ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 20,
1993
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
EMERGENCY RULE AMENDING
)
R93-12
THE STAGE
II GASOLINE VAPOR
)
(Rulemaking)
RECOVERY RULE IN THE METRO-
)
EAST AREA,
35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
219.586(d)
)
Adopted Rule.
EmergencY Rule.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board on a motion, dated April
30,
1993 and filed with the Board May 3,
1993, submitted by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
The Agency
petitions the Board to adopt an emergency rule that modifies a
compliance date found in the Board’s Stage
II vapor recovery
regulations.
These regulations were adopted in August 1992
in
response to a petition from the Agency.
The compliance date at issue is the May
1,
1993 date found
at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 219.586(d) (1).
Pursuant thereto, gasoline
dispensing facilities located in the Metro-East area that
commenced construction after November 1,
1990 are required by May
1,
1993 to install vapor collection and control equipment.
This
equipment is commonly known as Stage
II equipment.
Stage II
rules have been applied to the Metro—East area,
consisting of Madison,
Monroe, and St. Clair counties, because
the Metro-East area has been classified by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
as a “moderate ozone
nonattainment area”.
Areas so designated are required to reduce
low-altitude atmospheric ozone levels under the mandate of the
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549
(CAAA).
Stage II rules are one of the state’s strategies to
achieve this end.
Nothing in today’s proceeding affects the
obligations for Stage II in the Chicago area.
The Agency seeks to have the May 1,
1993 date replaced by a
September 28,
1993 date.
The Agency concludes its motion by
stating that
it “offers whatever support for the emergency rule
that the Board may require”.
(Motion,
p.
4.)
On May
5,
1993, the Board issued an order noting that the
Agency’s motion for emergency rulemaking was defective as regards
service and incomplete in that essential information was missing.
Accordingly, the Board reserved ruling on the motion,
and
solicited additional information and comments to be received by
the Board by May 17,
1993.
(flL~2O791
2
For the reasons stated below, the Board today grants the
Agency’s motion and adopts the emergency rules
as contained in
the order below.
The Board today also repeats the necessary
portions of the history of this proceeding also contained in the
Board’s May
5 order.
THE STAGE II VAPOR RECOVERY RULES
Prior to presentation of the substance of the Agency’s
motion, the Board will provide a brief background concerning the
circumstances of our adoption of the Stage II rules
at issue
here.
On August 13,
1992,
the Board adopted the Stage II rules in
Docket R91-30,
In the Matter of:
Stage
II Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Rules: Amendments to 35
Iii.
Adm. Code Parts
215,
218
and 219.
These were regulations for the installation and
operation of systems for recovery of gasoline vapor emissions
from the fueling of motor vehicles.
These regulations are
effectuated through amendments to the Board’s reasonably
available control technology
(RACT) regulations found at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 215,
218, and 2191.
Pursuant to Section 182(b) (3)
of
the CAAA,
Illinois was to submit these regulations for the
recovery of gasoline vapors as a revision to its state
implementation plan
(SIP)
by November 15,
1992.
The
CAAA
requires that owners or operators of gasoline
dispensing facilities located in nonattainment areas for ozone
designated as moderate or above
(i.e.,
serious,
severe, or
extreme) install and operate gasoline vehicle refueling vapor
recovery systems
(Stage II systems).
The Chicago nonattaininent
area has been designated by USEPA as “severe”,
and the Metro—East
nonattainment area has been designated by USEPA as “moderate”.
The CAAA requires in pertinent part:
(3)
GASOLINE VAPOR RECOVERY
(A) GENERAL RULE
Not later than
2 years after November 15,
1990, the State shall submit a revision to
the applicable implementation plan to require
all owners or operators of gasoline
dispensing systems to install and operate, by
the date prescribed under subparagraph
(B),
a
1
The Chicago area RACT regulations are found at Part 218;
the Metro-East area RACT regulations occur at Part 219; Part 215
contains
PACT
regulations applicable to areas other than the
Chicago and Metro—East nonattainment areas.
