p.1 

OAR Box 1706 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

Dlll-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 10/8/2008 10:25:07 AM Sheet 1 of 142 
P.2 

A-1S-13 

5H-A-I 

o f= 1 

\ 1 ^ 

^-

Tuesday, 

April 2, 2002 

Part II 

Y 

r 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Einission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids 

Distribution (Non-Gasoline); Proposed 

Rule 

• > 
P.3 

15674 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[FRL-7163-4] 

RIN 2060-AH41 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 

Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for organic liquids 

distribution (OLD) (non-gasoline) 

operations, which are carried out at 

storage terminals, refineries, crude oil 

pipeline stations, and various 

manufacturing facilities. These 

proposed standards would implement 

section 112(d) ofthe Clean Air Act 

(CAA) by requiring all OLD operations 

at plant sites that are major sources to 

meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emission standards reflecting the 

application of the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT). 

The EPA estimates that approximately 

70,200 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 

(77,300 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 these 

proposed standards would result in the 

reduction of HAP emissions from major 

sources in the OLD source category by 

28 percent. The emissions reductions 

achieved by these proposed standards, 

when combined with the emissions 

reductions achieved by other similar 

standards, would provide protection to 

the public and achieve a primary goal of 

the CAA. 

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on 

or before June 3, 2002. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by April 22, 2002, a public 

hearing will be held on May 2, 2002. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal 

Service, send comments (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center (6102), 

Attention Docket Number A-98-13, 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person 

or by courier, deliver comments (in 

duplicate if possible) to: Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 

A-98-13, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 

Washington DC 20460. The EPA 

requests that a separate copy also be 

sent to the contact person listed below 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at io a.m. in the 

EPA's Office of Administration 

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, or at an alternate site 

nearby. 

Docket. Docket No. A-98-13 contains 

supporting information used in 

developing the standards. The docket is 

located at die U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 

SW, Washington, DC 20460, in Room 

M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), 

and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 

5:30 p.m., Monday dirough Friday, 

except for legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Martha Smith, Waste and Chemical 

Processes Group, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711; phone (919) 

541-2421, e-mail 

"smith.martha@epa.gov." 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments. Comments and data may 

be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) 

to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic 

comments must be submitted as an 

ASCII file to avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption problems. 

Comments will also be accepted on 

disks in WordPerfect® Corel 8 fde 

format. All comments and data 

submitted in electronic form must note 

the docket number: A-98-13. No 

confidential business information (CBI) 

should be submitted by e-mail. 

Electronic comments may be filed 

online at many Federal Depository 

libraries. 

Commenters wishing to submit 

proprietary information for 

consideration must clearly distinguish 

such information from other comments 

and clearly label it as CBI. Send 

submissions containing such 

proprietary information directly to die 

following address, and not to the public 

docket, to ensure diat proprietary 

information is not inadvertently placed 

in the docket: Attention: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer, Attn: Ms. 

Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel 

Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 

27701. The EPA will disclose 

information identified as CBI only to the 

extent allowed by the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 

confidentiality accompanies a 

submission when it is received by die 

EPA, the information may be made 

available to die public without further 

notice to the commenter. 

Public Hearing. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins of 

the EPA at (919) 541-5671 at least 2 

days in advance of die public hearing. 

Persons interested in attending die 

public hearing must also call Ms. 

Collins to verify the time, date, and 

location of die hearing. The public 

hearing will provide interested parties 

the opportunity to present data, views, 

or arguments concerning diese proposed 

emission standards. 

Docket. The docket is an organized 

and complete fde of all the information 

considered by the EPA in the 

development of diis rulemaking. The 

docket is a dynamic file because 

material is added tiiroughout die 

rulemaking process. The docketing 

system is intended to allow members of 

the public and industries involved to 

readily identify and locate documents 

so diat tiiey can effectively participate 

in the rulemaking process. Along with 

the proposed and promulgated 

standards and their preambles, the 

contents of die docket will serve as the 

record in the case of judicial review. 

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) ofthe CAA.) 

The regulatory text and other materials 

related to tiiis rulemaking are available 

for review in the docket, or copies may 

be mailed on request from the Air 

Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying docket materials. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in die docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed rule is 

also available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. Following 

signature, a copy ofthe rule will be 

posted on the TTN's policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg. If more information regarding 

die TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP 

line at (919) 541-5384. 

Title Change. For purposes of this 

proposed rule, the title has been 

changed to "National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Organic Liquids Distribution (nonGasoline)" to better describe the affected 

population. The source category list and 

regulatory agenda will be amended to 

reflect this name change in a separate 

action. 

Background Information. The 

background information for the 

proposed standards is not contained in 

a formal background information 

!> 
P.4 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15675 

document (BID). Instead, we have 

prepared technical memoranda covering 

the following topic areas: 

• Industry description. 

• Model OLD plants. 

• Industry baseline emissions. 

• Emission control options. 

• MACT floor determination. 

• Environmental, energy, and cost 

impacts. 

• Economic impacts. 

These memos have been combined into 

a technical support document (TSD), 

which is included in Docket No. A-98-

13. 

In addition, there are several other 

memos that discuss individual issues, 

such as selection of the affected organic 

HAP and the minimum HAP cutoff 

defining the affected organic liquids. 

Each of these technical memos has also 

been placed in Docket No. A-98-13. 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action include: 

Category 

Industry 

SIC* 

2821 

2865 

2869 

2911 

4226 

4612 

5169 

5171 

NAICS* 

325211 

325192 

325188 

32411 

49311 

49319 

48611 

42269 

42271 

Examples of regulated entities 

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 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, but the list is not necessarily exhaustive. 

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 would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 

§63.2334 ofthe proposed rule. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to 

a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in § 63.13 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A (General Provisions). 

Outline. The following outline is 

provided to assist you in reading this 

preamble. 

I. Background 

A. How would this rule relate to other EPA 

regulatory actions? 

B. What is the source of authority for 

development of NESHAP? 

C. What criteria are used in the 

development of NESHAP? 

D. What are the potential health effects 

associated with HAP emitted from OLD 

operations? 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

A. What source category would be affected 

by the proposed NESHAP? 

B. What are the primary sources of 

emissions and what are the emissions? 

C. What would be the affected source? 

D. What would be the emission limits, 

operating limits, and other standards? 

E. What would be the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

F. What would be the continuous 

compliance provisions? 

G. What would be the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Standards 

A. How did we select the source category? 

B. How did we select the proposed 

pollutants to be regulated? 

C. How did we select the proposed affected 

source? 

D. How did we determine the basis and 

level of the proposed standards for 

existing and new sources? 

E. How did we select the format of the 

proposed standards? 

F. How did we select the proposed testing 

• and initial compliance requirements? 

G. How did we select the proposed 

continuous compliance requirements? 

H. How did we select the proposed 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements? 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the nonair quality health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

V. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

A. How Would This Rule Relate to Odier 

EPA Regulatory Actions? ' 

Owners and operators of plant sites 

which contain organic liquids 

distribution activities that are 

potentially subject to these proposed 

standards for OLD operations may also 

be subject to other NESHAP because of 

other activities that take place on the 

same plant site. Some tank farms are 

used to store and transfer organic 

liquids onto or off a synthetic organic 

chemical manufacturing industry 

(SOCMI) plant site that is subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H— 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (commonly 

referred to as the hazardous organic 

NESHAP, or "HON"). Distribution of 

crude oil or other organic liquids at a 

petroleum refinery subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Petroleum Refineries (the Refinery 

NESHAP), may also come under OLD 

NESHAP coverage. Finally, bulk 

gasoline terminals subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart R—National Emission 

Standards for Gasoline Distribution 

Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and 

Pipeline Breakout Stations) may 

distribute non-gasoline organic liquids 

through dedicated equipment which 

would fall under tiiese proposed OLD 

standards. At plant sites subject to bodi 

the proposed OLD standards and 

another NESHAP, the OLD NESHAP, 

when finalized, would apply only to the 

specific equipment and activities tiiat 

are related directly to the distribution of 

3 
P.5 

15676 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

affected non-gasoline organic liquids 

(which includes liquids moved either 

onto or off the site). 

Some existing NESHAP may already 

regulate, and some NESHAP under 

development may intend to regulate, 

equipment used to distribute organic 

liquids (e.g., certain storage tanks or 

transfer racks at chemical production 

facilities subject to the HON). To avoid 

overlap of requirements in tiiese cases, 

the OLD NESHAP would not apply to 

any OLD emission source already 

complying with control provisions 

under another part 63 NESHAP. For 

other applicable NESHAP that are not 

yet final and which potentially would 

apply to OLD equipment, die NESHAP 

that have the earliest compliance date 

would apply. One NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart FFFF, the 

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Production and Processes NESHAP 

(MON), is being developed concurrently 

with the OLD NESHAP, and potentially 

will regulate certain organic liquid 

distribution sources (i.e., storage tanks, 

transfer racks, and equipment leaks) 

located at MON facility plant sites. For 

all such distribution sources at MON 

facilities, the OLD NESHAP would defer 

to the MON and would not apply to any 

of those sources. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 

(42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Public Law 

101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes 

the national policy ofthe United States 

for pollution prevention. This Act 

declares that: (1) Pollution should be 

prevented or reduced whenever feasible; 

(2) pollution that cannot be prevented or 

reduced should be recycled or reused in 

an environmentally-safe manner 

wherever feasible; (3) pollution that 

cannot be recycled or reused should be 

treated; and (4) disposal or release into 

the atmosphere should be chosen only 

as a last resort. 

The OLD operations covered by these 

proposed standards distribute organic 

liquids that are often manufactured and 

consumed by other parties. Thus, two of 

the most common approaches for 

preventing pollution (product 

reformulation or substituting less 

polluting products) are not available to 

these facilities. Similarly, these facilities 

cannot use recycling or reuse as a way 

of limiting the amount of these liquids 

that they handle. However, the 

proposed equipment and work practice 

standards would prevent pollution from 

two of the principal emission sources in 

OLD operations. For storage tanks, we 

expect floating roofs to be used as a 

common alternative to add-on control 

technologies. For leaks from equipment 

such as pumps or valves, the required 

leak detection and repair program also 

would prevent pollution at the source 

without the need for add-on control 

equipment. The EPA is considering 

whether there are any pollution 

prevention measures that could be 

specified as alternatives to the control 

approaches in the proposed standards. 

We are specifically requesting 

comments from the public on ways that 

additional pollution prevention 

measures could be applied at OLD 

operations facilities. 

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. The 

category of major sources covered by 

today's proposed NESHAP was on our 

initial list of HAP emission source 

categories as published in the Federal 

Register on July 16,1992 (57 FR 31576). 

Major sources of HAP are those that 

have the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or 

more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or 

more of any combination of HAP. 

C. What Criteria Are Used in the 

Development of NESHAP? 

Section 112 of the CAA requires that 

we establish NESHAP for the control of 

HAP from both new and existing major 

sources. The CAA requires the 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 maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT). 

The MACT floor is the minimum 

control level allowed for NESHAP and 

is defined under section 112(d)(3) ofthe 

CAA. In essence, the MACT floor 

ensures that the standard is set at a level 

that assures that all major sources 

achieve the level of control at least as 

stringent as that already achieved by the 

better-controlled and lower-emitting 

sources in each source category or 

subcategory. For new sources, the 

MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing 5 sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). 

In developing MACT, we also 

consider control options tiiat are more 

stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than 

the floor based on consideration of the 

cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

D. What Are the Potential Health Effects 

Associated With HAP Emitted From 

OLD Operations? 

The type of adverse health effects 

associated with HAP emitted by this 

source category can range from mild to 

severe. The extent and degree to which 

health effects may be experienced is 

dependent upon: (1) The ambient 

concentrations observed in the area; (2) 

duration and frequency of exposures; 

and (3) characteristics of exposed 

individuals (e.g., genetics, age, 

preexisting health conditions, and 

lifestyle) which vary greatly within the 

population. Some of tiiese factors are 

also influenced by source-specific 

characteristics (e.g., emission rates, 

release heights, and local weather 

conditions) as well as pollutant-specific 

characteristics such as toxicity. The 

following is a summary of the potential 

health effects associated with exposure 

to some of the primary HAP emitted 

from OLD operations. 

Benzene. Acute (short-term) 

inhalation exposure of humans to 

benzene may cause drowsiness, 

dizziness, and headaches, as well as 

eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, 

and, at high levels, unconsciousness. 

Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure 

has caused various disorders in the 

blood, including reduced numbers of 

red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in 

occupational settings. Reproductive 

effects have been reported for women 

exposed by inhalation to high levels, 

and adverse effects on the developing 

fetus have been observed in animal 

tests. Increased incidence of leukemia 

(cancer of the tissues that form white 

blood cells) has been observed in 

humans occupationally exposed to 

benzene. The EPA has classified 

benzene as a Group A, known human 

carcinogen. 

Ethylbenzene. Acute exposure to 

ethylbenzene in humans results in 

respiratory effects such as throat 

irritation and chest constriction, 

irritation ofthe eyes, and neurological 

effects such as dizziness. Chronic 

exposure to ethylbenzene by inhalation 

in humans has shown conflicting results 

regarding its effects on the blood. 

Animal studies have reported effects on 

the blood, liver, and kidneys from 

chronic inhalation exposures. No 

information is available on the 

developmental or reproductive effects of 

ethylbenzene in humans, but animal 

*i 
P.6 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15677 

studies have reported developmental 

effects, including biith defects in 

animals exposed via inhalation. The 

EPA has classified ethylbenzene in 

Group D, not classifiable as to human 

carcinogenicity. 

Toluene. Humans exposed to toluene 

for short periods may experience 

irregular heartbeat and effects on the 

central nervous system (CNS) such as 

fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and 

nausea. Repeated exposure to high 

concentrations may induce loss of 

coordination, tremors, decreased brain 

size, and involuntary eye movements, 

and may impair speech, hearing, and 

vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in 

humans has also been indicated to 

irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory 

tract, and to cause dizziness, headaches, 

and difficulty with sleep. Children 

exposed to toluene before birth may 

suffer CNS dysfunction, attention 

deficits, and minor face and limb 

defects. Inhalation of toluene by 

pregnant women may increase the risk 

of spontaneous abortion. The EPA has 

developed a reference concentration of 

0.4 milligrams per cubic meters (mg/m3) 

for toluene. Inhalation of this 

concentration or less over a lifetime 

would be unlikely to result in adverse 

noncancer effects. No data exist that 

suggest toluene is carcinogenic. The 

EPA has classified toluene in Group D, 

not classifiable as to human 

carcinogenicity. 

Vinyl chloride. Acute exposure to 

high levels of vinyl chloride in air has 

resulted in CNS effects such as 

dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in 

humans. Chronic exposure to vinyl 

chloride through inhalation and oral 

exposure in humans has resulted in 

liver damage. Human and animal 

studies show adverse effects which raise 

a concern about potential reproductive 

and developmental hazards to humans 

from exposure to vinyl chloride. Cancer 

is a major concern from exposure to 

vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl 

chloride exposure has been shown to 

increase the risk of a rare form of liver 

cancer in humans. The EPA has 

classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, 

known human carcinogen. 

Xylenes. Short-term inhalation of 

mixed xylenes (a mixture of three 

closely related compounds) in humans 

may cause irritation of the nose and 

throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric 

irritation, mild transient eye irritation, 

and neurological effects. Long-term 

inhalation of xylenes in humans may 

result in CNS effects such as headaches, 

dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and 

incoordination. Other reported effects 

include labored breathing, heart 

palpitation, severe chest pain, abnormal 

electrocardiograms, and possible effects 

on the blood and kidneys. 

