P.1 

OAR Box 1669 

Prepped by Charmelie Mathews 

Document Number: 

<g{JX\) N-F-1 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/23/2008 9:36:49 AM Sheet 91 of 110 
P.2 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[FRL- ] 

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) of 

the 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 
P.3 

2 

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 [INSERT DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing by [INSERT DATE 20 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER], a public hearing will be 

held on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

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, 

^ 
P.4 

3 

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 10:00 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 

the 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 through 

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(jjepa. 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 file 

format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form 

3 
P.5 

4 

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 the following address, and not to the public docket, to 

ensure that 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 the EPA, the information may be made available 

to the 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 the public hearing. 

Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also 

call Ms. Collins to verify the time, date, and location of 

1 
P.6 

5 

the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments 

concerning these proposed emission standards. 

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all 

the information considered by the EPA in the development of 

this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because 

material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The 

docketing system is intended to allow members of the public 

and industries involved to readily identify and locate 

documents so that they can effectively participate in the 

rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated 

standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket 

will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text 

and other materials related to this 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 the 

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 of the rule will be posted on the TTN's 

S 
P.7 

6 

policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. If more information 

regarding the 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 

(non-Gasoline)" 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 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 

P 
P.8 

7 

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: 

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. 

Category 

Industry 

SIC* 

2821 

2865 

2869 

2911 

4226 

4612 

5169 

5171 

NAICS* 

325211 

325192 

325188 

32411 

49311' 

49319 

48611 

42269 

42271 

Federal 

Government 

Federal agency facilities that 

operate any of the types of 

entities listed under the 

"industry" category in this 

table. 

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

OLD operations, 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 of the 

proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to a particular 

7 
P.9 

8 

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 
P.10 

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 seg. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

I. ' National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

I. Background 

A. How would this rule relate to other 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 

°l 
P.11 

10 

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 these proposed OLD standards. At plant sites subject 

to both the proposed OLD standards and another NESHAP, the 

OLD NESHAP, when finalized, would apply only to the specific 

equipment and activities that are related directly to the 

distribution of 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 

these cases, the OLD NESHAP would not apply' to any OLD 

emission source already complying with control provisions 

to 
11 

under another part 63 NESHAP. For other applicable NESHAP 

that are not yet final and which potentially would apply to 

OLD equipment, the NESHAP that have the earliest compliance 

date would apply. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 

et seg., Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes 

the national policy of the 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 

li 
P.13 

12 

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? 

I?-
P.14 

13 

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) of the 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 best-controlled 

similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 

be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they 

cannot be less stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best-performing 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 

that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish 

13 
14 

standards more stringent than the floor based on 

consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any nonair quality 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 these 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 

H 
P.16 

15 

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 of the 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 studies have reported developmental 

effects, including birth defects in animals exposed via 

inhalation. The EPA has classified ethylbenzene in Group D, 

not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. 

A" 
P.17 

16 

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/m-^) 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 

/£ 
P.18 

17 

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. 

n 
P.19 

18 

Implementation of the 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 

16 
19 

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 of the 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 

/<? 
P.21 

20 

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 the 

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 the 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 the 

atmosphere from hatch covers, relief valves, or other parts 

of the system. 

The equipment components used to convey organic liquids 

between tanks or pipelines can also be a source of vapor 

leakage. At OLD operations, the 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 

riO 
P.22 

21 

sources. Our 1998 survey of the 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 the 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: 

• 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 of the 

facility) would be subject to the proposed standards. Also, 

only those transfer rack loading positions with an organic 

« ^ l 
22 

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 be 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 

;DO>-
23 

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 also 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 

_^i 
24 

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. 

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 

2H 
25 

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 of 

the 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 within 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. 

! 
26 

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 of the 

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 these positions. Examples of these steps are 

<^G? 
27 

o 

contacting cargo tank owners to explain the vapor tightness 

requirements and posting reminder signs summarizing the 

requirements at the affected loading positions. 

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 of the 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. 

-27 
28 

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 tobe 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. 

Ill. 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 other manufacturing plant sites, 

there is the potential for overlapping control requirements 

Pf? 
P.30 

29 

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 (nonGasoline) NESHAP would apply to organic liquids distribution 

activities at sites that are determined to be "major 

sources" as defined in section 112(a)(1) of the 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 of the 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 

^ 
P.31 

30 

50 and 100 percent of the threshold, but which hold Stateenforceable 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) of the 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 

So 
31 

major source OLD operations wherever they occur, and this 

includes a variety of traditional industries. While these 

industry segments are distinct from one another (for 

example, they are described by several different SIC/NAICS 

codes), they are related to each other because they handle 

similar types of liquids which are inputs or outputs of the 

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 be 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 the types of 

facilities where the OLD activities occur. 

The organic liquids affected by the proposed standards 

are those liquids that contain 5 percent by weight or more 

of the 69 organic HAP listed in Table 1 of the proposed 

subpart. These liquids include pure HAP chemicals (straight 

toluene, for example), petroleum liquids, and many blended 

mixtures and solutions of organic HAP chemicals that 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 

31 
P.33 

32 

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 these 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 that 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, 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 stand-alone terminals to distribute 

their own liquids, and they may also lease storage space at 

32 
. 33 

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 of the pipeline. 

Section 112(d)(1) of the 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. 

33 
34 

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 

of the 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) of the 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. 

3^ 
35 

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 of the specific organic HAP to be regulated 

by the proposed standards. We first made a listing of all 

of the 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 of the 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 

SS" 
36 

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 of the 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 of the HAP 

listed in Table 1 of the 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 

of the 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 

33b 
37 

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 of the 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 of the volume for 

liquids with a HAP content below 10 percent. Since the 

potential emissions from crude oil are a significant 

fraction of the 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 

?>7 
P.39 

38 

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 be 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 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 

3_ 
P.40 

39 

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 of the 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 • 

Sf 
P.41 

40 

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 throughout the country. 