0
E~2-0792
3
system for gasoline vapor recovery of
emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles.
*
*
*
(42 USC 75l1a(b)(3)).
To enable the State of Illinois to comply with these
requirements, the state legislature amended Section 10 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/10) (Act),
to
mandate that the Board adopt gasoline vapor recovery
regulations2:
The Board shall adopt regulations requiring the owner
or operator of a gasoline dispensing system that
dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per
month to install and operate a system for the recovery
of gasoline vapor emissions arising from the fueling of
motor vehicles that meets the requirements of Section
182
of the federal Clean Air Act
(42 USC 7511a).
These
regulations shall apply only in areas
of the State that
are classified as moderate, serious,
severe or extreme
nonattainment areas for ozone pursuant to Section 181
of the federal Clean Air Act
(42 USC 7511), but shall
not apply to areas classified as moderate nonattainment
areas for ozone if the Administrator of USEPA~
promulgates standards for vehicle—based
(onboard)
systems for the control of vehicle refueling emissions
pursuant to Section 202(a) (6)
of the federal Clean Air
Act
(42 USC 7521(a) (6)
by November 15, 19923.
(Ill.
Rev.
State.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1010)
The Agency proposed the Stage
II rules on January 22,
1992.
At the request of the Agency, the Board expedited the rulemaking
proceeding and adopted the amendments seven months later on
August 13,
1992.
The adopted amendments apply to gasoline dispensing
facilities located in the Chicago nonattainment area3,
in
addition to gasoline dispensing facilities in the Metro—East
nonattainment area.
2
The Act at Section 10 had previously contained a
prohibition against Board adoption of regulations requiring Stage
II systems in Illinois.
That prohibition remained in effect
until the legislature’s action in response to the
CAAA
noted
here.
~ The Chicago nonattainment area consists of the counties
of
Cook,
DuPage,
Kane,
Lake, McHenry, and Will, plus Oswego Township
in Kendall County and Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in
Grundy County.
~
f~•~
4
The Stage II rules establish a phased—in compliance schedule
for existing sources affected by the rule.
The first phase of
the compliance schedule requires operations that commenced
construction after November
1,
1990 to install and begin
operating Stage II equipment by May
1,
1993.
It is this date
that is at issue today.
Facilities that commenced construction
before November 1,
1990 are required to achieve compliance by
November
1,
1993 or November 1,
1994, depending upon their
size;
these dates are not at issue today.
THE EMERGENCY MOTION
In support of its motion, the Agency recites that at Section
202 (a) (6), the
CAAA
requires the USEPA to promulgate rules for
onboard vapor recovery systems by November 15,
1991.
USEPA
failed to do so.
Instead, USEPA determined that Stage II
accomplished the same or nearly the same reduction in emissions
of volatile organic materials
(VOM)
as onboard vapor recovery and
was safer.
(57 Fed. Peg.
13200, April
15,
1992.)
As explained in more detail above, Section 182(b) (3)
of the
CAAA (42 USC
§ 75l1a(b)(e)) requires implementation of Stage II
vapor recovery in moderate nonattainment areas by November
15,
1992.
However, Section 202(a) (6) provides that Stage II shall
not apply in moderate nonattainment areas once USEPA has
promulgated onboard vapor recovery rules.
Because USEPA did not
promulgate the onboard vapor recovery rules by the date required
in the CAAA,
the Agency proposed and the Board adopted Stage II
vapor recovery rules for Metro—East in R9l—30 in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA.
The National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) and others
brought suit against USEPA for its failure to promulgate the
onboard vapor recovery rules.
The Court found
in NRDC v.
Reilly,
No.
92-1137, slip op.
(D.C.
Cir. Jan.
22,
1993)
that the USEPA
did not have the discretion to forego promulgation of onboard
vapor recovery rules; the court accordingly ordered USEPA to
proceed with the rules.