Developmental effects have been 

indicated from xylene exposure via 

inhalation in animals. Not enough 

information exists to determine the 

carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes. 

The EPA has classified xylenes in Group 

D, not classifiable as to human 

carcinogenicity. 

Implementation ofthe OLD NESHAP 

would reduce nationwide organic HAP 

emissions significantly from current 

levels. Thus, the proposed standards 

have the potential for providing both 

cancer and noncancer related health 

benefits. 

By requiring facilities to reduce 

organic HAP emitted from OLD 

operations, the proposed standards 

would also reduce emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). Many VOC 

react photochemically with nitrogen 

oxides in the atmosphere to form 

tropospheric (low-level) ozone. A 

number of factors affect the degree to 

which VOC emission reductions will 

reduce ambient ozone concentrations. 

Human laboratory and community 

studies have shown that exposure to 

ozone levels that exceed the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

can result in various adverse health 

impacts such as alterations in lung 

capacity and aggravation of existing 

respiratory disease. Animal studies have 

shown increased susceptibility to 

respiratory infection and lung structure 

changes. The VOC emissions reductions 

resulting from these proposed NESHAP 

will reduce low-level ozone and have a 

positive impact toward minimizing 

these health effects. 

Among the welfare impacts from 

exposure to air that exceeds the ozone 

NAAQS are damage to some types of 

commercial timber and economic losses 

for commercially valuable crops such as 

soybeans and cotton. Studies have 

shown that exposure to excessive ozone 

can disrupt carbohydrate production 

and distribution in plants. This can lead 

in turn to reduced root growth, reduced 

biomass or yield, reduced plant vigor 

(which can cause increased 

susceptibility to attack from insects and 

disease and damage from cold), and 

diminished ability to successfully 

compete with more tolerant species. In 

addition, excessive ozone levels may 

disrupt the structure and function of 

forested ecosystems. 

II. Summary ofthe Proposed Rule 

A. What Source Category Would Be 

Affected by the Proposed NESHAP? 

The proposed NESHAP would affect 

organic liquids distribution activities 

which, taken together, are considered to 

be a facility, or OLD operations. The 

regulated liquids consist of organic 

liquids that contain 5 percent by weight 

or more of the organic HAP compounds 

in Table 1 of the proposed subpart 

EEEE, and all crude oil except black oil. 

The activities in this category occur 

either at individual distribution 

facilities or on manufacturing plant sites 

that consume or produce the organic 

liquids regulated by the proposed 

standards. Only those OLD operations at 

major source facilities or plant sites 

would be regulated. 

B. What Are the Primary Sources of 

Emissions and What Are the Emissions? 

The emission of organic HAP vapors 

results from storing and transferring 

HAP-containing liquids. Fixed-roof 

tanks undergo losses due to atmospheric 

changes and changes in tlie liquid level 

in the tank. Floating roof tanks 

experience standing storage and liquid 

withdrawal losses and also losses from 

fittings on the floating deck. 

As organic liquids are loaded into 

cargo tanks (tank trucks and railcars) at 

transfer racks, vapors are emitted to die 

atmosphere as the rising liquid 

displaces vapors formed above the 

liquid. To control these vapor 

emissions, the parked cargo tank may be 

connected to a closed vent vapor 

collection system and control device. 

Even in these controlled transfer 

systems, vapors may leak to tlie 

atmosphere from hatch covers, relief 

valves, or other parts of tiie system. 

The equipment components used to 

convey organic liquids between tanks or 

pipelines can also be a source of vapor 

leakage. At OLD operations, tlie 

equipment of concern are pumps, 

valves, and sampling connection 

systems. 

The volatile constituents of organic 

liquids, many of which are HAP, escape 

in the vapors emitted from these 

sources. Our 1998 survey ofthe OLD 

industry indicates that essentially all of 

the organic HAP listed in the CAA are 

present in the liquids distributed in 

these operations. Based on that survey 

and other information, we have 

estimated the total current HAP 

emissions from OLD operations to be 

70,200 Mg/yr (77,300 tons/yr). 

C. What Would Be the Affected Source? 

The affected source would be tiie 

combination of all regulated OLD 

activities and equipment at a single OLD 

operation. The following regulated 

activities are typically performed within 

OLD operations and are part of the 

affected source: 

J> 
P.7 

15678 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

• Transfer of organic liquids into, and 

storage in, fixed-roof or floating roof 

storage tanks; 

• Transfer of organic liquids into 

cargo tanks (tank trucks or railcars) at 

transfer racks; and 

• Transfer of organic liquids through 

pumps, piping, valves, and other 

equipment that may potentially leak. 

Only those OLD operations facilities 

with an organic liquids throughput 

greater than 27.6 million liters (7.29 

million gallons) per year (either into or 

out ofthe facility) would be subject to 

the proposed standards. Also, only 

those transfer rack loading positions 

with an organic liquids throughput of 

11.8 million liters (3.12 million gallons) 

per year or greater would be required to 

install the specified emission controls 

on those activities. 

D. What Would Be the Emission Limits, 

Operating Limits, and Other Standards? 

The proposed NESHAP have various 

formats for the different activities and 

equipment being regulated. For affected 

storage tanks, you would have two 

options for control. First, you could 

install a closed vent system and control 

device with at least a 95 percent control 

efficiency for organic HAP or total 

organic compounds (TOC). As an 

option, combustion devices may meet 

an exhaust concentration limit of 20 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) of 

organic HAP or TOC. An operating 

parameter of the control device would 

have to be continuously monitored and 

maintained within the established 

operating limits. Second, you could 

meet a work practice standard by 

installing a properly constructed 

floating roof in the affected tank. The 

tank size and vapor pressure cutoffs 

defining affected tanks would be 

different for existing and new tanks. 

For affected organic liquids transfer 

racks, you would have to install a vapor 

collection system and a control device 

that achieves 95 percent control 

efficiency or 20 ppmv exhaust 

concentration for combustion devices, 

and you would have to continuously 

monitor the device. A work practice 

standard would apply to cargo tanks 

loading at these controlled racks. Each 

tank equipped with vapor collection 

equipment would have to be tested 

annually for vapor tightness using EPA 

Method 27. Cargo tanks not equipped 

with vapor collection equipment would 

have to be tested using the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) standard test 

procedures at DOT's required frequency. 

For cargo tanks that you do not own, 

you would have to ensure that each tank 

loading at affected loading positions is 

certified for vapor tightness. These 

proposed standards would be the same 

for existing or new transfer racks. 

A work practice standard would also 

apply to equipment (pumps, valves, and 

sampling connection systems) that is in 

organic liquids service for at least 300 

hours per year. This form of control 

involves regular instrument monitoring 

for leaks, and repair of leaking 

equipment. Owners and operators 

would have the option of applying the 

provisions of either subpart TT or UU of 

40 CFR part 63. This leak detection and 

repair (LDAR) standard is being 

proposed for both existing and new 

equipment. 

E. What Would Be the Testing and 

Initial Compliance Requirements? 

Affected OLD operations would need 

to determine which of their distributed 

liquids qualify as an organic liquid as 

defined in the proposed standards. The 

specified test method for this is EPA 

Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, and you would have the option of 

suggesting alternative approaches for 

the Administrator's approval. 

Control devices used for storage tanks 

or transfer racks would be subject to 

performance testing using EPA Method 

18, 25, or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or 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 

would be subject to visual and seal gap 

inspections to determine initial 

compliance with the tank work practice 

standards. The EPA Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, is specified 

for the equipment LDAR program.y 

All cargo tanks equipped with vapor 

collection equipment that are used to 

distribute organic liquids from affected 

transfer rack loading positions would 

have to be tested annually for vapor 

tightness using EPA Method 27 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A. For cargo 

tanks that are not so equipped, the 

current approved DOT methods would 

continue to be used. 

Initial compliance with the emission 

limits for storage tanks and transfer 

racks would consist of demonstrating 

that the control device achieves 95 

percent control efficiency for organic 

HAP or TOC, or 20 ppmv exhaust 

concentration for combustion devices. 

Note that all organic HAP are 

considered in this emission limit, not 

just the HAP listed in Table 1 of this 

proposed subpart. During the same 

initial performance test (or during a 

design evaluation ofthe device), you 

would establish the reference value or 

range for the appropriate operating 

parameter of the control device. 

Work practice standards are being 

proposed for storage tanks, transfer 

racks, and equipment. For floating roof 

storage tanks, you would have to 

visually inspect each internal floating 

roof tank before the initial filling. For 

external floating roof tanks, you must 

perform a seal gap inspection of the 

primary and secondary deck seals 

witiiin 90 days after filling. 

For affected transfer rack loading 

positions, you would have to maintain 

documentation showing that cargo tanks 

that will load at those positions are 

certified as vapor-tight. 

If you implement an LDAR program 

for your OLD equipment, you would 

have to provide us with written 

specifications of the program as part of 

. your initial compliance demonstration. 

F. What Would Be the Continuous 

Compliance Provisions? 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limitation 

for control devices controlling storage 

tanks or transfer racks, you would have 

to continuously monitor the appropriate 

operating parameter and keep a record 

ofthe monitoring data. Compliance 

would be demonstrated by maintaining 

the parameter value within the limits 

established during the initial 

compliance demonstration. 

There are different proposed means of 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

with the work practice standards, 

depending on the emission source. For 

floating roof storage tanks, you would 

have to visually inspect the tanks on a 

periodic basis and keep records of the 

inspections. For external floating roof 

tanks, seal gap measurements must be 

performed on the secondary seal once 

per year and on the primary seal every 

5 years. Any conditions causing 

inspection failures would need to be 

repaired and records of the repairs kept. 

The owner or operator would need to 

perform vapor tightness testing on cargo 

tanks and keep vapor tightness records 

of all cargo tanks loading at regulated 

rack loading positions, and also would 

have to take steps to ensure that only 

cargo tanks with vapor tightness 

certification are loaded at tiiese 

positions. Examples of these steps are 

contacting cargo tank owners to explain 

the vapor tightness requirements and 

posting reminder signs summarizing the 

requirements at the affected loading 

positions. 

(r 
P.8 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15679 

G. What Would Be the Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements? 

The proposed OLD NESHAP would 

require you to keep records and file 

reports consistent with the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the General Provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Two basic 

types of reports would be required: 

initial notification and semiannual 

compliance reports. The initial 

notification report would apprise the 

regulatory authority of applicability for 

existing sources or of construction for 

new sources. 

The initial compliance report would 

demonstrate that compliance had been 

achieved. This report would contain the 

results of the initial performance test, 

which include the determination of the 

reference operating parameter value or 

range and a list ofthe organic liquids 

and equipment subject to the standards. 

Subsequent compliance reports would 

describe any deviations of monitored 

parameters from reference values; 

failures to comply with the startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan 

(SSMP) for control devices; and results 

of LDAR monitoring and storage tank 

inspections. These reports are also used 

to notify the regulatory authority of any 

changes in the organic liquids handled 

or changes in the OLD equipment or 

operations. 

Records required under the proposed 

standards would have to be kept for 5 

years, with at least 2 of these years being 

on the facility premises. These records 

would include copies of all reports that 

you have submitted; an up-to-date 

record of your organic liquids and 

affected equipment; and a listing of all 

cargo tanks that transfer organic liquids 

at affected rack loading positions, 

including their vapor tightness 

certification. Monitoring data from 

control devices would have to be kept 

to ensure that operating limits are being 

maintained. Records from the LDAR 

program and storage vessel inspections, 

and records of startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of each control device are 

needed to ensure that the controls in 

place are continuing to be effective. 

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Standards 

A. How Did We Select the Source 

Category? 

Organic liquids distribution 

operations were included as a source 

category on our initial list of HAP 

source categories. Since liquid 

distribution is often carried out at 

SOCMI, refinery, or otiier manufacturing 

plant sites, there is the potential for 

overlapping control requirements in 

those cases where OLD activities are 

already regulated by other NESHAP. To 

avoid the situation where an emission 

source could be subject to multiple 

NESHAP, we are defining the OLD 

source category to exclude emission 

sources already covered by other 

NESHAP from control under these 

proposed standards. 

The proposed Organic Liquids 

Distribution (non-Gasoline) NESHAP 

would apply to organic liquids 

distribution activities at sites that are 

determined to be "major sources" as 

defined in section 112(a)(1) ofthe CAA. 

This means those plants or facilities 

where the stationary sources located 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control emit or have the 

potential to emit, considering controls, 

a total of 10 tpy or more of any single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. 

Under the EPA's 1995 Potential to 

Emit Transition Policy, State and local 

air regulators have the option of treating 

the following types of sources as 

nonmajor under section 112 and permit 

programs under title V ofthe CAA: (1) 

sources that maintain adequate records 

to demonstrate that their actual 

emissions are less than 50 percent of the 

applicable major source threshold and 

have continued to operate at less than 

50 percent of the threshold since 

January 1994; and (2) sources with 

actual emissions between 50 and 100 

percent of the threshold, but which hold 

State-enforceable limits that are 

enforceable as a practical matter. During 

the EPA's rulemaking related to the 

potential to emit (PTE) requirements in 

the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A) and the title V operating 

permits program, we have issued three 

extensions to the original transition 

policy, the latest memorandum dated 

December 20,1999 and entitled, "Third 

Extension of January 25,1995 Potential 

to Emit Transition Policy." Sources that 

comply ..with either of the two criteria 

listed above will not be considered a 

major source under the OLD NESHAP. 

However, sources will be required to 

comply with the applicable provisions 

of the final PTE rule as of the effective 

date of that rule. 

Organic liquids distribution 

operations that do not meet the criteria 

for a major source under the PTE 

transition policy are not being regulated 

at this time. We may consider area 

sources for regulation at a future date as 

part of the area source strategy 

authorized under section 112(k) ofthe 

CAA. 

The source category covered by the 

proposed standards is not a single 

established "industry" in the usual 

sense, but involves a number of 

traditional industry segments. The 

purpose of the proposed standards is to 

enact controls on major source OLD 

operations wherever they occur, and 

this includes a variety of traditional 

industries. While these industry 

segments are distinct from one anotiier 

(for example, they are described by 

several different SIC/NAICS codes), they 

are related to each other because tiiey 

handle similar types of liquids which 

are inputs or outputs of tiie other 

segments. As an example, a particular 

organic liquids produced by a chemical 

manufacturing facility may be handled 

by a for-hire storage terminal, and then 

enter another manufacturing plant to bo 

used in the making of a product. 

We believe the OLD source category is 

best explained through a description of 

the organic liquids and distribution 

activities that are affected, and tiie types 

of facilities where the OLD activities 

occur. 

The organic liquids affected by tiie 

proposed standards are those liquids 

that contain 5 percent by weight or more 

ofthe 69 organic HAP listed in Table 1 

ofthe proposed subpart. These liquids 

include pure HAP chemicals (straight 

toluene, for example), petroleum 

liquids, and many blended mixtures and 

solutions of organic HAP chemicals tiiat 

are stored and transported in bulk 

throughout the economy. The proposed 

rule would also affect all crude oil, with 

the exception of black oil, that has 

undergone custody transfer out of 

production facilities, even though 

individual crudes may have a total HAP 

content either above or below 5 percent 

by.weight. Note that gasoline (including 

aviation gasoline) distribution is 

excluded from the proposed OLD 

NESHAP because tiiese operations are 

already covered by the Gasoline 

Distribution NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart R. 

The OLD activities and equipment 

that would be subject to the proposed 

control requirements are: (a) Storage of 

organic liquids in stationary storage 

tanks; (b) organic liquids transfer into 

cargo tanks (tank trucks or railcars) at 

transfer racks; and (c) the equipment 

components used in organic liquids 

transfer activities (pumps, valves, and 

sampling connection systems). Note tiiat 

distribution under the proposed 

standards consists of those activities 

involved in storing organic liquids and 

transferring them either onto or off a 

major source plant site. 