We determined MACT floors for existing sources based on 

the arithmetic average of the 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 within several tank size and liquid vapor pressure 

HO 
41 

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 

operation's 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 

4. 
P.43 

42 

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 

the 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 the 

HZ 
43 

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 whether any applicable control approaches were 

available that were both more stringent than these floors 

and satisfied the criteria in section 112(d)(2) of the CAA. 

The MACT floors for existing and new organic liquids 

storage tanks consist of a choice between the 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 

*P 
P.45 

44 

that levels above 95 percent should not be considered as an 

alternative control level for transfer 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 of the Standards 

Some OLD operations may involve very low organic 

liquids throughputs because they operate intermittently, but 

they would still 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 

HH 
45 

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 of the 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 

HA-
P.47 

46 

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 

H<b 
47 

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 of the 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 applying both the emission limit and 

throughput cutoff to each individual loading position. 

Under this approach, owners and operators will 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 

Hi 
P.49 

48 

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 

It 
P.50 

"49 

and operating limits, equipment standards, and work practice 

standards. Section 112(h) of the 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 

specified a percentage control efficiency for consistency 

with the HON and the 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 

specifying an alternate emission limit of 20 ppmv of either 

HI 
P.51 

50 

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 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 

5f> 
P.52 

51 

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 specified 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 of 

the 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 

S"! 
52 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU. 

F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance 

reguirements? 

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 

methods proposed for testing and for demonstrating initial 

compliance with the proposed standards are similar to those 

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 

required 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 required for 

sr-
53 

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 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 the 

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 other rules 

at certain types of facilities. However, the cost of 

applying monitors that provide a continuous measurement in 

the units o,f these proposed standards would be unacceptably 

high. Similarly, we found that continuous monitoring of a 

_rs 
54 

HAP surrogate (such as TOC) would not provide an accurate 

indication of compliance with the proposed HAP emission 

limitations because of the 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 this as the 

primary monitoring approach in these proposed standards. 

Based on information from OLD sources, we selected operating 

parameters for 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 the 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 these proposed standards. If you do, you must 

SH 
P.56 

55 

request approval for alternative monitoring according to the 

procedures in §63.8 of the General Provisions. 

H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements? 

The required notifications and other reporting are 

based on the General 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 require any changes to this 

information to be reported in subsequent reports. 

Similarly, records are 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 required 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) 

33 
56 

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 of the 

organic HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the 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 

sT^ 
57 

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 of the 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 of the 

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 

31 
P.59 

58 

not equipped with vapor collection equipment, most of them 

would continue to undergo the DOT leak tightness testing and 

not the annual EPA Method 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. 

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 of the 

£S 
59 

facilities out of the 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 guality health, environmental, and 

energy impacts? 

Water quality would not be significantly affected by 

implementation of the 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 byproduct of their operation. When adsorption systems are 

S4 
P.61 

60 

used, the spent activated carbon or other adsorbent that 

cannot be further regenerated may be disposed of in a 

landfill, which would contribute a small amount of solid 

waste. 

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 of the controlled organic liquids 

are non-gasoline fuels, the applied control measures would 

keep these liquids in the distribution system and thus have 

a positive impact on this form of energy. 

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 

L?o 
P.62 

61 

"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, the 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). 

<__ _ 
62 

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. 

6? 
63 

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 6724 9, 

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 

^3 
64 

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 health or safety 

risk that 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, and explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. 

<M 
65 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 

5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety risks. No 

children's risk analysis was performed because no 

alternative technologies exist that would provide greater 

stringency at a reasonable cost. 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 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)), provides that 

agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects 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 

(A? 
66 

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 Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action." This 

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 is as 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 

bG> 
67 

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 regards 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 proposal 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 

cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with 

"Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the 

47 
68 

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 cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 

section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows 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 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The 

plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 

governments, enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 

development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 

educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

b<2 
69 

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 of the 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 of the UMRA. 

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended bv the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et sea. 

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 

_»• . 
P.71 

70 

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 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or 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-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. It should be noted that companies in 26 4-digit SIC 

codes and 42 NAICS codes are affected by this proposed rule, 

and the small business definition applied to each industry 

by SIC code or 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 

70 
71 

number of small entities. We have determined that only 

nineteen small firms in the industries affected by this rule 

may be affected. Out of the nineteen affected small firms, 

only two firms are estimated to have compliance costs that 

exceed one percent of their revenues. The reported impacts 

on the small firms are therefore not considered to be 

significant. 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. Therefore, the affected small 

firms are not disproportionately affected by this rule as 

compared to the affected large firms. 

It should be noted that these results are the same in 

this case regardless of how the affected industries are 

classified, either by the NAICS or by the SIC system. The 

results are the same because the small business size 

definitions applied to firms in the affected NAICS codes are 

identical to those in the corresponding SIC codes. 

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant 

11 
72 

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 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 

of the 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 

7P 
73 

(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 of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant 

to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to 

EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The 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 

73 
74 

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 

7# 
75 

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 4 0 CFR part 9 and 4 8 CFR chapter 15. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) of the 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. 

IA 
76 

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 this 

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 Method 18 with specific 

applicability limitations. These methods, designated as 

7£ 
77 

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 these approved alternative 

methods, which may be equally suitable for specific 

applications. We plan to continue our review of the 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 this proposed 

rule and specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable 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 of the proposed subpart 

list the EPA testing methods 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, 

77 
NESHAP: Organic Liquids Distribution—Page 78 of 168 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: 

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 bv reference. 