Section 202(a) (6)
of the
CAAA
does not excuse implementation
of Stage II vapor recovery in moderate nonattainment areas until
such time as USEPA promulgates the onboard vapor recovery rules.
The Agency asserts that:
This raises the specter of very large capital outlay in
an economically depressed area of the State for what
theoretically should be a relatively short period of
time.
Specifically, the Agency estimates that the
capital outlay for installation of Stage II vapor
recovery systems at the Metro—East’s approximately 400
affected stations to be approximately $14 million.
01 t~2-O79t~
5
Once the onboard vapor recovery rules are merely
promulgated,
there is no longer a federal requirement
that those Stage II vapor recovery systems be there.
Moreover,
once onboard vapor recovery begins
penetrating the market, the Stage II systems in Metro-
East will be duplicative of
controls in an area that
does not require them.
(Motion,
p.
2)
On March 25,
1993,
the Director of the Agency wrote a letter
to USEPA Administrator Browner
(Motion, Attachment 2).
After
relating the cost estimates stated above, the Director states:
Therefore,
I request that you immediately develop
national guidance
in light of the Court’s order.
In
the meantime, absent national guidance, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency must assume that USEPA
is leaving the discretion to the states whether to
implement the initial phase Stage II vapor recovery,
which
is due May 15,
1993
sic,
in the moderate ozone
nonattainment areas.
Illinois intends to invoke
emergency measures to delay the initial implementation
date for the Metro—East area unless we receive national
guidance by mid-April.
(j~.,
p.
2; emphasis added)
The Agency asserts that USEPA has not issued definitive guidance
with regard to this problem; the Director has not received a
response to her letter.
(Notion,
p.
3)
Under these circumstances,
it
is the Agency’s opinion that
“enforcement of compliance with the Stage II rules in the Metro—
East area,
at this time,
is onerous and not in the best interests
of the welfare of the people of the State”.
(Motion, p.
3)
The Agency further notes that Illinois
is the first state
in
the nation, according to Region V, to have adopted Stage II rules
pursuant to the
CAAA
requirement4.
Other states, not having
proceeded as far as Illinois, are accordingly in the position of
being able to wait and see what transpires regarding the
promulgation of the onboard vapor recovery rules.
Given the uncertainty of USEPA’s position with regard to
onboard vapor recovery, the Agency requests that the May
1,
1993
compliance date be delayed by the 150 days provided by emergency
rules pursuant to Section 5.02 of the Administrative Procedure
Act
5
ILCS 100/5—45.
“
Other states that have employed Stage II for a number of
years have done so at their discretion: that is, Stage
II is a
control measure they chose to implement;
it was not required by
the
CAAA
at the time these states adopted the Stage II rules.
1~
~7
I
4
/
—
/
6
Section 5.02 Illinois Administrative Procedure Act provides
in pertinent part:
“Emergency” means the existence of any situation that
any agency finds reasonably constitutes a threat to the
public interest,
safety, or welfare.
If any agency
finds that an emergency exists that requires adoption
of a rule upon fewer days than is required by Section
5-40 and states in writing its reasons for that
finding,
the agency may adopt an emergency rule without
prior notice or hearing upon filing a notice of
emergency rulemaking with the Secretary of State under
Section 5-70.
.
.
.
Subject to applicable
constitutional or statutory provisions, an emergency
rule become effective immediately upon filing under
Section 5—65 or at a stated date less than 10 days
thereafter.
The agency shall take reasonable and
appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to
the persons who may be affected by them.
An emergency rule may be effective for a period of not
longer than 150 days,
but the agency’s authority to
adopt an identical rule under Section 5-40 is not
precluded.
Section 27(c)
of the Environmental Protection Act provides:
When the Board finds that a situation exists which
reasonably constitutes
a threat to the public interest,
safety or welfare, the Board may adopt regulations
pursuant to and in accordance with Section 5.02 of the
Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.
