5038 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 5, 2004. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 26, 2003. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P—Indiana

■ 2. Section 52.770 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(152) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(152) On December 19, 2001, Indiana 

submitted revised Particulate Matter 

(PM) control requirements. A March 17, 

2003 letter from Indiana clarified what 

portions of the original submission the 

State was seeking revisions for. EPA is 

approving revisions for certain natural 

gas combustion sources in Indiana and 

various cleanup revisions to Indiana’s 

PM rules. One revision eliminates PM 

emissions limits on specified natural gas 

combustion sources and replaces the 

limits with a requirement that such 

sources may only burn natural gas. The 

submission also contains many cleanup 

provisions such as eliminating limits for 

sources which have shut down and 

updating names of sources. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Indiana Administrative Code 

(IAC) Title 326: Air Pollution Control 

Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 

1: Nonattainment Area Limitations, IAC 

6–1–1.5: Definitions; IAC 6–1–2: 

Particulate emission limitations; fuel 

combustion steam generators, asphalt 

concrete plant, grain elevators, 

foundries, mineral aggregate operations; 

modification by commissioner; IAC 6–

1–3: Non-attainment area particulate 

limitations; compliance determination; 

IAC 6–1–4: Compliance schedules; IAC 

6–1–5: Control strategies; IAC 6–1–6: 

State Implementation Plan revisions; 

IAC 6–1–8.1: Dearborn County 

particulate matter emissions limitations; 

IAC 6–1–9: Dubois County; IAC 6–1–

10.1: Lake County PM10 emission 

requirements, Subsections (a) through 

(k); IAC 6–1–11.1: Lake County fugitive 

particulate matter control requirements; 

IAC 6–1–12: Marion County; IAC 6–1–

13: Vigo County; IAC 6–1–14: Wayne 

County; IAC 6–1–15: Howard County; 

IAC 6–1–16: Vanderburgh County; IAC 

6–1–17: Clark County; and, IAC 6–1–18: 

St. Joseph County. Adopted by the 

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board 

August 1, 2001. Filed with the Secretary 

of State November 8, 2001. Published in 

the Indiana Register, Volume 25, 

Number 3, December 1, 2001 at 709. 

State effective December 8, 2001. 

(B) Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 

Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, 

Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1: Nonattainment Area Limitations, 6–1–1: 

Applicability. Adopted by the Indiana 

Air Pollution Control Board August 1, 

2001. Filed with the Secretary of State 

November 8, 2001. Published in the 

Indiana Register, Volume 25, Number 3, 

December 1, 2001 at 709. State effective, 

December 8, 2001. Amended by Errata 

filed with the Secretary of State January 

10, 2002. Published in the Indiana 

Register, Volume 25, Number 5, 

February 1, 2002 at 1644. State effective, 

February 24, 2002. And amended by 

Errata filed with the Secretary of State 

October 2, 2002. Published in the 

Indiana Register, Volume 26, Number 2, 

November 1, 2002 at 383. State effective, 

November 16, 2002.

[FR Doc. 04–1820 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2003–0138, FRL–7551–6] 

RIN 2060–AE79 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 

Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

new and existing organic liquids 

distribution (OLD) (non-gasoline) 

operations, which are carried out at 

storage terminals, refineries, crude oil 

pipeline stations, and various 

manufacturing facilities. These NESHAP 

implement section 112(d) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) by requiring all OLD 

operations at plant sites that are major 

sources to meet hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions standards reflecting 

the application of the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT). 

The EPA estimates that approximately 

5,300 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 

(5,900 tons per year (tpy)) of HAP are 

emitted from facilities in this source 

category. Although a large number of 

organic HAP are emitted nationwide 

from these operations, benzene, 

ethylbenzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, 

and xylenes are among the most 

prevalent. These HAP have been shown 

to have a variety of carcinogenic and 

noncancer adverse health effects. 

The EPA estimates that the final 

standards will result in the reduction of 

HAP emissions from major sources with 

OLD operations by 60 percent. The 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

final standards, when combined with 

the emissions reductions achieved by 

other similar standards, will provide 

improved protection to the public and 

achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 

2004. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in today’s 

final rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of February 3, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket Nos. A–98–

13 and OAR–2003–0138 are located at 

the U.S. EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning 

applicability and rule determinations, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5039

contact the appropriate State or local 

agency representative. If no State or 

local representative is available, contact 

the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 

40 CFR 63.13. For information 

concerning the analyses performed in 

developing the NESHAP, contact 

Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Emission 

Standards Division, Waste and 

Chemical Processes Group, C439–03, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, (919) 541–2421, 

smith.martha@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include:

Category NAICS* code SIC* code Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ............................. 325211, 325192, 325188, 

32411, 49311, 49319, 

48611, 42269, 42271.

2821, 2865, 2869, 2911, 

4226, 4612, 5169, 5171.

Operations at major sources that transfer organic liquids 

into or out of the plant site, including: liquid storage 

terminals, crude oil pipeline stations, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and other manufacturing facilities with collocated OLD operations. 

Federal Government ......... ........................................... ........................................... Federal agency facilities that operate any of the types of 

entities listed under the ‘‘industry’’ category in this 

table. 

* Considered to be the primary industrial codes for the plant sites with OLD operations. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in § 63.2334 of the 

final rule. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Docket. We have established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID Nos. A–98–13 and 

OAR–2003–0138. The official public 

docket consists of the documents 

specifically referenced in this action, 

any public comments received, and 

other information related to this action. 

All items may not be listed under both 

docket numbers, so interested parties 

should inspect both docket numbers to 

ensure that they have received all 

materials relevant to the final rule. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket) in the 

EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

The telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. A reasonable 

fee may be charged for copying docket 

materials. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, to access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the appropriate docket identification 

number. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility in 

the above paragraph entitled Docket.

WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s final NESHAP 

will also be available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following the 

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the 

NESHAP will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. If more information 

regarding the TTN is needed, call the 

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of 

the final NESHAP is available only by 

filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by April 5, 2004. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to a rule or procedure 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by 

the final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceeding brought to enforce these 

requirements. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Introduction 

A. What Is the Purpose of NESHAP? 

B. What Is the Source of Authority for 

Development of NESHAP? 

C. What Processes and Operations Are 

Included in the OLD (Non-gasoline) 

Source Category? 

II. Summary of the Final OLD NESHAP 

A. What Source Categories and 

Subcategories Are Affected by the Final 

OLD NESHAP? 

B. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP 

Emissions and What Are the Emissions? 

C. What Is the Affected Source? 

D. What Are the HAP Emissions Limits, 

Operating Limits, and Other Standards? 

E. When Must I Comply With the OLD 

NESHAP? 

F. What Are the Testing and Initial 

Compliance Requirements? 

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance 

Requirements? 

H. What Are the Notification, Reporting, 

and Recordkeeping Requirements? 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What Facilities Are Affected by These 

Final NESHAP? 

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? 

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts? 

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous 

Waste Impacts? 

E. What Are the Energy Impacts? 

F. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

G. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

IV. Summary of Rule Differences From 

Proposal 

A. Rule Applicability 

B. Compliance Demonstrations 

C. Emission Limitations and Work Practice 

Standards 

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

V. Summary of Responses to Major 

Comments 

A. Rule Applicability 

B. Emission Limitations and Work Practice 

Standards 

C. Testing, Compliance Requirements, and 

Monitoring 

D. Notifications, Reports, and Records 

E. Definitions 

5040 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply: 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Introduction 

A. What Is the Purpose of NESHAP? 

The purpose of the final NESHAP is 

to protect the public health and the 

environment by reducing emissions of 

HAP from operations that distribute 

organic liquids. 

B. What Is the Source of Authority for 

Development of NESHAP? 

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to 

list categories and subcategories of 

major sources and area sources of HAP 

and to establish NESHAP for the listed 

source categories and subcategories. 

Organic liquids distribution (nongasoline) (major sources only) was 

included on the initial list of source 

categories published on July 16, 1992 

(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are 

those that have the potential to emit 10 

tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy 

or more of any combination of HAP. 

Section 112 (d)(2) of the CAA requires 

NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 

achievable. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as the MACT. 

The MACT floor is the minimum 

control level allowed for NESHAP. This 

concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of 

the CAA. For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

HAP emissions control that is achieved 

in practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The MACT standards for 

existing sources can be less stringent 

than standards for new sources, but they 

cannot be less stringent than the average 

HAP emissions limitation achieved by 

the best-performing 12 percent of 

existing sources in the category or 

subcategory (or by the best-performing 

five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). 

In developing MACT, we also 

consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than 

the floor based on the consideration of 

cost of achieving the HAP emissions 

reductions, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). 

The NESHAP for organic liquids 

distribution were proposed on April 2, 

2002 (67 FR 15674). This action 

announces EPA’s final decisions on the 

NESHAP. 

C. What Processes and Operations Are 

Included in the OLD (Non-gasoline) 

Source Category? 

The OLD (non-gasoline) source 

category involves the distribution of 

organic liquids into, out of, or within a 

plant site. The distribution activities 

include the storage of organic liquids in 

storage tanks not subject to other 40 CFR 

part 63 standards and transfers into or 

out of the tanks from or to cargo tanks, 

containers, and pipelines. Organic 

liquids are those non-crude oil liquids 

that contain at least 5 percent by weight 

of any combination of the 98 HAP listed 

in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63, 

and have a total liquid vapor pressure 

of 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pound per square 

inch absolute (psia)) or greater, and all 

crude oils downstream of the first point 

of custody transfer. For the purposes of 

the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do 

not include gasoline, fuels that are 

consumed or dispensed on the plant 

site, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), 

diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and 

heavier distillate oils and fuel oils, 

hazardous waste, wastewater, or ballast 

water. Emission sources controlled by 

the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, 

transfer operations, transport vehicles 

while being loaded, and equipment leak 

components (valves, pumps, and 

sampling connections) that have the 

potential to leak. 

The types of organic liquids and 

emission sources covered by the OLD 

NESHAP are frequently found at many 

types of facilities that are already 

subject to other NESHAP. If an emission 

source is in organic liquid distribution 

service and is already subject to an 

existing 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, then 

that emission source is not subject to the 

OLD NESHAP. 

II. Summary of the Final OLD NESHAP 

A. What Source Categories and 

Subcategories Are Affected by the Final 

OLD NESHAP? 

Today’s final rule applies to the OLD 

source category. We did not develop any 

subcategories. However, OLD operations 

that do not meet the specified 

applicability criteria for relevant 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards contained in the final rule are 

not required to apply emission 

reduction measures: 

B. What Are the Primary Sources of 

HAP Emissions and What Are the 

Emissions? 

The primary sources of HAP 

emissions from the OLD source category 

are the loss of HAP during the filling of 

storage tanks with organic liquids, 

storage of organic liquid in storage 

tanks, vapor displacement during the 

loading of organic liquids into transport 

vehicles and containers, and vapor 

leakage from transport vehicles at 

transfer racks during loadings of these 

vehicles. The HAP emissions are also 

the result of leaks from equipment such 

as valves, pumps, and sampling 

connection systems. Total baseline HAP 

emissions from the OLD source category 

are approximately 5,900 tpy. 

C. What Is the Affected Source? 

We have defined the affected source 

broadly to be the collection of activities 

and equipment used to distribute 

organic liquids into, out of, or within a 

major source plant site. This affected 

source is termed the ‘‘organic liquids 

distribution (OLD) operation.’’ Four 

types of emission sources are included 

in the affected source: storage tanks 

storing organic liquids; transfer racks at 

which organic liquids are loaded into or 

unloaded out of transport vehicles and/

or containers; the transport vehicles 

themselves while they are loading or 

unloading organic liquids at transfer 

racks; and equipment leak components 

in organic liquids service that are 

associated with pipelines and with 

storage tanks and transfer racks storing, 

loading, or unloading organic liquids. 

Applicability of the final standards is 

not restricted to any specific industries, 

but to each OLD operation that meets 

the applicability criteria of the final 

rule. The final standards do not apply 

to any emission source that is subject to 

another 40 CFR part 63 rule. 

The liquids regulated by the final rule 

consist of non-crude oil organic liquids 

that contain at least 5 percent by weight 

of any combination of the organic HAP 

compounds listed in Table 1 to subpart 

EEEE of part 63 and have a total liquid 

vapor pressure of 0.1 psia or greater, 

plus all crude oils downstream of the 

first point of custody transfer. Gasoline 

is specifically excluded from coverage 

by the final rule as are fuels consumed 

or dispensed on the plant site as well as 

kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel 

(No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and 

heavier distillate oils and fuel oils. 

Regulatory overlaps are specifically 

addressed in the final rule. Many of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5041

facilities potentially affected by the final 

OLD NESHAP contain activities and 

equipment (i.e., certain storage tanks, 

transfer racks, and equipment 

components) that are already subject to 

other Federal air standards (such as 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Kb, for storage 

tanks, or subpart GGG or FFFF of 40 

CFR part 63). The final rule clarifies that 

emission sources subject to other 40 

CFR part 63 NESHAP are not subject to 

the OLD NESHAP. The final rule also 

clarifies that sources subject to other 

non-MACT rules must comply with the 

requirements of the OLD NESHAP as 

well as the other rules. 

D. What Are the HAP Emission Limits, 

Operating Limits, and Other Standards? 

We are promulgating the requirements 

of the final NESHAP in the form of HAP 

emission limits (i.e., percent reduction 

or exhaust concentration), operating 

limits, and work practice standards. The 

work practice standards are a 

combination of design, equipment, and 

operational standards. 

The final NESHAP contain emission 

standards for storage tanks, transfer 

racks, transport vehicles, and equipment 

components at existing and new OLD 

operations. 

The standards for storage tanks apply 

to tanks storing organic liquids and 

meeting the tank capacity and liquid 

HAP vapor pressure applicability 

criteria given in Table 2 to subpart EEEE 

of part 63. You have three options for 

control. First, you may install a closed 

vent system and control device with at 

least 95 percent control efficiency for 

the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63. You may also 

choose to demonstrate that the 

measurement of total organic 

compounds (TOC) is an appropriate 

surrogate for organic HAP. As an 

alternative option to the 95 percent 

standard, combustion devices may meet 

an exhaust concentration limit of 20 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) of 

organic HAP or TOC. Second, you may 

capture and route emissions to a fuel gas 

system or back into a process. Third, 

you may meet a work practice standard 

by using a compliant internal or 

external floating roof in the affected 

storage tank. The tank size and liquid 

vapor pressure applicability criteria 

defining tanks subject to emission 

reduction requirements are different for 

tanks at existing or new affected 

sources. 

The owner or operator will have to 

install a continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) and establish operating limits for 

each control device used to control 

storage tanks. The CMS may be of a type 

to measure either organic concentration 

in the gas stream or an operating 

parameter (such as fire box temperature) 

of the control device. A site-specific 

monitoring plan must be developed and 

submitted by the owner or operator for 

each emission source. 

The emission limit for transfer racks 

is a closed vent system and control 

device achieving a control efficiency of 

at least 98 percent for the organic HAP 

listed in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 

63. You may also utilize a vapor 

balancing system to achieve the 

required control efficiency. You may 

also choose to demonstrate that the 

measurement of TOC is an appropriate 

surrogate for organic HAP. As an 

alternative option to the 98 percent 

standard, combustion devices may meet 

an exhaust concentration limit of 20 

ppmv of organic HAP or TOC. Only 

transfer racks meeting the specified 

applicability criteria in the final rule are 

required to implement emission 

reduction measures. The same emission 

limit applies to affected transfer racks at 

both existing and new affected sources. 

The same requirements for installing 

a CMS and establishing operating limits 

for the control device applicable to 

storage tanks also apply to the control 

systems installed on transfer racks. 

A work practice standard applies to 

pumps, valves, and sampling 

connection systems. These equipment 

leak components in organic liquids 

service must be included in a leak 

detection and repair (LDAR) program 

which requires the use of a detection 

instrument. The term ‘‘in organic liquid 

service’’ is defined in the final rule to 

mean an equipment leak component 

that contains or contacts organic liquids 

having 5 percent by weight or greater of 

the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63. Owners and 

operators have the option of applying 

the provisions from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart TT, subpart UU, or subpart H 

for their LDAR program. The LDAR 

standard applies to equipment leak 

components at both existing and new 

affected sources. 

A work practice standard applies to 

transport vehicles (cargo tanks and tank 

cars) loading at affected transfer racks. 

Each of these vehicles must have 

current vapor tightness certification 

indicating that it has been properly 

tested for vapor tightness. If the vehicle 

is equipped with vapor collection 

equipment, the vehicle must be tested 

using EPA Method 27 on an annual 

basis. For vehicles not so equipped, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

leak tightness standards apply, and 

current certification indicating that 

these standards have been met must be 

retained by the owner or operator for 

each vehicle that loads at affected 

transfer racks whether the source owns 

the vehicle or not. The owner or 

operator is not required to test transport 

vehicles he or she does not own, but 

must take adequate steps to ensure that 

uncertified vehicles are not loaded at 

affected racks. These work practice 

standards are the same for both existing 

and new affected sources. 

E. When Must I Comply With the OLD 

NESHAP? 

We are requiring that all existing 

affected sources comply by February 5, 

2007, except for floating roof storage 

tanks that do not initially meet the 

equipment standard for storage tanks in 

the final rule. These tanks must be in 

compliance following their next 

degassing and cleaning, or by February 

3, 2014, whichever is sooner. If the first 

degassing and cleaning activity occurs 

during the 3 years following February 3, 

2004, the compliance date is February 5, 

2007. Existing area sources that increase 

their HAP emissions or their potential to 

emit such that they become major 

sources of HAP, and thus affected 

sources, must be in compliance within 

3 years after the date they become major 

sources. 

Any affected source that commenced 

construction after April 2, 2002, at a site 

where there were no existing OLD 

operations, is a new affected source. 

Any affected source that commenced 

reconstruction after April 2, 2002, at a 

site that was an existing OLD source, is 

a reconstructed source. Emissions 

sources at new and reconstructed 

affected sources that are now in 

operation must be in compliance on 

February 3, 2004, with certain 

exceptions. These exceptions are due to 

the fact that the final rule applies to 

some affected sources and emission 

sources that would not have been 

covered by the proposed rule, and that 

in some cases the final emission 

standards are more stringent than were 

proposed. In cases where an emission 

source at a now-operating new or 

reconstructed affected source would not 

have been required to be controlled 

under the proposed rule but is required 

to be controlled under the final rule, the 

emission source must be in compliance 

by February 5, 2007. Where an emission 

source at such a new or reconstructed 

affected source would have been subject 

to a less stringent control requirement 

under the proposed rule than applies 

under the final rule, the emission source 

must be in compliance with the final 

rule’s requirement by February 5, 2007, 

and in the interim must comply with 

the less stringent control requirement as 

proposed. 

5042 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

New or reconstructed sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after February 3, 2004 

must comply upon startup. 

F. What Are the Testing and Initial 

Compliance Requirements? 

To determine the applicability of the 

final standards to individual operations, 

each OLD operation must evaluate 

whether any of their distributed liquids 

contain less than 5 percent HAP by 

weight and, thus, do not meet the 

definition of an organic liquid under the 

final rule. The specified test method for 

this is EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A, or other methods 

approved by the Administrator. An 

owner or operator may use other means 

(such as voluntary consensus standard 

methods, material safety data sheets 

(MSDS), or certified product data 

sheets) for determining the HAP 

content. However, if the results of an 

analysis by EPA Method 311 (or other 

approved test method) are different from 

the HAP content determined by another 

means, the EPA Method 311 (or other 

approved test method) results will 

govern compliance determinations. 

Control devices used to comply with 

the final standards are subject to a 

performance test to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits, 

except that a design evaluation, 

conducted according to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart SS, may be used for nonflare 

control devices. 

The test methods applicable to control 

devices include EPA Methods 18, 25, 

and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

and EPA Method 316 of 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, depending on the 

constituents of the gas stream being 

controlled and the format of the 

standard (organic HAP or TOC) the 

facility selects for its compliance 

demonstration. Floating roof tanks are 

subject to visual and seal gap 

inspections to determine initial 

compliance with the tank work practice 

standards. For the LDAR program for 

equipment components, EPA Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is 

applicable. 

Initial compliance with the emission 

limits for storage tanks and transfer 

racks consists of demonstrating that the 

control device achieves the required 95 

or 98 percent control efficiency for 

organic HAP (or TOC, if used as a 

documented surrogate) or 20 ppmv 

exhaust concentration for combustion 

devices. The required percentage 

control efficiency must be applied to the 

Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 HAP 

concentration found at the inlet to the 

control device. 

Work practice standards apply to 

storage tanks, transfer racks, transport 

vehicles, and equipment components. 

You must perform a visual inspection 

before filling internal floating roof tanks. 

You must also conduct a measurement 

of seal gaps for external floating roof 

tanks within 90 days after filling. For 

transfer racks, you must ensure that 

vapor balancing systems or equipment 

for routing emissions to a fuel gas 

system or back to a process are properly 

designed and operated. For transport 

vehicles, you must perform vapor 

tightness testing for vehicles that you 

own and maintain documentation for all 

affected vehicles certifying that they are 

vapor-tight. Finally, for the equipment 

LDAR program, you must identify 

which 40 CFR part 63 subpart you are 

complying with and keep a record 

identifying the selected subpart. 

G. What Are the Continuous 

Compliance Requirements? 

If you use a control device, we are 

requiring that you monitor and record 

the operating parameters established 

during the initial performance test and 

calculate operating parameter values 

averaged on a daily basis. Continuous 

compliance is demonstrated if you 

collect CMS data as specified and 

maintain the operating limits 

established during the design evaluation 

or performance test. 

If you are subject to work practice 

standards, we are requiring that you 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

performing the required work practices 

and by keeping the records required to 

show that you are in compliance. For 

storage tanks, you must continue to 

perform the applicable inspections and 

seal gap measurement to ensure that the 

floating roofs continue to provide the 

proper control. For transport vehicles, 

you must continue performing the 

required vapor tightness testing on 

vehicles that you own and take steps to 

ensure that all transport vehicles 

loading at the OLD operation have the 

required certification. For equipment 

components, you must perform the 

required monitoring, keep the required 

records, and file the required reports 

consistent with the LDAR program you 

selected for the equipment components 

in the affected source. 

H. What Are the Notification, Reporting, 

and Recordkeeping Requirements? 

The notifications, records, and reports 

required by the final rule are generally 

consistent with the requirements of the 

General Provisions of subpart A of 40 

CFR part 63. Two basic types of reports 

are required: notifications (such as the 

Initial Notification and the Notification 

of Compliance Status) and semiannual 

compliance, or periodic, reports. The 

Initial Notification apprises the 

permitting authority of applicability for 

existing sources or of construction for 

new sources. 

The Notification of Compliance Status 

must be submitted within 60 days after 

the compliance demonstration activity 

has been completed. This report 

contains the results of the initial 

performance test, as well as all 

calculations and analyses used to show 

that the affected source has achieved 

and will continue to achieve 

compliance. 

You are required to describe in your 

semiannual compliance reports any 

deviations of monitored parameters 

from reference values; failures to 

comply with the startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) plan for control 

devices; and results of LDAR monitoring 

and storage tank inspections. These 

reports are also used to notify the 

permitting authority of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or controls since the 

last reporting period. 

You are required to keep a copy of 

each notification and report, along with 

supporting documentation, for 5 years. 

Of these 5 years, the 2 most recent years 

must be kept on-site. The final rule 

allows electronic recordkeeping; 

however, you must be able to access all 

required records in a timely manner. 

You must keep records related to SSM, 

records of performance tests, and 

records for each continuous monitoring 

system. If you must comply with work 

practice standards, you also need to 

keep records for 5 years (the 2 most 

recent years must be kept on-site) 

certifying that you are in compliance 

with the work practices. 

III. Summary of Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Impacts 

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the 

Final OLD NESHAP? 

Facilities affected by the final OLD 

NESHAP are those facilities that carry 

out organic liquid distribution activities. 

Most of these facilities can be grouped 

under three general categories: standalone (usually for-hire) storage 

terminals; OLD operations collocated 

with a petroleum refinery, a chemical 

manufacturing plant site, or other 

manufacturing plant site; and crude oil 

pipeline pumping or breakout stations 

(containing crude oil tankage). 

We estimate that in 1997, the baseline 

year for the final standards, there were 

approximately 279 collocated OLD 

operations, 86 stand-alone storage 

terminals, and 16 crude oil pipeline 

stations, for a total of approximately 381 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5043

existing major source plant sites with 

OLD operations. 

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? 

The 1997 baseline HAP emissions 

from OLD operations are approximately 

5,900 tpy. The final OLD NESHAP will 

reduce HAP from existing major sources 

by 3,500 tpy, a reduction of 60 percent. 

Such emission reductions are likely to 

reduce the risk of adverse effects of 

HAP. 

Although the final OLD NESHAP do 

not specifically require the control of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), the 

organic HAP emission control 

technologies upon which the standards 

are based will also significantly reduce 

VOC emissions from the source 

category. We estimate that the final OLD 

NESHAP will reduce nationwide VOC 

emissions emitted by the source 

category by approximately 9,900 tpy, or 

70 percent, from baseline. This will 

have the effect of reducing adverse 

ozone-related health and welfare 

impacts. 

The final OLD NESHAP will result in 

small increases in other air pollution 

emissions from combustion devices that 

will be installed in the next 5 years to 

comply with today’s final rule. These 

increases result both from the 

combustion device directly and from the 

electrical generating plants used to 

generate the electricity necessary to 

operate the add-on controls and 

associated air handling equipment. 

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts? 

We estimate that the final OLD 

NESHAP will not significantly impact 

water quality. The final standards do 

not contain requirements related to 

water discharges, wastewater collection, 

or spill containment, and no additional 

organic liquids are expected to enter 

these areas as a result of the OLD 

NESHAP. A few facilities may select a 

scrubber (depending on the specific 

emissions they are controlling) to 

control emissions from transfer racks or 

fixed-roof storage tanks. The impact on 

water quality from the use of scrubbers 

is not expected to be significant. 

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous 

Waste Impacts? 

We project that there will be no 

significant solid or hazardous waste 

impact. Flares, thermal oxidizers, 

scrubbers, and condensers do not 

generate solid waste as a by-product of 

their operation. When adsorption 

systems are used, the spent activated 

carbon or other adsorbent that cannot be 

further regenerated may be disposed of 

in a landfill, which would contribute a 

small amount of solid waste. 

E. What Are the Energy Impacts? 

The control devices used for transfer 

rack and storage tank control use 

electric motor-driven blowers, dampers, 

or pumps, depending on the type of 

system, in addition to electronic control 

and monitoring systems. The 

installation of these devices would have 

a small negative energy impact. To the 

extent that some of the controlled 

organic liquids are non-gasoline fuels, 

the applied control measures would 

keep these liquids in the distribution 

system and thus have a positive impact 

on this form of energy. 

F. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

We have estimated the industrywide 

capital costs for HAP emissions control 

equipment to be $49.3 million for the 

381 existing sources. The capital costs 

include the costs to purchase and install 

the control equipment. 

We have estimated the industrywide 

annual costs of the final rule are $25.1 

million per year for the 381 existing 

sources. Annual costs include fixed 

annual costs, such as reporting, 

recordkeeping and capital amortization, 

and variable annual costs such as 

natural gas. The estimated average cost 

of the final rule is $7,100 per ton of HAP 

emissions reductions for existing 

sources. 

G. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

The increases in price for petroleum 

and chemical products affected by the 

final OLD rule are less than 0.003 

percent, and the price increase for 

distribution service covered by the final 

rule is 0.1 percent. Reductions in output 

for petroleum and chemical products 

are also less than 0.003 percent, and the 

output reduction of distribution services 

is less than 0.002 percent. 

None of the facilities affected are 

expected to close as a result of incurring 

costs associated with the final rule. 

Therefore, it is likely that there is no 

adverse impact expected to occur for the 

industries affected by the final rule, 

such as chemical manufacturing, 

petroleum refineries, pipeline operators, 

and petroleum bulk terminal operators. 