7S 
79 

**** * 

(b) * * * 

(3) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Test Method 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 proposed to be 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 

3AL 
P.81 

80 

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 Information 

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 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Limits 

Table 

Practi 

Table 

Emissi 

Table 

Operat 

Table 

Practi 

Table 

1 to subpart EEEE 

2 to subpart EEEE 

3 to subpart EEEE 

4 to subpart EEEE 

5 to subpart EEEE 

6 to subpart EEEE -

7 to subpart EEEE -

ce Standards 

8 to subpart EEEE -

on Limits 

9 to subpart EEEE -

ing Limits 

10 to subpart EEEE 

ce Standards 

11 to subpart EEEE 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Emission Limits 

Operating Limits 

Work Practice Standards 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

Initial Compliance with Emission 

• Initial Compliance with Work 

• Continuous Compliance with 

• Continuous Compliance with 

- Continuous Compliance with Work 

- Requirements for Reports 

<Z.O 
P.82 

81 

Table 12 to subpart EEEE - 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)(nongasoline) 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 

*1 
P.83 

82 

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 other 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 part 63 national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants regulation. The main 

£>Z 
83 

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 of the affected 

source. 

(c) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to 

research and development facilities, consistent with section 

£3 
84 

112(b)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

(d) An affected source is a new affected source if you 

commenced construction of the affected source after [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 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. 

<2H 
85 

(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 of the 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 

££ 
P.87 

86 

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 mv general reguirements 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)(1)(i). 

(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the 

provisions in §63.6(e)(3). 

<&b 
P.88 

87 

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 of the CAA. 

§63.2362 What performance tests, design evaluations, and 

performance evaluations must I conduct? 

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 5 

_?7 
88 

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 Method 18. In conducting the performance test, 

you must analyze samples collected as specified in Method 

18, simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the control 

device. Quantify the emissions for all HAP identified as 

present in the inlet gas stream for both the inlet and 

outlet 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 

_£ 
89 

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 of the 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 

outlet 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)(1)(i). 

(h) You may not conduct performance tests during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified 

in §63.7(e)(1). 

€<? 
P.91 

90 

(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 

.^0 
91 

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 of the 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 

-f. 
P.93 

92 

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 of the 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. 

^ 
1 93 

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

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

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the 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 the 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 

73 
94 

(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 of the 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 site-specific operating 

limit in Table 3 of 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? 

44 
P.96 

95 

(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. 

7S-
96 

(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 

4& 
97 

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)(ii). 

(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 

47 
P.99 

98 

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. 

^ 
P.1 

99 

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 

or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through 

December 31. 

(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. 

<?<? 
P.2 

100 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the 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 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: 

/OO 
P.3 

101 

(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)(1)(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 

/ol 
P.4 

102 

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 of the number of hours that the 

component operated in organic liquids service during the 

reporting period; and 

(iv) Method 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 

/£>£. 
P.5 

103 

(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,5 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 (low-level) 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 of the 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 

/o^ 
P.6 

104 

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 timeduring 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 of the 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 

this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a) (3) (iii) (A) or 

71.6(a) (3) (iii) (A), and the compliance report includes all 

required information concerning deviations from any emission 

/oH 
P.7 

105 

limitation (including any operating limit or work practice 

standard) requirement in this subpart, we will consider 

submission of the compliance report as satisfying any 

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 

report will not otherwise affect any obligation the affected 

source may have to report deviations from permit 

requirements to the 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. 

/ ( & 
P.8 

106 

(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 this 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 for expeditious 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 the date of each 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 

/O0 
P.9 

107 

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)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. 

/__? 
P.10 

108 

(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. 

Annual 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 

/OS 
P.11 

109 

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, flow-inducing devices that 

transport gas or vapors from an emission point to a control 

device. This system does not include the vapor collection 

/

G

1 
P.12 

110 

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 oil, 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 breakout 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 

//o 
P.13 

111 

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)(1)(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 

/ / / 
P.14 

112 

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 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 this 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. 

/ / * 
P.15 

113 

Organic liguid, 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 liguids 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 EPAimplemented permit programs under title V of the CAA (42 

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

H3 
P.16 

114 

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-of-way. 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 here 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 

/(H 
P.17 

115 

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 with 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 

/IS 
P.18 

116 

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 be demonstrated annually using 

the procedures specified in Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. For all other cargo tanks, vapor tightness is 

demonstrated by performing the 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) of 

the CAA. 

Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63 

J/ir 
P.19 

117 

Table 1 to Subpart EEEE—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 

Acetaldehyde 

Acetonitrile 

Acrolein 

Acrylic acid 

Acrylonitrile 

Allyl chloride 

Benzene 

Bis (chloromethyl) ether 

Bromoform 

Butadiene (1,3-) 

Carbon disulfide 

Carbon tetrachloride 

Chlorobenzene 

2-Chloro-l,3-butadiene 

Chloroform 

Cumene 

Dichloroethane (1,2-) 

(EDC) 

(Chlo 

(Ethyl 

Dichloroethylether (Bis(2-

chloroethyl)ether) 

Dichloropropene (1,3-) 

Diethylene glycol monobutyl 

Diethylene glycol monomethyl 

roprene) 

ene dichloride) 

ether 

ether 

CAS Number3 

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 

107-06-2 

111-44-4 

542-75-6 

112-34-5 

111-77-3 

in 
P.20 

118 

Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-) 

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

Epichlorohydrin (l-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-) 

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 

//€ 
P.21 

119 

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) 

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 

aCAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Services 

registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or 

mixtures of compounds. 