Emergency rules are scrutinized by both the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules and by the courts to determine whether
“there exists a situation which reasonably constitutes a threat
to the public interest, safety or welfare”.
Citizens for a
Better Environment v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,
(1st
Dist.
1983)
152 Ill. App.3d 105,
504 N.E.
2d 166,
169
(emphasis
in original)
(vacating rules on the basis that no emergency
existed).
RECENT FILINGS
In its May 5,
1993 order, the Board observed as follows:
The Board may only adopt rules on the basis
of the
record before
it, and this record contains no
information or legal argument to support the Agency’s
conclusion that an emergency exists.
While the Agency
states that it estimates there are some 400 affected
p
~
r
—
‘U
7
gas stations in the Metro—East area and that required
capital expenditures are estimated at $14 million,
its
unsworn motion contains no information to lead the
Board to conclude that any of these stations were out
of compliance as of May 1.
The Board itself has
received no petitions for variance or adjusted
standards which could lead it to conclude that non-
compliance exists. The Agency motion as worded speaks
of “the specter of a very large capital outlay”, rather
than of a reality.
While the Agency may well have
identified or been approached by sources who have yet
to comply with the Stage II requirements,
evidence of
this has not been submitted into this record.
On or before
May
17,
1993,
the Board received the Agency’s
response to the Board’s May 5 order and additional comments from:
PC #1
U.S. Representative Jerry F. Costello
PC #2
Dickerson Petroleum,
Inc.
PC #3
Clinton County Oil Company
PC #4
Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association
(IPMA)
PC #5
L. Keller Oil Properties,
Inc.
PC #6
Thomeczek Oil Company
PC #7
Tn
Star Marketing,
Inc.
PC #8
Martin
& Bayley,
Inc.
The Agency’s argues that:
Installing Stage II vapor recovery controls imposes a
significant hardship on small businesses.
Gasoline
stations operate on a very slim profit margin of two to
four cents a gallon.
It will cost each gas station
between $40,000 and $100,000 to install Stage
II
controls.
Clearly the cost of the control outweighs
the marginal benefit of immediate reduction in
emissions.
This expense is clearly a hardship on these
businesses, and some may have to close or reduce staff.
The Metro-East area already has a high rate of
unemployment; clearly more is not in the public
interest nor is restricting access and increasing the
cost of
a necessary commodity.
The Agency further submits that its proposed emergency rules are
offered to alleviate “a clear and present threat to the public
interest”.
Also, U.S. Representative Costello notes that the current
requirements would impact small businesses with costs ranging to
$14 million,
at a time when the USEPA is in the process of
formulating the onboard vapor recovery rules that would make
Stage II rules inapplicable.
(PC #1.)
0• 1L~2
-
07 97
8
Comments from Dickerson Petroleum,
Clinton County Oil,
L.
Keller Oil Properties,
Thomeczek Oil Company,
Tn
Star Marketing,
and Martin
& Bayley indicate costs per facility ranging from
approximately $13,000 to $267,000 for compliance with existing
Stage
II requirements.
In addition, the IPMA listed eight
affected facilities with costs ranging from $40,000 to $120,000
per facility, and adds:
Unless the applicable compliance deadline is extended
in accordance with the Agency’s request, the affected
IPMA members
* *
*
may be subject to enforcement
actions brought by the Agency for failure to comply
with the applicable Board rules.
In light of these
circumstances, the enforcement of such compliance with
the Stage II rules in the Metro-East area,
at this
time,
constitutes an unreasonable hardship and is not
in the best interest of the State of Illinois.
(PC #4
at 3.)
The USEPA also was invited to comment on the instant matter
in the Board’s Nay 5,
1993.
Given that the Agency is today
asking the Board to alter a rule that was adopted as a federally
required rule,
this Board would have been most receptive to the
USEPA’s perspective.
The USEPA, however, has not responded.
CONCLUSION
Emergency rulemaking by the Board is justified when there is
a threat to the public interest.