Organic liquids distribution is carried 

out at three primary categories of 

operations. First is the stand-alone bulk 

terminal, which typically receives, 

7 
P.9 

15680 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

stores, and sends out liquids owned by 

other companies ("for-hire" facilities). 

These facilities are not collocated with 

a manufacturing site and will be 

affected if they meet the major source 

criteria based on their OLD activities. 

Some chemical companies own standalone terminals to distribute their own 

liquids, and they may also lease storage 

space at these terminals to other 

companies. The second category 

consists of OLD operations that are 

contiguous and under common control 

with a manufacturing (e.g., SOCMI 

facility or petroleum refinery) plant site. 

The OLD operations that satisfy the 

annual throughput cutoff at plant sites 

that constitute a major source of HAP 

will be subject to the proposed 

standards. There may also be additional 

types of manufacturing facilities that 

have affected OLD operations. The third 

facility type is pipeline stations, 

typically handling crude oil, that have 

breakout storage tanks used to absorb 

surges in the pipeline flow or to serve 

as distribution points for other modes 

(marine vessels, etc.) outside ofthe 

pipeline. 

Section 112(d)(1) ofthe CAA requires 

us to promulgate NESHAP for "each 

category or subcategory of major sources 

and area sources of hazardous air 

pollutants listed for regulation * * *" 

Subcategorization of a source category is 

sometimes appropriate for NESHAP 

when industrial segments within the 

category have different types of 

processes or emission characteristics or 

require the use of different types of 

control techniques. As we developed 

the proposed OLD NESHAP, we 

considered whether we should develop 

different control requirements for the 

various OLD industry segments. 

A review of the OLD data base and the 

information gathered during our site 

visits to OLD facilities showed that, 

despite the extreme operating 

conditions that occur in the process 

units at SOCMI facilities and refineries, 

the liquid distribution operations at the 

various types of facilities are carried out 

under conditions at or close to ambient. 

Furthermore, common organic HAP 

control technologies (such as thermal 

oxidizers and flares) are applicable to 

and in use for the activities performed 

at all ofthe facility types. Thus, based 

on these factors, we concluded that 

designation of separate subcategories for 

the purpose of developing different 

emission standards in the OLD NESHAP 

was not warranted. 

B. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Pollutants To Be Regulated? 

The data base of results from our 1998 

survey of OLD operations indicates the 

presence of about 93 different HAP in 

all of the reported liquids, which is 

most of the organic compounds or 

groups of compounds listed as HAP 

under section 112(b) ofthe CAA. The 

variety of HAP is so large because the 

OLD industry represents the sum total 

of the chemical and petroleum liquids 

handled throughout industry (except 

gasoline). Yet, there may be additional 

organic HAP in liquids that are not in 

the EPA's OLD data base. 

We considered whether it would be 

reasonable to select all organic HAP 

listed under section 112(b) for 

regulation in the OLD NESHAP. Some 

organic HAP have a very low potential 

to be emitted to the atmosphere from 

OLD operations because of their low 

volatilities (vapor pressure value). We 

do not consider it reasonable for 

facilities that may have a significant part 

of their OLD operations dedicated to 

handling low-volatility HAP liquids to 

apply controls representing MACT to 

those activities. 

As a result, we decided it would be 

appropriate to develop a list ofthe 

specific organic HAP to be regulated by 

the proposed standards. We first made 

a listing of all ofthe HAP believed to 

exist in OLD operations, ranked in order 

of decreasing vapor pressure (at 25 

degrees C). We then selected a vapor 

pressure cutoff of 0.1 pound per square 

inch absolute (psia) (about 0.7 

kilopascal) to exclude the compounds 

with the lowest volatilities from the 

bottom ofthe table. This cutoff point 

was selected and was agreed to by 

industry reviewers as a reasonable level 

below which the emission potential 

would be minimal. The 0.7 kilopascal 

vapor pressure cutoff is recommended 

by the fact that the HON (in Table 6 of 

40 CFR part 63, appendix to subpart G) 

requires the application of controls for 

new storage vessels with a capacity of 

151 cubic meters or greater and storing 

liquids with a vapor pressure of 0.7 

kilopascal or greater. The proposed 

applicability cutoffs for OLD storage 

tanks are similar to the cutoffs in the 

HON (for example, new OLD tanks 

larger than 151 cubic meters storing any 

liquid with a vapor pressure greater 

than 0.7 kilopascal would be covered). 

If we choose a cutoff higher than 0.7 

kilopascal, which would leave even 

fewer HAP subject to control, there 

would be an inconsistency between the 

HAP table and the proposed storage 

tank applicability cutoffs. Therefore, on 

the basis of these considerations, we 

used a cutoff of 0.7 kilopascal to derive 

the specific organic HAP listed in Table 

1 ofthe proposed standards. 

The proposed standards would affect 

OLD activities involving two categories 

of organic liquids: (1) Those liquids 

containing at least 5 percent by weight 

ofthe HAP listed in Table 1 ofthe 

proposed subpart; and (2) all crude oils 

except black oil. As with the 0.7 

kilopascal cutoff used to determine 

which HAP would be in Table 1, the 

intent ofthe 5 percent HAP cutoff is to 

exclude the lowest emitting organic 

liquids from the control requirements. 

The 5 percent HAP cutoff also has 

precedent in existing part 63 subparts. 

In the HON, 40 CFR part 63, subpart H 

and the NESHAP for Polycarbonate 

Production (40 CFR 63.1103(d), subpart 

YY), the equipment leak provisions 

affect only equipment containing or 

contacting a fluid that is at least 5 

percent by weight of total organic HAP, 

on an annual average basis. 

Our analysis of 17 different crude oil 

profiles indicated an average HAP 

weight percentage in the emitted vapors 

of about 6.0 percent. However, about 

half of these samples had a HAP 

percentage below 5 percent. Under the 

5 percent HAP cutoff defining a 

regulated organic liquid, this would 

exempt from control a large amount of 

the crude oil as it enters and leaves 

distribution facilities. 

Despite its relatively low HAP 

content, crude oil had a significant 

vapor pressure that was as high as 8 psia 

and averaged about 3.5 psia for all ofthe 

profile data we examined. Also, crude 

oil is estimated to make up 

approximately 68 percent of the volume 

of organic liquids in the distribution 

system, and 84 percent ofthe volume 

for liquids with a HAP content below 10 

percent. Since the potential emissions 

from crude oil are a significant fraction 

ofthe total OLD emissions, we believe 

that the potential reductions from 

controlling crude oil would be 

significant and are a compelling reason 

to regulate all distributed crude oil 

except for the specific variety discussed 

below. 

Black oil is a form of crude oil that we 

determined in the final NESHAP for Oil 

and Gas Production, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart HH, to have a very low potential 

to produce flash emissions from storage 

tanks. Furthermore, tanks containing 

black oil are not considered to bei 

affected sources under subpart HH. We 

are including a similar exemption for 

black oil in the OLD NESHAP because 

we do not consider storage or transfer of 

black oil to constitute a significant 

emission source. The definition of black 

oil is being altered from that used in 

subpart HH. In subpart HH it is the 

"initial producing" gas-to-oil ratio and 

API (American Petroleum Institute) 

gravity that are used to define some 

crude oils as black oil. For this proposed 
P.10 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 1568 1 

subpart, we are using the gas-to-oil ratio 

and API gravity of the crude oil at the 

point of entry to the distribution system 

to define the crude oil as black oil. 

C. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Affected Source? 

The affected source would be the 

combination of all regulated emission 

sources at an OLD operations facility. 

The regulated emission sources at an 

OLD operations facility are: 

• Storage tanks; 

• Transfer racks; and 

• Equipment in organic liquids 

service. 

We have chosen a broad source 

definition which allows a storage tank, 

transfer rack, or single piece of 

equipment to be replaced or upgraded 

without its replacement being 

designated as a new source. The broad 

source definition was chosen for this 

source category because a more narrow 

source definition would mean that a 

change to an individual regulated 

emission source at a facility could cause 

that individual emission source to be 

designated as new. The designation as 

new would mean that the individual 

emission source (such as a single storage 

tank) would be required to observe the 

emission or operating limits in the 

proposed subpart for new sources. It 

also means that the emission source 

would need to be permitted separately, 

and its recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements could fall on intervals 

different from the rest of the facility. We 

looked at the emissions reductions that 

could possibly be gained through a 

narrow definition of affected source and 

decided that, on balance, a broad 

definition is the better choice. 

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and 

Level ofthe Proposed Standards for 

Existing and New Sources? 

1. MACT Floor Determination 

We determined separate MACT floors 

for each of the emission sources that 

exist at OLD operations. We received 

data through questionnaire responses 

from 247 facilities owned or operated by 

77 companies. These facilities reflected 

the various major industry segments 

involved in organic liquids distribution. 

However, due to the pervasive nature of 

distribution operations throughout the 

economy, we believe that our survey 

only captured about 40 percent of all of 

the large OLD operations in the country. 

Additional detailed information was 

obtained from site visits to nine OLD 

facilities. The data collected represent a 

complete range of the large facilities that 

would be affected by the proposed 

standard. Therefore, we believe the data 

are representative of OLD operations 

tiiroughout the country. 

We determined MACT floors for 

existing sources based on the arithmetic 

average ofthe lowest-emitting 12 

percent where this approach made sense 

and produced a result that corresponded 

to use of a specific control technology. 

For the remaining cases, we used the 

median (middle) value to represent the 

MACT floor. For storage tanks and 

transfer racks, floors were determined 

for each subgroup (size and vapor 

pressure range for tanks, vapor pressure 

range for loading positions). For the 

several storage tank subgroups with 

fewer than 30 sources, we used the . 

median of the five lowest-emitting tanks 

(the third tank). 

Using the storage tank data collected 

from OLD operations, we determined 

the relative emissions from 1,175 

reported tanks and listed these tanks 

from lowest to highest emitting witiiin 

several tank size and liquid vapor 

pressure ranges. For transfer racks, we 

listed individual loading positions from 

lowest to highest emitting, starting with 

those with a control device, followed by 

those using bottom or submerged 

loading, and finally those using splash 

fill (considered the baseline, 

uncontrolled case). For equipment 

leaks, the facilities with a Federal LDAR 

program were listed first, followed by 

those with a State or local program, and 

then those with no program. 

The best controlled storage tanks at 

OLD facilities in our data base use either 

a closed vent system and control device 

or a well-designed internal or external 

floating roof. These controls represent 

the maximum level of control available 

for storage tanks. The existing source 

MACT floor for tanks was determined to 

be a choice of control device or a 

floating roof with effective emission 

seals. The specific tank sizes and 

organic liquids to which the MACT 

floor applies are essentially the same as 

those in the HON. 

The best controlled transfer racks at 

the OLD operations facilities in our 

survey data base are equipped with a 

vapor collection system and control 

device to reduce organic HAP 

emissions. Control efficiencies for these 

devices were reported as ranging from 

below 90 percent to over 99 percent, but 

no test data were provided to support 

these control efficiencies. The MACT 

floor for existing transfer racks was 

determined to be the use of a control 

device, without identifying any specific 

control efficiencies that constitute the 

floor. However, based on the types of 

devices in use and the liquids being 

controlled, we believe that a control 

efficiency of 95 percent is appropriate 

for this floor. 

The best controlled OLD equipment is 

subject to an instrument-based LDAR 

program, and we found that an LDAR 

program similar to the HON program 

represents the existing source MACT 

floor. 

For new sources, the CAA requires 

the MACT floor to be based on the 

degree of emissions reductions achieved 

in practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The MACT floor for new sources 

and existing sources is the same in tiie 

case of transfer racks (use of a control 

device) and equipment leaks (an 

instrument LDAR program). For storage 

tanks, the control technologies in the 

MACT floors for existing and new 

sources are also the same. However, in 

the new source floor, these controls are 

applied to smaller tanks and to less 

volatile liquids when they are stored in 

larger tanks. 

A more detailed summary of the 

MACT floor analysis, including the data 

and the considerations used to 

determine the MACT floors for OLD 

operations, can be found in tlie 

technical support document located in 

the docket. 

2. Beyond-the-Floor Levels of Control 

Using the MACT floor levels as a 

starting point, we investigated whetiier 

any applicable control approaches were 

available tiiat were both more stringent 

than these floors and satisfied tiie 

criteria in section 112(d)(2) ofthe CAA. 

The MACT floors for existing and new 

organic liquids storage tanks consist of 

a choice between tiie emission 

limitation in the HON (closed vent 

system and control device at 95 percent 

efficiency) and the floating roof 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

WW. These controls represent the 

maximum level of control available for 

storage tanks. The tank capacity and 

liquid vapor pressure cutoffs defining 

which tanks would be affected are the 

same as those in the HON. We believe 

that these cutoffs define all of the 

storage tanks that it is reasonable to 

regulate with MACT technology. 

Therefore, we were not able to identify 

any reasonable technologies that would 

create beyond-the-floor control levels 

for storage tanks. 

The best controlled organic liquids 

transfer racks achieve emissions 

reductions of 95 percent or greater using 

a closed vent system and control device. 

Due to the diversity of liquids handled 

in the industry and the consequent use 

of a variety of control devices, we 

concluded that levels above 95 percent 

should not be considered as an 

alternative control level for transfer 

4 
P.11 

15682 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

racks. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor 

control levels were deemed achievable 

for this emission source. 

The best controlled OLD equipment is 

subject to an instrument-based LDAR 

program, and we found that an LDAR 

program similar to the HON program 

represents both the existing and new 

source MACT floors. We have not 

identified any beyond-the-floor control 

approaches that provide better control 

of leakage emissions from equipment at 

a reasonable cost. 

3. Selection ofthe Standards 

Some OLD operations may involve 

very low organic liquids throughputs 

because they operate intermittently, but 

they would still be defined as a major 

source if they are on the same plant site 

as a major source manufacturing 

operation. We desired a small size cutoff 

to exempt OLD operations with a very 

small amount of distribution activity. 

The survey data did not indicate any 

specific organic liquids throughput into 

or out of a facility that would help us 

in identifying a lower size threshold for 

the size of OLD operations facility that 

should be affected by the proposed 

standards. Therefore, we turned to 

existing Federal and State organic 

liquids transfer rules. The cutoff value 

of 20,000 gallons per day is frequently 

used to identify affected transfer 

facilities. This value converts to 27.6 

million liters per year, the smallest size 

facility we are proposing to affect by 

these standards. This is a reasonable 

approach as facilities below this size 

cutoff do not have the volume of organic 

liquids throughput that would yield 

emissions warranting control, as 

identified by other Federal and State 

rules. If the throughputs into and out of 

the facility during a calendar year are 

different, then the larger of the two 

values would be used to determine 

whether the operation is affected by 

these proposed standards. 

The proposed standards were selected 

following the completion of the MACT 

floor and beyond-the-floor analyses. 

After we determined that there were no 

reasonable control measures more 

stringent than the MACT floors, we used 

the floors as the basis for the selection 

ofthe standards. While some of our 

survey responses appeared to indicate 

control levels beyond the levels 

normally associated with these devices 

(i.e., many reports at or near 100 percent 

efficiency), we believed that these 

values did not represent the continuous 

performance of the control devices in 

use. Also, these high efficiency values 

were not supported by test data. 

Therefore, a control efficiency of 95 

percent is being proposed for control 

devices used for storage tanks or transfer 

racks. To be consistent with the results 

from the test methods allowed for 

showing compliance, this control 

efficiency can be demonstrated in terms 

of either total organic HAP or TOC. In 

addition, combustion devices have an 

optional emission limit of 20 ppmv of 

organic HAP or TOC in the exhaust. 