IV. Summary of Rule Differences From 

Proposal 

A. Rule Applicability 

We made several clarifications to our 

intent as to the composition of the OLD 

source category and the affected source 

and the overall applicability of various 

requirements of the final rule. We have 

removed the facilitywide 7.29 million 

gallon throughput cutoff. We found, 

after reanalyzing our database, that we 

could not support such a cutoff, since 

our data reanalysis indicated that MACT 

floor levels of control applied to 

facilities below the proposed facility 

throughput cutoff. For the final rule, we 

have adopted a set of applicability 

criteria to be applied to each type of 

emission source to determine whether 

emission reductions are required for 

each specific emission source. These 

applicability criteria were developed 

from our MACT floor analysis of our 

database. 

We have written the definition of the 

term ‘‘organic liquid’’ to include any 

non-crude oil liquid that contains at 

least 5 percent by weight of any 

combination of the HAP listed in Table 

1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 and also 

has a total liquid vapor pressure of at 

least 0.1 psia, plus all crude oil 

downstream of the first point of custody 

transfer. This reflects our reanalysis of 

our database, which revealed that 

MACT floor levels of control apply to 

liquids with these HAP concentrations 

and vapor pressures. The definition also 

reflects our decision to eliminate the 

‘‘black oil’’ exemption as proposed 

because we identified MACT floor 

controls for storage of crude oil. 

In response to several comments, we 

clarified that the OLD final rule will not 

regulate any emission sources that are 

part of another 40 CFR part 63 MACT 

rule’s affected source, whether those 

sources are actually controlled or not. 

We also included a new section in the 

final rule on how owners and operators 

should treat regulatory overlaps (i.e., 

two Federal rules with applicability to 

the same emission source). 

The final rule also corrects several of 

the proposed citations to 40 CFR part 

63, subparts PP, SS, TT, UU, and WW 

and adds new ones to make the use of 

the referenced provisions easier for 

regulated sources to understand. 

B. Compliance Demonstrations 

The proposed rule was unclear as to 

how a source could use a design 

evaluation as an alternative to a 

performance test when demonstrating 

initial compliance for a control device. 

The final rule clarifies that the design 

evaluation (per 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

SS) may only be applied to nonflare 

control devices. Flares are subject to 

specific design criteria contained in the 

General Provisions (40 CFR 63.11(b)). 

We have changed the principal test 

method to be used for analyzing the 

organic HAP content of liquids from 

EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, to EPA Method 311 of 40 

CFR part 63, appendix A. The EPA 

Method 18 is not an appropriate method 

for liquid analysis of the type that will 

be performed under the OLD NESHAP. 

5044 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Method 18 is appropriate for 

determining the HAP content in air 

streams, not the HAP content in liquids. 

We are now specifying EPA Method 311 

of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, which 

is titled ‘‘Analysis of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Compounds in Paints and 

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas 

Chromatograph.’’ Sources may also use 

alternative analytical methods with 

EPA’s approval, or rely on supplier 

information, MSDS, and similar 

analyses that do not require the source 

to perform any testing. If an MSDS, or 

similar documentation, presents the 

HAP content of components of a liquid 

as a range, then you must use the upper 

end of the range of values in 

determining the total HAP content of 

the liquid. If the results of an analysis 

by EPA Method 311 are different from 

the HAP content determined by another 

means, the EPA Method 311 results will 

govern compliance determinations. 

The final rule allows up to 180 days 

after the compliance date to conduct the 

initial performance tests, rather than 

having to conduct them by the 

compliance date, and, thus, makes the 

final rule consistent with the amended 

General Provisions and other MACT 

rules. 

C. Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

At proposal, we specified liquid vapor 

pressure cutoffs to determine 

applicability of the storage tank control 

requirements in terms of the annual 

average true vapor pressure of the stored 

liquid. This format was compatible with 

the liquid property data in our OLD 

database as we had received the data 

from industry. For the final rule, we 

have determined, in response to 

comments and after our re-analysis of 

our database, that the vapor pressure 

basis should be consistent with other 

NESHAP that also specify storage tank 

vapor pressure cutoff levels. Therefore, 

we have written the basis for the 

applicability criteria in the final OLD 

NESHAP to be the annual average true 

vapor pressure of the total organic HAP 

in the stored liquid. 

We have also increased the time 

period over which an owner or operator 

may achieve compliance with the work 

practice standards for floating roof 

storage tanks. For any floating roof tanks 

that do not currently meet the 

equipment requirements specified in 40 

CFR part 63 subpart WW, full 

compliance may be achieved within 10 

years after the effective date of the final 

OLD NESHAP, or at the next degassing 

or cleaning of the tank, whichever 

occurs first. If the first degassing and 

cleaning activity occurs during the 3 

years following the effective date of the 

final OLD NESHAP, the compliance 

date is 3 years from the effective date of 

the final OLD NESHAP. Fixed-roof 

tanks are still required to achieve 

compliance within 3 years after the 

effective date of the final OLD NESHAP. 

At proposal, the emission limit and 

applicability throughput cutoff for 

transfer racks was based on each rack 

loading position. In re-analyzing the 

database since proposal, we have 

determined that the information for 

transfer racks could not be verified on 

the basis of individual rack loading 

position. We have written the final rule 

based on the entire transfer rack to be 

consistent with many other MACT 

rules. 

In response to requests by 

commenters and after re-analyzing our 

database, we added 40 CFR part 63 

subpart H as one of the LDAR programs 

that may be used to comply with the 

work practice standard for equipment. 

We also clarified that only equipment 

leak components associated with the 

affected source need to be included in 

a source’s LDAR program. 

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

The proposed rule contained detailed 

procedures for performing monitoring 

and for carrying out quality assurance 

checks on the monitors. The final rule 

incorporates the monitoring provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and 

requires owners and operators to submit 

their own monitoring plan for approval 

by the applicable title V permitting 

authority. In accordance with subpart 

SS, the final rule allows the use of 

organic monitors in addition to 

monitors that measure an operating 

parameter of the control device (such as 

temperature). This will provide more 

flexibility in the way a source 

determines operating limits and 

monitors operation of control systems. 

In response to several comments, the 

averaging time for the monitored data is 

daily, which is consistent with 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart SS. 

Following proposal, we reviewed the 

proposed requirements to file reports 

and keep records and determined that 

these requirements could be streamlined 

by reorganizing the pertinent rule 

sections and deleting certain records 

and reports that were duplicative or 

unnecessary for ensuring that sources 

were maintaining compliance with the 

standards. We also responded to 

comments requesting flexibility in the 

way a source generates and submits 

reports by allowing a source to combine 

the reports required by different MACT 

rules or to send the periodic reports 

required under the final OLD NESHAP 

along with those required by title V of 

the CAA. We have incorporated 

provisions to allow these forms of 

combined reporting, as well as an 

allowance for multiple Notifications of 

Compliance Status for the same affected 

source to be submitted together. We 

have included specific references to the 

periodic reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and 

WW, which had been inadvertently 

omitted from the proposal. 

V. Summary of Responses to Major 

Comments 

A. Rule Applicability 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the Agency should revise the 

definition of ‘‘OLD operation’’ to be the 

combination or group of emission units 

used to transfer organic liquids into or 

out of a plant site in order to provide a 

clear definition of the OLD source 

category. Two of the commenters stated 

that EPA’s definition of ‘‘OLD 

operation’’ is inconsistent with its 

source category listing. The proposed 

definition captures facilities that receive 

organic liquids but do not serve as 

distribution points, and from which 

such liquids are not obtained for further 

use and processing. These commenters 

urged EPA to limit the source category 

so that facilities and activities that do 

not serve as distribution points, or are 

merely managing organic liquids 

without distribution, are not captured in 

the final rule. Other commenters urged 

EPA to clarify that the final rule will not 

apply to end-users of organic liquid 

products, but rather only to 

manufacturers and distributors of those 

organic liquid products in the SIC/

NAICS codes listed at proposal. 

Response: The commenter’s suggested 

definition for ‘‘OLD operation’’ is more 

appropriate for the affected source 

definition to clearly establish the limits 

of the affected source, but is not 

appropriate for describing the source 

category as a whole. 

Further, we disagree with the 

commenters that our definition of OLD 

operation and, thus, the OLD source 

category is inconsistent with the source 

category listing by including facilities 

that receive organic liquids without 

further distributing them to end users. 

We consider the distribution network to 

include both outgoing and incoming 

transfers and storage of organic liquids, 

whether offsite or onsite. Thus, while 

the types of facilities identified by the 

commenters may never distribute the 

liquids offsite, the activities, equipment, 

and emissions that occur at such 

receiving and end-use facilities are part 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5045

of the overall organic liquid distribution 

network. 

The final rule is clear that the source 

category includes OLD operations that 

are collocated with other (such as 

manufacturing) activities at major 

source plant sites. Since the source 

category includes distribution 

operations in many industrial 

categories, we have not included any 

reference to SIC or NAICS codes in the 

final rule. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

indicates that ‘‘tanks and other liquid 

handling equipment involved solely in 

activities within the plant site would 

not be considered to be OLD emission 

sources * * *,’’ but the provisions of 

the proposed rule and the definition of 

‘‘OLD operation’’ do not support this 

position. 

Similarly, commenters recommended 

that the affected source not include 

dedicated equipment used to transfer 

and store organic liquids between onsite process units. 

Response: Our intent for the final rule 

is to reduce HAP emissions from the 

storage and transfer of organic liquids 

within a distribution network. It is our 

judgment that the distribution network 

ends only when the organic liquids 

reach a final destination where they are 

consumed or are introduced into an 

operation included in another source 

category. Therefore, the OLD network 

includes the transfer and storage of 

organic liquids involving any 

equipment identified in the affected 

source for OLD and that are not subject 

to another MACT rule. Further, in our 

judgement, there is no practical 

difference in the types of equipment in 

use and the types of available emission 

controls are identical for both inter- and 

intra-plant site transfers. 

Based on these considerations, it is 

our intent that equipment used to store 

or transfer organic liquids that occur 

‘‘within’’ a plant site are considered part 

of the OLD distribution network and 

part of the OLD affected source unless 

such equipment is subject to another 

MACT standard. Therefore, we have not 

excluded from the final rule ‘‘tanks and 

other liquid handling equipment 

involved solely in activities within the 

plant site,’’ and we have written the 

definition of OLD operation to include 

transfers and storage of organic liquids 

‘‘into, out of, or within a plant site.’’

Thus, if an emission source meets the 

relevant HAP content, vapor pressure, 

and capacity or throughput criteria, the 

emission reduction requirements of the 

final rule apply to that emission source 

even if it transfers or stores organic 

liquids wholly within a plant site. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA clarify the 

relationship between applicability and 

affected source. These commenters felt 

that restricting the affected source to 

only those emission points that are 

subject to controls could result in a very 

narrow definition of the affected source. 

It could also result in triggering the 

MACT new source requirements by the 

addition of a relatively small component 

to an OLD operation, if the rest of the 

OLD operation were exempt from 

controls. This does not appear to be 

EPA’s intent, but rather an inadvertent 

consequence of the manner in which the 

proposed rule addresses emission points 

that are exempt from controls. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposed affected source definition is 

unlawful because EPA chose a broad 

definition that allows equipment to be 

replaced without the replacement 

becoming a new source. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that the proposed rule did 

not contain a clear definition of the 

affected source, primarily because of 

confusion that occurred as the result of 

the two different definitions of ‘‘affected 

source’’ that were inadvertently created 

in the proposed rule. 

While the intent of proposed 

§ 63.2338(b)(2) was to provide 

additional detail to supplement the 

definition in § 63.2338(b)(1), we 

understand the confusion that this 

created by appearing to present a 

different and conflicting affected source 

definition. In the final rule, we have 

defined ‘‘affected source’’ as ‘‘* * * the 

collection of activities and equipment 

used to distribute organic liquids into, 

out of, or within a facility that is a major 

source of HAP.’’

We also agree with the commenters 

that the affected source should include 

all of the pertinent emission sources 

without regard to the applicability 

criteria that cause certain equipment to 

be subject to different requirements of 

the final rule. Therefore, the final rule, 

in § 63.2338(b), presents a description of 

the affected source in which all of the 

pertinent emission sources are listed, 

without regard to their control 

requirements under the final rule. We 

have also written § 63.2338(b)(1) to 

define the affected source as ‘‘the 

collection of activities and equipment.’’

This clarifies our intention to have a 

broad interpretation of affected source. 

We acknowledge that a broad 

definition in many circumstances 

allows individual emission points (such 

as a single storage tank, pump, etc.) to 

be replaced without the new source 

standards being applied to that new 

piece of equipment. Using a broad 

definition of affected source is, 

however, within our discretion in 

selecting the best approach for the 

standards for a particular source 

category. The term ‘‘affected source’’

refers to the collection of processes, 

activities, or equipment to which a 

MACT standard applies. In other MACT 

rules, we have adopted either a broader 

or narrower definition of affected source 

for given categories depending on the 

nature of particular MACT requirements 

and the strategies available for meeting 

them. A broader definition permits 

emission reduction requirements to 

apply to a larger group of processes, 

activities, and equipment. This 

approach encourages owners or 

operators to develop and utilize more 

innovative and economically efficient 

control strategies. Using a narrower 

definition of affected source frequently 

leads to difficulties for facilities in 

managing differing requirements for 

individual pieces of equipment without 

achieving substantive emission 

reduction. 

For the purpose of determining 

MACT, however, we chose to utilize the 

approach of examining the emission 

sources individually. In our industry 

survey, we requested data for each 

emission source rather than from the 

entire OLD operation. By evaluating the 

data on an emission source basis, we 

were able to establish MACT floors for 

each type of emission source without 

having to consider how each facility 

controlled emissions on a facilitywide 

basis. For example, we established 

MACT floors for storage tanks based on 

facilities with the best controlled storage 

tanks, even if those facilities did not 

utilize the best controlled transfer racks. 

Our selected approach for the final 

OLD NESHAP is consistent with the 40 

CFR part 63 General Provisions, as 

amended (67 FR 16582, April 5, 2002), 

which adopt a broader definition of 

affected source such that future MACT 

standards will generally adopt a 

definition of affected source which 

consists of all existing HAP-emitting 

equipment and activities that are at a 

single contiguous site and are within a 

specific category or subcategory. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that compounding, 

blending, and packaging operations be 

included in the affected source, but with 

no control requirements. According to 

the commenters, this would result in a 

more accurate investment basis for OLD 

operations at a site, would clarify which 

MACT affected source these operations 

are associated with, and would avoid 

the potential for future regulatory 

overlap. 

5046 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

One commenter supported the 

inclusion of small containers (pails, 

drums, portable tanks, and isotainers) as 

part of the OLD affected source but 

urged that small containers be excluded 

from controls in the final rule. 

Response: We have written the 

definition of affected source in the final 

rule to include storage tanks and 

transfer racks used to store or transfer 

organic liquids regardless of the 

particular operation or activity such 

tanks and transfer racks were 

supporting, including such operations 

and activities as packaging, blending, 

and compounding. 

We have not defined the affected 

source to single out the operations 

identified by the commenter because the 

changes that were made to the 

definition provide the necessary clarity. 

The final rule makes it clear that 

equipment used in operations such as 

these would be part of the affected 

source if they meet the general criteria 

of storing or transferring organic liquids 

and they are not subject to another 

MACT rule. Equipment meeting the 

affected source criteria in § 63.2338 of 

the final rule are to be included as 

emission sources in the initial 

Notifications and Reports required 

under §§ 63.2382 and 63.2386 of the 

final rule. 

Finally, we have included containers 

in the definition of affected source. This 

is consistent with how we have redefined the affected source to include 

equipment even if control is not 

required under the final rule. The reanalysis of our data after reviewing the 

public comments resulted in a finding 

that the floor level of control for existing 

container filling operations is no 

emission reduction. We did, however, 

identify a MACT floor level of control 

for new source container filling. As 

discussed in more detail later in this 

preamble, we have determined that 

there are no feasible or cost-effective 

beyond-the-floor alternatives for the 

filling of containers at existing sources. 

Therefore, the final rule includes 

control requirements only for container 

filling operations that are new sources. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that the inclusion of cargo tanks 

as part of the affected source is 

inappropriate. These commenters 

pointed out that third parties typically 

provide cargo tanks and they are not 

generally under the common control of 

the OLD facilities. The commenters also 

stated that, if the OLD operation owner 

purchases either new cargo tanks or a 

fleet of existing cargo tanks, they should 

not be included in the reconstruction 

cost evaluation and potentially trigger 

new source MACT requirements at the 

OLD operation. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposal preamble and the TSD, and in 

previous rulemakings including the 

Gasoline Distribution MACT NESHAP 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart R), cargo tanks 

(consisting of tank trucks and tank cars, 

and renamed as ‘‘transport vehicles’’ in 

the final rule) can be a significant source 

of emissions while being loaded at 

transfer racks. Transport vehicles 

(whether owned/leased by the facility or 

operated by other firms) must be 

included in the affected source to 

ensure that MACT control will extend to 

these sources. As the final rule makes 

clear in Table 4 to subpart EEEE of part 

63, the owner or operator must have 

vapor tightness documentation for each 

transport vehicle loading at an affected 

transfer rack. Third parties in many 

cases will be responsible for getting 

periodic testing (EPA Method 27 or DOT 

test) performed and for providing the 

certification papers to the facilities.

The acquisition of additional 

transport vehicles, whether by the 

source owner or by third parties, would 

not be included in the reconstruction 

cost evaluation and would not trigger 

any different control requirements for 

the liquid transfer operation. The items 

that define the affected source are the 

stationary infrastructure of the facility; 

that is, the combination of tanks, 

transfer racks, and equipment leak 

components. The primary mission of 

transport vehicles is transporting the 

liquids on roadways. Thus, they are not 

part of the stationary infrastructure of 

the facility. The objective of the 

‘‘reconstruction’’ provisions of the CAA 

is to prevent an existing source from 

avoiding more stringent new source 

standards by perpetually rebuilding 

existing equipment rather than 

installing new equipment. The purchase 

of transport vehicles should have no 

impact on the triggering of more 

stringent standards for the storage tanks 

or transfer racks at an affected source. 

Also, at an OLD operation, facilitywide 

emission rates are impacted by the size, 

throughput capacity, and number of 

storage tanks and transfer racks. From 

the standpoint of overall emissions, it 

makes no difference if one vehicle is 

loaded ten times or if ten identical 

vehicles are loaded once. Therefore, the 

number of individual transport vehicles 

or the acquisition of additional transport 

vehicles should not be included as part 

of the infrastructure of the facility that 

is considered in determining 

‘‘reconstruction’’ cost. The acquisition 

of additional containers by an owner or 

operator of an OLD facility would also 

not be considered in the determination 

of ‘‘reconstruction’’ costs. 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that EPA needed to clarify that only 

pipelines with equipment leak 

components (i.e., pumps, valves, or 

sampling connection systems) 

associated with a storage tank or transfer 

rack included in the affected source will 

be subject to the LDAR requirements. 

Commenters requested that a pipeline 

that transfers organic liquids directly to 

or from a process unit that does not pass 

through a transfer rack or storage vessel 

subject to the rule is not to be included 

in the affected source or in the 

calculation of throughput used in 

applicability determinations. 

Commenters also stated that the 

exclusions from the OLD rule should 

include pipeline equipment leak 

components used to directly transfer 

organic liquids across plant site 

boundaries into or out of storage tanks 

not subject to another MACT standard 

or process equipment that are not 

storage tanks, and unloading facilities 

and pipeline equipment used to transfer 

organic liquids from ships, barges, tank 

trucks, or tank cars into a storage tank 

covered by other MACT standards or 

process equipment that are not storage 

tanks. 

Response: Pipelines themselves are 

not and never were part of the affected 

source definition. Only equipment leak 

components that are part of a pipeline 

were considered part of the affected 

source at proposal. We know of no 

reason as to why equipment leak 

components associated with a pipeline 

that transfers organic liquids should not 

be part of the affected source for the 

final rule, regardless of whether the 

organic liquid being transferred is 

deposited in a storage tank subject to the 

final rule or to another MACT standard. 

If the pipeline’s equipment leak 

components are subject to another 

MACT standard, then they are not 

subject to the final OLD NESHAP. If the 

pipeline’s equipment leak components 

are not subject to another MACT 

standard and the pipeline is in organic 

liquids service, then the equipment leak 

components are subject to the 

requirements of the final OLD NESHAP. 

Finally, the final rule does not 

include a facility-level throughput 

calculation to determine whether or not 

a facility is subject to the final rule. 

Therefore, there is no longer a need to 

clarify the relationship of pipelines to 

the throughput applicability 

determination.

Comment: We received a large 

number of comments concerning the 

proposed applicability criteria of 7.29 

million gallons per year, which would 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5047

have excluded facilities from the OLD 

rule if their facility throughput was less 

than 7.29 million gallons of organic 

liquids. Several commenters supported 

the cutoff and requested clarification on 

the procedures for determining 

throughput. Other commenters 

questioned the appropriateness of 

excluding from control those facilities 

that are in the source category and have 

emission sources that could be 

controlled by the final OLD rule. 

Response: We proposed a facilitylevel throughput cutoff believing it was 

a useful criterion to identify smaller 

facilities at which controls would not be 

required based on our understanding 

that such facilities were not typically 

required to be controlled under other 

rules. We re-analyzed the database to 

determine if MACT floors existed for 

facilities with throughputs less than 

7.29 million gallons of organic liquids, 

and determined that MACT floors exist 

for facilities with throughputs of less 

than 7.29 million gallons. Therefore, we 

can not support the proposed 7.29 

million gallon cutoff. 

However, as a result of our re-analysis 

of the database, we determined that 

throughput cutoffs for certain emission 

points were justified. The throughput 

cutoffs are now a part of the 

applicability criteria used to determine 

which transfer racks are subject to 

control. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested clarification of the 

relationship between the OLD rule and 

other existing rules and future rules. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that the final OLD NESHAP 

must be explicit in describing the 

specific applicability of other 40 CFR 

part 63 NESHAP for sources that 

potentially may be drawn into more 

than one subpart. Section 63.2338(c)(1) 

of the final rule states that storage tanks, 

transfer racks, and equipment leak 

components that are part of an affected 

source under another 40 CFR part 63 

NESHAP are excluded from the 

definition of affected source, even in 

cases where the other rule does not 

require a reduction in emissions from 

the emission source. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that EPA needs to address overlap 

between the OLD NESHAP and other 

non-40 CFR part 63 existing rules, such 

as the Storage Tank New Source 

Performance Standard (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb), the Benzene Storage Tank 

and Benzene Transfer Operations 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subparts Y 

and BB, respectively), and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

regulations. 

Response: We have written 40 CFR 

63.2396 to address the overlap between 

the final OLD NESHAP and those rules 

cited by the commenters. If meeting the 

requirements of another rule does not 

result in an owner or operator fully 

meeting the requirements of the OLD 

NESHAP, then the owner or operator 

must modify the compliance methods to 

come into full compliance with the OLD 

NESHAP while remaining in 

compliance with the other rule. 

Comment: One commenter, whose 

facility is subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart Y (Marine Loading), pointed out 

that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 

§ 63.983(b) and (c), imposes an initial 

leak detection standard for closed vent 

systems that is more stringent than the 

detection standard contained in subpart 

Y; § 63.983(c)(1)(v) specifies only the 

use of methane for calibration of the 

instrument used to conduct the initial 

EPA Method 21 sweeps in subpart SS, 

while subpart Y is more flexible; 

subpart Y and subpart SS conflict on the 

response required if a leak is found; 

and, for closed vent systems that 

contain bypass lines, subpart Y contains 

an exemption on closure requirements 

for maintenance vents, but subpart SS 

does not allow that exemption. The 

commenter stated that this is 

appropriate for subpart Y due to the 

‘‘batch’’ nature of tank vessel loading, 

and that it would be inappropriate to 

impose the subpart SS requirement on 

part of their facility.

Response: If an OLD emission source 

is required to be controlled under the 

final OLD NESHAP and that emission 

source is already controlled in a 

‘‘shared’’ control device, then the owner 

or operator is required to be in 

compliance with both NESHAP or the 

NESHAP that impose the more stringent 

emission standard and/or work 

practices. 

If an OLD emission source is in OLD 

operation part of the year and ‘‘in 

service’’ for another NESHAP for the 

rest of the year, then that OLD emission 

source is required to be in compliance 

with the final OLD NESHAP when that 

emission source is in OLD operation, 

even if the requirements between the 

two NESHAP rules are different. The 

owner or operator still has the option to 

permanently comply with whichever 

NESHAP provides the most stringent 

emission standard and/or work 

practices. 

Comment: One commenter noted 

several conflicts between 40 CFR part 

63, subparts SS and Y, and the proposed 

OLD NESHAP; specifically, 

performance tests on incinerators using 

specified test methods and conflicting 

language regarding the temperature 

monitoring location. The commenter 

claimed that the proposed control 

device evaluation in 40 CFR 63.2362(g) 

that would be submitted according to 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.985(b)(1)(i) is an unnecessarily 

burdensome requirement for a facility 

that has source test data less than 5 

years old showing that the control 

device more than adequately controls 

emissions. For such facilities, the 

commenter requested that existing data 

be allowed to be used in lieu of a design 

evaluation. 

Response: We have written the 

performance test and design evaluation 

requirements in § 63.2362 of the final 

rule and Table 5 to subpart EEEE of part 

63 to more clearly specify the use of the 

40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, procedures 

and also to clarify that prior test results 

may be used, in many cases, to 

demonstrate compliance with the final 

OLD NESHAP. The final rule also 

allows owners or operators the 

flexibility of applying for approval to 

use alternative test methods. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that EPA clarify the OLD 

boundary by incorporating the concept 

of ‘‘intervening storage tanks,’’ which 

has been used in several other MACT 

standards such as the Hazardous 

Organic NESHAP (HON) and the 

Polymers and Resins rules. Under this 

concept, if a bulk tank in a centralized 

tank farm area has received organic 

liquids from outside the plant site and 

feeds that material to another storage 

tank at the process unit (an ‘‘intervening 

storage tank’’), the bulk tank is assigned 

to the organic liquid distribution 

operation and the intervening storage 

tank to the process unit.

Response: We have evaluated the 

comment concerning the concept of 

‘‘intervening storage tanks’’ and have 

determined that such a concept is 

neither appropriate nor needed for the 

final OLD NESHAP. The ‘‘intervening 

storage tank’’ concept is specifically to 

help facilities identify which storage 

tanks are part of the affected source of 

a particular MACT source category. The 

intent of the final OLD NESHAP is to 

supplement other NESHAP and apply to 

all remaining unregulated storage tanks 

that are in OLD operation. To 

incorporate similar ‘‘intervening storage 

tank’’ language in the final OLD rule is 

at best unnecessary and at worst could 

lead to excluding tanks that should be 

covered by the final OLD NESHAP. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that EPA clarify that the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards identified in § 63.2346 apply 

whenever an emission source is in OLD 

operation, but not when the emission 

5048 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

source is not in OLD operation. 

Commenters pointed out that the 

proposal stated that affected facilities 

must be in compliance with the 

emission limitations at all times except 

for periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. They felt that periods of 

‘‘non-operation of the affected source’’

should be included on this list. 

Commenters recommended that 

§ 63.2374(c) be clarified such that for 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

data averages should only include data 

collected when vapors from OLD 

operations are being routed to the 

control device. 

Response: It was our intent in the 

proposed rule that the emission 

limitations and work practice standards 

apply only when an emission source is 

transferring or storing an organic liquid 

or when an equipment leak component 

is in organic liquids service. Because 

there are no emissions from storage 

tanks or transfer racks during periods of 

‘‘non-operation of the affected source,’’

there is no need for the emission 

limitations to apply during these times. 

In addition to periods when the entire 

affected source is not in operation, there 

may be periods when any one of the 

emissions sources within the affected 

source is not in operation or is not in 

OLD operation. During these periods, 

the emission limitations for all other 

emission sources would still apply, but 

the emission limitations would not 

apply to the emission source not in OLD 

operation. This intention has been 

clarified in § 63.2350 of the final rule. 

We agree with the comment that only 

data collected during times when 

emissions are being routed to the 

control device should be used in 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

and have written § 63.2374(c) of the 

final rule to the effect that data are not 

to be used when collected during 

‘‘periods when emissions from organic 

liquids are not routed to the control 

device.’’

Comment: One commenter felt that 

the proposed rule should be modified to 

allow pilot flames to be turned off 

during flare shutdowns and when all 

the sources serviced by the flare are shut 

down. 