The record in this case
demonstrates that facilities in the Metro-East area that should
have complied with Stage II vapor recovery requirements by Nay
I,
1993, would suffer extreme economic hardship if forced to comply
at this time.
The court mandate for USEPA to promulgate onboard
controls, which potentially may eliminate the need for Metro-East
facilities to comply with Stage II requirements, creates
intolerable uncertainty until the USEPA provides guidance.
Moreover, the affected facilities have been placed in a position
where they are subject to legal action by the Agency, or any
citizen,
if they fail to comply with the Stage II requirements
which should have taken effect on May 1,
1993.
The Board will accordingly proceed to adopt the emergency
rule as requested by the Agency.
The Board notes that the extreme action of an emergency
rulemaking might have been avoided if the Agency had acted in a
more timely fashion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision
regarding onboard vapor recovery systems, which precipitated the
instant circumstance, was delivered almost four months ago on
January
22,
1993.
It is clear from the Agency Director’s March
25,
1993 letter to the Administrator of the USEPA
(Motion
H
~2-O798
9
Attachment
2)
that,
at minimum, the Agency was aware of the
pending Stage II problem almost two months ago and more than a
month before the May
1,
1993 compliance deadline.
The Agency did
not notify this Board until May 3,
1993,
after the compliance
deadline had already passed.
Compounding the matter, the
Agency’s May
3 notification was defective,
forcing additional
delay.
The Agency’s untimely actions have reduced the opportunity
for this Board to weigh alternative, and perhaps more
appropriate, measures in place of the drastic emergency
rulemaking action.
For example, there
is nothing in the record
to indicate that the Agency considered the various variance
procedures available under the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act.
Prudently, these should have been considered as
alternatives to emergency rulemaking,
and seemingly could have
been accomplished within the originally available timeframe.
EXPIRATION OF THE EMERGENCY RULE
The Board observes that the Agency’s request is to have the
May
1,
1993 compliance date replaced with September 28,
1993.
The Board is today extending the latter date to October 15,
1993.
The basis for selecting the September 28 date was apparently
solely that this date is calculated as 150 days
(the maximum term
of any emergency rule)
after May
1.
However, today’s rule will
not become effective until
it is filed with the Secretary of
State,
at some date after today’s date.
The 150-day term of the
rule will begin tolling only thereafter.
Thus,
October 15 is
within the 150-day interval.
Given the USEPA’s history with
promulgation of rules,
it is judicious to accept that more time
will be taken with the onboard recovery rules than initially
contemplated, and therefore we may need all of the 150 days in
order to have USEPA’s decision before us.
The Board also observes that when the instant emergency rule
expires,
the May 1,
1993 compliance deadline will again become
the law, unless a permanent amendment to Section 219.586
is made.
The Board does not wish that the affected parties be placed in
retroactive jeopardy due to inaction in addressing this matter.
No proposal for
a permanent rule change has been made; the Board
notes that even ~tfast_track~~rulemaking takes at least 150 days
to complete given various statutory requirements.
The Board
further notes that variances and some adjusted standard
proceedings typically are completed in 120 days.
ORDER
U
L?~-O799
10
The Board adopts the emergency amendments as follows, and
directs the Clerk of the Board to initiate publication in the
Illinois Register.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
C:
EMISSIONS STANDARDS
AND
LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 219
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS
AND
LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
SUBPART Y:
GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
Section 219.586
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
—
Motor
Vehicle Fueling Operations
a)
For the purposes of this section, the following
definitions apply.
1)
A~’er~ge
Monthly Volume: The amount of motor
vehicle fuel dispensed per month from a gasoline
dispensing facility
based upon a monthly average
for the 2-year period of November, 1990 through
October,
1992 or,
if not available, the monthly
average for the most recent twelve calendar
months.
Monthly averages are to include only
those months when the facility was operating.