Some transfer racks at OLD facilities 

are used only on a periodic or 

intermittent basis and, therefore, have 

relatively low volume throughputs and 

low emissions. We do not believe it 

would be reasonable to install a control 

system on such low usage racks. 

However, the survey data did not 

indicate any specific throughput level 

below which transfer rack emission 

controls were not being used in OLD 

operations. 

As the survey data could not provide 

direction on a throughput cutoff, we 

searched existing Federal and State air 

rules to evaluate the cutoffs in use. The 

provisions of 40 CFR 63.1101, subpart 

YY (Generic MACT Standards), define a 

low throughput transfer rack as a rack 

that transfers less than 11.8 million 

liters (3.12 million gallons) per year of 

liquid containing regulated HAP. This 

cutoff is equivalent to about one tank 

truck full of liquid per day. No 

additional cutoffs affecting individual 

transfer racks were identified. The 

cutoff used in subpart YY was 

considered reasonable for the OLD 

transfer rack control requirement, and, 

therefore, we are proposing to regulate 

only those transfer rack positions that 

load 11.8 million liters per year or more 

of organic liquid. 

A transfer rack may have more than 

one loading position (i.e., "parking 

spot") for cargo tanks. Since each 

loading position may receive liquid 

from a specific storage tank 

independently ofthe other positions, 

each position can be considered an 

individual emission source during the 

time that a cargo tank is in place and 

loading liquid. Therefore, we are 

proposing to apply both the emission 

limit and throughput cutoff to each 

individual loading position. Under this 

approach, owners and operators would 

have maximum flexibility in 

determining the optimum configuration 

for their loading activities. 

At controlled transfer racks (those 

equipped with a vapor collection system 

and a control device), fugitive emissions 

may occur from leaking truck transport 

tanks or railcars through dome covers, 

malfunctioning pressure relief vents, or 

other potential leak sources. Thus, a 

requirement to control liquid transfer 

operations using a vapor Collection 

system and control device could be 

ineffective if the cargo tanks leak vapors 

to the atmosphere during the loading 

process. For cargo tanks equipped with 

vapor collection equipment (which 

typically includes an integrated vapor 

valve that is opened to release vapors to 

the control system during loading), EPA 

Method 27 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, is specified for ensuring the tank's 

vapor tightness. Tank trucks used for 

gasoline distribution are routinely 

equipped for vapor collection and 

undergo an annual Method 27 test 

under the NESHAP regulating gasoline 

distribution. However, tank trucks in 

organic chemical service typically are 

not equipped for vapor collection. For 

these tanks, Method 27 would not be 

applicable. Instead, the current DOT 

methods which require periodic leak 

testing of chemical tank trucks and 

railcars are in place and effective for 

organic liquids cargo tanks. 

E. How Did We Select the Format of the 

Proposed Standards? 

The format selected for the proposed 

standards was developed after a 

comprehensive review of Federal and 

State rules affecting the same emission 

sources that occur in similar industries. 

Our goal was to set an overall format 

that is compatible with the applicable 

test methods, reflects the performance of 

the MACT technologies, and is 

consistent with the formats used in 

other NESHAP for similar HAP sources. 

The proposed standards for OLD 

operations consist of a combination of 

several formats: numerical emission 

limits and operating limits, equipment 

standards, and work practice standards. 

Section 112(h) ofthe CAA states that 

"* * * if it is not feasible in the 

judgment of the Administrator to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard for control of a hazardous air 

pollutant or pollutants, the 

Administrator may, in lieu thereof, 

promulgate a design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standard, or 

combination thereof * * *." Section 

112(h) further defines the phrase "not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard" as any situation in 

which"* * * a hazardous air pollutant 

or pollutants cannot be emitted through 

a conveyance designed and constructed 

to emit or capture such pollutant, * * * 

or the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable * * *." 

Numerical emission limits are feasible 

for storage tanks and transfer racks 

outfitted with a closed vent system and 

a control device. For these control 

situations, we have proposed a 

percentage control efficiency for 

consistency with the HON and the 

/O 
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15683 

Refinery NESHAP, which taken 

together, regulate a great number of the 

organic liquids handled in OLD 

operations. To allow flexibility, we are 

proposing a 95 percent control 

efficiency limit in terms of either total 

organic HAP or TOC. For combustion 

devices, we are proposing an alternate 

emission limit of 20 ppmv of either 

organic HAP or TOC. Depending on the 

test methods chosen, the owner or 

operator would select the most suitable 

format. 

The proposed 95 percent and 20 

ppmv limits apply not to entire transfer 

racks but to each individual loading 

position at the racks. We felt that under 

this format, sources would have more 

freedom in choosing how to organize 

the transfer of affected organic liquids. 

For example, at a rack with two loading 

positions you might designate and 

configure one position to be an 

uncontrolled position, and another 

position to be a controlled position 

piped through a vapor collection system 

to a control device. You could then load 

affected organic liquids only at the 

controlled position but could still load 

unregulated liquids through the same 

rack at the uncontrolled position. 

Equipment and work practice 

standards affect each of the emission 

sources being regulated. The following 

subparagraphs describe the selection of 

these formats. 

Floating Roof Standard for Storage 

Tanks 

You would have the option of 

installing floating roofs that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

WW, in your affected storage tanks. The 

floating roof option has been included 

in most Federal rules affecting storage 

tanks. Our goal was to be consistent 

with these other rules and to provide 

you with flexibility in controlling the 

storage tanks that contain affected 

organic liquids. 

Vapor Tightness Testing for Cargo 

Tanks 

For the closed vent (vapor collection) 

system on transfer racks to be effective 

in conveying all of the displaced HAP 

vapors to the control device, the cargo 

tanks must be maintained in a way that 

minimizes leakage. There is no means 

available for collecting or measuring 

these leakage emissions. Therefore, we 

have proposed a work practice standard 

consisting of an annual vapor tightness 

test which involves pressurizing the 

empty tank and measuring any loss of 

pressure. The same approach is used for 

cargo tanks in two of the Federal rules 

that affect gasoline distribution, the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

for bulk gasoline terminals (40 CFR part 

60, subpart XX), and the Gasoline 

Distribution NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart R). 

Leak Detection and Repair Program for 

Equipment 

The LDAR program has been used for 

many years as the principal means of 

locating leaking equipment for repairs to 

maintain low emission rates on 

equipment components. In surveying 

OLD operations nationwide, we found 

that about 35 percent ofthe facilities are 

under a Federal LDAR requirement. 

Therefore, we decided that this format 

would be the best approach for the 

equipment requirements. Owners and 

operators would have the choice 

between the LDAR requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU. 

F. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements? 

These NESHAP propose to control 

three different emission points: Storage 

tanks, transfer racks, and equipment 

leaks. The control technologies and 

work practices used to control these 

emission points would have different 

testing and initial compliance 

requirements. The metiiods proposed 

for testing and for demonstrating initial 

compliance with the proposed 

standards are similar to tiiose in other 

Federal NESHAP using these same 

control technologies and work practices. 

The HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G) 

prescribes EPA Method 18 or 25A for 

determining the control efficiency of a 

control device. We have added EPA 

Method 25 to allow additional 

flexibility. In addition, if a principal 

component of the inlet gas stream to the 

control device is formaldehyde, EPA 

Method 316 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, may be used instead of Method 18 to 

measure the formaldehyde. 

The HON also specifies EPA Method 

21 for performing LDAR monitoring. 

The visual and seal gap inspections 

proposed for determining the initial 

compliance of floating roof tanks are the 

methods outlined in subpart WW of 40 

CFR part 63. The EPA Method 27 is the 

method proposed for confirming the 

vapor tightness of tank trucks and 

railcars equipped with vapor collection 

equipment. This is the same approach 

required for testing cargo tanks in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart R, the Gasoline 

Distribution NESHAP. We have 

determined while developing other part 

63 rules that these methods are 

appropriate for fulfilling the testing and 

initial compliance requirements in 

standards for HAP emissions. 

G. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Continuous Compliance Requirements? 

Continuous monitoring is required by 

the proposed standards so that we can 

determine whether a source is in 

compliance on an ongoing basis. When 

determining appropriate monitoring 

options, we considered tiie availability 

and feasibility of a number of 

monitoring strategies. 

In evaluating the use of continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS) in 

these proposed standards, we 

determined that monitoring of HAP 

compounds emitted from control 

devices is feasible and has been 

implemented in otiier rules at certain 

types of facilities. However, the cost of 

applying monitors that provide a 

continuous measurement in tiie units of 

tiiese proposed standards would be 

unacceptably high. Similarly, we found 

that continuous monitoring of a HAP 

surrogate (such as TOC) would not 

provide an accurate indication of 

compliance with the proposed HAP 

emission limitations because of die 

many non-HAP organic compounds. 

Monitoring of control device 

operating parameters is considered 

appropriate for many other emission 

sources (such as gasoline distribution 

sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

R) and, therefore, we have included tiiis 

as the primary monitoring approach in 

these proposed standards. Based on 

information from OLD sources, we 

selected operating parameters fbr the 

following types of control devices that 

are reliable indicators of control device 

performance: Thermal and catalytic 

oxidizers, flares, adsorbers, and 

condensers. In general, we selected 

parameters and monitoring provisions 

that were included in both subpart R 

and the HON. Sources would monitor 

these parameters to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with tiie 

emission limits and operating limits. 

The proposed NESHAP also requires 

monitoring for the storage tank work 

practice standards which consist of 

periodic inspections' of the floating roof 

seals. We took this approach because 

there is no device available to 

continuously monitor the performance 

of the roof seals. 

You may choose an alternative to the 

monitoring required by tiiese proposed 

standards. If you do, you would have to 

request approval for alternative 

monitoring according to the procedures 

in § 63.8 of the General Provisions. 

H. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements? 

The required notifications and other 

reporting are based on the General 

/ / 
P.13 

15684 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 

63. The initial notification and the 

semiannual compliance reports include 

information on organic liquids and 

affected OLD activities, and they would 

require any changes to this information 

to be reported in subsequent reports. 

Similarly, records would be required 

that will enable an inspector to verify 

the facility's compliance status. Due to 

the nature of control devices that would 

be installed on OLD operations and the 

emissions being controlled, we have 

determined that control device 

parameter monitoring is appropriate in 

this circumstance. The proposed records 

and reports are necessary to allow the 

regulatory authority to verify that the 

source is continuing to comply with the 

standards. 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Impacts 

As discussed earlier, organic liquids 

distribution activities are carried out at 

many different types of facilities. Most 

of these facilities can be grouped under 

three general categories: Stand-alone 

(usually for-hire) storage terminals 

dedicated to distribution activities; OLD 

operations collocated with a petroleum 

refinery, chemical manufacturing, 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 proposed standards, there 

were approximately the following 

numbers of major source OLD facilities: 

480 collocated OLD operations, 135 

stand-alone terminals, and 35 crude oil 

pipeline stations, for a total of about 650 

existing major source OLD plant sites. 

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? 

On a nationwide basis, the OLD 

operations at facilities that would be 

affected by the proposed NESHAP emit 

an estimated 70,200 Mg/yr (77,300 tons/ 

yr) of HAP. Most ofthe organic HAP 

listed in section 112(b)(1) ofthe CAA 

are included in these emissions. After 

the promulgated standards are 

implemented, HAP emissions will be 

reduced by approximately 19,700 Mg/yr 

(21,700 tpy), or 28 percent, from the 

baseline. Such emissions impacts are 

likely to reduce the risk of adverse 

effects of HAP. 

Although the proposed OLD NESHAP 

would not specifically require control of 

VOC emissions, the organic HAP 

emission control technologies upon 

which the proposed standards are based 

would also significantly reduce VOC 

emissions from the source category. We 

estimate that implementation of the 

promulgated NESHAP would reduce 

nationwide VOC emissions by about 

33,700 Mg/yr (37,100 tpy), or 28 

percent, from baseline levels. This will 

have the effect of reducing ozone-related 

health and welfare impacts. 

B. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

The cost of implementing the 

proposed standards for affected OLD 

operations would consist ofthe capital 

and annualized costs to control storage 

tanks, transfer racks, and equipment 

leaks, and the costs of complying with 

the monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Approximately 1,740 storage tanks, or 

23 percent ofthe 7,725 tanks used in 

OLD operations, would need to be 

controlled (or further controlled) to 

meet the proposed control requirements. 

Depending on the size and configuration 

of a particular tank, the capital cost 

would vary from $4,300 to $120,000 per 

tank. The total capital cost to control all 

1,740 tanks is estimated at $84.3 

million. 

Transfer rack controls would consist 

of installing a flare or other control 

device at approximately 200 OLD 

operations, at an estimated total capital 

cost of $5.4 million. Since organic 

liquids cargo tanks are typically not 

equipped with vapor collection 

equipment, most of them would 

continue to undergo the DOT leak 

tightness testing and not the annual EPA 

Metiiod 27 testing. The total annual cost 

for performing Method 27 on the small 

number of equipped cargo tanks is 

estimated at about $21,700 per year. 

The establishment of an LDAR 

program for equipment leak control at 

about 430 existing operations 

nationwide would involve a capital cost 

of approximately $3.5 million. 

The annual cost for industry to keep 

records and prepare and send the 

necessary reports is estimated at about 

$12.7 million per year. 

We have estimated the total 

nationwide capital cost (in 1997 dollars) 

of implementing the proposed rule at 

$94.4 million, and the annual cost at 

$41.4 million per year. We are soliciting 

comment from the public on the 

accuracy of the cost impacts that are 

summarized above and presented in 

detail in the TSD. 

C. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

The economic impact analysis shows 

that the expected price increase for 

affected output would be less than 0.01 

percent as a result of the proposed 

standard for petroleum producers, 

pipeline operators, and petroleum bulk 

terminals, and less than 0.02 percent for 

chemical manufacturers. The expected 

change in production of affected output 

is a reduction of less than 0.01 percent 

for petroleum producers, pipeline 

operators, and petroleum bulk 

terminals, and less than 0.02 percent for 

chemical manufacturers. None ofthe 

facilities out ofthe 651 affected are 

expected to close as a result of incurring 

costs of the proposed standard. 

Therefore, it is likely that there is no 

adverse impact expected to occur for 

those industries that produce output 

affected by this proposed rule, such as 

chemical manufacturers, petroleum 

refineries, pipeline operators, and 

petroleum bulk terminal operators. 

D. What Are the Nonair Quality Health, 

Environmental, and Energy Impacts? 

Water quality would not be 

significantly affected by implementation 

ofthe proposed-standards. The 

proposed standards do not contain any 

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 proposed 

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. 

We also project that there will be no 

significant solid waste or noise impact. 

Neither flares, thermal oxidizers, 

scrubbers, nor condensers generate any 

solid waste as a by-product of their 

operation. When adsorption systems are 

used, the spent activated carbon or other 

adsorbent tiiat cannot be further 

regenerated may be disposed of in a 

landfill, which would contribute a small 

amount of solid waste. 

We have tested the noise level from 

control devices and found these levels 

(usually due to pumps and blowers) to 

be moderate (less than 70 decibels at 7 

meters). Thus, the noise impact would 

be small. 

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 ofthe 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. 

/ ^ 
P.14 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15685 

V. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is "significant" and, therefore, subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) 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 governments or 

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 legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, tiie 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers this a "significant 

regulatory action" within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. EPA has 

submitted this action to OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

OMB suggestions or recommendations 

will be documented in the public 

record. Any written comments from 

OMB and written EPA responses are 

available in the docket (see ADDRESSES 

section of this preamble). 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the 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 Section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, the 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 the 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 the EPA consults with State 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

This proposed 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. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

proposed rule. 