A second commenter thought EPA 

should reconsider the continuous 

compliance requirements for thermal 

incinerators that utilize ‘‘bladder tanks,’’

which collect emissions in a bladder 

until a sufficient quantity is collected to 

use the incinerator, so that the oxidizer 

does not have to be operated 

continuously. The commenter suggested 

changing the rule language to require 

sites to maintain the average fire box 

temperature only during times that 

vapors are introduced to the control 

device. 

Response: The requirement to 

continuously maintain a flare pilot 

flame is part of the 40 CFR part 63 

General Provisions, which state that a 

pilot flame is required for an open flare 

during periods when emissions may be 

vented to the flare. If the flare is 

shutdown (out of service), there is no 

need to require a pilot flame because no 

emissions will be vented to the flare. 

Where the emissions sources serviced 

by the flare are shutdown, we agree that 

operating a pilot flame during such 

periods would be nonproductive 

because there are no emissions to be 

vented to the flare. We have written 

Table 9 to subpart EEEE of part 63 to 

allow an owner or operator not to 

maintain the pilot flame when all 

emission sources serviced by the flare 

are shutdown (out of service). However, 

we are requiring in the final rule that 

owners and operators make a 

demonstration to the permitting 

authority that it will not experience a 

deviation and to keep records of each 

time the pilot flame is extinguished and 

relit. 

We also agree with the commenter 

that it is unnecessary to maintain the 

average fire box temperature in thermal 

incinerators during periods when 

emissions are not vented to the 

incinerator. Therefore, we have written 

Table 9 to subpart EEEE of part 63 to 

clarify that the average fire box 

temperature in thermal incinerators 

need only be maintained while 

emissions are being vented to the 

control device. The final rule requires 

the owner or operator to monitor both 

this temperature and the time periods 

when vapors are flowing to the device. 

We also note that an owner or operator 

may have to increase the firebox 

temperature some time before emissions 

are vented back into the incinerator in 

order to comply with the average fire 

box temperature requirement.

Comment: We received several 

comments concerning the definition of 

‘‘organic liquid’’ that affects the 

applicability of the proposed standards. 

One commenter asserted that the 

exemption of most organic liquids 

containing less than 5 percent HAP by 

weight is in violation of the 

requirements of the CAA. Another 

commenter claimed that the 5 percent 

HAP cutoff is legally permissible on ‘‘de 

minimis’’ grounds. 

Two commenters recommended that 

EPA revise its definition of ‘‘organic 

liquid’’ to exclude liquids that are not 

predominantly organic in order to 

exclude from regulation those liquids 

that contain very small amounts of 

organic material such as predominantly 

aqueous or inorganic liquids. The 

commenters felt that these liquids 

should not be included in the final OLD 

NESHAP because they do not emit 

significant amounts of organics to the 

environment and controlling them will 

not provide the intended emission 

reductions. 

Finally, several commenters added 

that EPA should provide a list of 

common materials within the petroleum 

industry that will not be regulated, such 

as kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel 

(No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and 

heavier distillate oils and fuel oils. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that the 

proposed exemption of organic liquids 

containing less than 5 percent HAP-byweight can be justified by de minimis

principles. The EPA’s de minimis

authority exists to help avoid excessive 

regulation of tiny amounts of pollutants, 

where regulation would yield a result 

contrary to a primary legislative goal. It 

is unavailable ‘‘where the regulatory 

function does provide benefits, in the 

sense of furthering the regulatory 

objectives, but the agency concludes 

that the acknowledged benefits are 

exceeded by the costs.’’ EDF v. EPA, 82 

F.3d 451, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Public 

Citizen v. Young, 831 F.2d 1108, 1112–

13 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Alabama Power v. 

EPA, 636 F.2d 323, 360–61 & n.89 (D.C. 

Cir. 1979). Accordingly, a de minimis

exemption to section 112(d)(3) is 

unavailable, because it would frustrate a 

primary legislative goal by carving out 

tons of HAP emissions from regulation. 

The EPA’s rejection of the de minimis

concept has already been affirmed by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, in National Lime 

Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 640 (D.C. 

Cir. 2000) (‘‘NLA’’), in which the court 

rejected the petitioner’s claim that in 

light of both the high costs and low 

quantities of HAP at issue in that case, 

EPA should read a de minimis

exception into the requirement that it 

regulate all HAP emitted by major 

sources. In that case, the Court found 

that ‘‘EPA reasonably rejected this 

argument on the ground that the statute 

‘does not provide for exceptions from 

emissions standards based on de 

minimis principles where a MACT floor 

exists.’ ’’ NLA at 640.

Contrary to the commenter’s request, 

EPA sees no reason to revisit this 

fundamental issue, and rejects the 

assertion that both EPA and the court 

decided this issue incorrectly in NLA.

Section 112 of the CAA is replete with 

careful definitions of volume-or effectbased limitation on regulation, 

indicating that Congress has already 

defined what amounts of HAP 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5049

emissions are too small to warrant 

MACT standards. The requirement to 

adopt MACT emission limitations, for 

example, applies without exception to 

‘‘each category or subcategory of major 

sources * * * of [HAP].’’ CAA section 

112(d)(1). For sources below the major 

source threshold, however, EPA has 

discretion to require ‘‘generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices.’’ CAA section 

112(d)(5). Congress has thus itself 

defined volumetrically which sources’

emissions are small enough not to 

warrant mandatory MACT standards. 

Congress likewise defined several 

MACT exceptions applicable where 

emissions have de minimis health 

effects. Section 112(d)(4) of the CAA 

allows EPA to establish standards less 

stringent than MACT for HAP with an 

established health threshold, so long as 

it sets a standard below the health 

threshold with ‘‘an ample margin of 

safety.’’ Section 112(b)(3)(C) of the CAA 

directs EPA to de-list HAP—precluding 

section 112(d) MACT standards—if EPA 

determines that ‘‘there is adequate data 

on the health and environmental effects 

of the substance to determine that 

emissions, ambient concentrations, 

bioaccumulation or deposition of the 

substance may not reasonably be 

anticipated to cause any adverse effects 

to the [sic] human health or adverse 

environmental effects.’’ Section 

112(c)(9)(B)(i) of the CAA lets EPA 

delete source categories from the 

category list—the consequence again 

being no MACT control—if it 

determines that, for emissions of 

carcinogenic HAP, ‘‘no source in the 

category * * * emits such [HAP] in 

quantities which may cause a lifetime 

risk of cancer greater than one in one 

million to the individual in the 

population who is most exposed to 

emissions of such pollutant from the 

source.’’ For noncarcinogens, EPA may 

delete source categories if it determines 

that ‘‘emissions from no source in the 

category or subcategory * * * exceed a 

level which is adequate to protect 

public health with an ample margin of 

safety and no adverse environmental 

effect will result from emissions from 

any source.’’ CAA section 

112(c)(9)(B)(ii). Moreover, in defining 

which source modifications trigger 

additional regulatory standards, CAA 

section 112(g)(1)(A) mentions a ‘‘greater 

than de minimis increase in actual 

emission of a [HAP].’’ This shows that 

Congress knew how to use the de 

minimis concept when it considered 

such was appropriate in section 112, 

and the fact that it did not use it in 

section 112(d)(3) supports EPA’s—and 

the D.C. Circuit’s—conclusion that it is 

unavailable to support an exception to 

a MACT floor. 

The EPA does not find persuasive the 

commenter’s reliance on CMA v. EPA,

217 F.3d 861, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2000) for 

the proposition that the overall purpose 

of section 112 is protecting human 

health and the environment, and that, 

therefore, as long as this general 

purpose is met, EPA may fashion de 

minimis exceptions from MACT. First, 

this position appears to assume that the 

issue is to be drawn on a clean slate, 

while in fact the same court has 

affirmed EPA’s view that section 

112(d)(3) provides no discretion to use 

a de minimis rationale to avoid MACT, 

and the CMA case was not faced with 

it. Second, the commenter appears to 

give prominence to an over-arching 

statutory goal over the specific language 

of the statutory provisions themselves, 

in assessing whether those provisions 

are ‘‘extraordinarily rigid’’ regarding 

EPA’s otherwise-inherent de minimis

authority; the logical extension of such 

an approach would be to find that no 

single provision in the CAA could 

restrict EPA’s de minimis authority, in 

light of the CAA’s over-arching purpose 

‘‘to promote the public health and 

welfare.’’ CAA section 101(b)(1). Third, 

the commenter does not present any 

statutory arguments to overcome those 

that EPA presented to the court—and 

which the court affirmed—in NLA,

beyond noting that CAA section 

112(d)(8) is even more extraordinarily 

rigid in requiring regulation of coke 

ovens than is otherwise the case for 

MACT standards. Finally, EPA is unable 

to discern the basis for the commenter’s 

suggestion that EPA has in fact ‘‘been 

relying on’’ de minimis authority in the 

MACT program ‘‘for years,’’ and is not 

aware of any instance in which EPA has 

explicitly created such an exception 

from an identified MACT floor. 

Therefore, and for the additional 

reasons discussed below, EPA does not 

believe it is appropriate or necessary to 

revisit the Agency’s and the D.C. 

Circuit’s prior conclusions regarding the 

availability of the de minimis principle 

in the final OLD NESHAP. 

However, for the final rule, we are 

promulgating a 5 percent HAP by 

weight threshold for non-crude oil 

liquids in the definition of an organic 

liquid. No such cutoff is being adopted 

for crude oil. There are several reasons 

why we believe such a cutoff is 

appropriate for the final OLD NESHAP, 

which EPA believes support the use of 

a non-crude oil 5 percent cutoff without 

having to rely upon a legally 

unavailable de minimis theory. During 

the planning and development of the 

proposed rule, we intended to reduce 

HAP emissions from the distribution of 

organic liquid products that were either 

pure HAP liquids, mixtures of HAP and 

non-HAP liquids, or crude oils. As 

stated, our intent was to focus on 

products (including crude oil, which is 

a naturally occurring product) 

‘‘intended for further use or 

processing.’’ Therefore, we focused our 

data gathering efforts on five 2-digit 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

codes that we believed represented the 

vast majority of the facilities nationwide 

engaged in the distribution of what we 

considered to be organic liquid 

products. 

We surveyed facilities in these five 2-

digit SIC codes asking broad questions 

about the liquids that they distributed 

that contained organic HAP. In 

evaluating and analyzing the data, we 

discovered that the types of liquids 

containing organic HAP, including some 

non-product liquids and liquids with 

very low organic HAP contents, were 

more diverse than we had expected. In 

addition, the types of facilities engaged 

in distribution of such liquids, were 

greater than we had assumed in 

developing the proposed rule, as was 

the degree to which unforseen facility 

types were distributing and controlling 

emissions from such liquids.

As stated above, such low HAP 

content non-crude oil liquids were not 

initially anticipated to be covered by the 

OLD rule, and may in many cases be the 

result of impurities or contaminants and 

not the result of an intended 

formulation of a product. These types of 

non-crude oil liquids (those with small 

HAP contents) can be found at many 

facilities outside the five 2-digit SIC that 

we targeted. At this point, based on the 

data collected for the OLD rule, we 

cannot ascertain the representativeness 

of our data for those industries in other 

2-digit SIC codes that we did not survey. 

Nor can we ascertain how many 

additional emission sources (controlled 

or uncontrolled) might need to be added 

to the database to adequately assess the 

MACT floor for these facilities and noncrude oil liquids and make final, 

enforceable regulatory decisions. We 

believe that our current data are 

insufficient for this purpose and do not 

provide enough information about the 

emissions, emission controls in use, or 

potential to reduce emissions to 

complete the MACT floor analyses that 

we believe are appropriate to address 

the unexpected non-crude oil liquids 

and facility types that we did not 

foresee as being subject to the OLD rule 

when we developed the proposal. As a 

result, we do not have sufficient data to 

develop regulatory requirements, 

5050 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

including those regarding emissions 

control and reduction, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting, for low 

HAP-content non-crude oil liquids. We 

also do not currently have the flexibility 

in our schedule to allow us to gather the 

necessary additional data to assess 

requirements for these low HAP-content 

non-crude oil liquids prior to the 

consent decree date for promulgation of 

the final OLD rule. Section 112(d)(3)(A) 

and (B) of the CAA directs EPA to base 

existing source MACT floor 

determinations on ‘‘emissions 

information’’ which EPA ‘‘has’’ or 

‘‘could reasonably obtain.’’ Rather than 

adopt requirements for low-HAP noncrude oil liquids based on insufficient 

data, EPA is proceeding with the final 

OLD NESHAP as initially envisioned 

and supported. 

We are also concerned that if we were 

to lower or eliminate the 5 percent HAP 

content cutoff level for non-crude oil 

liquids, the final OLD NESHAP would 

have previously unforeseen impacts on 

a significant number of Department of 

Defense (DoD) facilities, at a time when 

the Federal government as a whole is reassessing the extent to which it is 

appropriate to subject DoD facilities to 

regulatory requirements. There was a 

consensus among representatives of the 

DoD that the OLD rule as proposed (a 5 

percent HAP content cutoff) would not 

impact the storage and distribution of 

many types of fuels and other liquids in 

use at military installations. However, if 

non-crude oil liquids with less than 5 

percent HAP were included in the 

definition of organic liquids as written 

in the final OLD rule, many DoD 

facilities would be subject to the final 

rule and impacted in ways that DoD 

representatives have informed EPA may 

seriously compromise the military 

function. The potential impacts of 

facilities such as these becoming subject 

to the final OLD rule were not 

considered at proposal. No information 

was provided by commenters, including 

DoD or others, during the public 

comment period that would be useful in 

quantifying the potential impacts of 

lowering or eliminating the cutoff for 

these facilities. In light of the sensitivity 

of this issue, EPA believes it would be 

inappropriate to proceed with the final 

rule in a form that might cause 

unforeseen and as-yet un-analyzed 

impacts on DoD facilities. 

After evaluating the issues discussed 

above, we have concluded that the most 

appropriate approach for the final OLD 

NESHAP, and the one that is most 

consistent with the CAA’s directives, is 

to adopt a definition of organic liquid 

that includes a HAP content cutoff level 

for non-crude oil liquids. We have also 

concluded that the proposed level of 5 

percent is a reasonable separation 

between our intended scope of products 

and those non-crude oil liquids that 

contain low amounts of HAP, often as 

impurities and contaminants. 

For vapor pressure, we have only a 

small amount of data for non-crude oil 

liquids with true vapor pressures less 

than 0.1 psia. The data we do have are 

not representative of the universe of 

such low vapor pressure non-crude oil 

liquids and are not sufficient to enable 

us to support a MACT floor or emission 

standard requiring controls. We 

conclude that for a non-crude oil 

organic liquid to be subject to the final 

OLD rule, the organic liquid must have 

a total vapor pressure of at least 0.1 psia 

and must also contain at least 5 percent 

HAP by weight. 

With regard to the comments about 

excluding organic liquids that are not 

predominantly HAP and including 

primarily aqueous or inorganic liquids, 

we investigated the HAP emission 

potential for solutions of HAP in organic 

liquids, inorganic liquids, and water (or 

mostly water). Based on consideration 

of the volatilization properties of 

organic compounds in various types of 

liquid media, we cannot support the 

suggestion for limiting the scope of the 

organic liquid definition. More detail on 

our analysis of this issue can be found 

in a memorandum in the docket.

Lastly, we have included a list of 

exempt liquids in the definition because 

the liquids are well defined and would 

exhibit such low vapor pressure that 

they would not exceed the 0.1 psia 

vapor pressure threshold. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA clarify that the evaluation of 

crude oil as an organic liquid is only 

applicable after custody transfer. 

Several commenters felt that ‘‘black 

oil’’ should be redefined based on 

whether it has the potential for flash 

emissions rather than in terms of the 

gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) and API gravity 

because petroleum transporters, 

petroleum marketers, and major 

petroleum product testing laboratories 

do not commonly use the gas-to-oil 

ratio. One commenter suggested that, for 

OLD MACT applicability, ‘‘black oil’’

should be determined solely on the 

basis of API gravity. This commenter 

also noted that for the purpose of ‘‘black 

oil’’ determination, the point of entry to 

the distribution system should be 

defined as the point of entry to the 

affected facility. Two other commenters 

felt that the determination should be 

made at a point that is representative of 

the combined crude oil stream. 

One commenter provided data on 

crude oils handled throughout the 

country, including the Alaskan oil 

pipeline and the Valdez Marine 

Terminal (VMT). These data indicated 

that the API gravities for all of these 

crude oils average less than 40 degrees. 

For example, the blended North Slope 

crude oil loaded at the VMT ranges from 

23 degrees to about 28 degrees, with 

most of it averaging 26 degrees API. The 

commenter concluded that if the OLD 

NESHAP are finalized with an 

exemption for crude oils having an API 

gravity less than 40 degrees, the effect 

will be to exclude virtually all crude oil 

from the final OLD rule. 

Response: We have clarified in the 

final rule that only crude oil after the 

first point of custody transfer is subject 

to the final rule. 

As discussed in the proposal 

preamble, the exclusion of black oil 

from the definition of crude oil (and 

hence from the family of regulated 

‘‘organic liquids’’) was based on a 

similar exemption in the Oil and Gas 

Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart HH. Based on the comments 

received and additional data (e.g., 

typical API gravities of crude oil 

distributed), we have discovered that 

most crude oil being distributed at OLD 

facilities would have been excluded 

from the final rule, even though our 

impacts analyses assumed most crude 

oil was subject to control. Moreover, in 

the reevaluation of our data, we 

determined that there are emission 

reduction floors for crude oil. 

Furthermore, the emission potential of 

crude oil is the same as for other organic 

liquids with similar HAP and HAP 

contents, and the total HAP emissions 

can actually be much larger due to the 

significant volumes of crude oil being 

distributed. 

We have revised the definition of 

organic liquid to include all crude oil 

(after the first point of custody transfer) 

and have deleted the ‘‘black oil’’

exemption, the exclusion for heavier 

crude oils (i.e., those with an API 

gravity less than 40 degrees), and the 

parameter ‘‘gas-to-oil-ratio’’ as a 

measure of applicability for crude oil. 

Under the final rule, crude oil will be 

subject to the same storage tank capacity 

and HAP vapor pressure criteria used to 

determine control requirements for 

other organic liquids. 

Comment: We received comments 

stating that EPA Method 18 is not an 

appropriate method for determining the 

organic composition of liquid streams, 

and that only the analytical 

requirements of EPA Method 18 should 

be made applicable in the final rule. 

The commenters stated that testing 

should not be required if a material is 

already known to be a regulated organic 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5051

liquid through process knowledge, an 

approach EPA has used in other rules, 

or if the material transferred is a 

commercial product with established 

specifications and is accompanied by an 

MSDS based on prior analysis. 

Response: After reviewing the EPA’s 

analytical test methods, we are in 

agreement with these commenters that 

EPA Method 18 is not an appropriate 

method for liquid analysis of the type 

that will be performed under the final 

OLD NESHAP. The EPA Method 18 is 

appropriate for determining the HAP 

content in air streams, not the HAP 

content in liquids. We are now 

specifying EPA Method 311 of appendix 

A of 40 CFR part 63, which is titled 

‘‘Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Compounds in Paints and Coatings by 

Direct Injection into a Gas 

Chromatograph.’’

The final rule includes provisions that 

allow the owner or operator of an 

affected OLD operation to use a variety 

of information available to them to 

determine whether a given liquid meets 

the HAP content criteria in the 

definition of ‘‘organic liquids.’’

Information such as product data sheets 

or MSDS, as well as knowledge of 

commonly accepted formulations for 

certain products, may be used to 

designate materials as above or below 

the HAP content criteria. 

While the owner or operator will not 

be required to test each liquid, EPA may 

require a test using EPA Method 311 (or 

an approved alternative) to confirm the 

reported content of organic HAP (from 

Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63) in 

the liquid. In the event of any 

inconsistency between information 

provided by the owner or operator and 

the values obtained using the test 

methods, the results obtained through 

the use of an approved test method (e.g., 

EPA Method 311) will govern 

compliance determinations.

Comment: One commenter felt there 

is an issue of the reliability of 

determining vapor pressures at 0.1 psia 

and lower. Since true vapor pressure is 

uncertain for low volatility stocks (such 

as distillate oils), EPA should allow the 

use of a surrogate property. The 

commenter suggested allowing the use 

of a flash point of 100°F as a surrogate 

for the 0.1 psia vapor pressure cutoff. 

Response: We agree that measured 

values of liquid vapor pressure become 

increasingly uncertain as the vapor 

pressure decreases. In order to avoid the 

difficulties of these measurements for 

liquids with very low volatilities, and 

also to be consistent with other rules 

such as the HON, we have changed the 

basis for determining the vapor pressure 

of an organic liquid. Under the final 

rule, the vapor pressure may be 

determined by using the specified test 

methods or by using a calculated value 

based on knowledge of the organic HAP 

content of the liquid. As vapor pressure 

may now be a calculated value, it is not 

necessary to use a surrogate approach. 

Also, we have included a list of exempt 

liquids in the definition of organic 

liquids because the liquids exempted 

are well defined and would exhibit such 

low vapor pressure that they would not 

exceed the 0.1 psia vapor pressure 

threshold. Therefore, the final rule does 

not incorporate the flash point 

approach. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the storage tank capacity and vapor 

pressure criteria need to be reevaluated. 

The commenters noted that the 

proposed cutoffs in Table 2 to subpart 

EEEE of part 63 for applicability of 

storage tank controls are the same as 

those in the HON, and stated that the 

HON criteria should not set a precedent 

for any other source category. The 

commenters pointed out that other 

MACT rules that have followed the 

statutory procedure for MACT floor 

determination, such as the Refinery 

MACT, have concluded that the values 

for these criteria should be much higher. 

One commenter stated that the storage 

tank capacity and vapor pressure 

applicability criteria should, in fact, be 

consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC (Refinery MACT I). According to the 

commenter, these differences lead to 

confusion about applicability for 

facilities that must comply with several 

MACT rules. 

Response: Applicability criteria are 

established based on the MACT floor 

and beyond-the-floor determinations 

and are made independently for each 

source category. This determination 

depends on the data available for each 

category. Since the data reflect different 

tank sizes and liquids stored, the 

applicability criteria may, and do, vary 

from one rule to the next. Therefore, it 

is not necessary or appropriate that the 

OLD applicability criteria be the same as 

for the Refinery MACT. Further, based 

on the re-analysis of the database, the 

applicability criteria for the final OLD 

rule have been written to better reflect 

our OLD database and no longer 

matches the HON applicability criteria. 

One commenter was concerned about 

the potential confusion differences in 

applicability criteria may create for 

facilities that must meet several MACT 

rules. There should be no confusion at 

such facilities. The OLD NESHAP will 

not conflict with other storage tank 

applicability requirements, as storage 

tanks that are already subject to an 

existing 40 CFR part 63 subpart rule will 

continue to be subject to that subpart. 

The fact that an owner or operator must 

comply with different NESHAP for 

different storage tanks simply means 

that the owner or operator will have to 

implement an accurate and more exact 

accounting of which NESHAP apply to 

which tanks. This needs to be done only 

once, provided storage tanks do not 

change source categories. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the final OLD NESHAP should 

include a vapor pressure threshold for 

transfer rack control. The commenters 

suggested that a 1.5 psia threshold (i.e., 

no control for a rack if all transferred 

liquids are below the threshold), which 

was used in the HON and in the Marine 

Tank Vessel Loading NESHAP, be 

adopted. These commenters did not 

believe that cost-effective controls could 

be implemented for these low vapor 

pressure materials because of the low 

level of emissions. They also felt that 

mandating controls for these low 

volatility liquids could result in greater 

emissions from the control device than 

from the loading activities. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, we re-examined the OLD 

database to determine the relationship 

between the current level of transfer 

rack control and the organic HAP vapor 

pressures. We determined that MACT 

floors consisting of the use of a control 

device existed for transfer racks 

handling liquids with vapor pressures 

greater than 0.1 psia at both new and 

existing sources. Since the MACT floor 

for loading activities down to this level 

is a closed vent and control system, we 

did not include a vapor pressure 

criterion for transfer racks in the final 

rule. We note, however, that transfer 

racks transferring non-crude oil liquids 

with total vapor pressures less than 0.1 

psia (i.e., liquids that are not ‘‘organic 

liquids’’ for purposes of the OLD 

NESHAP) are not subject to the final 

OLD rule.

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA’s proposed exemption from 

control for the following emission 

sources: (a) storage tanks below 10,000 

gallon capacity, (b) transfer racks with 

annual throughput less than 3.12 

million gallons, and (c) pumps and 

valves in organic liquids service for less 

than 300 hours per year is unlawful 

because it allows unregulated HAP 

emissions. 

Response: Based on a reevaluation of 

our database, we have revised the 

emission source criteria approach for 

storage tanks and transfer racks in the 

final rule. We are, however, retaining 

the 300 hour per year requirement for 

pumps and valves. Each of these items 

is discussed below. 

5052 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Storage tanks below 10,000 gallons 

capacity. At proposal, we proposed to 

exclude from control new tanks with 

capacities of less than 10,000 gallons 

and existing tanks with capacities of 

less than 20,000 gallons. This exclusion 

was based on other MACT rules with 

storage tank standards that exclude such 

tanks from control. We have revised the 

database to include only those tanks 

likely to be subject to the final OLD rule 

and re-calculated MACT floors based on 

the remaining tanks in the database. We 

retained the basic analysis methodology 

of examining tanks by capacity and 

vapor pressure ranges, using common 

capacity and vapor pressure ranges (i.e., 

those frequently found in other rules) 

and by examining the cumulative level 

of control across these ranges. 

Based on the revised analysis, the 

only MACT floors requiring emission 

reduction that were identified for 

existing tanks with less than 10,000 

gallons capacity were for those tanks 

with capacities between 5,000 and 

10,000 gallons capacities that are 

included in the 5,000 to 50,000 gallons 

capacity range containing non-crude oil 

liquids with a HAP partial vapor 

pressure equal to or greater than 4.0 psia 

or crude oil. 

For new sources, a MACT floor 

requiring emission reduction was 

identified for tanks with 5,000 to 10,000 

gallons capacities containing non-crude 

oil liquids with a HAP partial vapor 

pressure equal to or greater than 4.0 psia 

or crude oil. A MACT floor was also 

identified for tanks with capacities of 

10,000 gallons or more and containing 

non-crude oil liquids with a HAP partial 

vapor pressure equal to or greater than 

0.1 psia or crude oil. We have used 

these findings to determine the 

applicability criteria (tank capacity and 

HAP partial vapor pressure) to 

determine which tanks will be subject to 

control. 

For those tanks for which the MACT 

floor was found to be ‘‘no emission 

reduction,’’ we conducted a beyond-thefloor analysis, and we have determined 

that there are no feasible or cost 

effective beyond-the-floor alternatives 

for these storage tanks. Therefore, the 

final rule does not include control 

requirements for tanks for which the 

MACT floor was determined to be ‘‘no 

emission reduction.’’

In conclusion, the final rule is driven 

by the data for the OLD source category 

and includes capacity and vapor 

pressure criteria based on those data to 

determine which OLD storage tanks are 

required to be controlled and those that 

are not required to be controlled. 

Requiring no additional emission 

reduction from certain tanks is justified 

by the available data, meets the 

mandates of the CAA, and is not 

unlawful. 

Transfer rack loading positions below 

3.12 million gallons per year. As for 

storage tanks, we proposed to exclude 

relatively smaller transfer rack positions 

from control based on the requirements 

of other 40 CFR part 63 subparts (e.g., 

subparts SS and YY define a low 

throughput transfer rack as one that 

transfers less than a total of 11.8 million 

liters/yr (3.12 million gallons per year) 

of liquid containing regulated HAP). 

This throughput is equivalent to about 

9,000 gallons per day, or the filling of 

approximately one tank truck. 

Based on a re-analysis of the data (as 

described for storage tanks above), we 

determined that this applicability 

criterion is not appropriate for the OLD 

source category. Our data re-assessment 

indicates that there are emission 

reduction MACT floors for existing and 

new transfer racks above and below the 

3.12 million gallons per year threshold. 

Therefore, the final rule does not adopt 

the 3.12 million gallons per year 

exemption for transfer racks.