Table 2 to Subpart EEEE—Emission Limits 

As stated in §§63.2338(b)(2) and 63.2346(a), you must 

//? 
P.22 

120 

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). 

the annual 

average true 

vapor pressure of 

the stored 

organic liquid is 

2:13.1 kilopascals 

(1.9 psia) and 

<76.6 kilopascals 

(11.1 psia). 

(a) reduce 

emissions of total 

organic HAP or TOC 

by 95 weightpercent (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 

of this part; or 

(b) comply with 

the work practice 

standards 

specified in Table 

4, item 1 of this 

subpart. 

/?o 
121 

P.23 

(2) a storage tank 

at an existing 

affected source 

with a capacity 

>151 cubic meters 

(40,000 gallons). 

the annual 

average true 

vapor pressure of 

the stored 

organic liquid is 

_:5.2 kilopascals 

(0.75 psia). 

same as item 1 of 

Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

(3) a storage tank 

at a new affected 

source with a 

capacity >38 cubic 

meters (10,000 

gallons) and <151 

cubic meters 

(40,000 gallons). 

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). 

same as item 1 of 

Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

(4) a storage tank 

at a new affected 

source with a 

capacity >151 

cubic meters 

(40,000 gallons). 

the annual 

average true 

vapor pressure of 

the stored 

organic liquid is 

>0.7 kilopascals 

(0.1 psia). 

same as item 1 of 

Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

/?/ 
P.24 

122 

(5) a transfer the transfer rack 

rack. loads at any 

loading position 

2:11.8 million 

liters (3.12 

million gallons) 

per year of 

organic liquids 

into a 

combination of 

tank trucks and 

railcars. 

(a) reduce 

emissions of total 

organic HAP or TOC 

at each affected 

loading position 

by 95 weightpercent (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 

of this part; and 

(b) comply with 

the work practice 

standards 

specified in Table 

4, item 2 of this 

subpart. 

/P2-
P.25 

123 

Table 3 to Subpart EEEE--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. 

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. 

/s& 
124 

P.26 

(3) each existing and each 

new affected source using a 

condenser to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 2 of 

this subpart. 

maintain the hourly average 

condenser exit temperature 

less than or equal to the 

reference temperature 

established during the 

design evaluation or 

performance test. 

(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. 

(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; and 

(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 

19-1 
(5) each existing and each 

new affected source using 

adsorption system without 

adsorbent regeneration to 

comply with an emission 

limit in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

125 

(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 

an 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. 

(6) each existing and each 

new affected source using a 

flare to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 2 of 

this subpart. 

(A) comply with the 

equipment and operating 

requirements in §63.987(a) 

of subpart SS of this part; 

and 

(B) conduct an initial flare 

compliance assessment in 

accordance with §63.987(b) 

of subpart SS of this part; 

and 

(C) install and operate 

monitoring equipment as 

specified in §63.987(c) of 

subpart SS of this part. 

/ ^ 
P.28 

126 

Table 4 to Subpart EEEE—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 as an alternative to the 

existing or new affected emission limit in Table 2 of 

source meeting any set of this subpart, comply with 

capacity and vapor pressure the requirements of subpart 

limits specified in Table 2, WW (control level 2) of this 

items 1-4 of this subpart. part. 

/2t> 
127 

(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. 

(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 within 

the last 12 months, to be 

vapor-tight (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 

§60.502(e) of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart XX for these 

equipped cargo tanks. The 

required vapor tightness 

documentation is described 

in §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 §60.502(d), 

(f), (g), (h), and (i) of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart XX for 

the equipped cargo tanks 

described in item 2.B in 

Table 4 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. 

comply with the requirements 

of subpart TT (control level 

1) or subpart UU (control 

level 2) of this part. 

/<?? 
128 

Table 5 to Subpart EEEE—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. You must conduct 

a performance 

test... 

Using. To 

determine... 

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

(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. 

to determine the 

organic HAP or 

TOC control 

efficiency of 

each nonflare 

control device, 

or the exhaust 

concentration of 

each combustion 

device. 

(a) Method 1 

or 1A in 

appendix A of 

40 CFR part 

60, as 

appropriate. 

sampling port 

locations and 

the required 

number of 

traverse 

points. 

(JL) sampling sites 

must be located at 

the inlet and outlet 

of each control 

device and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere; and 

(2.) sampling sites 

must be located at 

the outlet of each 

control device and 

prior to any releases 

to the atmosphere. 

(b) Method 2, 

2A, 2C, 2D, 

2F, or 2G in 

appendix A of 

40 CFR part 

60, as 

appropriate. 

stack gas 

velocity and 

volumetric 

flow rate. 

vj 
129 

(c) Method 3 concentration 

or 3B in of C02 and 02 

appendix A of and dry 

40 CFR part molecular 

60, as weight of the 

appropriate. stack gas. 

(d) Method 4 moisture 

in appendix A content of 

of 40 CFR the stack 

part 60. gas. 

-a 

CO 
130 

(e) Method 

18, 25, or 

25A in 

appendix A of 

40 CFR part 

60, as 

appropriate, 

or Method 316 

in appendix A 

of 4 0 CFR 

part 63 for 

measuring 

formaldehyde. 

total organic 

HAP or TOC, 

or 

formaldehyde 

emissions. 

(JL) 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 

(2.) 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 

weight-percent or to 

2 0 ppmv exhaust 

concentration. 
131 

(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. 

to determine the 

vapor tightness 

of the tank and 

repair as needed 

until it passes 

the test. 

Method 27 in 

appendix A of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

vapor 

tightness. 