C. 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 

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." 

This proposed 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 tribal governments are believed to 

own or operate an affected source. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 

policy to promote communications 

between EPA and tribal governments, 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

D. 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 healtli or safety risk tiiat 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the EPA must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, aiid 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the EPA. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to tiiose 

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. This proposed 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it is based on technology 

performance and not on healtli or safety 

risks. No children's risk analysis was 

performed because no alternative 

technologies exist that would provide 

greater stringency at a reasonable cost. 

Furthermore, this proposed rule has 

been determined not to be 

"economically significant" as defined 

under Executive Order 12866. 

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211, "Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), required EPA to prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to 

the Administrator of the Office Of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, and 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

for certain actions identified as 

"significant energy actions." Section 

4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines 

"significant energy actions" as "any 

action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1) (i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

13. 
P.15 

15686 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

Administrator ofthe Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action." This 

proposed 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 basis for this determination follows. 

The reduction in petroleum product 

output, which includes reductions in 

fuel production, is estimated at only 

0.003 percent, or about 137 barrels per 

day based on 2000 U.S. fuel production 

nationwide. The reduction in coal, 

natural gas, and electricity output is 

expected to be negligible compared to 

2000 U.S. output of these products 

nationwide. The increase in price of 

petroleum products is estimated to be 

only 0.003 percent nationwide. While 

energy distribution services such as 

pipeline operations will be directly 

affected by this proposal, energy 

distribution costs are expected to 

increase by only 0.36 percent. We 

estimate that there will be a slight 

increase of only 0.002 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, no significant adverse energy 

effects are expected to occur. For more 

information on these estimated energy 

effects, please refer to the economic 

impact analysis for the proposed rule. 

This analysis is available in the public 

docket. 

Therefore, we conclude that this 

proposed rule when implemented will 

not have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

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, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit 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 the 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 

ofthe rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the 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 the 

EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 ofthe 

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 this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. The maximum total annual 

cost of this proposed rule for any year 

has been estimated to be about $41.4 

million. Thus, today's proposed rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. In 

addition, the EPA has determined that 

this proposed rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no 

requirements that apply to such 

governments or impose obligations 

upon them. Therefore, today's proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 ofthe UMRA. 

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today's proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business whose parent company 

has fewer than 100 or 1,500 employees, 

depending on size definition for the 

affected North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code, or 

a maximum of $5 million to $18.5 

million in revenues; (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 this proposed 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 proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have determined that 

nineteen small firms in the industries 

affected by this rule may be affected. 

Out of the nineteen affected small firms, 

two firms are estimated to have 

compliance costs that exceed one 

percent of their revenues. 

In addition, the rule is likely to also 

increase profits at the many small firms 

not affected by the rule due to the very 

slight increase in market prices. Finally, 

while there is a difference between the 

median compliance cost to sales 

estimates for the affected small and 

large firms (0.26 percent compared to 

0.01 percent for the large firms), no 

small or large firms are expected to 

close in response to incurring the 

compliance costs associated with this 

rule. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

we nonetheless have tried to minimize 

the impact of this rule on small entities 

in several ways. First, we chose to set 

the control requirements at the MACT 

floor control level and not at a control 

level more stringent. Thus, the control 

level specified in the proposed OLD rule 

is the least stringent allowed by the 

CAA. Second, we have set facility size, 

transfer rack throughput, and tank size 

cutoffs in the rule to minimize the 

effects on small businesses. Third, we 

have identified a list of 69 HAP from the 

list of 188 in the CAA to be considered 

for regulation. Regulated liquids are 

organic liquids that contain at least 5 

)H 
P.16 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15687 

percent by weight of the 69 HAP listed. 

In addition, we worked with various 

trade associations during the 

development of the proposed rule. 

These actions have reduced the 

economic impact on small entities from 

this rule. We continue to be interested 

in the potential impacts ofthe proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

We will submit the information 

collection requirements in this rule for 

approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR 

No. 1963.01) and you may obtain a copy 

from Sandy Farmer, Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, by e-mail at 

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling 

(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 

downloaded off the internet (WWW) at 

http://www.epa.gov/icr. 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 ofthe 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 proposed rule would require 

maintenance inspections of the control 

devices but would 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 242,900 labor-hours per 

year, with a total annual cost of $12.7 

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 and 48 CFR 

chapter 15. 

/. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) ofthe National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-

113, all Federal agencies are required to 

use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) 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 requires 

Federal agencies to provide Congress, 

through annual reports to OMB, with 

explanations when an agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify VCS for 

use in emissions monitoring. This 

search is described in a memorandum 

which is in the docket. The search for 

emissions monitoring procedures 

identified 19 VCS that appeared to have 

possible use in lieu of EPA standard 

reference methods. However, after 

reviewing the available VCS, the EPA 

determined that nine of the candidate 

VCS identified for measuring emissions 

of the HAP or surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the proposed rule 

would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, and 

validation data. Ten of the remaining 

candidate VCS are under development 

or under EPA review. The EPA plans to 

follow, review, and consider adopting 

these VCS after their development and 

further review by the EPA is completed. 

Two VCS, ASTM D2879-83, Standard 

Test Method for Vapor Pressure— 

Temperature 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 

63.14 and are also being used in tiiis 

proposed rule. 

The ASTM D6420-99 is currently 

under EPA review as an approved 

alternative to Method 18. The EPA will 

also compare this final ASTM standard 

to methods previously approved as 

alternatives to EPA Metiiod 18 with 

specific applicability limitations. These 

methods, designated as ALT-017 and 

CTM-028, are available through the 

EPA's Emission Measurement Center 

internet site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ 

tmethods.html. The final ASTM D6420-

99 standard is very similar to tiiese 

approved alternative metiiods, which 

may be equally suitable for specific 

applications. We plan to continue our 

review ofthe final standard and will 

consider adopting the ASTM standard at 

a later date. 

The EPA is requesting comment on 

the compliance demonstration 

requirements being proposed in tiiis 

proposed rule and specifically invites 

the public to identify potentiallyapplicable VCS. Commenters should 

also explain why this proposed rule 

should adopt these VCS in lieu of the 

EPA's standards. Emission test methods 

and performance specifications 

submitted for evaluation should be 

accompanied by a basis for the 

recommendation, including method 

validation data and the procedure used 

to validate the candidate method (if a 

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A was used). 

Section 63.2406 and Table 5 ofthe 

proposed subpart list the EPA testing 

metiiods and performance standards 

included in the proposed rule. Most of 

the standards have been used by States 

and industry for more than 10 years. 

Nevertheless, under § 63.7(f) of subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63, the proposal also 

allows any State or source to apply to 

the EPA for permission to use an 

alternative method in place of any of the 

EPA testing methods or performance 

standards listed in proposed subpart 

EEEE. 

r 
P.17 

1568 8 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 19, 2002. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[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)(3) and (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference. 

**** * 

(b) * * * 

(3) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Test 

Metiiod for Vapor Pressure-Temperature 

Relationship and Initial Decomposition 

Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, 

IBR approved for § 63.111 of subpart G 

of this part and for § 63.2406 of subpart 

EEEE of this part. 

(c) * * * 

(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative 

Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, 

Third Edition, February 1989, IBR 

approved for § 63.111 of subpart G of 

this part and for § 63.2406 of subpart 

EEEE of this part. 

**** * 

3. Part 63 is amended by adding 

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 and Work Practice 

Standards 

63.2346 What emission limitations 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 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

63.2358 When must I conduct subsequent 

performance tests? 

63.2362 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and performance 

evaluations must I conduct? 

63.2366 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.2374 How do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance? 

63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.2382 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.2386 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.2390 What records must I keep? 

63.2394 In what form and how long must I 

keep my records? 

Other Requirements and Infonnation 

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? 

63.2407-2429 [Reserved] 

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 

Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

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 

Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance with Work 

Practice Standards 

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 and work practice 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) emitted from organic liquids 

distribution (OLD) (non-gasoline) 

operations. This subpart also establishes 

requirements to demonstrate initial and 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards. 

§ 63.2334 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) 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 hazardous air pollutant 

emissions. 

(b) Your OLD operation must have a 

total organic liquids throughput of 27.6 

million liters (7.29 million gallons) per 

year or more either into or out of the 

operation to be subject to the control 

provisions of this subpart. Organic 

liquids are all crude oils other than 

black oil, and those liquids or liquid 

mixtures, except gasoline, that contain a 

total of 5 percent by weight or more of 

the organic HAP listed in Table 1 of this 

subpart. 

(1) An OLD operation is the 

combination of activities and equipment 

used to transfer organic liquids into or 

out of a plant site or to store organic 

liquids on the plant site. Gasoline, as 

well as any fuels that are consumed or 

dispensed on the plant site directly to 

users (such as fuels used for fleet 

refueling) are not considered organic 

liquids in this subpart. 

(2) A major source of HAP is a plant 

site that emits or has the potential to 

emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 

megagrams (10 tons) or more per year, 

or any combination of HAP at a rate of 

22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per 

year. 

(c) This subpart covers: 

(1) Organic liquids distribution 

operations that occupy an entire plant 

site; and 

(2) Organic liquids distribution 

operations that are collocated with otiier 

industrial (e.g., manufacturing) 

operations at the same plant site. 

§ 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)(1) The affected source is each 

entire OLD operation at a plant site in 

any industrial category, except for those 

emission sources that are controlled 

under the provisions of another 40 CFR 

n 
P.18 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 1568 9 

part 63 national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants regulation. The 

main types of plant sites that either are 

in themselves an OLD operation or 

contain a collocated OLD operation are: 

(i) Liquid terminal facilities that 

distribute either organic liquids that 

they own, or organic liquids owned by 

others on a for-hire basis, or a 

combination of both; 

(ii) Organic chemical manufacturing 

facilities, petroleum refineries, and 

other industrial facilities that have a 

collocated OLD operation; and 

(iii) Crude oil pipeline pumping 

stations and breakout stations. 

(2) The following emission sources 

within OLD operations constitute the 

affected source: Storage tanks storing 

organic liquids and meeting the tank 

size and liquid vapor pressure cutoffs in 

Table 2 of this subpart; transfer rack 

loading positions at which organic 

liquids are loaded into cargo tanks (tank 

trucks or railcars) at or above the 

minimum throughput shown in Table 2 

of this subpart; and equipment (pumps, 

valves, etc.) in organic liquids service 

for at least 300 hours per year. In 

addition, vapor leakage points on cargo 

tanks while loading organic liquids at 

affected transfer racks are considered 

part ofthe affected source. 

(c) The provisions of this subpart do 

not apply to research and development 

facilities, consistent with section 

112(b)(7) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). 

(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 guidance 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section: 

(1) If you startup your affected source 

before [the effective date of this 

subpart], you must comply with the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards for new and reconstructed 

sources in this subpart no later than [the 

effective date of this subpart], 

(2) If you startup your affected source 

after [the effective date of this subpart], 

you must comply with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards 

for new and reconstructed sources in 

this subpart upon startup of your 

affected source. 

(b) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards for existing sources no later 

than [3 years after the effective date of 

the final rule]. 

(c) If you have an area source that 

increases its emissions or its potential to 

emit such that it becomes a major source 

of HAP, the guidance in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section applies: 

(1) Any portion ofthe existing facility 

that is a new affected source or a new 

reconstructed source must be in 

compliance with this subpart upon 

startup. 

(2) All other parts of the source must 

be in compliance with this subpart no 

later than 3 years after it becomes a 

major source. 

(d) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.2382(a) according 

to the schedule in § 63.2382(b), (c), (d), 

and (e) and in subpart A of this part. 

Some of the notifications must be 

submitted before you are required to 

comply with the emission limitations 

and work practice standards in this 

subpart. 

Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

§ 63.2346 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

(a) You must meet each emission limit 

in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in Table 3 of this subpart that 

applies to you. 

(c) You must meet each work practice 

standard in Table 4 of this subpart that 

applies to you. 

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

request approval from the EPA to use an 

alternative to the work practice 

standards in this section. If you apply 

for permission to use an alternative to 

the work practice standards in this 

section, you must submit the 

information described in § 63.6(g)(2). 

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 and work 

practice standards in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. 

(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)(l)(i). 

(c) You must develop and implement 

a written startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan (SSMP) according to 

the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.2354 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests or other Initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

(a) For existing sources, you must 

conduct initial performance tests and 

other initial compliance demonstrations 

no later than the compliance date 

specified in § 63.2342(b). 

(b) For new sources, you must 

conduct initial performance tests and 

other initial compliance demonstrations 

according to the provisions in 

§63.7(a)(2)(i)and(ii). 

§ 63.2358 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) For cargo tanks equipped with 

vapor collection equipment that load 

organic liquids at affected transfer rack 

loading positions, you must perform the 

vapor tightness testing required in Table 

5 of this subpart on each cargo tank that 

you own or operate at least once per 

year. 

(b) For nonflare control devices, you 

must conduct the performance testing 

required in Table 5 of this subpart at 

any time the EPA requests you to in 

accordance with section 114 ofthe 

CAA. 

§ 63.2362 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and performance evaluations 

must I conduct? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test in Table 5 of this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(b) You must conduct each 

performance test according to the 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(1), using the 

procedures specified in § 63.997(e). 

(c) You must conduct three separate 

test runs for each performance test on a 

nonflare control device, as specified in 

§ 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at 

least 1 hour. 

(d) In addition to Method 25 or 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to 

determine compliance with the organic 

HAP or total organic compounds (TOC) 

emission limit, you may use Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. If you 

use Method 18 to measure compliance 

with the percentage efficiency limit, you 

must first determine which HAP are 

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

uncontrolled emissions) using 

knowledge of the organic liquids or the 

screening procedure described in 

Metiiod 18. In conducting the 

performance test, you must analyze 

samples collected as specified in 

IS 
P.19 

15690 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

Method 18, simultaneously at the inlet 

and outlet ofthe control device. 

Quantify the emissions for all HAP 

identified as present in the inlet gas 

stream for both the inlet and outiet gas 

streams of the control device. 

(e) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, to measure 

compliance with the emission 

concentration limit, you must first 

determine which HAP are present in the 

inlet gas stream using knowledge of the 

organic liquids or the screening 

procedure described in Method 18. In 

conducting the performance test, 

analyze samples collected as specified 

in Method 18 at the outlet ofthe control 

device. Quantify the control device 

outlet emission concentration for the 

same HAP identified as present in the 

inlet or uncontrolled gas stream. 

(f) If a principal component of the 

uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the 

control device is formaldehyde, you 

may use Method 316 of appendix A of 

this part instead of Method 18 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, for measuring the 

formaldehyde. If formaldehyde is the 

predominant HAP in the inlet gas 

stream, you may use 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 outiet 

of a combustion device for determining 

compliance with the emission 

concentration limit. 

(g) You must conduct each design 

evaluation of a control device according 

to the requirements in § 63.985(b)(l)(i). 

(h) You may not conduct performance 

tests during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, as specified 

in §63.7(e)(1). 

(i) You must conduct each continuous 

monitoring system (CMS) performance 

evaluation according to the 

requirements in § 63.8(e). 

§ 63.2366 What are my monitoring 

Installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) according to 

the requirements in § 63.996. In 

addition, you must collect and analyze 

temperature, flow, pressure, or pH data 

according to the requirements in 

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

section: 

(1) To calculate a valid hourly value, 

you must have at least four equally 

spaced data values (or at least two, if 

that condition is included to allow for 

periodic calibration checks) for that 

hour from a CMS that is not out of 

control according to the monitoring plan 

(e.g., one that incorporates elements of 

appendix F, procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix F). 