Equipment in organic liquids service 

less than 300 hours per year. The 

stringency of a LDAR program is based 

on a number of factors. These factors 

include the definition of ‘‘in organic 

HAP service’’ (e.g., 5 percent HAP, 10 

percent HAP), the leak definition (e.g., 

500 ppmv, 10,000 ppmv), the frequency 

of monitoring (e.g., monthly, quarterly, 

annually), and exemptions for 

monitoring requirements (e.g., difficult 

to monitor components, in service less 

than 300 hours per year). The smaller 

the values associated with the definition 

of ‘‘in organic HAP service’’ and the 

leak definition, and the more frequent 

the monitoring, the more effective the 

LDAR program (better emission 

reduction). The more exemptions, the 

less effective the LDAR program. 

In examining the LDAR programs in 

place at OLD facilities, we evaluated the 

overall effectiveness of the programs, 

including each of the aforementioned 

items. In general, the majority of the 

LDAR programs in place at OLD 

facilities use a 10 percent HAP in 

organic HAP service definition and do 

not contain a 300-hour per year in 

service exemption because the LDAR 

programs tend to be State or local rules 

or older New Source Performance 

Standard-type rules. The proposed rule 

allowed an affected source to comply 

with either of two NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart TT or UU) for 

equipment leaks. While both of these 

NESHAP contain an exemption for 

components in service less than 300 

hours per year, they have an ‘‘in organic 

HAP service’’ definition of 5 percent 

(not 10 percent). When compared to a 

10 percent ‘‘in organic HAP service’’

definition without a 300-hour per year 

exemption, a LDAR program with a 5 

percent ‘‘in organic HAP service’’

definition with a 300-hour per year 

exemption is more effective in reducing 

emissions (i.e., is more stringent). This 

occurs, in part, because there are more 

components caught by lowering the ‘‘in 

organic HAP service’’ definition than 

are ‘‘lost’’ due to the 300-hour per year 

in service exemption and, in part, 

because there are less emissions 

associated with components operating 

only 300 hours per year than from 

components in the 5 to 10 percent 

organic HAP range. 

The 300-hour per year in service 

exemption has been provided in 

previous rules primarily to address 

equipment that has only occasional use 

in HAP service. Examples of such 

equipment are pumps and compressors 

used only during startup and shutdown 

of a process unit. Equipment in use less 

than 300 hours per year would be 

difficult to monitor within a regularly 

scheduled LDAR program, and very 

little emission reduction would be 

realized by including them. 

The analysis of equipment LDAR 

programs in place within the OLD 

industry indicated that the 300-hour 

service exemption with monthly 

instrument-based inspections results in 

a level of control at least as stringent as 

the MACT floor level of control. Our 

investigation of the available control 

approaches for controlling equipment 

leaks did not identify any control 

approaches that would be beyond-thefloor level and also cost effective. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated 

above, we are not removing the 300 

hours per year exemption from the 

LDAR programs specified in the final 

rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the CAA requires EPA to promulgate 

standards for all emission points at all 

major sources, and that exemptions 

based on capacity, throughput, and 

hours of service violate that 

requirement. The commenter noted that 

EPA attempts to justify the exemptions 

by arguing that the exempted facilities 

do not have a volume of emissions that 

warrants control, but the Agency does 

not claim that these emissions are de 

minimis.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggestion that every 

emission point at an affected source 

must be required to reduce emissions. 

Section 112(a) of the CAA does not 

state, or imply, that all emission points 

must be subjected to control 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5053

requirements in standards promulgated 

under section 112. Section 112(d)(1) 

allows the Administrator to distinguish 

among classes, types, and sizes of 

sources within a category or subcategory 

in establishing such standards. We 

interpret this provision for the final 

OLD rule, as we have for previous 

NESHAP, as allowing emission 

limitations to be established for 

subcategories of sources based on size or 

volume of materials processed at the 

affected source. Under the discretion 

allowed by the CAA to consider sizes of 

sources, we made the determination that 

certain small-capacity and low-use 

operations can be analyzed separately 

for purposes of identifying the MACT 

floor and determining whether beyondthe-floor requirements are reasonable. 

With regard to whether emissions from 

certain groups of sources are ‘‘de 

minimis,’’ the commenter did not 

elaborate on its interpretation of this 

term or how it might apply in 

discussing the OLD applicability criteria 

for emission limitations. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA has no discretion to exempt 

certain OLD emission sources such as 

container filling, wastewater collection, 

and semi-aqueous waste. Several other 

commenters stated that the final rule 

should explicitly state that wastewater 

operations, including the treatment, 

storage, transfer, or discharge of 

wastewater, are exempt from the final 

OLD NESHAP. Some commenters were 

concerned that the rule as proposed 

would regulate hazardous waste transfer 

and conveyance systems that are 

collocated at manufacturing facilities 

that are major sources for HAP and 

requested that EPA allow such sites to 

utilize alternate LDAR programs 

established under 40 CFR part 265, 

subpart BB, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGG. 

Response: As previously discussed, 

the proposed rule would reduce HAP 

emissions from the distribution of 

organic liquid products that were either 

pure HAP liquids, mixtures of HAP and 

non-HAP liquids, or crude oils, focusing 

on products (including crude oil, which 

is a naturally occurring product) 

intended for further use or processing. 

The handling of wastewater and semiaqueous waste is not part of the 

distribution of organic liquid products. 

The definition of ‘‘organic liquid’’ in the 

final rule excludes hazardous waste, 

wastewater, and ballast water. In 

addition, the final rule clearly states that 

emission sources that are part of the 

affected source under another 40 CFR 

part 63 rule (such as oil and natural gas 

production) are not included in the 

affected source for the final OLD rule.

However, based on a review of data 

on container filling operations, we have 

determined that the only MACT floor 

for either existing or new sources is a 

new source floor for container filling 

operations. We identified one container 

filling operation that controls emissions 

by performing the operation in a total 

enclosure that is vented to a thermal 

oxidizer. This level of control meets the 

level 3 control for container filling 

found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP, the 

National Emission Standards for 

Containers. We have not, however, 

identified any technology that would 

achieve cost-effective beyond-the-floor 

control for new source container filling 

operations. The final rule requires 

owners or operators of new container 

filling operations to comply with the 

level 3 control requirements found in 

§ 63.924 of subpart PP. 

B. Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

Comment: A commenter claimed that 

EPA set the floor for new storage tanks 

the same as the floor for existing tanks 

without demonstrating that the floors 

reflect the best performing source, and 

claimed that EPA set the floor for 

existing transfer racks as the use of a 

control device with 95 percent control 

efficiency based on a ‘‘cursory 

analysis.’’

The commenter states that EPA’s 

proposed emission standards do not 

reflect the maximum achievable degree 

of reduction in emissions, and that EPA 

failed to adequately consider beyondthe-floor standards for each of the three 

regulated emission sources. 

Response: As a clarification, the 

averaging process (for either the 

arithmetic average or the median) is 

applied to the top 12 percent of sources 

and not to the whole data set. This 

approach, consisting of more than one 

possible way of determining floors, is a 

practical necessity when working with 

the results of an averaging process. In 

examining our database and evaluating 

it based on comments, we have used the 

median source of the top performing 12 

percent of existing sources where there 

are at least 30 sources, or the median 

source of the top performing five 

sources where there are fewer than 30 

sources to determine MACT floors for 

the final OLD rule. Our methodology for 

determining MACT floors for existing 

sources is reasonable and conforms to 

the legal requirements of the CAA. 

In developing the proposal and 

performing the MACT floor analysis for 

storage tanks, we evaluated each of the 

three primary types of tanks used for 

storage of organic liquids. These tank 

types are characterized by their basic 

construction and are referred to as fixed 

roof, internal floating roof, and external 

floating roof tanks. The selection of 

which type to use in a given situation 

is based on factors including capacity, 

types of liquids to be stored, climate, 

throughput, and cost. The emission 

control approach utilized for storage 

tanks differs depending on the tank 

type. The most common emission 

control approach for organic liquids 

storage tanks is floating roof technology, 

installed as either an internal or external 

floating roof. Floating roofs with 

properly designed seals and gaskets 

have been determined to perform at the 

highest level of emission control in use 

for storage tanks. External floating roof 

tanks achieve a somewhat lower control 

efficiency, because the vapor space 

above the floating roof is open to the 

atmosphere. However, the application of 

floating roof technology is the best 

demonstrated technology for this type of 

tank construction. For these reasons the 

Agency has developed storage tank 

equipment standards that specify in 

detail the design features that must be 

incorporated into a compliant floating 

roof design. 

The emission reductions that can be 

achieved by add-on control devices on 

fixed roof tanks are equivalent to the 

reductions that can be achieved by 

floating roof technology. As with 

floating roof technology, the 

performance of the various types of addon controls are somewhat variable 

depending on operational factors such 

as the types of liquids being stored and 

the tank filling rate. Properly designed 

and operated add-on control systems 

have been demonstrated to achieve 

emission reductions of 95 percent or 

greater from fixed roof storage tanks. 

We developed MACT floor levels of 

control for the range of tank capacities 

and HAP vapor pressure of liquids 

stored based on the OLD storage tank 

database. The MACT floor level of 

control that was determined from the 

database is the use of properly designed 

floating roof technology or an add-on 

control device achieving a 95 percent 

reduction in HAP emissions. The MACT 

floor for storage tanks at new sources is 

not the same as the floor for tanks at 

existing sources. The new source storage 

tank floor is more stringent because the 

control requirements extend to tanks 

storing liquids with lower vapor 

pressures (i.e., more tanks will undergo 

control than at existing sources). New 

storage tanks in the 10,000 to 50,000 

gallons capacity range will be subject to 

control under the final OLD rule at HAP 

vapor pressures as low as 0.1 psia 

(versus 4.0 psia for existing tanks in this 

same capacity range). 

5054 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Based on our review of the types of 

control devices in use (primarily 

incinerators, adsorbers, and scrubbers) 

and the range of control efficiencies 

reported (approximately 20 percent to 

over 99 percent), we proposed that 95 

percent was the most appropriate 

control efficiency for transfer 

operations. We selected this value based 

on the known capabilities of these 

control devices and on regulatory limits 

specified in other rules.

Following proposal, we re-analyzed 

our OLD database and determined that 

the MACT floor for transfer racks at 

existing and new sources is a control 

efficiency of 98 percent, based on the 

best performing sources. The 98 percent 

level of control has been shown to be 

achievable by well-designed and 

operated combustion devices. The 

choice of control options is not limited 

to combustion devices, however, as 

vapor balancing systems also achieve 

the required 98 percent control level 

where they are technically feasible. 

In evaluating beyond-the-floor 

alternatives, we examined the ability to 

switch products, the ability to switch 

fuels, the potential for improved 

performance of add-on controls at 

already controlled sources, and the use 

of add-on control devices to reduce 

emissions from sources for which we 

determined the floors were ‘‘no 

additional emission reductions.’’

The emission sources subject to the 

OLD rule are storage tanks, transfer 

racks, and equipment leak components 

(pumps, valves, and sampling 

connections). The liquids that are stored 

in storage tanks are those liquids 

required by a facility or its customers. 

It is not feasible for a facility to switch 

to a lower vapor pressure liquid when 

its customer requires a specific liquid. 

Therefore, product switching is not a 

feasible beyond-the-floor alternative for 

storage tanks. For the same basic reason, 

product switching is not a feasible 

beyond-the-floor alternative for transfer 

racks. Finally, equipment leak 

components can only leak what is in the 

process stream that they contact. Those 

process streams come from OLD storage 

tanks and transfer racks. As product 

switching is not feasible for tanks and 

racks, it is not feasible for equipment 

leaks. 

With regards to fuel switching, the 

emissions that occur from tanks, racks, 

and equipment leak components have 

no fuel sources associated with them. 

The emissions occur as the result of 

displaced vapors when loading, 

breathing losses, and leaks. There are no 

fuel sources to ‘‘switch.’’ Therefore, fuel 

switching is not feasible. 

The use of add-on control devices, 

including vapor balancing, however, 

represents a feasible beyond-the-floor 

alternative for storage tanks and transfer 

racks. Our analyses of beyond-the-floor 

alternatives for those emission sources 

for which we determined the floors are 

‘‘no emission reduction,’’ showed costeffectiveness values greater than 

$10,000 per ton for storage tanks and 

greater than $50,000 per ton for transfer 

racks. We have determined that these 

values are not reasonable. Further, 

because add-on controls were 

determined to be ‘‘not cost effective,’’

we did not evaluate the associated 

impacts of add-on controls for energy 

and other non-air quality environmental 

impacts. We note here that we have 

included in the final rule the option for 

transfer racks of using a vapor balancing 

system where technically feasible. 

These systems have demonstrated 

control efficiencies of 98 percent or 

greater (i.e., floor levels of control). 

Our investigation of the available 

control approaches for controlling 

equipment leaks did not identify any 

control approaches that would be 

beyond-the-floor level and also cost 

effective. We are, therefore, 

promulgating equipment leak standards 

based on the floor level of control 

determined from the OLD database. 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

proposed rule text did not indicate 

whether the entire CAA section 112 

HAP list or the proposed OLD Table 1 

to subpart EEEE of part 63 HAP list is 

the appropriate chemical list to use for 

the various determinations and 

performance demonstrations, even 

though the proposal preamble notes that 

organic HAP listed on Table 1 to subpart 

EEEE of part 63 (and all crude oil except 

black oil) are the ‘‘regulated liquids.’’

One commenter noted that the proposal 

did not include emission standards for 

24 of the 93 organic HAP that EPA 

claims are emitted from OLD operations, 

based on the Agency’s claim that the 

HAP for which standards were not set 

are lower in volatility and have lower 

potential to be emitted. 

Response: We have written Table 1 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63 to include all 

of the organic HAP identified as being 

present in OLD liquids. The control 

devices and work practice standards in 

the final OLD rule affect all of the HAP 

in an OLD liquid, even those that have 

lower emission potential due to their 

low vapor pressure. By including all of 

the known organic HAP in Table 1 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63, there is no 

longer any inconsistency between the 

HAP emitted by OLD operations, the 

HAP used to determine whether control 

is required, and the HAP used to 

demonstrate compliance. Therefore, 

while the initial determination of 

whether an entire facility meets the 

criteria for being a major source is based 

on all the HAP listed in the CAA, 

compliance with the final OLD rule is 

based only on the 98 HAP found in 

Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63.

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that EPA has proposed allowing 

sources to meet a standard for TOC 

emissions rather than meeting any 

standard for HAP, stating that the 

Agency cannot credibly claim that TOC 

is a valid surrogate for all HAP that OLD 

facilities emit. In addition, the TOC 

option would result in control of even 

fewer HAP. For these reasons, the 

commenter believes this provision of 

the proposal is unlawful. 

Response: The primary format for the 

emission limits in the final OLD rule is 

a control efficiency standard for organic 

HAP. At proposal, we offered the option 

of complying with the percent reduction 

standards using a TOC format. The use 

of ‘‘surrogate’’ pollutants is an accepted 

practice in environmental regulation, 

because it is often reasonable to infer 

similar behavior among members of a 

class of pollutants that share a common 

attribute. Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. 

EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 

1996); NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 125 

(D.C. Cir. 1987). Significant regulatory 

cost and time can be saved by relying on 

that relationship; monitoring, sampling, 

and recordkeeping can be reduced when 

a surrogate pollutant, rather than 

numerous individual pollutants, are 

tracked. Specifically, EPA’s use of a 

surrogate pollutant in the MACT 

program has been upheld as reasonable 

in judicial review, where the court held 

that if control of the surrogate pollutant 

is the means by which sources achieve 

reductions in multiple HAP, EPA may 

require surrogate control without 

quantifying the reduction in HAP thus 

achieved. NLA v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 

639 (D.C. Cir. 2000). After evaluating the 

comments, we have retained the 

optional TOC measurement format, but 

have added a requirement for a 

demonstration by the owner or operator 

that the HAP emission reduction 

achieved is at least as stringent as the 

TOC emission reduction for their 

affected sources. To make this 

demonstration, the owner or operator 

will have to show that the ratio of 

captured organic HAP-to-TOC is at least 

1-to-1, such that it can thereafter be 

assured that capture of TOC will result 

in capture of organic HAP to at least as 

stringent a level as required. After the 

initial demonstration to establish the 

relationship between HAP and TOC 

emission reductions, use of the TOC 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5055

format will be an acceptable alternative 

emission limit. 

For the 20 ppmv outlet concentration 

standard, the use of TOC is an 

acceptable option without an 

equivalency determination. Because 

measured TOC in a gas stream includes 

all HAP, and may include some organic 

compounds that are not HAP, the 

concentration of HAP at the outlet of a 

control device will always be less than 

the measured TOC value. Thus, the 

limitation of TOC to a maximum 

concentration of 20 ppmv will always 

result in HAP emissions of 20 ppmv, or 

less. 

We initially selected the TOC format 

as a possible alternative for the 

standards to provide flexibility for 

source owners and operators, while still 

requiring the MACT level of emission 

control to be achieved. The 

requirements of the final OLD rule will 

accomplish both objectives by allowing 

the use of a demonstrated surrogate, in 

appropriate cases. The approach 

adopted in the final rule will ensure that 

in all cases where the TOC surrogate is 

used, the correlation between the 

surrogate and organic HAP will have 

been demonstrated, and that control of 

the surrogate will achieve emission 

reductions of organic HAP at least as 

stringent as under the organic HAP 

limit. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed rule fails to provide 

for the use of a number of proven 

emission reduction options and focuses 

primarily on closed vent systems and 

control devices. The commenters stated 

that EPA must allow the option of vapor 

balancing for storage tank and transfer 

rack emission reduction. Further, 

emission reduction options such as 

cooling the liquid in a storage tank to 

reduce vapor pressure, maintaining an 

inert gas blanket, or routing emissions to 

a fuel gas system or to a process should 

be specifically stated to be acceptable 

alternatives for compliance with the 

proposed rule.

Response: We have considered these 

comments and reviewed the provisions 

of the HON and other MACT rules that 

allow the alternative of vapor balancing, 

and we have added vapor balancing to 

the final rule as an alternative control 

approach for transfer racks (i.e., to 

control HAP vapors displaced during 

the loading of transport vehicles). Vapor 

balancing is a highly efficient (98 

percent or greater) means of reducing 

the emissions of vapors displaced 

during the loading of transport vehicles. 

Vapor balancing to a fixed roof tank 

with an add-on control device may be 

a viable option for facilities that utilize 

this type of tank. However, vapor 

balancing is not technically feasible in 

all cases. 

We recognize that, for the variety of 

liquids and equipment configurations 

that exist at OLD operations in many 

different industries, there may be 

numerous control approaches that 

would reduce HAP emissions to a 

degree equivalent to an end-of-pipe 

control system. Cooling a liquid may 

reduce its actual vapor pressure below 

the threshold for control in a storage 

tank, in which case the storage tank 

control requirements would not apply. 

The final rule addresses the routing of 

emissions to a fuel gas system or a 

process in §§ 63.2346(a) and (b) and 

63.2378(d). We have not added the use 

of an inert gas blanket as an approved 

control measure because we have no 

evidence (and the commenters did not 

provide any) that this approach 

inherently provides the level of control 

required by the final standards. 

However, § 63.2346(g) of the final rule 

provides for requests for approval to use 

any other alternative approach. We have 

added a reference to § 63.177 of the 

HON to provide a more structured 

method for receiving approval of 

approaches that are not specifically 

listed in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the availability of the floating roof 

option be limited to those storage tanks 

storing stock with an annual average 

true vapor pressure of less than 11.1 

psia. Proposed Table 4 allows 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart WW (floating roof control), as 

an alternative compliance measure for 

storage tanks, but without this vapor 

pressure restriction. Other EPA rules 

require controls on tanks storing stocks 

with vapor pressure greater than 11.1 

psia (if the tank is in the capacity 

category that is subject to controls), but 

they do not allow the use of floating 

roofs as a control option for these higher 

volatility stocks. Several commenters 

also recommended that the storage tank 

definition should exclude pressure 

vessels designed to operate in excess of 

204.9 kilopascals (29.7 psia) and 

without emissions to the atmosphere. 

Response: We have written the final 

OLD rule to limit the application of 

floating roof technology to storage tanks 

containing organic liquids with an 

organic HAP annual average true vapor 

pressure less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 

psia). For affected tanks with liquids 

≥11.1 psia, only a closed-vent system 

and control device may be used. The 

OLD storage tank definition has also 

been written to exclude from OLD 

coverage pressure vessels designed to 

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals 

(29.7 psia) and without emissions to the 

atmosphere. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

EPA proposed to regulate equipment 

leaks through work practice standards, 

and EPA has not determined that it is 

not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard. In fact, EPA notes in 

the TSD that leakless equipment, such 

as seal-less pumps, can ‘‘eliminate 

emissions entirely.’’

Response: We have previously 

determined in the development of rules 

such as the HON that emission 

standards (in the format of a numerical 

emission limit) are not feasible for 

equipment leaks. Under section 112 of 

the Act, national emission standards 

must, whenever possible, take the 

format of a numerical emission 

standard. Typically, an emission 

standard is written in terms of an 

allowable emission rate (mass per unit 

of time), performance level (e.g., 90 

percent control), or an allowable 

concentration. These types of standards 

require the direct measurement of 

emissions to determine compliance. For 

some source types, emission standards 

cannot be prescribed because it is not 

feasible to measure emissions. Section 

112(h)(2) of the CAA recognizes this 

situation by defining two conditions 

under which it is not feasible to 

establish an emission standard. These 

conditions are: (1) If the pollutants 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutant; or (2) if the 

application of measurement 

methodology is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

If an emission standard cannot be 

established, EPA may instead establish 

a design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard or combination 

thereof. 

For equipment leak sources, such as 

pumps and valves, EPA has previously 

determined that it is not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce emission standards. 

Except for those items of equipment for 

which standards can be set at a specific 

concentration, the only method of 

measuring emissions is total enclosure 

of individual items of equipment, 

collection of emissions for a specified 

time period, and measurement of the 

emissions. This procedure, known as 

bagging, is a time-consuming and 

prohibitively expensive technique 

considering the great number of 

individual items of equipment in a 

typical process unit. Moreover, this 

procedure would not be useful for 

routine monitoring and identification of 

leaking equipment for repair. 

While we did not include this 

rationale in the OLD proposal, emission 

5056 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

standards in the form of numerical 

emission limits are not feasible for 

components subject to the OLD 

equipment leak regulations, and we 

have included the rationale in the final 

rule for establishing the equipment leak 

standards under CAA section 112(h). 

The use of leakless equipment, as 

discussed in the TSD, may not be 

compatible with many of the liquids 

transferred at OLD sources. For 

example, seal-less pumps use the 

pumped liquid for lubrication and 

cooling, and some transferred liquids 

may not be adequate in this capacity. 

Also, this equipment can develop leaks 

after a period of time, which would 

require an LDAR program similar to the 

program in place for traditional 

equipment. For OLD operations, we 

have not developed enough experience 

and do not have data to indicate that 

equipment emissions at these operations 

justify this extreme type of reduction 

approach. The LDAR program 

represented in the final rule is being 

used successfully throughout industry 

to maintain low leakage rates from 

equipment.

Comment: Several commenters 

believe that EPA should not require 

instrument LDAR to control equipment 

leaks at OLD facilities. They said that 

instrument scanning for equipment 

leaks is impractical and not costeffective, and they recommended that 

the OLD MACT rule specify a sensory 

(sight, sound, smell) leak detection and 

repair program similar to that in the 

Gasoline Distribution MACT rule, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart R. One of the 

commenters felt that many OLD sources 

are already subject to regular Coast 

Guard inspection as well as EPA’s SPCC 

plan requirements. The gains from 

additional LDAR requirements on the 

same piping must be quite limited but 

would come with a substantial burden. 

Another commenter noted that the 

preamble states that the Agency found 

that an instrument-based LDAR program 

similar to the HON represents the 

MACT floor, but the OLD MACT rule 

generally applies to facilities similar to 

bulk gasoline terminals. Consequently, 

Table 4 Item 3 should state: ‘‘You must 

comply with the requirement of subpart 

R of this part.’’

Response: In our MACT analysis, we 

determined that the MACT floor for 

existing sources is an instrument-based 

LDAR program. We further determined 

that this is the best system of emission 

reduction available, so we selected it as 

MACT for existing and new sources. 

Therefore, allowing a sensory program 

would not represent MACT because 

such programs have not been 

demonstrated to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction to be equivalent to 

equipment-based programs for OLD 

operations. We specifically requested 

data to show that sensory programs 

would achieve the MACT level of 

control. In the development of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart R, industry provided 

such data for gasoline and the final rule 

allows sensory programs. The Agency 

has received no data to support the 

claim that sensory programs would 

achieve equivalent control for OLD 

operations. Therefore, we have not 

written the equipment leak standards in 

the final rule as requested by the 

commenters. The final rule provides 

flexibility by allowing LDAR programs 

that are consistent with the provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, UU, or 

H. 

C. Testing, Compliance Requirements, 

and Monitoring 

Comment: One commenter felt that 

proposed Table 5 to subpart EEEE of 

part 63 needs to be revised to allow for 

design evaluations in lieu of 

performance testing for non-flare control 

devices controlling emissions from 

storage tanks, as 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS specifies. In proposed § 63.2362, 

there is no language explaining 

specifically when a design evaluation 

may be done in lieu of a performance 

test. In addition, it appears that you 

must conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits in Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 

63 for both storage tanks and transfer 

racks. The commenter provided 

suggested revised language to clarify 

§ 63.2362 through references to 

applicable provisions of subpart SS. 

A second commenter noted that the 

text of proposed § 63.2354(a) pertaining 

to ‘‘other initial compliance 

demonstrations’’ was imprecise and 

confusing, since there is nothing other 

than performance testing requirements 

in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2). 

One commenter noted that a source 

that qualifies as an existing source may 

already be obligated to perform initial 

performance tests as a condition of a 

new source review construction permit. 

In the event of overlapping 

requirements to perform initial 

performance tests, there should be 

coordination of the schedule by which 

the testing is to be performed. 

Two other commenters noted that 

proposed § 63.2358 would require 

performance testing of a control device 

used to comply with the OLD rule even 

if it is the same control device already 

tested and in use for compliance with 

another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP 

standard. They felt that a facility that 

has already conducted performance 

testing to comply with a more stringent 

NESHAP should be able to use those 

test results in place of a new 

performance test. 

Response: We have written § 63.2354 

of the final rule and Table 5 to subpart 

EEEE of part 63 to clarify that design 

evaluations may be used in lieu of 

performance testing for demonstrating 

initial compliance for nonflare control 

devices. The requirements in 40 CFR 

63.985(b)(1) were developed to ensure 

that design evaluations include 

adequate documentation to demonstrate 

that the control device being used 

achieves the required control efficiency. 

By specifically listing this alternative to 

performance testing in the final OLD 

rule, we have provided additional 

flexibility to owners or operators and 

increased uniformity among the other 

MACT rules that affect them. 

We have also written the language in 

§ 63.2370 of the final rule to clarify that 

the initial compliance demonstrations 

referred to in that section are those 

initial compliance requirements 

contained in Tables 6 and 7 to subpart 

EEEE of part 63. We have clarified that 

the General Provisions in § 63.7(a)(2) 

impose a schedule for the performance 

testing, while design evaluations are to 

be submitted in the Notification of 

Compliance Status per § 63.985(b)(1) of 

40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.

Under 40 CFR 63.7(h), the owner or 

operator of an affected facility may 

request a waiver of the performance test 

requirements. Individual performance 

tests may be waived if, in the 

Administrator’s judgment, the source is 

meeting the relevant standard(s) on a 

continuous basis. The provisions 

allowing for submission of a request for 

a waiver of the performance test, 

accompanied by supporting information 

such as a documented performance test 

previously conducted on the device, 

should avoid the situation of 

overlapping tests. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA has failed to mandate adequate 

continuous monitoring requirements 

and that, at a minimum, EPA must 

establish requirements that provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance. As 

an example, EPA did not propose the 

use of continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS), but rejected them on 

cost grounds without indicating why the 

costs are too high. Another commenter 

noted that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 

(§ 63.990(c)), allows for use of organic 

monitoring device CEMS as an 

alternative to the continuous parameter 

monitoring systems (CPMS) for which 

operating limits are to be established. 

