASTM D6348-12 (R2020), the
following conditions must be met:
(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
(2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R) x 100.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-19774 Filed 9-25-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 28, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.