(2) To calculate the average emissions 

for each averaging period, you must 

have at least 75 percent of the hourly 

averages for that period using only block 

hourly average values that are based on 

valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control 

periods). 

(3) Determine the hourly average of all 

recorded readings. 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(b) For each temperature monitoring 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this 

section: 

(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a 

position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) For a noncryogenic temperature 

range, use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.2 degrees 

Celsius or 0.75 percent ofthe 

temperature value, whichever is greater. 

(3) For a cryogenic temperature range, 

use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.2 degrees 

Celsius or 2 percent of the temperature 

value, whichever is greater. 

(4) Shield the temperature sensor 

system from electromagnetic 

interference and chemical 

contaminants. 

(5) If a chart recorder is used, it must 

have a sensitivity in the minor division 

of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(6) Perform an electronic calibration 

at least semiannually according to the 

procedures in the manufacturer's 

owner's manual. Following the 

electronic calibration, you must conduct 

a temperature sensor validation check in 

which a second or redundant 

temperature sensor placed near the 

process temperature sensor must yield a 

reading within 16.7 degrees Celsius of 

the process temperature sensor's 

reading. 

(7) Conduct calibration and validation 

checks any time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum 

operating temperature range, or install a 

new temperature sensor. 

(8) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity, 

oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. 

(c) For each flow measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 

section: 

(1) Locate the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment such as 

straightening vanes in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum 

tolerance of 2 percent ofthe flow rate. 

(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream 

and downstream disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration 

check at least semiannually. 

(5) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity, all electrical 

connections for continuity, and all 

mechanical connections for leakage. 

(d) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet tiie requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this 

section: 

(1) Locate the pressure sensot(s) in a 

position that provides a representative 

measurement ofthe pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum 

tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a 

transducer with a minimum tolerance of 

1 percent of the pressure range. 

(4) Check for pressure tap pluggage 

daily. 

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Conduct calibration checks any 

time the sensor exceeds tiie 

manufacturer's specified maximum 

operating pressure range, or install a 

new pressure sensor. 

(7) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity, all electrical 

connections for continuity, and all 

mechanical connections for leakage. 

(e) For each pH measurement device, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and 

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

section: 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of pH. 

(2) Ensure that the sample is properly 

mixed and representative ofthe fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter's calibration 

on at least two points every 8 hours of 

process operation. 

(4) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity. 

§ 63.2370 How do I demonstrate Initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limit 

and work practice standard that applies 

to you according to Tables 6 and 7 of 

this subpart. 

(b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 3 of 

/<? 
P.20 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15691 

this subpart that applies to you 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.2362 and Table 5 of this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.2382(e). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.2374 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to this section. 

(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, 

associated repairs, and required quality 

assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must monitor 

continuously (or collect data at all 

required intervals) at all times that the 

affected source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, or required quality 

assurance or control activities in data 

averages and calculations used to report 

emission or operating levels, nor may 

such data be used in fulfilling a 

minimum data availability requirement, 

if applicable. You must use all of the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

§ 63.2378 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard in 

Tables 2 through 4 of this subpart that 

applies to you according to the methods 

specified in Tables 8, 9, and 10 of this 

subpart. 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet any emission 

limit or operating limit in Tables 8 and 

9 of this subpart that applies to you. 

This includes periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. You must 

also report each instance in which you 

did not meet the requirements in Table 

10 of this subpart that apply to you. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards in this subpart. These 

deviations must be reported according 

to the requirements in § 63.2386. 

(c) During periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, you must 

operate in accordance with your SSMP. 

(d) Consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 

63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction are not violations if you 

make an adequate demonstration that 

you were operating in accordance with 

the SSMP. We will determine whether 

deviations that occur during a period of 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 

violations according to the provisions in 

§ 63.6(e). 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

§ 63.2382 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 

63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) 

through (h) that apply to you. 

(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

startup your affected source before [the 

effective date of this subpart], you must 

submit an Initial Notification no later 

than 120 calendar days after [the 

effective date of this subpart]. 

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you 

startup your new or reconstructed 

affected source on or after [the effective 

date], you must submit an Initial 

Notification no later than 120 days after 

initial startup. 

(d) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must submit a 

notification of intent to conduct the test 

at least 60 calendar days before it is 

scheduled to begin as required in 

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

(e) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration as specified 

in Table 5, 6, or 7 of this subpart, you 

must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status according to 

§ 63.9(h)(2)(h). 

(1) For each initial compliance 

demonstration required in Table 5, 6, or 

7 of this subpart that does not include 

a performance test, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status before 

the close of business on the 30th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the initial compliance demonstration. 

(2) For each initial compliance 

demonstration required in Table 5, 6, or 

7 of this subpart that includes a 

performance test conducted according 

to the requirements in Table 5 of this 

subpart, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status, 

including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the performance test according to 

§ 63.10(d)(2). 

§ 63.2386 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 11 of this subpart 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 by the date 

in Table 11 of this subpart and 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section: 

(1) 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 source in § 63.2342. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover tiie semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) 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. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, if the 

permitting authority has established 

dates for submitting semiannual reports 

pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 

71.6(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) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) 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 ofthe reporting period. 

(4) Any changes to the information 

listed in paragraph (d) of this section 

that have occurred since the last report. 

(5) If you had a startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction during the reporting period 

and you took actions consistent with 

your SSMP, the compliance report must 

include the information described in 

§63.10(d)(5)(i). 

(6) If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) that applies to you and 

there are no deviations from the 

requirements for work practice 

<PD 
P.21 

15692 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

standards in Table 10 of this subpart, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations 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. 

(d) The first compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section and also 

the information in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (5) of this section: 

(1) A listing of the organic liquids 

stored or transferred at the facility 

during the previous 6 months, including 

for each liquid the information in 

paragraphs (d)(l)(i) through (iv) of this 

section: 

(i) Liquid name; 

(ii) Total weight percentage of the 

organic HAP in Table 1 of this subpart; 

(iii) Annual average true vapor 

pressure; and 

(iv) Total throughput into and out of 

the facility. 

(2) An inventory of all storage tanks 

at the facility that stored organic liquids 

during the previous 6 months, including 

for each tank the information in 

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

section: 

(i) Tank ID code and capacity; 

(ii) Tank roof configuration, rim seal 

type(s), and description of floating deck 

fittings, as applicable; 

(iii) Name of organic liquid(s) stored 

in the tank; and 

(iv) Control device in use for each 

fixed-roof tank, where applicable. 

(3) A listing of all transfer rack 

loading positions that transferred 

organic liquids into cargo tanks during 

the previous 6 months, including for 

each loading position the information in 

paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section: 

(i) ID code; 

(ii) Organic liquids name(s) and 

throughput(s); and 

(iii) Control device in use at each 

position, where applicable. 

(4) A listing of all cargo tanks (tank 

trucks and railcars) that loaded organic 

liquids at affected transfer rack loading 

positions during the previous 6 months, 

including the type of cargo tank, owner, 

ID number, and date and test method for 

the most recent vapor tightness test. 

(5) A listing of all equipment in 

organic liquids service during the 

previous 6 months, including for each 

component the information in 

paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 

section: 

(i) ID code; 

(ii) Facility plan drawing showing the 

equipment location; 

(iii) An estimate ofthe number of 

hours that the component operated in 

organic liquids service during the 

reporting period; and 

(iv) Metiiod of compliance with the 

standard (e.g., "leak detection and 

repair monitoring" or "equipped with 

dual mechanical seals"), if applicable. 

(e) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to 

comply with an emission limitation in 

this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (12) of 

this section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was out of control, including 

the information in § 63.8(c)(8). 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, or during another period. 

(5) A summary ofthe total duration of 

the deviations during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percentage of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) 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. 

(7) 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 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each HAP that 

was potentially emitted during the 

deviation. 

(9) A brief description of the process 

at which the CMS deviation occurred. 

(10) A brief description of the CMS. 

(11) The date ofthe latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or controls since the 

last reporting period. 

(f) Each affected source that has 

obtained a title V operating permit 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 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 of tiiis 

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 (including any 

operating limit or work practice 

standard) requirement in tliis 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 permitting 

authority. 

§ 63.2390 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep records as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section: 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(1) and (2)(xiv). 

(2) The records in §§ 63.6(e)(3)(iii) 

through (v) and 63.10(b)(2)(i)(v) related • 

to startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions. 

(3) Results of performance tests. 

(b) For each CMS, you must keep 

records as described in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section: 

(1) Records described in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi) that apply 

to your CMS. 

(2) Performance evaluation plans, 

including previous (i.e., superseded) 

versions of the plan as required in 

§ 63.8(d)(3). 

(c) You must keep the records 

required in Tables 8, 9, and 10 of tiiis 

subpart to show continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you. 

§ 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 forexpeditious inspection and review 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

(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 tiie date of each 

9* 
P.22 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 1569 3 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may 

keep the records offsite for the 

remaining 3 years. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.2398 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 12 of 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 EPA or a delegated 

authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator 

has delegated authority to your State, 

local, or 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 tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority for this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the EPA and are not 

delegated to the State, local, or tribal 

agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are described in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) of this section: 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

nonopacity emission limitations 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)(h) 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. 

Annua/ average true vapor pressure, 

as used in this subpart, means the total 

vapor pressure exerted by a stored or 

transferred organic liquid at the 

temperature equal to the annual average 

of the local (nearest) average monthly 

temperatures reported by the National 

Weather Service. This temperature is 

the arithmetic average of the 12 monthly 

average temperatures for each calendar 

year at each affected source and is 

recalculated at the end of each year. The 

vapor pressure value is determined: 

(1) In accordance with methods 

described in American Petroleum 

Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative 

Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in §63.14); 

(2) Using standard reference texts; . 

(3) By the American Society for 

Testing and Materials Method D2879-83 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in §63.14); or 

(4) Using any other method that the 

EPA approves. 

API gravity means the weight per unit 

volume of hydrocarbon liquids as 

measured by a system recommended by 

the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

and is expressed in degrees. 

Black oil means hydrocarbon 

(petroleum) liquid with a gas-to-oil ratio 

less than 0.31 cubic meters per liter 

(41.4 cubic feet per gallon) and an API 

gravity less than 40 degrees, measured 

at the point of entry to the distribution 

system. 

Capacity means the volume of liquid 

that is capable of being stored in a 

storage tank, determined by multiplying 

the tank's internal cross-sectional area 

by the internal height of the shell. 

Cargo tank means a tank truck or 

railcar into which organic liquids are 

loaded at an OLD operation transfer 

rack. 

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 tank trucks and railcars 

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, incinerator, process heater, or 

boiler, used for the combustion of 

organic emissions. 

Control device, as used in this 

subpart, 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, incinerators, flares, boilers, 

and process heaters. Primary 

condensers, steam strippers, or fuel gas 

systems are not considered control 

devices. 

Crude oi7, as used in this subpart, 

means any of the naturally occurring 

liquids commonly referred to as crude 

oil, other than black oil, regardless of 

specific physical properties. 

Crude oil pipeline hreakout station 

plant site means a facility along a 

pipeline containing storage tanks and 

equipment used to temporarily store 

crude oil from the pipeline. Breakout 

stations may also contain booster pumps 

used to move the crude oil along the 

pipeline. These facilities are 

downstream of the point of custody 

transfer. 

Crude oil pipeline pumping station 

plant site means a facility along a 

pipeline containing equipment (i.e., 

booster pumps, etc.) used to sustain the 

movement of crude oil through the 

pipeline. Pumping stations may also 

contain crude oil breakout storage tanks. 

These facilities are downstream of the 

point of custody transfer. 

Custody transfer means the transfer of 

hydrocarbon liquids, after processing 

and/or treatment in the producing 

operations, from storage tanks or 

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)(l)(i). 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, 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 startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, regardless of whether or 

not such failure is permitted by this 

subpart. 

Emission limitation means an 

emission limit, opacity limit, operating 

limit, or visible emission limit. 

Equipment means each pump, valve, 

and sampling connection system used 

in organic liquids service at an OLD 

operation. 

Gasoline means any petroleum 

distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol 

^ ^ 
15694 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) or greater 

which is used as a fuel for internal 

combustion engines. Aviation gasoline 

is included in tiiis definition. 

Gas-to-oil ratio means the number of 

standard cubic meters of gas produced 

per liter of crude oil or other 

hydrocarbon liquid. 

In organic liquids service means that 

a piece of equipment contains or 

contacts organic liquids having 5 

percent by weight or greater of the 

organic HAP listed in Table 1 of this 

subpart. 

Organic liquid, as used in this 

subpart, means: 

(1) Crude oil; or 

(2) Any liquid or liquid mixture that 

contains a total of 5 percent by weight 

or more of the organic HAP listed in 

Table 1 of this subpart, as determined 

using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or any other method 

approved by the Administrator. Any 

fuels consumed or dispensed directly to 

users on the plant site and all gasoline 

are excluded from the definition. 

Organic liquids distribution (OLD) 

operation means the activities and 

equipment used to transfer organic 

liquids into or out of a plant site. It also 

includes storage of distributed organic 

liquids on the site. The OLD operation 

can be those activities performed at a 

dedicated distribution plant site, or it 

may be collocated in a plant site at 

which manufacturing operations are 

carried out. 

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 part 

70 of this chapter; or 

(2) The EPA Administrator, in the 

case of EPA-implemented permit 

programs under title V ofthe CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7661) and part 71 of this chapter. 

Plant site, as used in this subpart, 

means all contiguous or adjoining 

property that is under common control, 

including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-ofway. Common control includes 

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. 

Shutdown means the cessation of 

operation of a regulated source and 

equipment required or used to comply 

with this subpart, or the emptying and 

degassing of a storage tank. Shutdown 

as defined in this section includes, but 

is not limited to, events that result from 

periodic maintenance, replacement of 

equipment, or repair. 

Storage tank, as used in this subpart, 

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) Vessels permanently attached to 

conveyances such as trucks, railcars, 

barges, or ships; 

(2) Bottoms receiver tanks; 

(3) Surge control vessels; 

(4) Vessels storing wastewater; or 

(5) Reactor vessels associated witii a 

manufacturing process unit. 

Transfer rack means a single system 

used to load organic liquids into bulk 

cargo tanks mounted on or in a truck, 

truck trailer, or railcar. 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. 

Transfer rack loading position means 

an individual tank truck or railcar 

parking spot at a transfer rack. An 

affected loading position is one at which 

11.8 million liters (3.12 million gallons) 

per year or more of organic liquids are 

transferred into a combination of tank 

trucks and railcars. 

Vapor-tight cargo tank means a cargo 

tank liquid delivery tank that has been 

demonstrated to be vapor-tight. To be 

considered vapor-tight, a cargo tank 

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 bo 

demonstrated annually using tiie 

procedures specified in Method 27 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A. For all other 

cargo tanks, vapor tightness is 

demonstrated by performing tiie U.S. 

Department of Transportation 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) ofthe CAA. 

Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63 

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

[As stated in § 63.2334(b), you must use the information listed in the following table to determine if the liquids handled at your facility contain at 

least 5 percent by weight of these HAP] 

Compound name CAS No.° 

Acetaldehyde 

Acetonitrile 

Acrolein 

Acrylic acid 

Acrylonitrile 

Allyl chloride 

Benzene 

Bis (chloromethyl) ether 

Bromoform 

Butadiene (1,3-) 

Carbon disulfide 

Carbon tetrachloride 

Chlorobenzene 

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene (Chloroprene). 