The pressure change 

in the tank must be 

no more than 250 

pascals (1 inch of 

water) in 5 minutes 

after it is 

pressurized to 4,500 

pascals (18 inches of 

water). 
132 

Table 6 to Subpart EEEE—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. 

reduce total 

organic HAP 

or TOC 

emissions by 

at least 95 

weightpercent, or 

to an 

exhaust 

concentratio 

n of <20 

ppmv. 

(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. 

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. 

3 years after 

publication of 

final rule in the 

FR. 

the initial 

startup date for 

the affected 

source. 
133 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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. 

3 years after 

publication of 

final rule in the 

FR. 

the initial 

startup date for 

the affected 

source. 

Table 7 to Subpart EEEE—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... 
134 

(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. 

install a floating 

roof or equivalent 

control that meets the 

requirements in Table 

4, item 1 of this 

subpart. 

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. 

3 years 

after 

publication 

of final 

rule in the 

FR. 

(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. 

the initial 

startup date 

for the 

affected 

source. 

(3) transfer rack 

loading position at an 

existing affected 

source that meets the 

throughput cutoff in 

Table 2, item 5 of 

this subpart. 

load organic liquids 

only into cargo tanks 

having current vapor 

tightness 

certification as 

described in Table 4, 

item 2 of this 

subpart. 

you take steps to ensure that 

only vapor-tight cargo tanks 

load at affected loading 

positions. 

3 years 

after 

publication 

of final 

rule in the 

FR. 
135 

(4) transfer rack the initial 

loading position at a startup date 

new affected source for the 

that meets the affected 

throughput cutoff in source. 

Table 2, item 5 of 

this subpart. 

(5) piece of equipment carry out a leak you make available written 3 years 

at an existing detection and repair specifications for the leak after 

affected source, as program or equivalent detection and repair program publication 

defined under §63.2410 control according to or equivalent control of final 

of this subpart that one of the subparts approach. rule in the 

operates in organic listed in Table 4, FR. 

liquids service > 300 item 3 of this 

hours per year. subpart. 

(6) piece of equipment the initial 

at a new affected startup date 

source, as defined for the 

under §63.2410 of this affected 

subpart that operates source, 

in organic liquids 

service > 300 hours 

per year. 

Table 8 to Subpart EEEE--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: 

n 
136 

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. 

reduction of total 

organic HAP or TOC 

emissions from the 

closed vent system 

and control device 

must be 95 weightpercent or greater, 

or 20 ppmv of 

organic HAP or TOC 

in the exhaust of 

combustion devices. 

(a) performing CMS 

monitoring and collecting 

data according to §§63.2366, 

63.2374, and 63.2378; and 

(b) maintaining the sitespecific operating limits 

within the ranges 

established during the 

design evaluation or 

performance test. 

(2) 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. 

Table 9 to Subpart EEEE—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: 
u) 

NJ 

For each existing and 

each new ... 

(1) affected source 

using a thermal oxidizer 

to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 

2 of this subpart. 

(2) affected source 

using a catalytic 

oxidizer to comply with 

an emission limit in 

Table 2 of this subpart. 

137 

For the following 

operating limit... 

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 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. 

You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance by... 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 
138 

K 

(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. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(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. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 
(3) affected source 

using a condenser to 

comply with an emission 

limit in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

139 

maintain the hourly 

average condenser exit 

temperature less than 

or equal to the 

reference temperature 

established during the 

design evaluation or 

performance test. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

A/ 
^ 

^> 

(4) affected source 

using an adsorption 

system with adsorbent 

regeneration to comply 

with an emission limit 

in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

140. 

(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. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(a) maintaining the frequency 

of regeneration greater than or 

equal to the reference frequency 

established during the design 

evaluation or performance test; 

and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 
141 

(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. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(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. 

(a) 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. 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 
142 

(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) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(5) affected source 

using an adsorption 

system without adsorbent 

regeneration to comply 

with an emission limit 

in Table 2. 

(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. 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

4i 
143 

(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) maintaining the temperature 

of the adsorption bed less than 

or equal to the reference 

temperature established during 

the design evaluation or 

performance test; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(6) affected source 

using a flare to comply 

with an emission limit 

in Table 2. 

(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)) . 

(a) continuously operating a 

device that detects the presence 

of the pilot flame; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(B) maintain a flare 

flame at all times 

that vapors are being 

vented from the 

emission source 

(§63.11(b) (5)) . 

(a) maintaining a flare flame 

at all times that vapors are 

being vented from the emission 

source; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(C) operate the flare 

with no visible 

emissions, except for 

up to 5 minutes in any 

2 consecutive hours 

(§63.11(b)(4)). 

•.(a) operating the flare with no 

visible emissions exceeding the 

amount allowed; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 
144 

(D) operate the flare 

with an exit velocity 

that is within the 

applicable limits in 

§63.11(b)(6), (7), and 

(8) . 

(a) operating the flare within 

the applicable exit velocity 

limits; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

(E) operate the flare 

with a net heating 

value of the gas being 

combusted greater than 

the applicable minimum 

value in 

§63.11(b) (6) (ii) . 

(a) operating the flare with 

the gas net heating value within 

the applicable limit; and 

(b) keeping the applicable 

records required in §63.998. 

Table 10 to Subpart EEEE—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. 

install a 

floating roof 

designed and 

operated 

according to 

the applicable 

specifications 

in §63.1063(a) 

and (b). 

145 

(a) 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 

(b) keeping the tank records required in 

§63.1065. 