The final OLD rule should include the 

same allowance. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5057

Response: Section 112 of the CAA 

does not require EPA to impose a CEMS 

requirement in MACT standards. 

Instead, EPA has substantial discretion 

in exercising its technical expertise to 

devise a monitoring system that assures 

compliance with applicable 

requirements. NLA v. EPA, 233 F.3d 

625, 635 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Marsh v. 

Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 

U.S. 360, 377 (1989). Particularly, the 

D.C. Circuit has already ruled that 

parameter monitoring requirements 

provide the necessary assurance of 

continuous compliance with applicable 

requirements and enhance the 

enforceability of emission standards, as 

required by the CAA. NRDC v. EPA, 194 

F.3d 130, 134–37 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The 

commenters should note that the 

proposal included a requirement (in 

§ 63.2366(a)) to install, operate, and 

maintain a CPMS on each control device 

installed under the final OLD rule. 

These CPMS continuously measure an 

operating parameter of the control 

device that influences emissions (such 

as temperature inside a thermal 

incinerator, vacuum achieved during 

the desorption cycle of a carbon 

adsorption system, etc.). They have been 

widely prescribed in several other 

MACT rules and are specified under the 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS. We consider properly 

selected CPMS to provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance with the 

applicable requirements established in 

the final OLD rule. Deviations from the 

established values (operating limits) for 

these parameters must be reported by 

the facility in their periodic reports to 

EPA. 

Because CPMS are judged to provide 

a reasonable assurance of compliance 

and are generally less expensive to 

install and operate, a requirement to use 

CEMS is not necessary. While we are 

not requiring the use of CEMS in the 

final OLD rule, facilities may request to 

utilize CEMS as an alternative 

monitoring method under § 63.8 of the 

General Provisions. 

In addition, we have added an option 

for the use of organic monitoring 

devices (one type of CEMS) to Table 9 

to subpart EEEE of part 63. In 

accordance with the 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS, requirements in § 63.990(c), 

an organic monitoring device may be 

used (as an alternative to CPMS) where 

absorbers (scrubbers), condensers, and 

carbon adsorbers are used to meet a 

weight percent emission reduction or a 

ppmv outlet concentration requirement. 

Organic monitors provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance by quantifying 

exhausted total organic compounds 

(pollutants), which in turn provides an 

indication of the proper operation of the 

control device. A properly operating 

control device will continue to achieve 

the required control levels for organic 

HAP specified in the final OLD rule. 

The alternative of installing and 

operating either CPMS or CEMS, in 

conjunction with effectively managed 

control devices, will provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance 

with the final OLD rule’s requirements. 

Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that EPA has proposed 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements for continuous parameter 

monitoring systems in § 63.2366 of the 

final rule that are wasteful, unnecessary, 

and in some cases infeasible and will 

have environmentally negative impacts. 

Due to the significant problems 

associated with the proposed 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system requirements, EPA should 

withdraw these requirements from the 

OLD final rule and use the existing 

subpart SS requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems. 

Response: We have decided not to 

include the performance specifications 

for CPMS in the final OLD rule as they 

were proposed. We have clarified in the 

final rule that owners and operators 

must comply with the continuous 

monitoring provisions of subpart SS. 

Since owners and operators subject to 

the final OLD rule are required to 

comply with the requirements of 

subpart SS, they are already required to 

follow written performance 

specifications. We have concluded that 

the requirements in subpart SS are 

adequate to ensure that CPMS are 

properly operated and provide 

reasonable assurance of continuing 

compliance with the standards.

In a separate action, we are currently 

developing performance specifications 

for CPMS that we intend to propose to 

be followed by owners and operators of 

all sources subject to standards under 40 

CFR part 63. We decided it would be 

premature to promulgate performance 

specifications for the final OLD rule 

when the performance specifications 

that would ultimately be promulgated in 

the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 

may be significantly different as a result 

of possible public comments received 

on that rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a minimum or maximum parameter 

monitoring limit should be established 

based on the parameter values measured 

during the performance test and 

supplemented by engineering 

assessments and/or manufacturer’s 

recommendations. Nowhere in the 

proposal preamble, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEEE, or any of the referenced 

standards is there any indication of how 

operating limits are established. The 

final OLD rule should allow the facility 

to establish the operating limits 

necessary to achieve the requirements of 

Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63. This 

would be consistent with the HON. In 

addition, the conditions for conducting 

performance tests should be consistent 

between Table 12 to subpart EEEE of 

part 63 (§ 63.7(e)(1)) and § 63.997(e)(1) 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, to avoid 

confusion. 

Response: We have included in the 

final OLD rule a requirement for the 

owner or operator to develop and 

submit a monitoring plan according to 

the requirements in § 63.985(c) of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS. The monitoring 

plan must specify the parameters that an 

owner or operator proposes to monitor 

and the range of acceptable values for 

each parameter. The final OLD rule 

specifies parameters that must be 

monitored unless the owner or operator 

chooses to request permission to 

monitor an alternative parameter. The 

final OLD rule does not, however, 

provide specific ranges of acceptable 

values for the monitored parameters. 

Owners or operators must establish 

monitored parameter limits based on 

performance testing or design 

evaluation information. Thus, the owner 

or operator now has the flexibility to 

establish monitoring parameter limits 

that are most appropriate for assuring 

that their particular equipment complies 

with the emission limitations. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that, in Tables 3 and 9 to subpart EEEE 

of part 63, compliance with the 

operating limits should be based on a 

daily average value instead of an hourly 

average. They claim that using an 

hourly average as the basis for 

compliance with the operating limit is 

a very stringent requirement and is in 

direct conflict with numerous 40 CFR 

part 63 standards. They also claim that 

the use of daily averages instead of 

hourly averages supports every 

legitimate need of EPA’s Enforcement 

Office, while still making compliance 

with the final OLD rule possible. 

Response: We have evaluated the 

changes recommended by the 

commenters and have modified Tables 3 

and 9 to require that daily average 

values of recorded parameters be used 

to determine compliance. Daily average 

values have been considered by EPA in 

other MACT rules to be sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance for the types of 

control devices in use within this 

industry. We concluded, after further 

evaluation, that an hourly average may 

not be sufficient to account for normal, 

short-term fluctuations of operating 

5058 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

parameter values. Also, the parameter 

monitoring limits are normally 

established during performance testing 

that covers a span of three, 1-hour runs. 

This testing period helps ensure that 

short-term variations in operating 

conditions (temperature, flow rate, 

concentration, etc.) do not 

inappropriately bias the overall average. 

It is consistent with EPA policy 

developed in other MACT rules and 

with good engineering judgement to 

allow daily average values to be used to 

determine compliance. It should also be 

noted that in cases where an emission 

source operates for a total of less than 

24 hours at a time, the average recorded 

values must comply over the total 

operating period. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the non-applicability of the emission 

limits during periods of SSM is unclear 

and needs to be addressed, and 

recommended that specific language in 

§ 63.2378, patterned on 40 CFR 

§§ 63.102–103 or 63.480(j) regarding 

operation during SSM, be included in 

the final OLD rule. 

Response: We have written the 

language in § 63.2378 to clarify the 

applicability of the emission limitations 

during periods of SSM. While the 

emission limitations still apply during 

periods of SSM, deviations from the 

emission limitations during these 

periods are not automatically 

considered to be violations if the owner 

or operator demonstrates that they have 

followed the requirements of their SSM 

plan. Paragraphs (b)(2) of § 63.2378 

require that control devices be operated 

during periods of SSM if possible 

without damaging the devices and 

paragraphs (b)(3) require that 

appropriate measures be taken to 

minimize emissions during periods of 

SSM. The final OLD rule does require, 

in § 63.2386(d), that deviations from the 

emission limitation that occur during 

periods of SSM be reported in the 

semiannual compliance report.

Comment: The same commenter 

stated that proposed § 63.2378(d) is 

unnecessary and confusing and should 

be deleted, stating that SSM 

requirements are adequately addressed 

in the recently amended General 

Provisions and no argument has been 

made to justify deviating from those 

provisions. 

Response: As discussed in the 

previous response pertaining to SSM 

requirements, we have clarified in the 

final rule that deviations occurring 

during periods of SSM must be reported 

in the semiannual compliance report 

even though they are not automatically 

considered to be violations of the 

emission limitation. The result is more 

consistency between the final OLD rule 

and other recently promulgated rules 

and also provides the EPA with 

information necessary to decide on a 

case by case basis if further 

documentation should be requested 

from a facility. 

Comment: Several commenters felt 

that EPA should allow storage tanks 

with nonconforming seals to upgrade 

the seals up until the next time the tank 

is out of service, but no more than 10 

years after rule promulgation. For an 

existing affected source, the proposed 

OLD rule would have required 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards 

for existing sources no later than 3 years 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

Other MACT rules with storage tank 

provisions recognize that a 3-year 

compliance schedule would typically 

result in an increase in emissions 

because the emissions associated with 

emptying and degassing the tanks for 

performing the required alterations can 

be greater than the emission reductions 

that those alterations would achieve. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, we reviewed the allowances 

made in other MACT rules regulating 

storage tanks, and also the Generic 

MACT standards for storage vessels, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart WW, which are an 

allowable alternative (in Table 4 of the 

proposed rule) to the 95 percent 

emission limit. 

The Gasoline Distribution MACT rule 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart R) allows a 3-

year compliance period for upgrading 

external floating deck rim seals and for 

applying controls (gaskets, etc.) to deck 

fittings. However, if only the fitting 

controls are needed for a particular 

external floating roof tank to achieve 

compliance, the facility may wait until 

the next scheduled degassing and 

cleaning of the tank (or up to 10 years) 

to install the fitting controls. Subpart 

WW of 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) is 

similar to the Gasoline Distribution rule 

in that fitting controls may be installed 

up to 10 years after promulgation. 

The Petroleum Refinery MACT rule 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) allows up 

to 10 years to achieve compliance for 

existing floating roof storage tanks, but 

gives fixed-roof tanks only 3 years to 

comply due to the much greater 

emission reduction achieved for fixedroof tanks. 

Analysis of the emissions created by 

a tank degassing and cleaning event 

were performed under both the Gasoline 

Distribution and Refinery rules. We 

agree that for OLD storage tanks, the net 

cumulative emissions from performing a 

special cleaning and degassing to bring 

a floating roof tank into compliance 

would be greater than from allowing an 

OLD operation to wait until a scheduled 

cleaning event to make these 

modifications. Therefore, the final OLD 

rule includes a provision to allow a 

facility up to 10 years to convert the rim 

seals or deck fittings on existing floating 

roof tanks. However, the analysis for the 

Refinery rule showed that the emissions 

from degassing and cleaning fixed-roof 

tanks can be balanced within 1 year by 

the reductions achieved by applying the 

subpart WW controls (specific floating 

roofs and seals) or a 95 percent efficient 

control device. Therefore, existing fixedroof tanks are required in the final rule 

to achieve compliance within 3 years 

after the effective date.

The final OLD rule is written to be 

consistent with the overall CAA goal of 

reducing HAP emissions. In a situation 

such as the control of this type of 

storage tanks, strictly adhering to the 3-

year compliance timeframe to 

implement the MACT floor level of 

control actually results in increased 

emissions. Thus, if our goal is to reduce 

HAP emissions, we are faced with a 

choice of allowing facilities more time 

to comply with the MACT level of 

control or not require that they comply 

at all. The approach taken achieves 

more HAP emission reductions than 

would be achieved by not requiring 

facilities to meet the MACT level of 

control. 

D. Notifications, Reports, and Records 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the provisions of proposed 

§ 63.2386(c)(4) and (d) (information to 

be included in semiannual Compliance 

reports) are too broad and EPA has not 

indicated why such broad applicability 

is needed and what useful purpose 

repeated submittal of information will 

serve. 

Similarly, another commenter 

requested that EPA revise § 63.2386(d) 

concerning the first Compliance report 

because the records requested in 

§ 63.2386(d)(1), (4), and (5) will literally 

require the submission of reams of 

paper with each Compliance report. 

Response: We have reviewed the 

proposed requirements related to the 

content of the initial notification of 

compliance status (NOCS) and 

subsequent compliance reports. We 

agree that, to the extent that the initial 

NOCS includes the information 

necessary to understand the OLD 

activities at the site, this information 

need not be reported again in 

subsequent compliance reports unless 

there are substantive changes affecting 

applicability or organic HAP emissions. 

Therefore, we have streamlined the 

referenced paragraphs to eliminate 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5059

duplicated information (but also to 

require the initial Compliance report to 

contain any updated or final facility 

information that was not reported in the 

NOCS). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

language added April 5, 2002, to 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(i) of the General Provisions 

concerning reporting the number, 

duration, and a brief description of each 

SSM is unnecessarily burdensome for 

OLD-type operations, where there are 

many individual components, any of 

which can be undergoing SSM activities 

independent of the other components. 

The commenter suggested that the 

approach used in the HON offers 

reasonable relief and that it be used. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended that requirements for 

recordkeeping and reporting be for 

‘‘startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 

during which excess emissions occur.’’

Two other commenters expressed 

concern with the immediate SSM 

reporting requirement in Table 11 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63, item 2. They 

stated that this requirement should be 

made consistent with the HON, which 

allows these events to be reported in the 

next semiannual Compliance report. 

Response: The amount of information 

required in the amended General 

Provisions for the SSM reports does not 

represent an undue burden for OLD 

operations. We believe that the 

additional information required under 

the amended General Provisions is 

useful to the EPA in gaining an 

understanding of the frequency, 

duration, and types of SSM activities at 

an affected source. Because sources are 

required to minimize emissions to the 

extent which is consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices 

during periods of SSM, gaining an 

understanding of the overall operation 

of an affected source is important. 

Therefore, we have retained the 

requirement in § 63.2386(c)(5), which 

references the General Provisions. We 

have also retained the requirement in 

Table 11 to subpart EEEE of part 63, 

item 2, which specifies that an 

immediate SSM report must be 

submitted if the owner or operator takes 

an action that is not consistent with 

their SSM plan. We concluded that a 

failure to follow an approved SSM plan 

should not go unreported for a period of 

time that could be almost 6 months. In 

those cases where the owner or operator 

follows their SSM plan, reporting in the 

next scheduled compliance report is 

allowed under Table 11 to subpart EEEE 

of part 63.

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern with proposed 

§ 63.2378(b), which implies that if the 

operator starts up or shuts down a 

control device and it does not meet the 

1-hour average temperature because it 

only ran for 15 minutes of a given hour, 

then the operator has to report that they 

did not meet the required temperature 

even though the temperature during the 

actual loading operation may have met 

the requirements. One of the 

commenters stated that this results in 

much more recordkeeping and reporting 

than the HON, Polymers & Resins 

MACT rules, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS, for no environmental or compliance 

benefits. 

Response: We have written the 

language in § 63.2378 to clarify the 

applicability of the emission limitations 

during periods of SSM. While the 

emission limitations still apply during 

periods of SSM, deviations from the 

emission limitations during these 

periods are not automatically 

considered to be violations if the owner 

or operator demonstrates that they have 

followed the requirements of their 

approved SSM plan. Paragraphs (b)(2) 

require that control devices be operated 

during periods of SSM if possible 

without damaging the devices and 

paragraph (b)(3) require that appropriate 

measures be taken to minimize 

emissions during periods of SSM. The 

final OLD rule does require, in 

§ 63.2386(d), that deviations from the 

emission limitations that occur during 

periods of SSM be reported in the 

semiannual compliance report, even 

though they are not automatically 

considered to be violations of the 

emission limitations. It should be noted 

that the averaging period has been 

written as daily averages of monitored 

parameters and, also, that monitoring is 

only required during periods of 

operation of the emission source. In the 

commenters example of a source 

operating for only 15 minutes, if the 

monitored parameter meets the 

operating limitation during that period 

of operation, it would not be considered 

a deviation. 

E. Definitions 

Comment: Several commenters felt 

that EPA should revise the definition of 

annual average true vapor pressure in 

proposed § 63.2406, as there is no good 

reason to require annual recalculation of 

the average ambient temperature. The 

referenced method for determining true 

vapor pressure (API 2517) uses the 

normal average annual temperature. 

This is published by the National 

Climatic Data Center as a cumulative 

average over many years, and thus may 

be considered a constant for a given 

location. 

Commenters stated that the 

temperature basis used for vapor 

pressure determination should be 

related to the actual facility emission 

potential and consistent with the 

regulatory basis. Two of the commenters 

stated that the vapor pressure 

determination for storage tank 

applicability should be based on the 

annual average temperature of the 

stored organic liquid. 

Response: We agree that the average 

annual temperature for a given location 

is not likely to vary from year to year to 

the extent that, if all other factors are 

unchanged, it will have a noticeable 

effect on emissions. Thus, annual 

recalculation of this temperature is 

unnecessary and we have written the 

definition in the final OLD rule to 

reflect this. As suggested by one of the 

commenters, we have also added the 

term ‘‘actual annual average 

temperature’’ to clarify that the actual 

liquid temperature should be used in 

determinations of vapor pressure. 

We have also written the definition of 

‘‘annual average true vapor pressure’’ so 

that it is based on the actual annual 

average temperature of the liquid, and 

annual recalculation of the vapor 

pressure value is not needed. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that in the definition of black oil, EPA 

should delete the word ‘‘hydrocarbon’’

and the parentheses around 

‘‘petroleum’’ to ensure clarity of intent. 

It is possible for a chemical plant to 

bring onto or ship out from a plant an 

oily, black hydrocarbon liquid that 

could meet the other criteria of this 

definition. The commenter believes that 

EPA intends that black oil be a technical 

term related only to petroleum liquids.

Response: We have deleted the term 

‘‘black oil’’ from the final rule. All crude 

oil will now be subject to the 

requirements under the final OLD rule. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA use the 

proposed § 63.2334(b) definition of 

‘‘organic liquid’’ in § 63.2406 

(Definitions) to specifically exclude 

‘‘black oil’’ and gasoline. Another 

commenter recommended that EPA 

revise the organic liquid definition to 

make clear the intent that the HAP 

content cutoff (5 percent by weight) 

applies to liquids other than crude oil. 

Response: We have written the 

definition of ‘‘organic liquid’’ to clarify 

the intended meaning of this term in the 

final OLD rule and have removed the 

description of organic liquids from 

§ 63.2334(b). We have included a 5 

percent cutoff level for defining noncrude oil liquids as ‘‘organic liquids.’’

Comment: Many commenters 

suggested changes to the definition of 

5060 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

storage tank. One commenter stated that 

EPA should clarify that the rule only 

applies to stationary tanks. The 

proposed definition stated that the term 

means a stationary unit, and then cited 

several examples of non-stationary 

units. If these examples were to be 

interpreted as constituting the only nonstationary units that are not subject to 

the rule, then other portable tanks and 

containers could be improperly 

construed as being subject to the rule. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the storage tank definition should 

exclude pressure vessels designed to 

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals 

and without emissions to the 

atmosphere. Three commenters 

recommended that the storage tank 

definition be changed to clearly include 

blending tanks in the affected source 

and that, therefore, storage tanks and 

transport vessels used for ‘‘incidental 

mixing and blending’’ are a part of the 

OLD affected source. The commenters 

maintained that it must be clear that the 

OLD rule does not exclude from the 

affected source those storage tanks that 

have the ability to practice ‘‘incidental 

blending and mixing to maintain 

product specifications.’’

A final commenter recommended that 

vessels permanently attached to motor 

vehicles such as trucks, tank cars, 

barges, or ships be excluded from this 

definition (per the definition in the 

HON). 

Response: We are in agreement with 

the commenters concerning the types of 

tanks intended to be covered by the 

term ‘‘storage tank.’’ We have written 

the definition to make it more consistent 

with other rules (such as the HON and 

the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP) 

and to reflect suggestions of the 

commenters. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the definition of transfer rack be 

amended by deleting the ‘‘physically 

separate’’ criterion because the 11.8 

million liter (3.12 million gallon) 

throughput cutoff in the OLD rule is 

based on each transfer rack loading 

position and not the transfer rack as a 

whole. The last sentence in the transfer 

rack definition was also included in the 

HON subparts F and G definitions for 

loading rack, in §§ 63.101 and 63.111. 

Under the HON, this sentence was 

important to enable one to distinguish 

between the terms ‘‘transfer rack’’ and 

‘‘loading rack’’ when making the Group 

1/Group 2 determination. This Group 

status was based on throughput of the 

entire transfer rack and not each transfer 

rack loading position. 

Response: We are retaining the 

definition as proposed for ‘‘transfer 

rack,’’ including the ‘‘physically 

separate’’ criterion, because we have 

written the description of the transfer 

rack emission source subject to emission 

standards from each loading position to 

the entire transfer rack, consistent with 

other air emission control regulations 

for volatile organic and petroleum 

liquid transfer operations. In the data 

reassessment we performed after 

proposal, we also found that the 

reported transfer rack data were 

sufficient to develop a MACT floor level 

of control for transfer racks but not for 

individual loading positions. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether a regulation is 

‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal government 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel or policy issues arising 

out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that today’s final rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it will not have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more and is 

therefore not subject to OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. (ICR No. 1963.02) The 

information requirements are not 

effective until OMB approves them. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to the 

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to EPA policies 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The final rule will require 

maintenance inspections of the control 

devices but will not require any 

notifications or reports beyond those 

required by the General Provisions. The 

recordkeeping requirements require 

only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden to affected 

sources for this collection (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective 

date of the promulgated rule) is 

estimated to be 137,170 labor-hours per 

year, with a total annual cost of $7.5 

million per year. These estimates 

include a one-time performance test and 

report (with repeat tests where needed), 

one-time submission of an SSMP with 

semiannual reports for any event when 

the procedures in the plan were not 

followed, semiannual compliance 

reports, maintenance inspections, 

notifications, and recordkeeping. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

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 are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR 

is approved by OMB, the Agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to 

display the OMB control number for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5061

approved information collection 

requirements contained in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the final rule. The EPA has also 

determined that the final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business whose parent company has 

fewer than 100 or 1,500 employees, or 

a maximum of $5 million to $18.5 

million in revenues, depending on the 

size definition for the affected North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. It should be noted 

that companies in 42 NAICS codes are 

affected by the final rule, and the small 

business definition applied to each 

industry by NAICS code is that listed in 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) size standards (13 CFR 121). For 

more information on size standards for 

particular industries, please refer to the 

economic impact analysis in the docket. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. We have 

determined that six small firms in the 

industries affected by the final rule may 

be affected. Out of the six affected small 

firms, none are estimated to have 

compliance costs that exceed one 

percent of their revenues.

In addition, the final rule is likely to 

increase profits at the many small firms 

not adversely affected by the final rule 

due to the very slight increase in market 

prices. The median compliance cost to 

sales estimates for the affected small 

and large firms is virtually identical 

(0.02 percent compared to less than 0.01 

percent for the large firms) and no small 

firms are expected to close in response 

to incurring the compliance costs 

associated with the final rule. 

Although the final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

final rule includes provisions that will 

minimize the impact on small entities in 

several ways. We chose to set the 

control requirements at the MACT floor 

control level and not at a control level 

more stringent. The transfer rack cutoff, 

based on facilitywide throughput, and 

tank size cutoffs in the final rule will 

reduce the effects on small businesses. 

We have identified a list of 98 HAP from 

the list of 188 in the CAA to be 

considered for regulation. Regulated 

liquids are non-crude oil organic liquids 

that contain at least 5 percent by weight 

of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63 and a vapor 

pressure of at least 0.1 psia, and all 

crude oil after the first point of custody 

transfer after the production field. In 

addition, we worked with various trade 

associations during the development of 

the rulemaking. These actions have 

reduced the economic impact on small 

entities from the final rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating 

an EPA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that today’s 

final rule does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. 

Therefore, the requirements of the 

UMRA do not apply to this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. The EPA also may not issue 

a regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless EPA consults with State and 

local officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. 

The final rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Furthermore, 

the final OLD NESHAP do not require 

these governments to take on any new 

responsibilities. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to the final 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

5062 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

The final rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. No 

affected plant sites are known to be 

owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that are based on 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. The final rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. No children’s risk analysis was 

performed because no alternative 

technologies exist that would provide 

greater stringency at a reasonable cost; 

therefore, the results of any such 

analysis would have no impact on the 

stringency decision. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001). The rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, and 

use of energy. The reduction in 

petroleum product output, which 

includes reductions in fuel production, 

is estimated at only 0.006 percent, or 

about 311 barrels per day (about 15,500 

metric tons per year). The reduction in 

coal, natural gas, and electricity output 

is expected to be negligible. The 

increase in price of petroleum products 

is estimated to be only 0.001 percent 

nationwide. While energy distribution 

services such as pipeline operations will 

be directly affected by the final rule, 

energy distribution costs are expected to 

increase by only 0.1 percent. We 

estimate that there will be a slight 

increase of only 0.001 percent of net 

imports (imports — exports), and no 

other adverse outcomes are expected to 

occur with regard to energy supplies. 

Given the minimal impacts on energy 

supply, distribution, and use as a whole 

nationally, all of which are under the 

threshold screening criteria for 

compliance with this Executive Order 

established by the Office of Management 

and Budget, no significant adverse 

energy effects are expected to occur. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 

104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in their regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through 

annual reports to OMB, with 

explanations when an agency does not 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The final rule involves technical 

standards. The EPA cites the following 

standards in the final rule: EPA 

Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 

3, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 25, 25A, 27, 311, 316 

(formaldehyde). Consistent with the 

NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to 

identify voluntary consensus standards 

in addition to these EPA methods. No 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards were identified for EPA 

Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 27, 

311, and 316. The search and review 

results have been documented and are 

placed in the docket (docket numbers 

A–98–13 and OAR–2003–0138) for the 

final rule.

Three voluntary consensus standards 

were identified as appropriate to the 

final rule. The voluntary consensus 

standard ASTM D6420–99, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 

Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ is appropriate 

in the cases described below for 

inclusion in the final rule in addition to 

EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix A, for measurement of 

organic HAP or total organic 

compounds. Therefore, the standard 

ASTM D6420–99 is cited in today’s final 

rule. 

Similar to EPA’s performance-based 

Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 is also a 

performance-based method for 

measurement of gaseous organic 

compounds. However, ASTM D6420–99 

was written to support the specific use 

of highly portable and automated GC/

MS. While offering advantages over the 

traditional EPA Method 18, the ASTM 

method does allow some less stringent 

criteria for accepting GC/MS results 

than required by EPA Method 18. 

Therefore, ASTM D6420–99 is a suitable 

alternative to EPA Method 18 only 

where: the target compound(s) are those 

listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–

99; and the target concentration is 

between 150 ppbv and 100 ppmv. 

For target compound(s) not listed in 

Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, but 

potentially detected by mass 

spectrometry, the regulation specifies 

that the additional system continuing 

calibration check after each run, as 

detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM 

method, must be followed, met, 

documented, and submitted with the 

data report even if there is no moisture 

condenser used or the compound is not 

considered water soluble. For target 

compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of 

ASTM D6420–99, and not amenable to 

detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM 

D6420–99 does not apply. 

As a result, EPA included ASTM 

D6420–99 in the final rule, and EPA 

Method 18 as a gas chromatography 

(GC) option in addition to ASTM 

D6420–99. This will allow the 

continued use of GC configurations 

other than GC/MS. 

Two additional voluntary consensus 

standards, ASTM D2879–83 ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Vapor PressureTemperature Relationship and Initial 

Decomposition Temperature of Liquids 

by Isoteniscope,’’ and API Publication 

2517 ‘‘Evaporative Loss from External 

Floating-Roof Tanks, Third Edition, 

February 1989,’’ were already 

incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5063

§ 63.14 and are also being cited in the 

final rule for measurement of vapor 

pressure.

Five voluntary consensus standards: 

ASTM D1979–91, ASTM D3432–89, 

ASTM D4747–87, ASTM D4827–93, and 

ASTM PS9–94 are incorporated by 

reference in EPA Method 311. 

The search for emissions 

measurement procedures identified nine 

other voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA determined that seven of these 

nine standards identified for measuring 

emissions of the HAP or surrogates 

subject to emission standards in the 

final rule were impractical alternatives 

to EPA test methods for the purposes of 

the final rule. Therefore, EPA does not 

intend to adopt these standards for this 

purpose. The reasons for this 

determination for the seven methods are 

discussed in the docket. 