Chloroform 

Cumene 

75-07-0 

75-05-8 

107-02-8 

79-10-7 

107-13-1 

107-05-1 

71-43-2 

542-88-1 

75-25-2 

106-99-0 

75-15-0 

56-23-5 

108-90-7 

126-99-8 

67-66-3 

98-82-8 

P3 
P.24 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15695 

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

[As stated in § 63.2334(b), you must use the information listed in the following table to determine if the liquids handled at your facility contain at 

least 5 percent by weight of these HAP] 

Compound name CAS No.a 

Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene dichloride) (EDC) . 

Dichloroethylether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether) 

Dichloropropene (1,3-) 

Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether 

Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 

Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-) 

Dioxane (1,4-) (1,4-Diethyleneoxide) 

Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane) 

Epoxybutane (1,2-) 

Ethyl acrylate 

Ethylbenzene 

Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) 

Ethylene dibromide (Dibromomethane) 

Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether 

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether 

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate 

Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether 

Ethylene oxide 

Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) 

Formaldehyde 

Hexane 

Hydrazine 

Methanol 

Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) 

Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) 

Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) (MEK) 

Methyl hydrazine 

Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone) (MIBK) 

Methyl isocyanate 

Methyl methacrylate 

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 

Nitropropane (2-) 

Phosgene 

Propionaldehyde 

Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane) 

Propylene oxide 

Styrene 

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) 

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) 

Toluene 

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-) (Methyl chloroform) 

Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) (Vinyl trichloride) 

Trichloroethylene 

Triethylamine 

Trimethylpentane (2,2,4-) 

Vinyl acetate 

Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene) 

Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene) 

Xylene (m-) 

Xylene (o-) 

Xylene (p-) 

Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) 

107-06-2 

111—44-4 

542-75-6 

112-34-5 

111-77-3 

57-14-7 

123-91-1 

106-89-8 

106-88-7 

140-88-5 

100-41-4 

75-00-3 

106-93-4 

110-71^4 

109-86-4 

110-49-6 

122-99-6 

75-21-8 

75-34-3 

50-00-0 

110-54-3 

302-01-2 

67-56-1 

74-83-9 

74-87-3 

75-09-2 

78-93-3 

60-34-4 

108-10-1 

624-83-9 

80-62-6 

1634-04-4 

79-46-9 

75-44-5 

123-38-6 

78-87-5 

75-56-9 

100-42-5 

79-34-5 

127-18-4 

108-88-3 

71-55-6 

79-00-5 

79-01-6 

121-44-8 

540-84-1 

108-05-4 

75-01-4 

75-35-4 

108-38-3 

95-47-6 

106-42-3 

1330-20-7 

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

( 3 ^ 
P.25 

15696 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS 

[As stated in §§ 63.2338(b)(2) and 63.2346(a), you must comply with the emission limits for organic liquid distribution affected sources In the 

following table] 

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

1. A storage tank at an existing affected 

source with a capacity __75 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) and <151 cubic 

meters (40,000 gallons). 

a. The annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is 

£13.1 kilopascals (1.9 psia) and 

<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 

. A storage tank at an existing affected 

source with a capacity S151 cubic meters (40,000 gallons). 

. A storage tank at a new affected 

source with a capacity 238 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) and <151 cubic 

meters (40,000 gallons). 

. A storage tank at a new affected 

source with a capacity _>151 cubic meters (40,000 gallons). 

. A transfer rack 

The annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is 

__5.2 kilopascals (0.75 psia). 

The annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is 

>13.1 kilopascals (1.9 psia) and 

<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 

The annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is 

>0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia). 

a. The transfer rack loads at any loading position >11.8 million liters (3.12 

million gallons) per year of organic 

liquids into a combination of tank 

trucks and railcars. 

i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP or TOC by 95 

weight-percent (or, for combustion devices, to an exhaust concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, on 

a dry basis, corrected to 3% oxygen) by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination 

of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart 

SS of this part, as specified in §§ 63.982(a)(1) and (f), 

63.983, 63.984, 63.985, 63.987, 63.988, 63.990, and 

63.995; or 

ii. Comply with the work practice standards specified in 

Table 4, item 1 of this subpart. 

Same as item 1 of Table 2 of this subpart. 

Same as item 1 of Table 2 of this subpart. 

Same as item 1 of Table 2 of this subpart. 

Reduce emissions of total organic HAP or TOC at each 

affected loading position by 95 weight-percent (or, for 

combustion devices, to an exhaust concentration less 

than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry 

basis, corrected to 3% oxygen) by venting emissions 

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of 

this part, as specified in §§63.982(a)(3)(ii) and (f), 

63.983, 63.984, 63.987, 63.988, 63.990, 63.995, and 

63.997; and 

. Comply with the work practice standards specified in 

Table 4, item 2 of this subpart. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS 

[As stated in §§ 63.2346(b) and 63.2370(b), you must comply with the operating limits for organic liquid distribution affected sources in the 

following table] 

For* * You must * * 

1. Each existing and each new affected source using a 

thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 of this subpart. 

2. Each existing and each new affected source using a 

catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in 

Table 2 of this subpart. 

3. Each existing and each new affected source using a 

condenser to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 

of this subpart. 

4. Each existing and each new affected source using an 

adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

Maintain the hourly average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

a. Replace the existing catalyst bed with a bed that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age 

of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design 

evaluation or performance test; and 

b. Maintain the hourly 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; and 

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

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

evaluation or performance test. 

Maintain the hourly average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

a. 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; and 

b. Maintain the frequency of regeneration greater than or equal to the reference frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test; ahd 

c. 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; and 

d. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed during regeneration (except during 

the cooling cycle) greater than or equal to the reference temperature established 

during the design evaluation or performance test; and 

pS" 
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15697 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—Continued 

[As stated in §§ 63.2346(b) and 63.2370(b), you must comply with the operating limits for organic liquid distribution affected sources in the 

following table] 

For * * * You must' 

5. Each existing and each new affected source using an 

adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to 

comply with an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

6. Each existing and each new affected source using a 

flare to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

e. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration (and within 15 

minutes after completing any cooling cycle) less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

a. 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; and 

b. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design'evaluation or performance test. 

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). 

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

[As stated in § 63.2346(c), you must comply with the work practice standards for organic liquid distribution affected sources in the following table] 

For each * * * You must * * * 

1. Storage tank at an existing or new affected source 

meeting any set of capacity and vapor pressure limits 

specified in Table 2, items 1-4 of this subpart. 

2. Transfer rack affected loading position at an existing 

or new affected source that meets the throughput cutoff specified in Table 2, item 5 of this subpart. 

3. Piece of equipment, as defined under 63.2406, of this 

subpart, that operates in organic liquids service __ 300 

hours per year. 

As an alternative to the emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of subpart WW (control level 2) of this part. 

a. For cargo tanks equipped with vapor collection equipment, ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into cargo tanks that have been demonstrated, using EPA 

Method 27, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A within the last 12 months, to be vaportight (i.e., will undergo a pressure change of not more than 250 pascals (1 inch of 

water) within 5 minutes after being pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 inches of 

water)). Follow the steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.502(e) for these equipped cargo 

tanks. The required vapor tightness documentation is described in 40 CFR 

60.505(b); and 

b. For cargo tanks without vapor collection equipment, ensure that organic liquids are 

loaded only into cargo tanks that have a current certification in accordance with 

the U.S. DOT pressure test requirements; and 

c. Comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 60.502(d), (f), (g), (h), and (i) for the 

equipped cargo tanks described in item 2.a in Table 4 of this subpart. 

Comply with the requirement of subpart TT (control level 1) or subpart UU (control 

level 2) of this part. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS 

[As stated in §§63.2358 and 63.2362(a), you must comply with the requirements for performance tests for existing or new affected sources in 

the following table] 

For * * * 

1. Each existing and each 

new affected source 

using a nonflare control 

device to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 2 

of this subpart. 

You must conduct a performance test * * * 

a. To determine the organic HAP or TOC control efficiency of each 

nonflare control device, 

or the exhaust concentration of each combustion device. 

Using * * * 

i. Method 1 or 1A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 

60, as appropriate. 

ii. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 

2F, or 2G in appendix A 

of 40 CFR part 60, as 

appropriate. 

iii. Method 3 or 3B in appendix A of 40 CFR part 

60, as appropriate. 

iv. Method 4 in appendix A 

of 40 CFR part 60. 

To determine * * * 

(1) Sampling port locations 

and the required number 

of traverse points. 

Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate.. 

Concentration of C02 and 

02 and dry molecular 

weight of the stack gas. 

Moisture content of the 

stack gas. 

According to the following 

requirements * * * 

(A) Sampling sites must be 

located at the inlet and 

outlet of each control 

device and prior to any 

releases to the atmosphere; and 

(B) Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

each control device and 

prior to any releases to 

the atmosphere. 

See the requirement in 

item 1.a.i.(1)(A)and(B) 

of this table. 

See the requirement in 

item 1.a.i.(1)(A)and(B) 

of this table. 

See the requirement in 

item 1.a.i.(1)(A)and (B) 

of this table. 

^(e 
P.27 

15698 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

[As stated in §§ 63.2358 and 63.2362(a), you must comply with the requirements for performance tests for existing or new affected sources in 

the following table] 

For * * * 

2. Each cargo tank that 

you own that loads at an 

existing or new affected 

transfer rack loading position and equipped with 

vapor collection equipment. 

You must conduct a performance test * * * 

To determine the vapor 

tightness of the tank and 

repair as needed until it 

passes the test. 

Using * * * 

v. Method 18, 25, or25A 

in appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60, as appropriate, 

or Method 316 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 

for measuring formaldehyde. 

Method 27 in appendix A 

of 40 CFR part 60. 

To determine * * * 

(1) Total organic HAP or 

TOC, or formaldehyde 

emissions. 

Vapor tightness 

According to the following 

requirements * * * 

(A) The organic HAP used 

for the calibration gas 

for Method 25A must be 

the single organic HAP 

representing the largest 

percent by volume of 

emissions; and 

(B) during the performance 

test or a design evaluation, you must establish 

the operating parameter 

limits within which total 

organic HAP or TOC 

emissions are reduced 

by at least 95 weightpercent or to 20 ppmv 

exhaust concentration 

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). 

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

[As stated in §§ 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(e), you must show initial compliance with the emission limits for existing or new affected sources 

according to the following table] 

For each ' For the following emission 

limit* * * 

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if * * * By' 

1. Storage tank at an existing affected source meeting either set 

of capacity and vapor pressure 

limits specified in Table 2, items 

1 and 2 of this subpart. 

. Storage tank at a new affected 

source meeting either set of capacity and vapor pressure limits 

specified in Table 2, items 3 and 

4 of this subpart. 

. Transfer rack loading position at 

an existing affected source 

meeting the throughput level for 

organic liquids specified in Table 

2, item 5 of this subpart. 

. Transfer rack loading position at 

a new affected source meeting 

the throughput level for organic 

liquids specified in Table 2, item 

5 of this subpart. 

a. Reduce total organic HAP or 

TOC emissions by at least 95 

weight-percent, or to an exhaust concentration of 220 

ppmv. 

See the emission limit in item 1.a. 

of this table. 

See the emission limit in item 

1.a.i.(1)(A) and (B) of this table. 

See the emission limit in item 

1.a.i.(1)(A) and (B) of this table. 

i. Total organic HAP or TOC 

emissions, based on the results 

of the performance testing 

specified in Table 5 of this subpart, are reduced by at least 95 

weight-percent or to an exhaust 

concentration of <20 ppmv. 

See the compliance demonstration in item l.a.i. of this table. 

See the compliance demonstration in item 1.a.i.(1)(A) and (B) 

of this table. 

See the compliance demonstration item 1.a.i.(1)(A) and (B) of 

this table. 

3 years after [publication date of 

final rule in the FR]. 

The initial startup date for the affected source. 

3 years after [publication date of 

final rule in the FR]. 

The initial startup date for the affected source. 

P' 
P.28 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15699 

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

[As stated in §§ 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(e), you must show initial compliance with the work practice standards for existing or new affected 

sources according to the following table] 

For each * * * For the following standard * You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if * * * By' 

. Storage tank at an existing affected source meeting either set 

of capacity and vapor pressure 

specified in Table 2, items 1 and 

2 of this subpart. 

2. Storage tank at a new affected 

source meeting either set of capacity and vapor pressure limits 

specified in Table 2, items 3 and 

4 of this subpart. 

3. Transfer rack loading position at 

an existing affected source that 

meets the throughput cutoff in 

Table 2, item 5 of this subpart. 

4. Transfer rack loading position at 

a new affected source that 

meets the throughput cutoff in 

Table 2, item 5 of this subpart. 

5. Piece of equipment at an existing affected source, as defined 

under §63.2410 that operates in 

organic liquids service 2 300 

hours per year. 

6. Piece of equipment at a new affected source, as defined under 

§63.2410 that operates in organic liquids service > 300 hours 

per year. 

Install a floating roof or equivalent 

control that meets the requirements in Table 4, item 1 of this 

subpart. 

See the standard in item 1. of this 

table. 

Load organic liquids only into 

cargo tanks having current 

vapor tightness certification as 

described in Table 4, item 2 of 

this subpart. 

See the standard in item 3. of this 

table. 

Carry out a leak detection and repair program or equivalent control according to one of the subparts listed in Table 4, item 3 of 

this subpart. 

See the standard in item 5. of this 

table. 

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. 

See the compliance demonstration in item 1. of this table. 

You take steps to ensure that 

only vapor-tight cargo tanks 

load at affected loading positions. 

See the compliance demonstration in item 3. of this table. 

You make available written specifications for the leak detection 

and repair program or equivalent control approach. 

See the compliance demonstration in item 5. of this table. 

3 years after [publication date of 

final rule in the FR]. 

The initial startup date for the affected source. 

3 years after [publication date of 

final rule in the FR]. 

The initial startup date for the affected source. 

3 years after [publication date of 

final rule in the FR]. 

The initial startup date for the affected source. 

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

[As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(c), you must show continuous compliance with the emission limits for existing or new affected 

sources according to the following table] 

For * * * For the following emission limit * You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by* * * 

1. Each storage tank at an existing or new affected source meeting any set of capacity 

and vapor pressure limits specified in Table 

2, items 1 through 4 of this subpart. 

. Each transfer rack loading position at an existing or new affected source meeting the 

throughput cutoff for organic liquids specified 

in Table 2, item 5 of this subpart. 

a. Reduction of total organic HAP or TOC 

emissions from the closed vent system and 

control device must be 95 weight-percent or 

greater, or 20 ppmv of organic HAP or TOC 

in the exhaust of combustion devices. 

See the emission limit in item 1 .a. of this table 

i. Performing CMS monitoring and collecting 

data according to §§63.2366, 63.2374, and 

63.2378; and 

ii. Maintaining the site-specific operating limits 

within the ranges established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

See the compliance demonstration in item 

l.a.i. andii. of this table. 

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

[As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(c), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing or new affected 

sources according to the following table] 

For each existing and each new * * * For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by** * 

1. Affected source using a thermal oxidizer to 

comply with an emission limit in Table 2 of 

this subpart. 

a. Maintain the hourly average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the 

design evaluation or performance test. 

i. Continuously monitoring and recording firebox temperature every 15 minutes and 

maintaining the hourly average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the 

design evaluation or performance test; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

c£>' 
P.29 

15700 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS' 

[As stated in 

-Continued 

63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(c), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing or new affected 

sources according to the following table] 

For each existing and each new ' For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by* * * 

2. Affected source using a catalytic oxidizer to 

comply with an emission limit in Table 2 of 

this subpart. 