(a) 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 

(b) 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 

(c) keeping the tank records required in 

§63.1065. 
- $ 

^ 

146 

(3) each IFR or EFR repair the (a) repairing conditions causing 

tank at an existing or conditions inspection failures: before refilling the 

new affected source causing storage tank with liquid, or within 45 

meeting any set of storage tank days (or up to 105 days with extensions) 

capacity and vapor inspection for a tank containing liquid; and 

pressure limits failures 

specified in Table 2, (§63.1063(e)) . (b) keeping the tank records required in 

items 1 through 4 of §63.1065(b). 

this subpart. 
147 

Table 11 to Subpart EEEE—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. (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). 

semiannually, and it must be 

postmarked within 30 days 

after the end of each 

calendar half 

(§63.10(e)(3)(v)). 
148 

(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) actions taken for the 

event. 

(B) the information in 

§63.10(d)(5)(ii). 

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)) . 

4? 

Ol 

o 
4* 

149 

Table 12 to Subpart EEEE—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 

§63.5 

§63.6(a) 

Subject 

Applicability 

Definitions 

Units and 

Abbreviations 

Prohibited 

Activities and 

Circumvention 

Construction/ 

Reconstruction 

Compliance 

with 

Standards/O&MApplicability 

Brief Description Applies to 

Subpart EEEE 

Initial applicability Yes 

determination; Applicability 

after standard established; 

Permit requirements; Extensions, 

Notifications 

Definitions for part 63 standards Yes 

Units and abbreviations for part Yes 

63 standards 

Prohibited activities; Yes 

Circumvention, Severability 

Applicability; Applications; Yes 

Approvals 

GP apply unless compliance Yes 

extension; 

GP apply to area sources that 

become major 
150 

§63.6(b) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Sources 

Standards apply at effective 

date; 3 years after effective 

date; upon startup; 10 years 

after construction or 

reconstruction commences for 

section 112(f) 

Yes 

§63.6(b)(5) Notification Must notify if commenced 

construction or reconstruction 

after proposal 

Yes 

§63.6(b)(6) 

§63.6(b) 

[Reserved] 

Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

that Become 

Major 

Area sources that become major 

must comply with major source 

standards immediately upon 

becoming major, regardless of 

whether required to comply when 

they were an area source 

Yes 

§63.6(c) 

(l)-(2) 

Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources 

1. Comply according to date in 

subpart, which must be no later 

than 3 years after effective date 

2. For section 112(f) standards, 

comply within 90 days of 

effective date unless compliance 

extension 

Yes 

§63.6(c)(3] 

(4) 

[Reserved] 

I 

Ol 

ro 
151 

§63 

(5) 

6(c) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources that 

Become Major 

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) 

Yes 

§63.6(d) [Reserved] 

§63.6(e; 

(l)-(2) 

Operation & 

Maintenance 

1. Operate to minimize emissions 

at all times 

Yes 

2. Correct malfunctions as soon 

as practicable 

3. Operation and maintenance 

requirements independently 

enforceable; information 

.Administrator will use to 

determine if operation and 

maintenance requirements were met 

§63.6(e) Startup, 1. Requirement for SSM plan Yes 

(3) Shutdown, and 

Malfunction 2. Content of SSM plan 

(SSM) 

Plan 

§63.6(f) Compliance You must comply with emission Yes 

(1) except During standards at all times except 

SSM .lli_:.i5£...§.?.?_ 

§63.6(f) Methods for Compliance based on performance Yes 

(2)-(3) Determining test, operation and maintenance 

Compliance plans, records, inspection 

* \ 
152 

§63.6(g; 

(l)-(3) 

Alternative 

Standard 

Procedures for getting an 

alternative standard 

Yes 

§63.6(h) Opacity/Visibl 

e Emission 

(VE) 

Standards 

Requirements for opacity and 

visible emission standards 

No. The 

subpart does 

not have 

opacity/VE 

standards 

§63.6(h) 

(D 

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards 

You must comply with opacity/VE 

standards at all times except 

during SSM 

No 

§63.6(h)(2) 

(i) 

Determining 

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards 

If standard does not state test 

method, use Method 9 for opacity 

and Method 22 for VE 

No 

§63.6(h) 

(2)(ii) 

[Reserved] 

§63.6(h) 

(2)(iii) 

Using Previous 

Tests to 

Demonstrate 

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards 

Criteria for when previous 

opacity/VE testing can be used to 

show compliance with this subpart 

No 

§63.6(h) 

(3) 

[Reserved] 

v 
153 

§63.6(h) 

(4) 

§63.6(h) 

(5) (i), 

(iii)-

(v) 

Notification 

of Opacity/VE 

Observation 

Date 

Must notify Administrator of 

anticipated date of observation 

No 

Conducting 

Opacity/VE 

Observations 

Dates and schedule for conducting 

opacity/VE observations 

No 

Iv 

§63.6(h) 

(5)(ii) 

§63.6(h) 

(6) 

§63.6(h) 

(7)(i) 

§63.6(h) 

(7)(ii) 

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 

Must have at least 3 hours of 

observation with thirty 6-minute 

averages 

Must keep records available and 

allow Administrator 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 

No 

No 

No 

No 
154 

§63.6(h) 

(7) (iii) 

Averaging Time 

for COMS 

during 

Performance 

Test 

To determine compliance, must 

reduce COMS data to 6-minute 

averages 

No 

§63.6(h) 

(7)(iv) 

COMS 

Requirements 

Owner/operator must demonstrate 

that COMS performance evaluations 

are conducted according to 

§63.8(e); COMS are properly 

maintained and operated according 

to §63.8(c) and data quality as 

§63.8(d) 

No 

§63.6(h) 

(7) (v) 

Determining 

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards 

COMS is probable but not 

conclusive evidence of compliance 

with opacity 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 

No 

§63 

(8) 

§63 

(9) 

6(h) 

6(h) 