Two of the nine voluntary consensus 

standards identified in this search were 

not available at the time the review was 

conducted for the purposes of the final 

rule because they are under 

development by a voluntary consensus 

body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ‘‘Flow 

Measurement by Velocity Traverse,’’ for 

EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and 

ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ‘‘Flow in Closed 

Conduits Using Multiport Averaging 

Pitot Primary Flowmeters,’’ for EPA 

Method 2. 

Section 63.2362 and Table 5 to 

subpart EEEE of part 63 list the EPA 

testing methods included in the 

regulation. Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) 

of subpart A of the General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for 

permission to use alternative test 

methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any of the EPA 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 801 et seq., as added by the 

SBREFA, generally provides that before 

a rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. The EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). The final rule will 

be effective on February 3, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: August 25, 2003. 

Marianne Lamont Horinko, 

Acting Administrator.

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

Subpart A—[Amended]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(1) to 

read as follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(8) ASTM D2879–83, 96, Test Method 

for Vapor Pressure-Temperature 

Relationship and Initial Decomposition 

Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, 

IBR approved for § 63.111 and 

§ 63.2406. 

(c) * * * 

(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative 

Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, 

Third Edition, February 1989, IBR 

approved for § 63.111 and § 63.2406.

* * * * *

■ 3. Part 63 is amended by adding a new 

subpart EEEE to read as follows:

Subpart EEEE—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Organic Liquids 

Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.2330 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.2334 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.2338 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

63.2342 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limits, and 

Work Practice Standards 

63.2346 What emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards must I meet? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.2350 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.2354 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and performance 

evaluations must I conduct? 

63.2358 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

63.2362 When must I conduct subsequent 

performance tests? 

63.2366 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.2374 When do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance 

and how do I use the collected data? 

63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.2382 What notifications must I submit 

and when and what information should 

be submitted? 

63.2386 What reports must I submit and 

when and what information is to be 

submitted in each? 

63.2390 What records must I keep? 

63.2394 In what form and how long must I 

keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information 

63.2396 What compliance options do I have 

if part of my plant is subject to both this 

subpart and another subpart? 

63.2398 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.2402 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.2406 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Table 2 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Emission Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Operating Limits—High Throughput 

Transfer Racks 

Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Requirements for Performance Tests and 

Design Evaluations 

Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—Initial 

Compliance with Emission Limits 

Table 7 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—Initial 

Compliance with Work Practice 

Standards 

Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Continuous Compliance with Emission 

Limits 

Table 9 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Continuous Compliance with Operating 

Limits—High Throughput Transfer Racks 

Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Continuous Compliance with Work 

Practice Standards 

5064 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Requirements for Reports 

Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart EEEE

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.2330 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission limitations, operating limits, 

and work practice standards for organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted 

from organic liquids distribution (OLD) 

(non-gasoline) operations at major 

sources of HAP emissions. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards.

§ 63.2334 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) Except as provided for in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 

you are subject to this subpart if you 

own or operate an OLD operation that 

is located at, or is part of, a major source 

of HAP emissions. An OLD operation 

may occupy an entire plant site or be 

collocated with other industrial (e.g., 

manufacturing) operations at the same 

plant site. 

(b) Organic liquid distribution 

operations located at research and 

development facilities, consistent with 

section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), are not subject to this subpart. 

(c) Organic liquid distribution 

operations do not include the activities 

and equipment, including product 

loading racks, used to process, store, or 

transfer organic liquids at facilities 

listed in paragraph (c) (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Oil and natural gas production 

field facilities, as the term ‘‘facility’’ is 

defined in § 63.761 of subpart HH. 

(2) Natural gas transmission and 

storage facilities, as the term ‘‘facility’’

is defined in § 63.1271 of subpart HHH.

§ 63.2338 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each new, 

reconstructed, or existing OLD 

operation affected source. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, the affected source is 

the collection of activities and 

equipment used to distribute organic 

liquids into, out of, or within a facility 

that is a major source of HAP. The 

affected source is composed of: 

(1) All storage tanks storing organic 

liquids. 

(2) All transfer racks at which organic 

liquids are loaded into or unloaded out 

of transport vehicles and/or containers. 

(3) All equipment leak components in 

organic liquids service that are 

associated with pipelines, except as 

provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section, and with storage tanks and 

transfer racks storing, loading, or 

unloading organic liquids. 

(4) All transport vehicles while they 

are loading or unloading organic liquids 

at transfer racks. 

(c) The equipment listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section and used in the identified 

operations is excluded from the affected 

source. 

(1) Storage tanks, transfer racks, and 

equipment leak components that are 

part of an affected source under another 

40 CFR part 63 national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

regulation (NESHAP). 

(2) Equipment leak components 

associated with pipelines that transfer 

organic liquids directly to or from 

storage tanks subject to another 40 CFR 

part 63 NESHAP or to or from non-tank 

process unit components (e.g., process 

reactors). 

(3) Non-permanent storage tanks, 

transfer racks, and equipment leak 

components used in special situation 

distribution loading and unloading 

operations (such as maintenance or 

upset liquids management). 

(4) Storage tanks, transfer racks, and 

equipment leak components used to 

conduct maintenance activities, such as 

stormwater management, liquid removal 

from tanks for inspections and 

maintenance, or changeovers to a 

different liquid stored in a storage tank. 

(d) An affected source is a new 

affected source if you commenced 

construction of the affected source after 

April 2, 2002, and you meet the 

applicability criteria in § 63.2334 at the 

time you commenced operation. 

(e) An affected source is reconstructed 

if you meet the criteria for 

reconstruction as defined in § 63.2. 

(f) An affected source is existing if it 

is not new or reconstructed.

§ 63.2342 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed 

affected source, you must comply with 

this subpart according to the schedule 

identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(1)(i) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, if you startup 

your new affected source on or before 

February 3, 2004 or if you reconstruct 

your affected source on or before 

February 3, 2004, you must comply with 

the emission limitations, operating 

limits, and work practice standards for 

new and reconstructed sources in this 

subpart no later than February 3, 2004. 

(ii) For any emission source listed in 

paragraph § 63.2338(b) at an affected 

source that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after April 2, 2002, but 

before February 3, 2004, that is required 

to be controlled based on the 

applicability criteria in this subpart, but: 

(A) Would not have been required to 

be controlled based on the applicability 

criteria as proposed for this subpart, you 

must comply with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards for each such 

emission source based on the schedule 

found in paragraph (b) of this section or 

at startup, whichever is later; or 

(B) Would have been subject to a less 

stringent degree of control requirement 

as proposed for this subpart, you must 

comply with the emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards in this subpart for each such 

emission source based on the schedule 

found in paragraph (b) of this section or 

at startup, whichever is later, and if you 

start up your affected new or 

reconstructed source before February 5, 

2007, you must comply with the 

emission limitations, operating limits, 

and work practice standards for each 

such emission source as proposed for 

this subpart, until you are required to 

comply with the emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards in this subpart for each such 

emission source based on the schedule 

found in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) If you commence construction of 

or reconstruct your affected source after 

February 3, 2004, you must comply with 

the emission limitations, operating 

limits, and work practice standards for 

new and reconstructed sources in this 

subpart upon startup of your affected 

source. 

(b)(1) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

emission limitations, operating limits, 

and work practice standards for existing 

affected sources no later than February 

5, 2007, except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(2) Floating roof storage tanks at 

existing affected sources must be in 

compliance with the work practice 

standards in Table 4 to this subpart, 

item 1, at all times after the next 

degassing and cleaning activity or 

within 10 years after February 3, 2004, 

whichever occurs first. If the first 

degassing and cleaning activity occurs 

during the 3 years following February 3, 

2004, the compliance date is February 5, 

2007. 

(c) If you have an area source that 

does not commence reconstruction but 

increases its emissions or its potential to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5065

emit such that it becomes a major source 

of HAP emissions and an existing 

affected source subject to this subpart, 

you must be in compliance by 3 years 

after the area source becomes a major 

source.

(d) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.2382(a) according 

to the schedules in § 63.2382(a) and 

(b)(1) through (3) and in subpart A of 

this part. Some of these notifications 

must be submitted before the 

compliance dates for the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards in this subpart. 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limits, 

and Work Practice Standards

§ 63.2346 What emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards must I meet? 

(a) Storage tanks. For each storage 

tank storing organic liquids that meets 

the tank capacity and liquid vapor 

pressure criteria for control in Table 2 

to this subpart, items 1 through 5, you 

must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), 

or (3) of this section. For each storage 

tank storing organic liquids that meets 

the tank capacity and liquid vapor 

pressure criteria for control in Table 2 

to this subpart, item 6, you must comply 

with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(1) Meet the emission limits specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart and comply 

with the applicable requirements 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 

for meeting emission limits, except 

substitute the term ‘‘storage tank’’ at 

each occurrence of the term ‘‘storage 

vessel’’ in subpart SS. 

(2) Route emissions to fuel gas 

systems or back into the process as 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

(3) Comply with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart WW (control level 2). 

(b) Transfer racks. For each transfer 

rack that meets the facility-level organic 

liquid loading volume and transfer rack 

organic HAP content criteria for control 

in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 

through 9, you must comply with 

paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Meet the emission limits specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart and comply 

with the applicable requirements for 

transfer racks specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, for meeting emission 

limits. 

(2) Route emissions to fuel gas 

systems or back into the process as 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

(3) Use a vapor balancing system that 

routes organic HAP vapors displaced 

from the loading of organic liquids into 

transport vehicles to the appropriate 

storage tank. 

(c) Equipment leak components. For 

each pump, valve, and sampling 

connection that operates in organic 

liquids service for at least 300 hours per 

year, you must comply with the 

applicable requirements under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), 

subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart 

H. Pumps, valves, and sampling 

connectors that are insulated to provide 

protection against persistent subfreezing temperatures are subject to the 

‘‘difficult to monitor’’ provisions in the 

applicable subpart selected by the 

owner or operator. This paragraph only 

applies if the affected source has at least 

one storage tank or transfer rack that 

meets the applicability criteria for 

control in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(d) Transport vehicles. For each 

transport vehicle equipped with vapor 

collection equipment, you must comply 

with paragraph (d)(1) of this section. For 

each transport vehicle without vapor 

collection equipment, you must comply 

with paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(1) Follow the steps in 40 CFR 

60.502(e) to ensure that organic liquids 

are loaded only into vapor-tight 

transport vehicles and comply with the 

provisions in 40 CFR 60.502(f) through 

(i), except substitute the term ‘‘transport 

vehicle’’ at each occurrence of the term 

‘‘tank truck’’ or ‘‘gasoline tank truck’’ in 

those paragraphs. 

(2) Ensure that organic liquids are 

loaded only into transport vehicles that 

have a current certification in 

accordance with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) pressure test 

requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for 

cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank 

cars.

(e) Operating limits. For each high 

throughput transfer rack, you must meet 

each operating limit in Table 3 to this 

subpart for each control device used to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart whenever emissions from 

organic liquids are routed to the control 

device. For each storage tank and low 

throughput transfer rack, you must 

comply with the requirements for 

monitored parameters as specified in 

subpart SS of this part for storage 

vessels and low throughput transfer 

racks, respectively. Alternatively, you 

may comply with the operating limits in 

Table 3 to this subpart. 

(f) If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance with a percent reduction 

requirement in Table 2 to this subpart 

using total organic compounds (TOC) 

rather than organic HAP, you must first 

demonstrate, subject to approval of the 

Administrator, that TOC is an 

appropriate surrogate for organic HAP 

in your case; that is, for your storage 

tank(s) and/or transfer rack(s), the 

percent destruction of organic HAP is 

equal to or higher than the percent 

destruction of TOC. This demonstration 

must be conducted prior to or during 

the initial compliance test. 

(g) As provided in § 63.6(g), you may 

request approval from the Administrator 

to use an alternative to the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards in this section. You 

must follow the procedures in 

§ 63.177(b) through (e) in applying for 

permission to use such an alternative. If 

you apply for permission to use an 

alternative to the emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards in this section, you must 

submit the information described in 

§ 63.6(g)(2). 

(h) Emission sources that are part of 

the affected source as specified in 

§ 63.2338, but which are not subject to 

the provisions of paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section, are only subject to the 

requirements specified in § 63.2386(d). 

(i) Opening of a safety device is 

allowed at any time that it is required 

to avoid unsafe operating conditions. 

(j) If you elect to comply with this 

subpart by combining emissions from 

different emission sources subject to 

this subpart in a single control device, 

then you must comply with the 

provisions specified in § 63.982(f). 

General Compliance Requirements

§ 63.2350 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations, operating 

limits, and work practice standards in 

this subpart at all times when the 

equipment identified in § 63.2338(b)(1) 

through (4) is in OLD operation.

(b) You must always operate and 

maintain your affected source, including 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, according to the provisions 

in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). 

(c) You must develop and implement 

a written startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) plan according to 

the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements

§ 63.2354 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and performance evaluations 

must I conduct? 

(a)(1) For each performance test that 

you conduct, you must use the 

procedures specified in subpart SS of 

this part and the provisions specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) For each design evaluation you 

conduct, you must use the procedures 

specified in subpart SS of this part. 

5066 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) For each performance evaluation 

of each continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) you conduct, you must follow the 

requirements in § 63.8(e). 

(b)(1) For nonflare control devices, 

you must conduct each performance test 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7(e)(1), and either § 63.988(b), 

§ 63.990(b), or § 63.995(b), using the 

procedures specified in § 63.997(e). 

(2) You must conduct three separate 

test runs for each performance test on a 

nonflare control device as specified in 

§§ 63.7(e)(3) and 63.997(e)(1)(v). Each 

test run must last at least 1 hour, except 

as provided in § 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A) and 

(B). 

(3)(i) In addition to EPA Method 25 or 

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to 

determine compliance with the organic 

HAP or TOC emission limit, you may 

use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. If you use EPA Method 18 

to measure compliance with the 

percentage efficiency limit, you must 

first determine which organic HAP are 

present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,

uncontrolled emissions) using 

knowledge of the organic liquids or the 

screening procedure described in EPA 

Method 18. In conducting the 

performance test, you must analyze 

samples collected as specified in EPA 

Method 18, simultaneously at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device. 

Quantify the emissions for the same 

organic HAP identified as present in the 

inlet gas stream for both the inlet and 

outlet gas streams of the control device. 

(ii) If you use EPA Method 18 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, to measure 

compliance with the emission 

concentration limit, you must first 

determine which organic HAP are 

present in the inlet gas stream using 

knowledge of the organic liquids or the 

screening procedure described in EPA 

Method 18. In conducting the 

performance test, analyze samples 

collected as specified in EPA Method 18 

at the outlet of the control device. 

Quantify the control device outlet 

emission concentration for the same 

organic HAP identified as present in the 

inlet or uncontrolled gas stream. 

(4) If a principal component of the 

uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the 

control device is formaldehyde, you 

may use EPA Method 316 of appendix 

A of this part instead of EPA Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for 

measuring the formaldehyde. If 

formaldehyde is the predominant 

organic HAP in the inlet gas stream, you 

may use EPA Method 316 alone to 

measure formaldehyde either at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device using 

the formaldehyde control efficiency as a 

surrogate for total organic HAP or TOC 

efficiency, or at the outlet of a 

combustion device for determining 

compliance with the emission 

concentration limit. 

(5) You may not conduct performance 

tests during periods of SSM, as specified 

in § 63.7(e)(1). 

(c) To determine the HAP content of 

the organic liquid, you may use EPA 

Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, or other method approved by the 

Administrator. In addition, you may use 

other means, such as voluntary 

consensus standards, material safety 

data sheets (MSDS), or certified product 

data sheets, to determine the HAP 

content of the organic liquid. If the 

method you select to determine the HAP 

content provides HAP content ranges, 

you must use the upper end of each 

HAP content range in determining the 

total HAP content of the organic liquid. 

The EPA may require you to test the 

HAP content of an organic liquid using 

EPA Method 311 or other method 

approved by the Administrator. If the 

results of the EPA Method 311 (or any 

other approved method) are different 

from the HAP content determined by 

another means, the EPA Method 311 (or 

approved method) results will govern.

§ 63.2358 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests and other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

(a) You must conduct initial 

performance tests and design 

evaluations according to the schedule in 

§ 63.7(a)(2), or by the compliance date 

specified in any applicable State or 

Federal new source review construction 

permit to which the affected source is 

already subject, whichever is earlier. 

(b)(1) For storage tanks and transfer 

racks at existing affected sources 

complying with the emission limitations 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart, you 

must demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limitations within 

180 days after February 5, 2007.

(2) For storage tanks and transfer 

racks at reconstructed or new affected 

sources complying with the emission 

limitations listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must conduct your initial 

compliance demonstration with the 

emission limitations within 180 days 

after the initial startup date for the 

affected source or February 3, 2004, 

whichever is later. 

(c)(1) For storage tanks at existing 

affected sources complying with the 

work practice standard in Table 4 to this 

subpart, you must conduct your initial 

compliance demonstration the next time 

the storage tank is emptied and 

degassed, but not later than 10 years 

after February 3, 2004. 

(2) For transfer racks and equipment 

leak components at existing affected 

sources complying with the work 

practice standards in Table 4 to this 

subpart, you must conduct your initial 

compliance demonstration within 180 

days after February 5, 2007. 

(d) For storage tanks, transfer racks, 

and equipment leak components at 

reconstructed or new affected sources 

complying with the work practice 

standards in Table 4 to this subpart, you 

must conduct your initial compliance 

demonstration within 180 days after the 

initial startup date for the affected 

source.

§ 63.2362 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) For nonflare control devices, you 

must conduct subsequent performance 

testing required in Table 5 to this 

subpart, item 1, at any time the EPA 

requests you to in accordance with 

section 114 of the CAA. 

(b)(1) For each transport vehicle that 

you own that is equipped with vapor 

collection equipment and loads organic 

liquids at an affected transfer rack, you 

must perform the vapor tightness testing 

required in Table 5 to this subpart, item 

2, on that transport vehicle at least once 

per year. 

(2) For transport vehicles that you 

own that do not have vapor collection 

equipment, you must maintain current 

certification in accordance with the U.S. 

DOT pressure test requirements in 49 

CFR part 180 for cargo tanks or 49 CFR 

173.31 for tank cars.

§ 63.2366 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a CMS on each control device 

required in order to comply with this 

subpart. If you use a continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 

(as defined in § 63.981), you must 

comply with the applicable 

requirements for CPMS in subpart SS of 

this part for the control device being 

used. If you use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS), you must 

comply with the requirements in § 63.8. 

(b) For nonflare control devices 

controlling storage tanks and low 

throughput transfer racks, you must 

submit a monitoring plan according to 

the requirements in subpart SS of this 

part for monitoring plans.

§ 63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5067

that applies to you as specified in 

Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart. 

(b) You demonstrate initial 

compliance with the operating limits 

requirements specified in § 63.2346(e) 

by establishing the operating limits 

during the initial performance test or 

design evaluation. 

(c) You must submit the results of the 

initial compliance demonstration in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.2382(b). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§ 63.2374 When do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous compliance 

and how do I use the collected data? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to subpart SS of this part and 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) When using a control device to 

comply with this subpart, you must 

monitor continuously or collect data at 

all required intervals at all times that 

the emission source and control device 

are in OLD operation, except for CMS 

malfunctions (including any 

malfunction preventing the CMS from 

operating properly), associated repairs, 

and required quality assurance or 

control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

(c) Do not use data recorded during 

CMS malfunctions, associated repairs, 

required quality assurance or control 

activities, or periods when emissions 

from organic liquids are not routed to 

the control device in data averages and 

calculations used to report emission or 

operating levels. Do not use such data 

in fulfilling a minimum data availability 

requirement, if applicable. You must 

use all of the data collected during all 

other periods, including periods of 

SSM, in assessing the operation of the 

control device.

§ 63.2378 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation, operating limit, and work 

practice standard in Tables 2 through 4 

to this subpart that applies to you 

according to the methods specified in 

subpart SS of this part and in Tables 8 

through 10 to this subpart, as 

applicable. 

(b) You must follow the requirements 

in § 63.6(e)(1) and (3) during periods of 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, or 

nonoperation of the affected source or 

any part thereof. In addition, the 

provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section apply. 

(1) The emission limitations in this 

subpart apply at all times except during 

periods of nonoperation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. The 

emission limitations of this subpart 

apply during periods of SSM, except as 

provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of 

this section. During periods of SSM, the 

owner or operator must follow the 

applicable provisions of the SSM plan 

required by § 63.2350(c). However, if a 

SSM, or period of nonoperation of one 

portion of the affected source does not 

affect the ability of a particular emission 

source to comply with the emission 

limitations to which it is subject, then 

that emission source is still required to 

comply with the applicable emission 

limitations of this subpart during the 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, or 

period of nonoperation. 

(2) The owner or operator must not 

shut down control devices or 

monitoring systems that are required or 

utilized for achieving compliance with 

this subpart during periods of SSM 

while emissions are being routed to 

such items of equipment if the 

shutdown would contravene 

requirements of this subpart applicable 

to such items of equipment. This 

paragraph (b)(2) does not apply if the 

item of equipment is malfunctioning. 

This paragraph (b)(2) also does not 

apply if the owner or operator shuts 

down the compliance equipment (other 

than monitoring systems) to avoid 

damage due to a contemporaneous SSM 

of the affected source or portion thereof. 

If the owner or operator has reason to 

believe that monitoring equipment 

would be damaged due to a 

contemporaneous SSM of the affected 

source of portion thereof, the owner or 

operator must provide documentation 

supporting such a claim in the next 

Compliance report required in Table 11 

to this subpart, item 1. Once approved 

by the Administrator, the provision for 

ceasing to collect, during a SSM, 

monitoring data that would otherwise 

be required by the provisions of this 

subpart must be incorporated into the 

SSM plan.

(3) During SSM, you must implement, 

to the extent reasonably available, 

measures to prevent or minimize excess 

emissions. For purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(3), the term ‘‘excess 

emissions’’ means emissions greater 

than those allowed by the emission 

limits that apply during normal 

operational periods. The measures to be 

taken must be identified in the SSM 

plan, and may include, but are not 

limited to, air pollution control 

technologies, recovery technologies, 

work practices, pollution prevention, 

monitoring, and/or changes in the 

manner of operation of the affected 

source. Back-up control devices are not 

required, but may be used if available. 

(c) Periods of planned routine 

maintenance of a control device used to 

control storage tanks or transfer racks, 

during which the control device does 

not meet the emission limits in Table 2 

to this subpart, must not exceed 240 

hours per year. 

(d) If you elect to route emissions 

from storage tanks or transfer racks to a 

fuel gas system or to a process, as 

allowed by § 63.982(d), to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 to this 

subpart, the total aggregate amount of 

time during which the emissions bypass 

the fuel gas system or process during the 

calendar year without being routed to a 

control device, for all reasons (except 

SSM or product changeovers of flexible 

operation units and periods when a 

storage tank has been emptied and 

degassed), must not exceed 240 hours. 

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§ 63.2382 What notifications must I submit 

and when and what information should be 

submitted? 

(a) You must submit each notification 

in subpart SS of this part, Table 12 to 

this subpart, and paragraphs (b) through 

(d) of this section that applies to you. 

You must submit these notifications 

according to the schedule in Table 12 to 

this subpart and as specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section. 

(b)(1) Initial Notification. If you 

startup your affected source before 

February 3, 2004, you must submit the 

Initial Notification no later than 120 

calendar days after February 3, 2004. 

(2) If you startup your new or 

reconstructed affected source on or after 

February 3, 2004, you must submit the 

Initial Notification no later than 120 

days after initial startup. 

(c) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must submit the 

Notification of Intent to conduct the test 

at least 60 calendar days before it is 

initially scheduled to begin as required 

in § 63.7(b)(1). 

(d)(1) Notification of Compliance 

Status. If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, design evaluation, or 

other initial compliance demonstration 

as specified in Table 5, 6, or 7 to this 

subpart, you must submit a Notification 

of Compliance Status. 

(2) The Notification of Compliance 

Status must include the information 

required in § 63.999(b) and in 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (viii) of this 

section. 

5068 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) The results of any applicability 

determinations, emission calculations, 

or analyses used to identify and 

quantify organic HAP emissions from 

the affected source. 

(ii) The results of emissions profiles, 

performance tests, engineering analyses, 

design evaluations, flare compliance 

assessments, inspections and repairs, 

and calculations used to demonstrate 

initial compliance according to Tables 6 

and 7 to this subpart. For performance 

tests, results must include descriptions 

of sampling and analysis procedures 

and quality assurance procedures. 

(iii) Descriptions of monitoring 

devices, monitoring frequencies, and the 

operating limits established during the 

initial compliance demonstrations, 

including data and calculations to 

support the levels you establish.

(iv) Listing of all operating scenarios. 

(v) Descriptions of worst-case 

operating and/or testing conditions for 

the control device(s). 

(vi) Identification of emission sources 

subject to overlapping requirements 

described in § 63.2396 and the authority 

under which you will comply. 

(vii) The applicable information 

specified in § 63.1039(a)(1) through (3) 

for all pumps and valves subject to the 

work practice standards for equipment 

leak components in Table 4 to this 

subpart, item 3. 

(viii) If you are complying with the 

vapor balancing work practice standard 

for transfer racks according to Table 4 to 

this subpart, item 2.a, include a 

statement to that effect, and a statement 

that the pressure vent settings on the 

affected storage tanks are greater than or 

equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch 

gauge (psig).

§ 63.2386 What reports must I submit and 

when and what information is to be 

submitted in each? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

subpart SS of this part, Table 11 to this 

subpart, Table 12 to this subpart, and in 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section 

that applies to you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report according 

to Table 11 to this subpart and by the 

dates shown in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) of this section, by the dates 

shown in subpart SS of this part, and by 

the dates shown in Table 12 to this 

subpart, whichever are applicable. 

(1)(i) The first Compliance report 

must cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.2342 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the first calendar 

half after the compliance date that is 

specified for your affected source in 

§ 63.2342. 

(ii) The first Compliance report must 

be postmarked no later than July 31 or 

January 31, whichever date follows the 

end of the first calendar half after the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.2342. 

(2)(i) Each subsequent Compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(ii) Each subsequent Compliance 

report must be postmarked no later than 

July 31 or January 31, whichever date is 

the first date following the end of the 

semiannual reporting period.

(3) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71, if the permitting authority has 

established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you 

may submit the first and subsequent 

Compliance reports according to the 

dates the permitting authority has 

established instead of according to the 

dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(c) First Compliance report. The first 

Compliance report must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, 

including the official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information in the report are true, 

accurate, and complete. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) Any changes to the information 

listed in § 63.2382(d)(1) that have 

occurred since the submittal of the 

Notification of Compliance Status. 

(5) If you had a SSM during the 

reporting period and you took actions 

consistent with your SSM plan, the 

Compliance report must include the 

information described in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). 

(6) If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitation or operating limit 

that applies to you and there are no 

deviations from the requirements for 

work practice standards, a statement 

that there were no deviations from the 

emission limitations, operating limits, 

or work practice standards during the 

reporting period. 

(7) If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out of control as 

specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that 

there were no periods during which the 

CMS was out of control during the 

reporting period. 

(8) For closed vent systems and 

control devices used to control 

emissions, the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 

section for those planned routine 

maintenance activities that would 

require the control device to not meet 

the applicable emission limit. 

(i) A description of the planned 

routine maintenance that is anticipated 

to be performed for the control device 

during the next 6 months. This 

description must include the type of 

maintenance necessary, planned 

frequency of maintenance, and lengths 

of maintenance periods.

(ii) A description of the planned 

routine maintenance that was performed 

for the control device during the 

previous 6 months. This description 

must include the type of maintenance 

performed and the total number of 

hours during those 6 months that the 

control device did not meet the 

applicable emission limit due to 

planned routine maintenance. 

(9) A listing of all emission sources 

that are part of the affected source but 

are not subject to any of the emission 

limitations, operating limits, or work 

practice standards of this subpart. 

(10) A listing of all transport vehicles 

into which organic liquids were loaded 

at affected transfer racks during the 

previous 6 months for which vapor 

tightness documentation as required in 

§ 63.2390(d) was not on file at the 

facility. 

(d) Subsequent Compliance reports.