2)
Certified: Any vapor collection and control system
which has been tested and approved by CARB as
having a vapor recovery and removal efficiency of
at least 95
(by weight)
shall constitute a
certified vapor collection and control system.
CARD testing and approval is pursuant to the CARB
manual, hereby incorporated by reference
(California Air Resources Board, Compliance
Division, Compliance Assistance Program:
Facilities Phase I & II
(October 1988, rev. March
1991 CARB Manual).
This incorporation includes no
later additions or amendments.
3)
Completion of installation:The successful passing
of one or more of the following tests applicable
to the installed vapor collection and control
system:
Dynamic Backpressure Test, Pressure
Decay/Leak Test,
and Liquid Blockage Test(United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
D.C.,
EPA-450/3—91- 002b).
These tests are hereby
01 ~2-00OO
11
This incorporation includes no later additions or
amendments.)
4)
Constructed: Fabricated,
erected or installed;
refers to any facility, emission source or air
pollution control equipment.
5)
CARB:
California Air Resources Board, P.O. Box
2815,
Sacramento,
CA 95812.
6)
Employee: Any person who performs work for an
employer.
7)
Facility: Any building,
structure,
installation,
operation or combination thereof located on
contiguous properties and under common ownership
that provides for the dispensing of motor vehicle
fuel.
8)
Gasoline Dispensing Facility: Any facility where
motor vehicle fuel
is dispensed into motor vehicle
fuel tanks or portable containers from a storage
tank with a capacity of 2176 liters
(575 gallons)
or more.
9)
Modification: Any change, removal or addition,
other than an identical replacement, of any
component contained within the vapor collection
and control system.
10)
Motor Vehicle: Any self-propelled vehicle powered
by an internal combustion engine including, but
not limited to, automobiles and trucks.
Specifically excluded from this definition are
watercraft and aircraft.
11)
Motor Vehicle Fuel: Any petroleum distillate
having a Reid vapor pressure of more than 27.6
kilopascals
(kPa)
(four pounds per square inch)
and which is used to power motor vehicles.
12)
Owner or Operator: Any person who owns,
leases,
operates, manages, supervises or controls
(directly or indirectly)
a gasoline dispensing
facility.
13)
Reid Vapor Pressure:
For gasoline,
it shall be
measured in accordance with either the method ASTM
D323
or a modification of ASTM D323 known as the
“dry method” as set forth in 40 CFR 80, Appendix
E,
incorporated by references in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
215.105.
01 12-080
I
12
14)
Vapor Collection and Control System: Any system
certified by CARB which limits the discharge to
the atmosphere of motor vehicle fuel vapors
displaced during the dispensing of motor vehicle
fuel into motor vehicle fuel tanks.
b)
The provisions of subsection
(c) below shall apply to
any gasoline dispensing facility which dispenses an
average monthly volume of more than 10,000 gallons of
motor vehicle fuel per month.
Compliance shall be
demonstrated in accordance with the schedule provided
in subsection
(d)
below.
c)
No owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing facility
subject to the requirements of subsection
(b)
above
shall cause or allow the dispensing of motor vehicle
fuel at any time from a motor fuel dispenser unless the
dispenser is equipped with and utilizes a vapor
collection and control. systsui which is properly
installed and operated as provided below:
1)
Any
vapor collection and control system installed,
u.se:~oi. maintained has been CARD certified.
2)
Any v~iporcollection and control system utilized
is maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications and the
certification.
3)
No elements or components of a vapor collection
and control s~’stemare modified, removed, replaced
or otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner
which prevents the system from performing in
accordance with its certification and design
specifications.
4j
i\
vapor coliect.ion and control system has no
defective, malfunctioning or missing components.
5)
Operators and employees of the gasoline dispensing
facility are trained and instructed in the proper
operation and maintenance of a vapor collection
and control
systen.