Determining 

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards 

Adjusted 

Opacity 

Standard 

Administrator will use all COMS, 

Method 9, and Method 22 results, 

as well as information about 

operation and maintenance to 

determine compj-iance 

Yes 

Procedures for Administrator to 

adjust an opacity standard 

Yes 

2 

Ol 
§63.6(i) 

(1)-(14) 

Compliance 

Extension 

155 

Procedures and criteria for 

Administrator to grant compliance 

extension 

Yes 

§63.6 (j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption 

President may exempt any source 

from requirement to comply with 

subpart 

Yes 

§63.7(a) 

(l)-(2) 

Performance 

Test Dates 

Dates for conducting initial 

performance testing and other 

compliance demonstrations. Must 

conduct 180 days after first 

subject to subpart 

No. These 

dates are 

contained in 

§63.2354 

§63.7(a) 

(3) 

Section 114 

Authority 

Administrator may require a 

performance test under CAA 

section 114 at any time 

Yes 

§63.7(b) 

(D 

Notification 

of Performance 

Test 

Must notify Administrator 60 days 

before the test '""' 

Yes 

§63.7(b) 

(2) 

Notification 

of 

Rescheduling 

If have to reschedule performance 

test, must notify Administrator 

of rescheduled date 5 days before 

scheduled date 

Yes 

$ Ol 

^1 
156 

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance/Test 

Plan 

1. Requirement to submit sitespecific test plan 60 days before 

the test or on date Administrator 

agrees with 

Yes 

2. Test plan approval procedures 

3. Performance audit 

requirements 

4. Internal and external QA 

procedures for testing 

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities 

Requirements for testing 

facilities 

Yes 

§63.7(e) 

(D 

Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests 

Performance tests must be 

conducted under representative 

conditions 

Cannot conduct performance tests 

during SSM 

Not a violation to exceed 

standard ^during SSM 

Yes 

§63.7 (el 

(2) 

Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests 

Must conduct according to subpart 

and EPA test methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative 

Yes 

£ ^ 

Ol 

oo 
157 

§63.7(e) Test Run 1. Must have three test runs of Yes 

(3) Duration at least one hour each 

2. Compliance is based on 

arithmetic mean ofthree runs 

3. Conditions when data from an 

additional test run can be used 

§63.7(f) Alternative Procedures by which Administrator Yes 

Test Method can grant approval to use an 

alternative test method 

§63.7(g) Performance 1. Must include raw data in Yes 

Test Data performance test report 

Analysis 

.2. Must submit performance test 

data 60 days after end of test. 

with the notification of 

compliance status 

3. Keep data for 5 years 

§63.7(h) Waiver of Procedures for Administrator to Yes 

Tests waive performance test 

§63.8(a) Applicability Subject to all monitoring Yes 

(1) of Monitoring requirements in standard 

Requirements 

§63.8(a) Performance Performance Specifications in Yes 

(2) Specifications appendix B of part 60 apply 

Ol 
158 

§63.8(a) [Reserved] 

J.3) ; 

§63.8(a) Monitoring Unless this subpart says Yes 

(4) with Flares otherwise, the requirements for 

flares in §63.11 apply 

§63.8(b) Monitoring Must conduct monitoring according Yes 

(1) to standard unless Administrator 

approves alternative 

§63.8(b) Multiple 1. Specific requirements for Yes 

(2)-(3) Effluents and installing monitoring systems 

Multiple 

Monitoring 2. Must install on each effluent 

Systems before it is combined and before 

it is released to the atmosphere 

unless Administrator approves 

otherwise 

3. If more than one monitoring 

system on an emission point, must 

report all monitoring system 

results, unless one monitoring 

system is a backup 

§63.8(c) 

(1) 

Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Maintain monitoring system in a 

manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices 

Yes 
§63.8(c] 

(1) (i) 

Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM 

• 159 

1. Follow the SSM plan for 

routine repairs '• 

2. Keep parts for routine 

repairs readily available 

3. Reporting requirements for 

SSM when action is described in 

SSM plan 

Yes 

§63.8(c) 

(1)(ii) 

SSM not in SSM 

plan 

Reporting requirements for SSM 

when action is not described in 

SSM plan 

Yes 

§63.8(c) 

(1)(iii) 

Compliance 

with Operation 

and 

Maintenance 

Requirements 

1. How Administrator determines 

if source complying with 

operation and maintenance 

requirements 

2. Review of source O&M 

procedures, records, 

manufacturer's.recommendations; 

inspections 

Yes 

§63.8(c) 

(2)-(3) 

Monitoring 

System 

Installation 

1.. Must install to get 

representative emission or 

parameter measurements 

2. Must verify operational 

status before or at performance 

test 

Yes 

b> 
§63.8(c) 

(4) 

CMS 

Requirements 

Yes. 

However, 

CEMS/COMS 

are not 

applicable. 

160 

1. CMS must be operating except 

during breakdown, out-of control, 

repair, maintenance, and highlevel calibration drifts 

2. 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 

3. CEMS must have a minimum of 

one cycle of operation for each 

successive 15-minute period 

§63.8(c) COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures No 

(5) Procedures 

§63.8(c) CMS Zero and high level calibration Yes 

(6)-(8) Requirements check requirements 

Out-of-control periods 

§63.8(d) CMS Quality 1. Requirements for CMS quality Yes 

Control control, including calibration, 

etc 

2. Must keep quality control 

plan on record for 5 years; keep 

old versions for 5 years after 

revisions 
161 

§63.8(e) CMS Notification, performance Yes 

Performance evaluation test plan, reports 

Evaluation 

§63.8(f) Alternative Procedures for Administrator to Yes 

(l)-(5) Monitoring approve alternative monitoring 

Method 

§63.8(f) Alternative to Procedures for Administrator to No 

(6) Relative approve alternative relative 

Accuracy Test accuracy tests for CEMS 

§63.8(g) Data Reduction 1. COMS 6-minute averages Yes. 