3. Affected source using a condenser to comply 

with an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

4. Affected source using an adsorption system 

with adsorbent regeneration to comply with 

an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

a. Replace the existing catalyst bed with a 

catalyst bed that meets the replacement 

specifications established during the design 

evaluation or performance test before the 

age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design 

evaluation or performance test. 

b. Maintain the hourly 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. 

c. Maintain the houriy average temperature 

difference across the catalyst bed greater 

than or equal to the minimum temperature 

difference established during the design 

evaluation or performance test. 

a. Maintain the houriy average condenser exit 

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

design evaluation or performance test. 

a. 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. 

b. Maintain the frequency of regeneration 

greater than or equal to the reference frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

c. Maintain the 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. 

Replacing the existing catalyst bed with a 

catalyst bed that meets the replacement 

specifications established during the design 

evaluation or performance test before the 

age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design 

evaluation or performance test; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed 

at least every 15 minutes and maintaining 

the hourly 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; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required In 

§63.998. 

Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the outlet of the catalyst bed 

every 15 minutes and maintaining the hourly average temperature difference across 

the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the 

minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

Continuously monitoring and recording the 

temperature at the exit of the condenser at 

least every 15 minutes and maintaining the 

hourly average condenser exit temperature 

less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required In 

§63.998. 

Replacing 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; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

Maintaining the frequency of regeneration 

greater than or equal to the reference frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required In 

§63.998. 

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; and 

. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

^ 
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15701 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—Continued 

[As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(c), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing or new affected 

sources according to the following table] 

For each existing and each new * * * For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by* * * 

5. Affected source using an adsorption system 

without adsorbent regeneration to comply 

with an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

6. Affected source using a flare to comply with 

an emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

d. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption 

bed during regeneration (except during the 

cooling cycle) greater than or equal to the 

reference temperature established during 

the design evaluation or performance test. 

e. maintain the temperature of the adsorption 

bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes after completing any cooling cycle) 

less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. 

a. 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. 

b. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption 

bed less than or equal to the reference 

temperature established during the design 

evaluation or performance test. 

a. Maintain a pilot flame present in the flare at 

all times that vapors are not being vented 

to the flare (§63.11(b)(5)). 

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

source (§ 63.11(b)(5)). 

c. Operate the flare with no visible emissions, 

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

d. Operate the flare with an exit velocity that 

is within the applicable limits in 

§63.11 (b)(6), (7), and (8). 

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)(H). 

i. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption bed during regeneration (except during 

the cooling cycle) greater than or equal to 

the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance 

test; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration (and within 15 

minutes after completing any cooling cycle) 

less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Replacing 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; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

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

temperature established during the design 

evaluation or performance test; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Continuously operating a device that detects 

the presence of the pilot flame; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Maintaining a flare flame at all times that 

vapors are being vented from the emission 

source; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Operating the flare with no visible emissions 

exceeding the amount allowed; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Operating the flare within the applicable exit 

velocity limits; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

i. Operating the flare with the gas net heating 

value within the applicable limit; and 

ii. Keeping the applicable records required in 

§63.998. 

D 
P.31 

15702 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

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

[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 or 

new affected sources according to the following table] 

For* * For the following standard* * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by* * * 

1. Each internal floating roof (IFR) storage tank 

at an existing or new affected source meeting 

any set of capacity and vapor pressure limits 

specified in Table 2, items 1 through 4 of this 

subpart. 

2. Each external floating roof (EFR) storage 

tank at an existing or new affected source 

meeting any set of capacity and vapor pressure limits specified in Table 2, items 1 

through 4 of this subpart. 

3. Each IFR or EFR tank at an existing or new 

affected source meeting any set of capacity 

and vapor pressure limits specified in Table 

2, items 1 through 4 of this subpart. 

a. Install a floating roof designed and operated according to the applicable specifications in § 63.1063(a) and (b). 

a. See the standard in item 1.a. of this table 

a. Repair the conditions causing storage tank 

inspection failures (§ 63.1063(e)). 

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. 

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. 

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

liquid, or within 45 days (or up to 105 days 

with extensions) for a tank containing liquid; 

and 

ii. keeping the tank records required In 

§63.1065(b). 

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

[As stated in § 63.2386(b) and (f), you must submit a compliance or startup, shutdown, and malfunction report according to the following table] 

You must submit a (n)' The report must contain * You must submit the report ' 

1. Compliance report 

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

malfunction during the reporting period that is 

not consistent with your SSMP. 

a. A statement that there were no deviations 

from the standards during the reporting period; or if you have a deviation from any 

standard during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in 

§ 63.2386(e). 

b. If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you 

took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 

compliance report must include the information in §63.10(d)(5)(i). 

a. Actions taken for the event 

b. The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(H) 

i. Semiannually, and report, it must be postmarked within 30 days after the end of 

each calendar half (§63.10(e)(3)(v)). 

See the submission in item 1 .a.i. of this table. 

By fax or telephone within 2 working days 

after starting actions inconsistent with the 

plan. 

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)). 

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

[As stated in §63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]: 

Citation 

§63.1 

§63.2 

§63.3 

§63.4 

Subject 

Applicability 

Units and Abbreviations 

Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. 

Brief description 

Initial applicability determination; Applicability after standard 

established; Permit requirements; Extensions, Notifications. 

Definitions for part 63 standards 

Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards 

Prohibited activities; Circumvention, Severability 

Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes. 

31 
P.32 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15703 

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

[As stated in §63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]: 

Citation 

§63.5 

§63.6(a) 

§63.6(b) 

§ 63.6(b)(5) 

§ 63.6(b)(6) 

§63.6(b) 

§63.6(c)(1H2) 

§63.6(c)(3H4) 

§ 63.6(c)(5) 

§63.6(d) 

§63.6(e)(1)-(2) 

§ 63.6(e)(3) 

§63.6(0(1) 

§63.6(f)(2)-<3) 

§63.6(g)(1H3) 

§63.6(h) 

§ 63.6(h)(1) 

§63.6(h)(2)(i) 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(H) 

§63.6(h)(2)(iii) 

§ 63.6(h)(3) 

§ 63.6(h)(4) 

§63.6(h)(5)(i), (III)-

(v). 

§ 63.6(h)(5)(H) 

§ 63.6(h)(6) 

§63.6(h)(7)(i) 

§63.6(h)(7)(ii) 

§63.6(h)(7)(iii) 

§63.6(h)(7)(iv) 

Subject 

Construction/Reconstruction 

Compliance with Standards/ 

O&M-Applicability. 

Compliance Dates for New and 

Reconstructed Sources. 

Notification 

[Reserved] 

Compliance Dates for New and 

.Reconstructed Area Sources 

that Become Major. 

Compliance Dates for Existing 

Sources. 

[Reserved] 

Compliance Dates for Existing 

Area Sources that Become 

Major. 

[Reserved] 

Operation & Maintenance 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Plan. 

Compliance except During SSM 

Methods for Determining Compliance. 

Alternative Standard 

OpacityA/isible Emission (VE) 

Standards. 

Compliance with opacity/VE 

Standards. 

Determining Compliance with 

OpacityA/E Standards. 

[Reserved] 

Using Previous Tests to Demonstrate Compliance with 

Opacity/VE Standards. 

[Reserved] 

Notification of Opacity/VE Observation Date. 

Conducting Opacity/VE Observations. 

Opacity Test Duration and Averaging Times. 

Records of Conditions During 

Opacity/VE Observations. 

Report COMS Monitoring Data 

from Performance Test. 

Using COMS instead of Method 

9. 

Averaging Time for COMS during 

Performance Test. 

COMS Requirements 

Brief description 

Applicability; Applications; Approvals 

GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area 

sources that become major. 

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective 

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

Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction 

after proposal. 

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. 

Comply according to date in 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. 

Area sources that become major must comply with major 

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

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. 

Requirement for SSM plan; content of SSM plan 

You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. 

Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. 

Procedures for getting an alternative standard 

Requirements for opacity and visible emission standards 

You must comply with opacity/VE standards at all times except during SSM. 

If standard does not state test method, use Method 9 for 

opacity and Method 22 for VE. 

Criteria for when previous opacity/VE testing can be used to 

show compliance with this subpart. 

Must notify Administrator of anticipated date of observation .. 

Dates and schedule for conducting opacity/VE observations 

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

minute averages. 

Must keep records available and allow Administration to inspect. 

Must submit COMS data with other performance test data ... 

Can submit COMS data instead of Method 9 results even if 

rule requires Method 9, but must notify Administrator before performance test. 

To determine compliance, must reduce COMS data to 6-

minute averages. 

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). 

Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

No. The subpart does 

not have opacity/VE 

standards. 

No. 

No. 

/ 

No. 

No 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No 

3^ 
P.33 

15704 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

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

[As stated in §63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]: 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§63.6(h)(7)(v) 

§ 63.6(h)(8) 

§ 63.6(h)(9) 

§63.6(I)(1H14) 

§63.60 

§63.7(a)(1H2) 

§ 63.7(a)(3) 

§ 63.7(b)(1) 

§ 63.7(b)(2) 

§63.7(c) 

§ 63.7(d) 

§ 63.7(e)(1) 

§ 63.7(e)(2) 

§ 63.7(e)(3) 

§ 63.7(f) 

§ 63.7(g) 

§63.7(h) 

§ 63.8(a)(1) 

§ 63.8(a)(2) 

§ 63.8(a)(3) 

§ 63.8(a)(4) 

§ 63.8(b)(1) 

§63.8(b)(2H3) 

§ 63.8(c)(1) 

§63.8(c)(1)(i) .. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(H) . 

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) 

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) 

Determining Compliance with 

Opacity/VE Standards. 

Determining Compliance with 

Opacity/VE Standards. 

Adjusted Opacity Standard 

Compliance Extension 

Presidential Compliance Exemption. 

Performance Test Dates 

Section 114 Authority 

Notification of Performance Test 

Notification of Rescheduling 

Quality Assurance/Test Plan 

Testing Facilities 

Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. 

Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. 

Test Run Duration 

Alternative Test Method 

Performance Test Data Analysis 

Waiver of Tests 

Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. 

Performance Specifications 

[Reserved] 

Monitoring with Flares 

Monitoring 

Multiple Effluents and Multiple 

Monitoring Systems. 

Monitoring System Operation and 

Maintenance. 

Routine and Predictable SSM 

SSM not in SSM plan 

Compliance with Operation and 

Maintenance Requirements. 

Monitoring System Installation 

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

shows otherwise. Requirements for COMS to be probable 

evidence-proper maintenance, meeting PS 1, and data 

have not been altered. 

Administrator will use all COMS, Method 9, and Method 22 

results, as well as infonnation about operation and maintenance to determine compliance. 

Procedures for Administrator to adjust an opacity standard .. 

Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. 

President may exempt any source from requirement to comply with subpart. 

Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other 

dates are compliance demonstrations; must contained in 

conduct 180 days after first subject to subpart. 

Administrator may require a performance test under CAA 

section 114 at any time. 

Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test 

If have to reschedule performance test, must notify Administrator of rescheduled date 5 days before scheduled date. 

Requirement to submit site-specific 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. 

Requirements for testing facilities 

Performance test must be conducted under representative 

conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; 

not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. 

Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods 

unless Administrator approves, alternative. 

Must have three test runs of at least one hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. 

Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to 

use an alternative test method. 

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. 

Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test 

Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard 

Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 

apply. 

Unless this subpart says otherwise, the requirements for 

flares in §63.11 apply. 

Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. 

Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must 

install on each effluent before it is combined and before it 

is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on 

an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. 

Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices. 

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. 

Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSM plan. 

How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements; review of source 

O&M procedures, records, manufacturer's recommendations; inspections. 

Must install to get representative emission or parameter 

measurements; must verify operational status before or at 

performance test. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. These dates are 

contained in 

§63.2354. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

33 
P.34 

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 15705 

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

[As stated in § 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]: 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

§ 63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements 

§ 63.8(c)(5) 

§63.8(c)(6H8) 

§ 63.8(d) 

§63.8(e) 

§63.8(f)(1H5) 

§63.8(f)(6) 

§63.8(g) 

§63.9(a) 

§63.9(b)(1H5) .... 

§ 63.9(c) 

§63.9(d) 

§63.9(e) 

§63.9(0 

§ 63.9(g) 

§63.9(h)(1H6) .... 

§63.9(i) 

§63.9fl) 

§63.10(a) 

§63.10(b)(1) 

§63.10(b)(2)(IHv) 

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi) 

§63.10(b)(2)(xii) 

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .... 

§63.10(b)(2)(xiv) .... 

§63.10(b)(3) 

§63.10(c) 

§63.10(d)(1) 

§ 63.10(d)(2) 

§63.10(d)(3) 

§ 63.10(d)(4) 

§63.10(d)(5) 

COMS Minimum Procedures 

CMS Requirements 

CMS Quality Control 

CMS Performance Evaluation 

Alternative Monitoring Method .... 

Alternative to Relative Accuracy 

Test. 

Data Reduction 

Notification Requirements 

Initial Notifications 

Request for Compliance Extension. 

Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New 

Sources. 

Notification of Performance Test 

Notification of VE/Opacity Test ... 

Additional Notifications When 

Using CMS. 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. 

Change in Previous Information .. 

Recordkeeping/Reporting 

Recordkeeping/Reporting 

Records Related to Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction. 

CMS Records 

Records 

Records 

Records 

Records 

Records 

General Reporting Requirements 

Report of Performance Test Results. 

Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. 

Progress Reports 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. 

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. 

COMS minimum procedures 

Zero and high level calibration check requirements Out-ofcontrol periods. 

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. 

Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports 

Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. 

Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative 

accuracy tests for CEMS. 

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. 

Applicability and State delegation 

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. 

Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/ 

LAER. 

For sources that commence construction between proposal 

and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. 

Notify Administrator 60 days prior 

Notify Administrator 30 days prior 

Notification of performance evaluation; notification about use 

of COMS data; Notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy alternative. 

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. 

Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. 

Must submit within 15 days after the change 

Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit 

to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of 

more than 1 source. 

General requirements; keep all records readily available; 

keep for 5 years. 

Occunence of each for operations (process equipment); occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution control equipment; maintenance on air pollution control equipment; actions during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. 

Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control periods 

Records when under waiver 

Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test 

All documentation supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status. 

Applicability determinations 

Additional records for CMS 

Requirement to report 

When to submit to Federal or State authority 

What to report and when 

Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. 

Contents and submission 

Yes. However, CEMS/ 

COMS are not applicable. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. However, CEMS/ 

COMS are not applicable. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. However, there 

are no opacity/VE 

standards. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

3H 
$#';*?*"."' 

P.35 

15706 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 63/Tuesday, April 2, 2002/Proposed Rules 

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

[As stated in §63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]: 

Citation 

§63.10(e)(1H2) .... 

§63.10(e)(3)(iMiii) 

§63.10(e)(3)(ivHv) 

§63.10(e)(3)(vi)-

(viii). 

§ 63.10(e)(4) 

§63.10(0 

§63.11 

§63.12 

§63.13 

§63.14 

§63.15 

Subject 

Additional CMS Reports 

Reports 

Excess Emissions Reports 

Excess Emissions Report and 

Summary Report. 

Reporting COMS data 

Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting. 

Flares 

Delegation 

Addresses 

Incorporation by Reference 

Availability of Information 

Brief description 

Must report results for each CEMS on a unit; written copy of 

CMS performance evaluation; 2-3 copies of COMS performance evaluation. 

Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter 

monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations). 

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). 

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). 

Must submit COMS data with performance test data 

Procedures for Administrator to waive 

Requirements for flares 

State authority to enforce standards 

Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are 

sent. 

Public and confidential information 

Applies to subpart 

EEEE 

Yes. However, CEMS/ 

COMS are not applicable. 

Yes. However, note 

that the title of the 

report is the compliance report, Deviations are excess 

emissions or parameter exceedances. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

N/A 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

[FR Doc. 02-7095 Filed 4-1-02 ; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

3Z3