6)
Instructions ~e
posted
in
a conspicuous and
visible place wit~irt
the
mctcr fuel dispensing
area and describe the proper method of dispensing
motor vehicle fuel
with
the use of the vapor
collection and contrcl system.
d)
In conjunction with the compliance provisions of
Section 219.105 of this Part,
facilities subject to the
01
L!.2-0802
13
requirements of subsection
(c)
above shall demonstrate
compliance according to the following:
1)
Facilities that commenced construction after
November 1,
1990, must comply by May lOctober 15,
1993.
2)
Facilities that commenced construction before
November 1,
1990,
and dispense an average monthly
volume of more than 100,000 gallons of motor fuel
per month must comply by November 1,
1993.
3)
Facilities that commenced construction before
November
1,
1990,
and dispense an average monthly
volume of less than 100,000 gallons of motor fuel
per month must comply by November 1,
1994.
4)
New facilities constructed after the adoption of
this Section shall comply with the requirements of
subsection
(c)
above upon startup of the facility.
5)
Existing facilities previously exempted from but
which become subject to the requirements of
subsection
(c) above after May 1,
1993 shall
comply with the requirements of subsection
(c)
above within six calendar months of the date from
which the facility becomes subject.
e)
Any gasoline dispensing facility that becomes subject
to the provisions of subsection
(c)
above at any time
shall remain subject to the provisions of subsection
(c)
above at all times.
f)
Upon request by the Agency, the owner
or operator of a
gasoline dispensing facility which claims to be exempt
from the requirements of this Section shall submit
records to the Agency within 30 calendar days from the
date of the request which demonstrate that the gasoline
dispensing facility is in fact exempt.
g)
Recordkeeping and reporting:
1)
Any gasoline dispensing facility subject to
subsection
(c) above shall retain at the facility
copies of the registration information required at
subsection
(h)
below.
2)
Records and reports required pursuant to this
subsection shall be made available to the Agency
upon request.
Records and reports which shall be
maintained by the owner or operator of the
0!
~2-08O3
14
gasoline dispensing facility shall clearly
demonstrate:
A)
That a certified vapor collection and control
system has been installed and tested to
verify its performance according to its
specifications.
B)
That proper maintenance has been conducted in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications and requirements.
C)
The time period and duration of all
malfunctions of the vapor collection and
control system.
D)
The motor vehicle fuel throughput of the
facility for each calendar month of the
previous year.
E)
That operators and employees are trained and
instructed in the proper operation and
maintenance of the vapor collection and
control system and informed as to the
potential penalties associated with the
violation of any provision of this Section.
h)
Any gasoline dispensing facility subject to subsection
(c)
above shall be exempt from the permit requirements
specified under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 201.143 and
201.144 for its vapor collection and control systems,
provided that:
1)
Upon the installation of a vapor collection and
control system, the owner or operator of the
gasoline dispensing facility submits to the Agency
a registration which provides at minimum the
facility name and address, signature of the owner
or operator, the CARB Executive Order Number for
the vapor collection and control system to be
utilized, the number of nozzles (excluding diesel
or kerosene) used for motor vehicle refueling, the
monthly average volume of motor vehicle fuel
dispensed, the location (including contact
person’s name,
address, and telephone number) of
records and reports required by this Section,
and
the date of completion of installation of the
vapor collection and control system.
2)
The registration is submitted to the Agency within
30 days of completion of such installation.
0
It.
2
-
0
80
L~
15
3)
A copy of the registration information is
maintained at the gasoline dispensing facility.
4)
Upon the modification of an existing vapor
collection and control system, the owner or
operator of the gasoline dispensing facility
submits to the Agency a registration that details
the changes to the information provided in the
previous registration of the vapor collection and
control system and which includes the signature of
the owner or operator.
The registration must be
submitted to the Agency within 30 days of
completion of such modification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS
5/41
(1992), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
establish filing requirements.
(See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
~ZT
day of
~
,
1993,
by
a vote of
_______
C’
~
______
Dorothy M. G~yh,Clerk
Illinois PoU,ôtion Control Board
0! ~2-06O5