Subsequent Compliance reports must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section and, 

where applicable, the information in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation occurring at an 

affected source where you are using a 

CMS to comply with an emission 

limitation in this subpart, you must 

include in the Compliance report the 

applicable information in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (xii) of this section. 

This includes periods of SSM. 

(i) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(ii) The dates and times that each 

CMS was inoperative, except for zero 

(low-level) and high-level checks. 

(iii) For each CMS that was out of 

control, the information in § 63.8(c)(8). 

(iv) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of SSM, or during another 

period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5069

(v) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviations during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percentage of the total emission source 

operating time during that reporting 

period. 

(vi) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(vii) A summary of the total duration 

of CMS downtime during the reporting 

period, and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percentage of the total 

emission source operating time during 

that reporting period. 

(viii) An identification of each organic 

HAP that was potentially emitted during 

each deviation based on the known 

organic HAP contained in the liquid(s). 

(ix) A brief description of the 

emission source(s) at which the CMS 

deviation(s) occurred. 

(x) A brief description of each CMS 

that was out of control during the 

period. 

(xi) The date of the latest certification 

or audit for each CMS. 

(xii) A brief description of any 

changes in CMS, processes, or controls 

since the last reporting period. 

(2) Include in the Compliance report 

the information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) For each storage tank and transfer 

rack subject to control requirements, 

include periods of planned routine 

maintenance during which the control 

device did not comply with the 

applicable emission limits in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(ii) For each storage tank controlled 

with a floating roof, include a copy of 

the inspection record (required in 

§ 63.1065(b)) when inspection failures 

occur.

(iii) If you elect to use an extension 

for a floating roof inspection in 

accordance with § 63.1063(c)(2)(iv)(B) or 

(e)(2), include the documentation 

required by those paragraphs. 

(3) Include in the Compliance report 

each new operating scenario which has 

occurred since the time period covered 

by the last Compliance report. For each 

new operating scenario, you must 

provide verification that the established 

operating conditions for any associated 

control device have not been exceeded 

and that any required calculations and 

engineering analyses have been 

performed. 

(e) Each affected source that has 

obtained a title V operating permit 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71 must report all deviations as 

defined in this subpart in the 

semiannual monitoring report required 

by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source 

submits a Compliance report pursuant 

to Table 11 to this subpart along with, 

or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 

report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and 

the Compliance report includes all 

required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation 

in this subpart, we will consider 

submission of the Compliance report as 

satisfying any obligation to report the 

same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submission 

of a Compliance report will not 

otherwise affect any obligation the 

affected source may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the applicable title V permitting 

authority.

§ 63.2390 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep all records 

identified in subpart SS of this part and 

in Table 12 to this subpart that are 

applicable, including records related to 

notifications and reports, SSM, 

performance tests, CMS, and 

performance evaluation plans. 

(b) You must keep the records 

required to show continuous 

compliance, as required in subpart SS of 

this part and in Tables 8 through 10 to 

this subpart, with each emission 

limitation, operating limit, and work 

practice standard that applies to you. 

(c) For each transport vehicle into 

which organic liquids are loaded at an 

affected transfer rack, you must keep the 

applicable records in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) For transport vehicles equipped 

with vapor collection equipment, the 

documentation described in 40 CFR 

60.505(b), except that the test title is: 

Transport Vehicle Pressure Test-EPA 

Reference Method 27. 

(2) For transport vehicles without 

vapor collection equipment, current 

certification in accordance with the U.S. 

DOT pressure test requirements in 49 

CFR part 180 for cargo tanks or 49 CFR 

173.31 for tank cars. 

(3) You must keep records of the 

actual annual facility-level organic 

liquid loading volume through transfer 

racks out of the facility to document the 

applicability of the emission limitations 

in Table 2, items 7 through 10, to this 

subpart.

§ 63.2394 In what form and how long must 

I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious inspection and review 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). In addition, 

on-site records may be stored in 

electronic form at a separate location 

from the site provided they can be 

accessed and printed at the site within 

1 hour after a request by the applicable 

title V permitting authority. 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep your files of all information 

(including all reports and notifications) 

for at least 5 years following the date of 

each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, 

or record. 

(c) You must keep each record on site 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may 

keep the records off site for the 

remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.2396 What compliance options do I 

have if part of my plant is subject to both 

this subpart and another subpart? 

(a) Compliance with other regulations 

for storage tanks.

(1)(i) After the compliance dates 

specified in § 63.2342, if you have a 

storage tank that is subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Kb, not as the result of 

another 40 CFR part 63 subpart, and that 

storage tank is in OLD operation, you 

must meet all of the requirements of this 

subpart for that storage tank when the 

storage tank is in OLD operation. 

(ii) If you have a storage tank that is 

in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb, as the result of complying 

with another 40 CFR part 63 subpart, 

that storage tank is not subject to this 

subpart. 

(2) After the compliance dates 

specified in § 63.2342, if you have a 

storage tank that is subject to 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart Y, and that storage tank 

is in OLD operation, you must meet all 

of the requirements of this subpart for 

that storage tank when the storage tank 

is in OLD operation. 

(b) Compliance with other regulations 

for transfer racks. After the compliance 

dates specified in § 63.2342, if you have 

a transfer rack that is subject to 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart BB, and that transfer 

rack is in OLD operation, you must meet 

the all of the requirements of this 

subpart for that transfer rack when the 

transfer rack is in OLD operation. 

(c) Compliance with other regulations 

for equipment leak components.

(1) After the compliance dates 

specified in § 63.2342, if you have 

pumps, valves, or sampling connections 

that are subject to a 40 CFR part 60 

subpart, and those pumps, valves, and 

sampling connections are in OLD 

operation and in organic liquids service, 

5070 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

as defined in this subpart, you must 

comply with the provisions of each 

subpart for those equipment leak 

components. 

(2) After the compliance dates 

specified in § 63.2342, if you have 

pumps, valves, or sampling connections 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, 

and those pumps, valves, and sampling 

connections are in OLD operation and 

in organic liquids service, as defined in 

this subpart, you may elect to comply 

with the provisions of this subpart for 

all such equipment leak components. 

You must identify in the Notification of 

Compliance Status required by 

§ 63.2382(b) the provisions with which 

you will comply.

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Overlap with other regulations for 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

with respect to control devices. After the 

compliance dates specified in § 63.2342, 

if any control device subject to this 

subpart is also subject to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of another 40 CFR part 63 

subpart, the owner or operator must be 

in compliance with the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of this subpart EEEE. If 

complying with the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the other subpart 

satisfies the monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of this 

subpart, the owner or operator may elect 

to continue to comply with the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the other 

subpart. In such instances, the owner or 

operator will be deemed to be in 

compliance with the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of this subpart. The owner 

or operator must identify the other 

subpart being complied with in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required by § 63.2382(b).

§ 63.2398 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 12 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

§ 63.2402 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or a 

delegated authority such as your State, 

local, or eligible tribal agency. If the 

EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or eligible 

tribal agency, then that agency, as well 

as the EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. 

You should contact your EPA Regional 

Office (see list in § 63.13) to find out if 

this subpart is delegated to your State, 

local, or eligible tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority for this subpart to 

a State, local, or eligible tribal agency 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the 

authorities contained in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section are 

retained by the EPA Administrator and 

are not delegated to the State, local, or 

eligible tribal agency. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

nonopacity emission limitations, 

operating limits, and work practice 

standards in § 63.2346(a) through (c) 

under § 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 

(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.2406 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the CAA, in § 63.2, and in 

this section. If the same term is defined 

in another subpart and in this section, 

it will have the meaning given in this 

section for purposes of this subpart. 

Actual annual average temperature,

for organic liquids, means the 

temperature determined using the 

following methods: 

(1) For heated or cooled storage tanks, 

use the calculated annual average 

temperature of the stored organic liquid 

as determined from a design analysis of 

the storage tank. 

(2) For ambient temperature storage 

tanks: 

(i) Use the annual average of the local 

(nearest) normal daily mean 

temperatures reported by the National 

Climatic Data Center; or 

(ii) Use any other method that the 

EPA approves. 

Annual average true vapor pressure

means the equilibrium partial pressure 

exerted by the total organic HAP in the 

stored or transferred organic liquid. For 

the purpose of determining if a liquid 

meets the definition of an organic 

liquid, the vapor pressure is determined 

using standard conditions of 77 degrees 

F and 29.92 inches of mercury. For the 

purpose of determining whether an 

organic liquid meets the applicability 

criteria in Table 2, items 1 through 6, to 

this subpart, use the actual annual 

average temperature as defined in this 

subpart. The vapor pressure value in 

either of these cases is determined: 

(1) In accordance with methods 

described in American Petroleum 

Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative 

Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); 

(2) Using standard reference texts; 

(3) By the American Society for 

Testing and Materials Method D2879–

83, 96 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14); or 

(4) Using any other method that the 

EPA approves. 

Cargo tank means a liquid-carrying 

tank permanently attached and forming 

an integral part of a motor vehicle or 

truck trailer. This term also refers to the 

entire cargo tank motor vehicle or 

trailer. For the purpose of this subpart, 

vacuum trucks used exclusively for 

maintenance or spill response are not 

considered cargo tanks. 

Closed vent system means a system 

that is not open to the atmosphere and 

is composed of piping, ductwork, 

connections, and, if necessary, flowinducing devices that transport gas or 

vapors from an emission point to a 

control device. This system does not 

include the vapor collection system that 

is part of some transport vehicles or the 

loading arm or hose that is used for 

vapor return. For transfer racks, the 

closed vent system begins at, and 

includes, the first block valve on the 

downstream side of the loading arm or 

hose used to convey displaced vapors. 

Combustion device means an 

individual unit of equipment, such as a 

flare, oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, 

process heater, or boiler, used for the 

combustion of organic emissions. 

Container means a portable unit in 

which a material can be stored, 

transported, treated, disposed of, or 

otherwise handled. Examples of 

containers include, but are not limited 

to, drums and portable cargo containers 

known as ‘‘portable tanks’’ or ‘‘totes.’’

Control device means any combustion 

device, recovery device, recapture 

device, or any combination of these 

devices used to comply with this 

subpart. Such equipment or devices 

include, but are not limited to, 

absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, and 

combustion devices. Primary 

condensers, steam strippers, and fuel 

gas systems are not considered control 

devices. 

Crude oil means any of the naturally 

occurring liquids commonly referred to 

as crude oil, regardless of specific 

physical properties. Only those crude 

oils downstream of the first point of 

custody transfer after the production 

field are considered crude oils in this 

subpart. 

Custody transfer means the transfer of 

hydrocarbon liquids after processing 

and/or treatment in the producing 

operations, or from storage tanks or 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5071

automatic transfer facilities to pipelines 

or any other forms of transportation. 

Design evaluation means a procedure 

for evaluating control devices that 

complies with the requirements in 

§ 63.985(b)(1)(i). 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or portion thereof, or an owner 

or operator of such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart 

including, but not limited to, any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit) or work practice 

standard; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart, 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit; or

(3) Fails to meet any emission 

limitation (including any operating 

limit) or work practice standard in this 

subpart during SSM. 

Emission limitation means an 

emission limit, opacity limit, operating 

limit, or visible emission limit. 

Equipment leak component means 

each pump, valve, and sampling 

connection system used in organic 

liquids service at an OLD operation. 

Valve types include control, globe, gate, 

plug, and ball. Relief and check valves 

are excluded. 

Gasoline means any petroleum 

distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol 

blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals (4.0 pounds per square 

inch absolute (psia)) or greater which is 

used as a fuel for internal combustion 

engines. Aviation gasoline is included 

in this definition. 

In organic liquids service means that 

an equipment leak component contains 

or contacts organic liquids having 5 

percent by weight or greater of the 

organic HAP listed in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

On-site or on site means, with respect 

to records required to be maintained by 

this subpart or required by another 

subpart referenced by this subpart, that 

records are stored at a location within 

a major source which encompasses the 

affected source. On-site includes, but is 

not limited to, storage at the affected 

source to which the records pertain, 

storage in central files elsewhere at the 

major source, or electronically available 

at the site. 

Organic liquid means: 

(1) Any non-crude oil liquid or liquid 

mixture that contains 5 percent by 

weight or greater of the organic HAP 

listed in Table 1 to this subpart, as 

determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.2354(c). 

(2) Any crude oils downstream of the 

first point of custody transfer. 

(3) Organic liquids for purposes of 

this subpart do not include the 

following liquids: 

(i) Gasoline (including aviation 

gasoline), kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), 

diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and 

heavier distillate oils and fuel oils; 

(ii) Any fuel consumed or dispensed 

on the plant site directly to users (such 

as fuels for fleet refueling or for 

refueling marine vessels that support 

the operation of the plant); 

(iii) Hazardous waste; 

(iv) Wastewater; 

(v) Ballast water: or 

(vi) Any non-crude oil liquid with an 

annual average true vapor pressure less 

than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia). 

Organic liquids distribution (OLD) 

operation means the combination of 

activities and equipment used to store 

or transfer organic liquids into, out of, 

or within a plant site regardless of the 

specific activity being performed. 

Activities include, but are not limited 

to, storage, transfer, blending, 

compounding, and packaging. 

Permitting authority means one of the 

following: 

(1) The State Air Pollution Control 

Agency, local agency, or other agency 

authorized by the EPA Administrator to 

carry out a permit program under 40 

CFR part 70; or 

(2) The EPA Administrator, in the 

case of EPA-implemented permit 

programs under title V of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7661) and 40 CFR part 71. 

Plant site means all contiguous or 

adjoining surface property that is under 

common control, including surface 

properties that are separated only by a 

road or other public right-of-way. 

Common control includes surface 

properties that are owned, leased, or 

operated by the same entity, parent 

entity, subsidiary, or any combination. 

Research and development facility

means laboratory and pilot plant 

operations whose primary purpose is to 

conduct research and development into 

new processes and products, where the 

operations are under the close 

supervision of technically trained 

personnel, and which are not engaged in 

the manufacture of products for 

commercial sale, except in a de minimis

manner.

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2 and 40 CFR 71.2, as applicable. 

Safety device means a closure device 

such as a pressure relief valve, frangible 

disc, fusible plug, or any other type of 

device that functions exclusively to 

prevent physical damage or permanent 

deformation to a unit or its air emission 

control equipment by venting gases or 

vapors directly to the atmosphere 

during unsafe conditions resulting from 

an unplanned, accidental, or emergency 

event. 

Shutdown means the cessation of 

operation of an OLD affected source, or 

portion thereof, required or used to 

comply with this subpart, or the 

emptying and degassing of a storage 

tank. Shutdown as defined here 

includes, but is not limited to, events 

that result from periodic maintenance, 

replacement of equipment, or repair. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an OLD affected source, or portion 

thereof, for any purpose. Startup also 

includes the placing in operation of any 

individual piece of equipment required 

or used to comply with this subpart 

including, but not limited to, control 

devices and monitors. 

Storage tank means a stationary unit 

that is constructed primarily of 

nonearthen materials (such as wood, 

concrete, steel, or reinforced plastic) 

that provide structural support and is 

designed to hold a bulk quantity of 

liquid. Storage tanks do not include: 

(1) Units permanently attached to 

conveyances such as trucks, trailers, rail 

cars, barges, or ships; 

(2) Pressure vessels designed to 

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals 

and without emissions to the 

atmosphere; 

(3) Bottoms receiver tanks; 

(4) Surge control vessels; 

(5) Vessels storing wastewater; or 

(6) Reactor vessels associated with a 

manufacturing process unit. 

Tank car means a car designed to 

carry liquid freight by rail, and 

including a permanently attached tank. 

Transfer rack means a single system 

used to load organic liquids into 

transport vehicles. It includes all 

loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff 

valves, relief valves, and other piping 

and equipment necessary for the 

transfer operation. Transfer equipment 

and operations that are physically 

separate (i.e., do not share common 

piping, valves, and other equipment) are 

considered to be separate transfer racks. 

Transport vehicle means a cargo tank 

or tank car. 

Vapor balancing system means a 

piping system that collects organic HAP 

vapors displaced from transport 

vehicles during loading and routes the 

collected vapors to the storage tank from 

which the liquid being loaded 

originated or compresses the vapors for 

feeding into a chemical manufacturing 

process unit. 

Vapor collection system means any 

equipment located at the source (i.e., at 

the OLD operation) that is not open to 

5072 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

the atmosphere; that is composed of 

piping, connections, and, if necessary, 

flow-inducing devices; and that is used 

for containing and conveying vapors 

displaced during the loading of 

transport vehicles to a control device or 

for vapor balancing. This does not 

include any of the vapor collection 

equipment that is installed on the 

transport vehicle. 

Vapor-tight transport vehicle means a 

transport vehicle that has been 

demonstrated to be vapor-tight. To be 

considered vapor-tight, a transport 

vehicle equipped with vapor collection 

equipment must undergo a pressure 

change of no more than 250 pascals (1 

inch of water) within 5 minutes after it 

is pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 

inches of water). This capability must be 

demonstrated annually using the 

procedures specified in EPA Method 27 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For all 

other transport vehicles, vapor tightness 

is demonstrated by performing the U.S. 

DOT pressure test procedures for tank 

cars and cargo tanks.

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to 

section 112(h) of the CAA. 

Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63 

You must use the organic HAP 

information listed in the following table 

to determine which of the liquids 

handled at your facility meet the HAP 

content criteria in the definition of 

Organic Liquid in § 63.2406.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—ORGANIC HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

Compound name CAS No.1

2,4-D salts and esters ............................................................................................................................................................................. 94–75–7

Acetaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 75–07–0

Acetonitrile ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 75–05–8

Acetophenone .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 98–86–2

Acrolein .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 107–02–8

Acrylamide ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 79–06–1

Acrylic acid ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 79–10–7

Acrylonitrile .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 107–13–1

Allyl chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 107–05–1

Aniline ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62–53–3

Benzene ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71–43–2

Biphenyl ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 92–52–4

Butadiene (1,3-) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 106–99–0

Carbon tetrachloride ................................................................................................................................................................................ 56–23–5

Chloroacetic acid ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 79–11–8

Chlorobenzene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 108–90–7

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene (Chloroprene) ..................................................................................................................................................... 126–99–8

Chloroform ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 67–66–3

m-Cresol .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108–39–4

o-Cresol ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95–48–7

p-Cresol ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106–44–5

Cresols/cresylic acid ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1319–77–3

Cumene ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98–82–8

Dibenzofurans .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 132–64–9

Dibutylphthalate ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 84–74–2

Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene dichloride) (EDC) .................................................................................................................................. 107–06–2

Dichloropropene (1,3-) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 542–75–6

Diethanolamine ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 111–42–2

Diethyl aniline (N,N-) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 121–69–7

Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether .......................................................................................................................................................... 112–34–5

Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether ....................................................................................................................................................... 111–77–3

Diethyl sulfate .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 64–67–5

Dimethyl formamide ................................................................................................................................................................................. 68–12–2

Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 57–14–7

Dioxane (1,4-) (1,4-Diethyleneoxide) ....................................................................................................................................................... 123–91–1

Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane) ......................................................................................................................................... 106–89–8

Epoxybutane (1,2-) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 106–88–7

Ethyl acrylate ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 140–88–5

Ethylbenzene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 100–41–4

Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) .................................................................................................................................................................. 75–00–3

Ethylene dibromide (Dibromomethane) ................................................................................................................................................... 106–93–4

Ethylene glycol ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 107–21–1

Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether ................................................................................................................................................................. 110–71–4

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether .......................................................................................................................................................... 109–86–4

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate ............................................................................................................................................. 110–49–6

Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether .......................................................................................................................................................... 122–99–6

Ethylene oxide ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 75–21–8

Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) .............................................................................................................................................. 75–34–3

Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 50–00–0

Hexachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................................... 67–72–1

Hexane ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110–54–3

Hydroquinone ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 123–31–9

Isophorone ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 78–59–1

Maleic anhydride ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 108–31–6

Methanol .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67–56–1

Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) ............................................................................................................................................................ 74–87–3

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5073

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—ORGANIC HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS—Continued

Compound name CAS No.1

Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) .................................................................................................................................................... 75–09–2

Methylenedianiline (4,4’-) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 101–77–9

Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ............................................................................................................................................................. 101–68–8

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) (MEK) ................................................................................................................................................ 78–93–3

Methyl hydrazine ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 60–34–4

Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone) (MIBK) ................................................................................................................................................. 108–10–1

Methyl methacrylate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 80–62–6

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ................................................................................................................................................................ 1634–04–4

Naphthalene ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 91–20–3

Nitrobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 98–95–3

Phenol ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108–9–52

Phthalic anhydride ................................................................................................................................................................................... 85–44–9

Polycyclic organic matter ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50–32–8

Propionaldehyde ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 123–38–6

Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane) ............................................................................................................................................ 78–87–5

Propylene oxide ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 75–56–9

Quinoline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 91–22–5

Styrene ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100–42–5

Styrene oxide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 96–09–3

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) .................................................................................................................................................................... 79–34–5

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) ................................................................................................................................................. 127–18–4

Toluene .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108–88–3

Toluene diisocyanate (2,4-) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 584–84–9

o-Toluidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 95–53–4

Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 120–82–1

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-) (Methyl chloroform) ........................................................................................................................................... 71–55–6

Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) (Vinyl trichloride) ............................................................................................................................................... 79–00–5

Trichloroethylene ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 79–01–6

Triethylamine ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 121–44–8

Trimethylpentane (2,2,4-) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 540–84–1

Vinyl acetate ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 108–05–4

Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene) ................................................................................................................................................................ 75–01–4

Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene) .............................................................................................................................................. 75–35–4

Xylene (m-) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 108–38–3

Xylene (o-) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 95–47–6

Xylene (p-) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 106–42–3

Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) .............................................................................................................................................................. 1330–20–7

1 CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Services registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds. 

As stated in § 63.2346, you must comply with the emission limits for the organic liquids distribution emission sources 

as follows:

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

1. A storage tank at an existing affected source 

with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 

gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 

gallons). 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals 

(4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 

i. Reduce emissions of organic HAP (or, upon 

approval, TOC) by 95 weight-percent or, as 

an option, to an exhaust concentration less 

than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis corrected to 3% oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS; OR 

ii. Comply with the work practice standards 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 

1.a, for tanks storing the liquids described 

in that table. 

b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

2. A storage tank at an existing affected source 

with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 

gallons). 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals 

(11.1 psia). 

i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

5074 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

3. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic 

meters (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals 

(4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 

i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

4. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥37.9 cubic 

meters (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic 

meters (50,000 gallons). 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is ≥0.7 kilopascals (0.1 

psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 

i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

5. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic 

meters (50,000 gallons). 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals 

(11.1 psia). 

i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of 

this table. 

6. A storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source meeting the capacity 

criteria specified in Table 2, items 1 through 

5 of this subpart. 

a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil 

and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the 

stored organic liquid is ≥76.6 kilopascals 

(11.1 psia). 

i. Reduce emissions of organic HAP (or, upon 

approval, TOC) by 95 weight-percent or, as 

an option, to an exhaust concentration less 

than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis corrected to 3% oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. 

7. A transfer rack at an existing facility where 

the total actual annual facility-level organic 

liquid loading volume through transfer racks 

out of the facility is between 800,000 gallons 

and less than 10 million gallons. 

a. The organic HAP content of the organic liquid through the transfer rack is at least 98% 

by weight. 

i. Reduce emissions of organic HAP (or, upon 

approval, TOC) from the loading of organic 

liquids by venting emissions through a 

closed vent system to any combination of 

control devices achieving 98 weight-percent 

HAP reduction, or as an option to an exhaust concentration less than or equal to 20 

parts per million by volume, on a dry basis 

corrected to 3% oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air; 

AND 

ii. Vent emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices 

meeting the applicable requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, AND 

iii. Comply with the work practice standards 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 2. 

8. A transfer rack at an existing facility where 

the total actual annual facility-level organic 

liquid loading volume through transfer racks 

out of the facility is ≥10 million gallons. 

i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i through 

7.a.iii of this table. 

9. A transfer rack at a new facility where the 

total actual annual facility-level organic liquid 

loading volume through transfer racks out of 

the facility is less than 800,000 gallons. 

a. The organic HAP content of the organic liquid through the transfer rack is at least 25% 

by weight and the transfer rack is used for 

transferring organic liquids into transport vehicles. 

i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i through 

7.a.iii of this table. 

b. The transfer rack is used for the filling of 

containers with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons. 

i. Comply with the provisions of §§ 63.924 

through 63.927 of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart 

PP—National Emission Standards for Containers, Container Level 3 controls. 

10. A transfer rack at a new facility where the 

total actual annual facility-level organic liquid 

loading volume through transfer racks out of 

the facility is equal to or greater than 800,000 

gallons. 

a. The transfer rack is used for transferring 

organic liquids into transport vehicles. 

i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i through 

7.a.iii of this table. 

b. The transfer rack is used for the filling of 

containers with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons. 

i. Comply with the provisions of §§ 63.924 

through 63.927 of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart 

PP—National Emission Standards for Containers, Container Level 3 controls. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5075

As stated in § 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources 

as follows:

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS

For each existing, each reconstructed, and 

each new affected source using . . . You must . . . 

1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.Maintain the daily average fire box or combustion zone temperature greater than or equal to 

the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.a. Replace the existing catalyst bed before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit; AND 

b. Maintain the daily average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal 

to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test 

that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND 

c. Maintain the daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or 

equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or 

performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the absorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR 

b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing liquid temperature less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit; AND 

c. Maintain the difference between the specific gravities of the saturated and fresh scrubbing 

fluids greater than or equal to the difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

4. A condenser to comply with an emission limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds at the condenser exit 

less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or 

performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR 

b. Maintain the daily average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit. 

5. An adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart 

a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR 

b. Maintain the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration 

cycle greater than or equal to the reference stream mass flow established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND 

c. Before the adsorption cycle commences, achieve and maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration less than or equal to the reference temperature established 

during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limit; AND 

d. Achieve a pressure reduction during each adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or 

equal to the pressure reduction established during the design evaluation or performance test 

that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

6. An adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart.

a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR 

b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets 

the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test 

before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the 

design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; 

AND 

c. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

7. A flare to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart.

a. Comply with the equipment and operating requirements in § 63.987(a); AND 

b. Conduct an initial flare compliance assessment in accordance with § 63.987(b); AND 

c. Install and operate monitoring equipment as specified in § 63.987(c). 

8. Another type of control device to comply with 

an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.

Submit a monitoring plan as specified in §§ 63.995(c) and 63.2366(c), and monitor the control 

device in accordance with that plan. 

As stated in § 63.2346, you may elect to comply with one of the work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or 

new affected sources in the following table. If you elect to do so,...

5076 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source 

meeting any set of tank capacity and organic HAP vapor pressure 

criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5. 

a. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2), if you elect to meet 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2 ), requirements as an alternative to the emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5; OR 

b. Comply with the requirements of § 63.984 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for routing emissions to a fuel gas system or back to the 

process. 

2. Transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source 

meeting the facility-level organic liquid loading volume and transfer 

rack HAP content for organic liquids specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 9. 

a. If the option of a vapor balancing system is selected, install and operate a system that meets the requirements in Table 7 to this subpart, item 3.b; OR 

b. Comply with the requirements of § 63.984 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for routing emissions to a fuel gas system or back to the 

process. 

3. Pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service at least 300 hours per year at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source. 

Comply with the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU 

(control level 2), or subpart H. 

4. Transport vehicles equipped with vapor collection equipment, Follow the steps in 40 CFR 60.502(e) to ensure that organic liquids are 

loaded only into vapor-tight transport vehicles, and comply with the 

provisions in 40 CFR § 60.502(f), (g), (h), and (i), except substitute 

the term transport vehicle at each occurrence of tank truck or gasoline tank truck in those paragraphs. 

5. Transport vehicles without vapor collection equipment, Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport vehicles that 

have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT pressure test requirements in 49 CFR 180 (cargo tanks) or 49 CFR 

173.31 (tank cars). 

As stated in §§ 63.2354(a) and 63.2362, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests and design 

evaluations for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS AND DESIGN EVALUATIONS

For . . . You must conduct . . . According to . . . Using . . . To determine . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. Each existing, each reconstructed, and each 

new affected source 

using a nonflare control 

device to comply with 

an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 1 through 9. 

a. A performance test to 

determine the organic 

HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) control 

efficiency of each 

nonflare control device, 

OR the exhaust concentration of each 

combustion device; OR 

i. § 63.985(b)(1)(ii), 

§ 63.988(b), 

§ 63.990(b), or 

§ 63.995(b). 

(1) EPA Method 1 or 1A 

in appendix A of 40 

CFR part 60, as appropriate. 

(A) Sampling port locations and the required 

number of traverse 

points. 

(i) Sampling sites must 

be located at the inlet 

and outlet of each control device if complying 

with the control efficiency requirement or 

at the outlet of the control device if complying 

with the exhaust concentration requirement; 

AND 

(ii) The outlet sampling 

site must be located at 

each control device 

prior to any releases to 

the atmosphere. 

(2) EPA Method 2, 2A, 

2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in 

appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60, as appropriate. 

(A) Stack gas velocity 

and volumetric flow 

rate. 

See the requirements in 

items 1.a.i.(1)(A) (i) 

and (ii) of this table. 

(3) EPA Method 3 or 3B 

in appendix A of 40 

CFR part 60, as appropriate. 

(A) Concentration of CO2

and O2 and dry molecular weight of the stack 

gas. 

See the requirements in 

items 1.a.i.(1)(A) (i) 

and (ii) of this table. 

(4) EPA Method 4 in appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60. 

(A) Moisture content of 

the stack gas. 

See the requirements in 

items 1.a.i.(1)(A) (i) 

and (ii) of this table. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5077

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS AND DESIGN EVALUATIONS—

Continued

For . . . You must conduct . . . According to . . . Using . . . To determine . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

(5) EPA Method 18, 25, 

or 25A in appendix A 

of 40 CFR part 60, as 

appropriate, or EPA 

Method 316 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 

63 for measuring formaldehyde. 

(A) Total organic HAP 

(or, upon approval, 

TOC), or formaldehyde emissions. 

(i) The organic HAP used 

for the calibration gas 

for EPA Method 25A 

must be the single organic HAP representing the largest 

percent by volume of 

emissions; AND 

(ii) During the performance test, you must 

establish the operating 

parameter limits within 

which total organic 

HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions are reduced by 

the required weightpercent or, as an option for nonflare combustion devices, to 20 

ppmv exhaust concentration. 

b. A design evaluation 

(for nonflare control 

devices) to determine 

the organic HAP (or, 

upon approval, TOC) 

control efficiency of 

each nonflare control 

device, or the exhaust 

concentration of each 

combustion control device. 

§ 63.985(b)(1)(i). During a design evaluation, you must establish the operating parameter limits within 

which total organic 

HAP, (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions are reduced by 

at least 95 weight-percent or as an option to 

20 ppmv exhaust concentration. 

2. Each transport vehicle 

that you own or operate 

that is equipped with 

vapor collection equipment and loads organic 

liquids at an affected 

transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, or 

new affected source. 

A performance test to determine the vapor tightness of the tank and 

then repair as needed 

until it passes the test. 

EPA Method 27 in appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60. 

vapor tightness. The pressure change in 

the tank must be no 

more than 250 pascals 

(1 inch of water) in 5 

minutes after it is pressurized to 4,500 

pascals (18 inches of 

water). 

As stated in §§ 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(b), you must show initial compliance with the emission limits for existing, 

reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS

For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if . . . 

1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or 

new affected source meeting either set of 

tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor 

pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, items 1 through 6

Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, 

TOC) emissions by at least 95 weight-percent, or as an option for combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of ≤20 

ppmv. 

Total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) 

emissions, based on the results of the performance testing or design evaluation specified in Table 5 to this subpart, item 1.a or 

1.b, respectively, are reduced by at least 95 

weight-percent or as an option to an exhaust concentration ≤20 ppmv. 

2. Transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source meeting the facilitylevel organic liquid loading volume and transfer rack HAP content for organic liquids criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 7 through 9. 

Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, 

TOC) emissions by at least 98 weight-percent, or as an option for combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of ≤20 

ppmv. 

Total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) 

emissions, based on the results of the performance testing or design evaluation specified in Table 5 to this subpart, item 1.a or 

1.b, respectively, are reduced by at least 98 

weight-percent or as an option for combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of 

≤20 ppmv. 

5078 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . If you . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if 

. . . 

1. Storage tank at an existing affected source 

meeting either set of tank capacity and liquid 

organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 or 2. 

a. Install a floating roof or equivalent control 

that meets the requirements in Table 4 to 

this subpart, item 1.a. 

i. After emptying and degassing, you visually 

inspect each internal floating roof before the 

refilling of the storage tank and perform 

seal gap inspections of the primary and 

secondary rim seals of each external floating roof within 90 days after the refilling of 

the storage tank. 

b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or 

back to the process. 

i. You meet the requirements in § 63.984(b) 

and submit the statement of connection required by § 63.984(c). 

2. Storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 3 through 5. 

a. Install a floating roof or equivalent control 

that meets the requirements in Table 4 to 

this subpart, item 1.a. 

i. You visually inspect each internal floating 

roof before the initial filling of the storage 

tank, and perform seal gap inspections of 

the primary and secondary rim seals of 

each external floating roof within 90 days 

after the initial filling of the storage tank. 

b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or 

back to the process. 

i. See item 1.b.i of this table. 

3. Transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source that meets the facilitylevel organic liquid loading volume and transfer rack HAP content for organic liquids criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 7 through 9. 

a. Load organic liquids only into transport vehicles having current vapor tightness certification as described in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4.a and item 5.a. i. You comply with the provisions specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart, item 4.a and item 

5.a, as applicable. 

b. Install and operate a vapor balancing system. i. You design and operate the vapor balancing 

system to route organic HAP vapors displaced from loading of organic liquids into 

transport vehicles to the appropriate storage tank or process unit. 

4. Equipment leak component, as defined in 

§ 63.2406, that operates in organic liquids 

service ≥ 300 hours per year at an existing, 

reconstructed, or new affected source. 

a. Carry out a leak detection and repair program or equivalent control according to one 

of the subparts listed in Table 4 to this subpart, item 3.a. 

i. You specify which one of the control programs listed in Table 4 to this subpart you 

have selected, OR 

ii. Provide written specifications for your 

equivalent control approach. 

As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the emission limits for 

existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS

For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by . . . 

1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or 

new affected source meeting any set of tank 

capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6. 

a. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions from the closed 

vent system and control device by 95 

weight-percent or greater, or as an option 

to 20 ppmv or less of total organic HAP (or, 

upon approval, TOC) in the exhaust of 

combustion devices. 

i. Performing CMS monitoring and collecting 

data according to §§ 63.2366, 63.2374, and 

63.2378; AND 

ii. Maintaining the operating limits established 

during the design evaluation or performance test. 

2. Transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source that meets the facilitylevel organic liquid loading volume and transfer rack HAP content for organic liquids criteria specified in Table 2, to this supbart 

items 7 through 9. 

Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, 

TOC) emissions from the closed vent system and control device by 98 weight-percent or greater, or as an option to 20 ppmv 

or less of organic HAP (or, upon approval, 

TOC) in the exhaust of combustion devices. 

See the compliance demonstration in items 

1.a.i and ii of this table. 

As stated in § 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for 

existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5079

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT

TRANSFER RACKS

For each existing, reconstructed, and each new 

affected source using . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. a. Maintain the daily average fire box or combustion zone, as applicable, temperature 

greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Continuously monitoring and recording fire 

box or combustion zone, as applicable, 

temperature every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily average fire box temperature greater than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. a. Replace the existing catalyst bed before 

the age of the bed exceeds the maximum 

allowable age established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Replacing the existing catalyst bed before 

the age of the bed exceeds the maximum 

allowable age established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

b. Maintain the daily average temperature at 

the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or 

equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

i. Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed 

at least every 15 minutes and maintaining 

the daily average temperature at the inlet of 

the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the 

reference temperature established during 

the design evaluation or performance test 

that demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

c. Maintain the daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater 

than or equal to the minimum temperature 

difference established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the outlet of the catalyst bed 

every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily 

average temperature difference across the 

catalyst bed greater than or equal to the 

minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

a. Maintain the daily average concentration 

level of organic compounds in the absorber 

exhaust less than or equal to the reference 

concentration established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; OR 

Continuously monitoring the organic concentration in the absorber exhaust and 

maintaining the daily average concentration 

less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing liquid 

temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the 

design evaluation or performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; AND 

Continuously monitoring the scrubbing liquid 

temperature and maintaining the daily average temperature less than or equal to the 

reference temperature established during 

the design evaluation or performance test 

that demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limit; AND 

c. Maintain the difference between the specific gravities of the saturated and fresh 

scrubbing fluids greater than or equal to the 

difference established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

Maintaining the difference between the specific gravities greater than or equal to the 

difference established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

5080 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT

TRANSFER RACKS—Continued

For each existing, reconstructed, and each new 

affected source using . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

4. A condenser to comply with an emission limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

a. Maintain the daily average concentration 

level of organic compounds at the exit of 

the condenser less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the 

design evaluation or performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; OR 

Continuously monitoring the organic concentration at the condenser exit and maintaining the daily average concentration less 

than or equal to the reference concentration 

established during the design evaluation or 

performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 

b. Maintain the daily average condenser exit 

temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the 

design evaluation or performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the exit of the condenser at 

least every 15 minutes and maintaining the 

daily average temperature less than or 

equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

5. An adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

a. Maintain the daily average concentration 

level of organic compounds in the adsorber 

exhaust less than or equal to the reference 

concentration established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Continuously monitoring the daily average 

organic concentration in the adsorber exhaust and maintaining the concentration 

less than or equal to the reference concentration; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

b. Maintain the total regeneration stream 

mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the 

reference stream mass flow established 

during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance 

with the emission limit; AND 

Maintaining the total regeneration stream 

mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the 

reference stream mass flow established 

during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance 

with the emission limit; AND 

c. Before the adsorption cycle commences, 

achieve and maintain the temperature of 

the adsorption bed after regeneration less 

than or equal to the reference temperature 

established during the design evaluation or 

performance test AND 

Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption 

bed after regeneration less than or equal to 

the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance 

test that demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limit AND 

achieve greater than or equal to the pressure reduction during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle established during the design evaluation or performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

Achieving greater than or equal to the pressure reduction during the regeneration cycle 

established during the design evaluation or 

performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

6. An adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

a. Maintain the daily average concentration 

level of organic compounds in the adsorber 

exhaust less than or equal to the reference 

concentration established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; OR Continuously monitoring the organic concentration in the adsorber exhaust 

and maintaining the concentration less than 

or equal to the reference concentration. 

b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each 

segment of the bed before the age of the 

adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable 

age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit; AND 

i. Replacing the existing adsorbent in each 

segment of the bed before the age of the 

adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable 

age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5081

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT

TRANSFER RACKS—Continued

For each existing, reconstructed, and each new 

affected source using . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

c. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption 

bed less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit. 

i. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design 

evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission 

limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

7. A flare to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

a. Maintain a pilot flame in the flare at all 

times that vapors may be vented to the 

flare (§ 63.11(b)(5)). 

i. Continuously operating a device that detects 

the presence of the pilot flame; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

b. Maintain a flare flame at all times that vapors are being vented to the flare 

(§ 63.11(b)(5)). 

i. Maintaining a flare flame at all times that 

vapors are being vented to the flare; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

c. Operate the flare with no visible emissions, 

except for up to 5 minutes in any 2 consecutive hours (§ 63.11(b)(4)). 

i. Operating the flare with no visible emissions 

exceeding the amount allowed; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

d. Operate the flare with an exit velocity that 

is within the applicable limits in 

§ 63.11(b)(6), (7), and (8). 

i. Operating the flare within the applicable exit 

velocity limits; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

e. Operate the flare with a net heating value 

of the gas being combusted greater than 

the applicable minimum value in 

§ 63.11(b)(6)(ii). 

i. Operating the flare with the gas net heating 

value within the applicable limit; AND 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§ 63.998. 

8. Another type of control device to comply with 

an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

Submit a monitoring plan as specified in 

§§ 63.995(c) and 63.2366(c), and monitor 

the control device in accordance with that 

plan. 

Submitting a monitoring plan and monitoring 

the control device according to that plan. 

As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2386(c)(6), you must show continuous compliance with the work practice 

standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following standard . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by . . . 

1. Internal floating roof (IFR) storage tank at an 

existing, reconstructed, or new affected 

source meeting any set of tank capacity and 

vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, items 1 through 5. 

a. Install a floating roof designed and operated according to the applicable specifications in § 63.1063(a) and (b). i. Visually inspecting the floating roof deck, 

deck fittings, and rim seals of each IFR: 

once per year, and each time the storage 

tank is completely emptied and degassed, 

or every 10 years, whichever occurs first 

(§ 63.1063(c)(1), (d), and (e)); AND 

ii. Keeping the tank records required in 

§ 63.1065. 

2. External floating roof (EFR) storage tank at 

an existing, reconstructed, or new affected 

source meeting any set of tank capacity and 

vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, items 1 through 5. 

a. See the standard in item 1.a of this table. i. Visually inspecting the floating roof deck, 

deck fittings, and rim seals of each EFR 

each time the storage tank is completely 

emptied and degassed, or every 10 years, 

whichever occurs first (§ 63.1063(c)(2), (d), 

and (e)); AND 

ii. Performing seal gap measurements on the 

secondary seal of each EFR at least once 

every year, and on the primary seal of each 

EFR at least every 5 years (§ 63.1063(c)(2), 

(d), and (e)); AND 

iii. Keeping the tank records required in 

$63.1065. 

3. IFR or EFR tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any 

set of tank capacity and vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 1 through 5. 

a. Repair the conditions causing storage tank 

inspection failures (§ 63.1063(e)). 

i. Repairing conditions causing inspection failures: before refilling the storage tank with 

organic liquid, or within 45 days (or up to 

105 days with extensions) for a tank containing organic liquid; AND 

ii. Keeping the tank records required in 

§ 63.1065(b). 

5082 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued

For each . . . For the following standard . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by . . . 

4. Transfer rack at an existing, reconstructed, 

or new affected source that meets the facilitylevel organic liquid loading volume and transfer rack HAP content for organic liquids criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

items 7 through 9. 

a. Ensure that organic liquids are loaded into 

transport vehicles in accordance with the 

requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, 

items 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c. 

i. Ensuring that organic liquids are loaded into 

transport vehicles in accordance with the 

requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, 

items 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c. 

b. Install and operate a vapor balancing system. i. Monitoring each potential source of vapor 

leakage in the system quarterly during the 

loading of a transport vehicle using the 

methods and procedures described in the 

rule requirements selected for the work 

practice standard for equipment leak components as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 3. An instrument reading of 500 

ppmv defines a leak. Repair of leaks is performed according to the repair requirements 

specified in your selected equipment leak 

standards. 

5. Equipment leak component, as defined in 

§ 63.2406, that operates in organic liquids 

service at least 300 hours per year. 

a. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart TT, UU, or H. 

i. Carrying out a leak detection and repair program in accordance with one of the subparts listed in item 5.a of this table. 

6. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or 

new affected source meeting any of the tank 

capacity and vapor pressure criteria specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6. 

a. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or 

back to the process. 

i. Continuing to meet the requirements specified in § 63.984(b). 

As stated in § 63.2386(a), (b), and (f), you must submit compliance reports and startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports 

according to the following table:

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit a(n) . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. Compliance report, or Periodic Report. a. The information specified in § 63.2386(c), 

(d), and (e). If you had a startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction during the reporting period 

and you took actions consistent with your 

SSM plan, the report must also include the 

information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). 

Semiannually, and it must be postmarked by 

January 31 or July 31, in accordance with 

§ 63.2386(b). 

b. The information required by 40 CFR part 

63, subpart TT, UU, or H, as applicable, for 

pumps, valves, and sampling connections. 

See the submission requirement in item 1.a of 

this table. 

c. The information required by § 63.999(c). See the submission requirement in item 1.a of 

this table. 

d. The information specified in § 63.1066(b) 

including: notification of inspection, inspection results, requests for alternate devices, 

and requests for extensions, as applicable. 

See the submission requirement in item 1.a of 

this table. 

2. Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction during the reporting period, and 

you took an action that was not consistent 

with your SSM plan. 

a. The information required in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). i. By FAX or telephone within 2 working days 

after starting actions inconsistent with the 

plan; AND 

ii. By letter within 7 working days after the 

end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting 

authority (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). 

As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows:

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.1 .................................... Applicability ......................... Initial applicability determination; Applicability after standard established; Permit requirements; Extensions, Notifications.Yes. 

§ 63.2 .................................... Definitions ............................ Definitions for part 63 standards ...................................... Yes. 

§ 63.3 .................................... Units and Abbreviations ...... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ................. Yes. 

§ 63.4 .................................... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention.Prohibited activities; Circumvention, Severability ............. Yes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5083

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.5 .................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability; Applications; Approvals ............................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(a) ................................ Compliance with Standards/

O&M Applicability.

GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to 

area sources that become major.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ..................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

Sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective 

date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) ........................... Notification ........................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction 

after proposal.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) ........................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(b)(7) ........................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed Area 

Sources That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards immediately upon becoming 

major, regardless of whether required to comply when 

they were an area source.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ..................... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.Comply according to date in this subpart, which must be 

no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 

112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective 

date unless compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(c)(5) ........................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards by date indicated in this subpart or by equivalent time period (e.g., 3 years).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(d) ................................ [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(1) ........................... Operation & Maintenance ... Operate to minimize emissions at all times; correct malfunctions as soon as practicable; and operation and 

maintenance requirements independently enforceable; 

information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ........................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ........................... Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Plan.

Requirement for SSM plan; content of SSM plan; actions 

during SSM.

Yes; however, the 2-

day reporting requirement in paragraph § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) 

does not apply. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ............................ Compliance Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with emission standards at all times 

except during SSM.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ...................... Methods for Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on performance test, operation and 

maintenance plans, records, inspection.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ..................... Alternative Standard ............ Procedures for getting an alternative standard ................ Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(1) ........................... Compliance with Opacity/

Visible Emission (VE) 

Standards.

You must comply with opacity/VE standards at all times 

except during SSM.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) ........................ Determining Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

If standard does not state test method, use EPA Method 

9 for opacity in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter 

and EPA Method 22 for VE in appendix A of part 60 

of this chapter.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(ii) ....................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(iii) ...................... Using Previous Tests to 

Demonstrate Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

Criteria for when previous opacity/VE testing can be 

used to show compliance with this subpart.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(3) ........................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(h)(4) ........................... Notification of Opacity/VE 

Observation Date.

Must notify Administrator of anticipated date of observation.No. 

§ 63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)–(v) ........... Conducting Opacity/VE Observations.Dates and schedule for conducting opacity/VE observations.No. 

§ 63.6(h)(5)(ii) ....................... Opacity Test Duration and 

Averaging Times.

Must have at least 3 hours of observation with thirty 6-

minute averages.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(6) ........................... Records of Conditions During Opacity/VE Observations.Must keep records available and allow Administrator to 

inspect.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(i) ........................ Report Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring System 

(COMS) Monitoring Data 

from Performance Test.

Must submit COMS data with other performance test 

data.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(ii) ....................... Using COMS Instead of 

EPA Method 9.

Can submit COMS data instead of EPA Method 9 results even if rule requires EPA Method 9 in appendix 

A of part 60 of this chapter, but must notify Administrator before performance test.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iii) ...................... Averaging Time for COMS 

During Performance Test.

To determine compliance, must reduce COMS data to 6-

minute averages.

No. 

5084 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iv) ...................... COMS Requirements .......... Owner/operator must demonstrate that COMS performance evaluations are conducted according to 

§ 63.8(e); COMS are properly maintained and operated according to § 63.8(c) and data quality as 

§ 63.8(d).

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(v) ....................... Determining Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

COMS is probable but not conclusive evidence of compliance with opacity standards, even if EPA Method 9 

observation shows otherwise. Requirements for 

COMS to be probable evidence-proper maintenance, 

meeting Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of 

part 60 of this chapter, and data have not been altered.

No. 

§ 63.6(h)(8) ........................... Determining Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

Administrator will use all COMS, EPA Method 9 (in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter), and EPA Method 

22 (in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter) results, 

as well as information about operation and maintenance to determine compliance.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(9) ........................... Adjusted Opacity Standard Procedures for Administrator to adjust an opacity standard.Yes. 

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .................... Compliance Extension ........ Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension.Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ................................. Presidential Compliance Exemption.President may exempt any source from requirement to 

comply with this subpart.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(2) ........................... Performance Test Dates ..... Dates for conducting initial performance testing; must 

conduct 180 days after compliance date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) ........................... Section 114 Authority .......... Adminsitrator may require a performance test under 

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) ........................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ............ Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) ........................... Notification of Rescheduling If you have to reschedule performance test, must notify 

Administrator of rescheduled date as soon as practicable and without delay.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) ................................ Quality Assurance (QA)/

Test Plan.

Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with; test 

plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) ................................ Testing Facilities ................. Requirements for testing facilities ..................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ........................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM.Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) ........................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to this subpart and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(3) ........................... Test Run Duration ............... Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; 

conditions when data from an additional test run can 

be used.

Yes; however, for 

transfer racks per 

§§ 63.987(b)(3)(i)(A)–

(B) and 

63.997(e)(1)(v)(A)–

(B) provide exceptions to the requirement for test runs to 

be at least 1 hour 

each. 

§ 63.7(f) ................................. Alternative Test Method ...... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to 

use an intermediate or major change, or alternative to 

a test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) ................................ Performance Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in performance test report; must 

submit performance test data 60 days after end of test 

with the notification of compliance status; keep data 

for 5 years.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) ................................ Waiver of Tests ................... Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) ........................... Applicability of Monitoring 

Requirements.

Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard .......... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ........................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ........................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ........................... Monitoring of Flares ............ Monitoring requirements for flares in § 63.11 ................... Yes; however, monitoring requirements 

in § 63.987(c) also 

apply. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) ........................... Monitoring ............................ Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless

Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5085

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ..................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; 

must install on each affected source or after combined 

with another affected source before it is released to 

the atmosphere provided the monitoring is sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance with the standard; if more 

than one monitoring system on an emission point, 

must report all monitoring system results, unless one 

monitoring system is a backup.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) ........................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance.Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i)–(iii) ................. Routine and Predictable 

SSM.

Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs; keep parts for 

routine repairs readily available; reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSM plan.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ..................... Monitoring System Installation.Must install to get representative emission or parameter 

measurements; must verify operational status before 

or at performance test.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ........................... CMS Requirements ............. CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of 

control, repair, maintenance, and high-level calibration 

drifts; COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of 

sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second 

period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period; CEMS must have a minimum 

of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-

minute period.

Yes; however, COMS 

are not applicable. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ........................... COMS Minimum Procedures.COMS minimum procedures ............................................ No. 

§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ..................... CMS Requirements ............. Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Outof-control periods.Yes. 

§ 63.8(d) ................................ CMS Quality Control ........... Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc.; must keep quality control plan on record for 

5 years; keep old versions for 5 years after revisions.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(e) ................................ CMS Performance Evaluation.Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports .... Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ...................... Alternative Monitoring Method.Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring.Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................ Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS.Yes. 

§ 63.8(g) ................................ Data Reduction ................... COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 

evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 hour averages 

computed over at least 4 equally spaced data points; 

data that cannot be used in average.

Yes; however, COMS 

are not applicable. 

§ 63.9(a) ................................ Notification Requirements ... Applicability and State delegation ..................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2), (4)–(5) ........ Initial Notifications ............... Submit notification within 120 days after effective date; 

notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of commencement of construction/reconstruction, 

notification of startup; contents of each.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(c) ................................ Request for Compliance Extension.Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best 

available control technology or lowest achievable 

emission rate (BACT/LAER).

Yes. 

§ 63.9(d) ................................ Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for 

New Sources.

For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(e) ................................ Notification of Performance 

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 days prior .................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) ................................. Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 days prior .................................... No. 

§ 63.9(g) ................................ Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of performance evaluation; notification about 

use of COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion 

for relative accuracy alternative.

Yes; however, there 

are no opacity standards. 

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ..................... Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Contents due 60 days after end of performance test or 

other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/

VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to 

Federal vs. State authority.

Yes; however, there 

are no opacity standards. 

§ 63.9(i) ................................. Adjustment of Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when 

notifications must be submitted.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(j) ................................. Change in Previous Information.Must submit within 15 days after the change ................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(a) .............................. Recordkeeping/Reporting .... Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to 

submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for 

owners of more than one source.

Yes. 

5086 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting .... General requirements; keep all records readily available; 

keep for 5 years.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv) ............... Records Related to Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction.

Occurrence of each for operations (process equipment); 

occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution control 

equipment; maintenance on air pollution control equipment; actions during SSM.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi) ............. CMS Records ...................... Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control periods .............. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ................... Records ............................... Records when under waiver ............................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................... Records ............................... Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) .................. Records ............................... All documentation supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ......................... Records ............................... Applicability determinations .............................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(c) .............................. Records ............................... Additional records for CMS ............................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ......................... General Reporting Requirements.Requirement to report ....................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) ......................... Report of Performance Test 

Results.

When to submit to Federal or State authority .................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ......................... Reporting Opacity or VE 

Observations.

What to report and when .................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ......................... Progress Reports ................ Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension.Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ......................... SSM Reports ....................... Contents and submission ................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ................... Additional CMS Reports ...... Must report results for each CEMS on a unit; written 

copy of CMS performance evaluation; 2–3 copies of 

COMS performance evaluation.

Yes; however, COMS 

are not applicable. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii) ............... Reports ................................ Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter 

monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations).

Yes; however, note 

that the title of the 

report is the compliance report; deviations include excess emissions and 

parameter 

exceedances. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) .............. Excess Emissions Reports Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there is 

an excess emissions and parameter monitor 

exceedances (now defined as deviations); provision to 

request semiannual reporting after compliance for 1 

year; submit report by 30th day following end of quarter or calendar half; if there has not been an exceedance or excess emissions (now defined as deviations), 

report contents in a statement that there have been no 

deviations; must submit report containing all of the information in §§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) and 63.10(c)(5)–(13).

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(vi)–(viii) ............ Excess Emissions Report 

and Summary Report.

Requirements for reporting excess emissions for CMS 

(now called deviations); requires all of the information 

in §§ 63.10(c)(5)–(13) and 63.8(c)(7)–(8).

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ......................... Reporting COMS Data ........ Must submit COMS data with performance test data ...... No. 

§ 63.10(f) ............................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for Administrator to waive ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.11(b) .............................. Flares .................................. Requirements for flares .................................................... Yes; § 63.987 requirements apply, and the 

section references 

§ 63.11(b). 

§ 63.12 .................................. Delegation ........................... State authority to enforce standards ................................ Yes. 

§ 63.13 .................................. Addresses ........................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are 

sent.

Yes. 

§ 63.14 .................................. Incorporation by Reference Test methods incorporated by reference .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.15 .................................. Availability of Information .... Public and confidential information ................................... Yes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5087

[FR Doc. 04–2227 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1804 and 1852

Conformance with Federal Acquisition 

Circular 2001–16

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) by 

removing NASA specific coverage of 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

which is no longer necessary as a result 

of CCR requirements established in the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

by Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 

2001–16.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Celeste Dalton, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract Management 

Division (Code HK); (202) 358–1645; email: Celeste.M.Dalton@nasa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Item I of FAC 2001–16 revised the 

FAR to require registration of 

contractors in the Central Contractor 

Registration (CCR) database prior to 

award of any contract, basic agreement, 

basic ordering agreement, or blanket 

purchase agreement. As a result, 

NASA’s specific coverage of CCR is no 

longer required. This final rule removes 

Subpart 1804.74—Central Contractor 

Registration and its associated clause at 

1852.204–74. 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

final rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule does not constitute a 

significant revision within the meaning 

of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98–577, 

and publication for public comment is 

not required. However, NASA will 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the affected NFS Parts 1804 

and 1852 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes do not 

impose recordkeeping or information 

collection requirements which require 

the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1804 

and 1852

Government Procurement.

Tom Luedtke, 

Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

■ Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1804 and 

1852 are amended as follows:

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 1804 and 1852 continues to read as 

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1804—ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS

■ 2. Remove Subpart 1804.74.

PART 1852—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES

■ 3. Remove section 1852.204–74.

[FR Doc. 04–2072 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–01–U