calculated over at least 36 However, 

evenly spaced data points CEMS/COMS 

are not 

2. CEMS 1 hour averages computed applicable, 

over at least 4 equally spaced 

data points 

3. Data that cannot be used in 

average 

§63.9(a) Notification Applicability and State Yes 

Requirements delegation 

^ 
162 

§63.9(b) 

(l)-(5) 

Initial 

Notifications 

1. Submit notification within 

120 days after effective date 

2. Notification of intent to 

construct/reconstruct; 

Notification of commencement of 

construction/reconstruction; 

Notification of startup 

3. Contents of each 

Yes 

§63.9(c) Request for 

Compliance 

Extension 

Can request if cannot comply by 

date or if installed BACT/LAER 

Yes 

§63.9(d) Notification 

of Special 

Compliance 

Requirements 

for New 

Sources 

For sources that commence 

construction between proposal and 

promulgation and want to comply 3 

years after effective date 

Yes 

§63.9(e) Notification 

of Performance 

Test 

Notify Administrator 60 days 

prior 

Yes 

§63.9(f] Notification 

of VE/Opacity 

Test 

Notify Administrator 30 days 

prior 

No 

^ 

V 
163 

§63.9(g) Additional 1. Notification of performance Yes. 

Notifications evaluation However, 

When Using CMS there are no 

2. Notification about use of opacity/VE 

COMS data standards. 

3. Notification that exceeded 

criterion for relative accuracy 

alternative 

§63.9(h) Notification 1. Contents Yes 

(l)-(6) of Compliance 

Status 2. Due 60 days after end of 

performance test or other 

compliance demonstration, except 

for opacity/VE, which are due 30 

days after 

3. When to submit to Federal vs. 

State authority 

§63.9(i) Adjustment of Procedures for Administrator to Yes 

Submittal approve change in'when 

Deadlines notifications must be submitted 

§63.9(j) Change in Must submit within 15 days after Yes 

Previous the change 

Information 
164 

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/ 1. Applies to all, unless Yes 

Reporting compliance extension. 

2. When to submit to Federal vs. 

State authority 

3. Procedures for owners of more 

than 1 source 

§63.10(b) Recordkeeping/ 1. General requirements Yes 

(1) Reporting 

2. Keep all records readily 

available 

3. Keep for_ 5 years 

§63.10(b) Records 1. Occurrence of each for Yes 

(2)(i)-(iv) Related to operations (process equipment) 

Startup, 

Shutdown, and 2. Occurrence of each 

Malfunction malfunction of air pollution 

control equipment 

3. Maintenance on air pollution 

control equipment 

4. Actions during startups, 

shutdowns, and malfunctions 

§63.10(b) CMS Records Malfunctions, inoperative, out- Yes 

(2)(vi)-(xi) of-control periods 

§63.10(b) Records Records when under waiver Yes 

(2)(xii) 
165 

§63.10(b) Records Records when using alternative to Yes 

(2)(xiii) relative accuracy test 

§63.10(b) Records All documentation supporting Yes 

(2)(xiv) initial notification and 

.notifica.ti.on of compliance status 

§63.10(b) Records Applicability determinations Yes 

(3) 

§63.10(c) Records Additional records for CMS Yes 

§63.10(d) General Requirement to report Yes 

(1) Reporting 

Requirements 

§63.10(d) Report of When to submit to Federal or Yes 

(2) Performance State authority 

Test Results 

§63.10(d) Reporting What to report and when Yes 

(3) Opacity or VE 

Observations 

§63.10(d) Progress Must submit progress reports on Yes 

(4) Reports schedule if under compliance 

extension 

§63.10(d) Startup, Contents and submission Yes 

(5) Shutdown, and 

Malfunction 

Reports 

^ 
166 

§63.10(e) 

(l)-(2) 

Additional CMS 1. Must report results for each 

Reports CEMS on a unit 

2. Written copy of CMS 

performance evaluation 

3. 2-3 copies of COMS 

performance evaluation 

Yes. 

However, 

CEMS/COMS 

are not 

applicable. 

§63.10(e) 

(3) (i)-(iii) 

Reports Schedule for reporting excess 

emissions and parameter monitor 

exceedance (now defined as 

deviations) 

Yes. 

However, 

note that 

the title of 

the report 

is the 

compliance 

report. 

Deviations 

are excess 

emissions or 

parameter 

exceedances. 

C 

^ 
167 

§63.10(e) 

(3) (iv)-(v) 

Excess 

Emissions 

Reports 

1. Requirement to revert to 

quarterly submission if there is 

an excess emissions and parameter 

monitor exceedances (now defined 

as deviations) 

2. Provision to request 

semiannual reporting after 

compliance for 1 year 

3. Submit report by 30ch day 

following end of quarter or 

calendar half 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

4. 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 

5. Must submit report containing 

all of the information in 

§§63.8(c) (7)-(8). and 63.10(c)(5)-

(13) 

Yes 

§63.10(e) 

(3) (vi)-

(viii) 

Excess 

Emissions 

Report and 

Summary Report 

1. Requirements for reporting 

excess emission's for CMS (now 

called deviations) 

2. Requires all of the 

information in §§63.10 (c) (5)- (13) 

and 63.8(c)(7)-(8) 

Yes 

5 
168 

§63.10(e) Reporting COMS Must submit COMS data with N/A 

(4) data performance test data 

§63.10(f) Waiver for Procedures for Administrator to Yes 

Recordkeeping/ waive 

Reporting 

§63.11 Flares Requirements for flares Yes 

§63.12 Delegation State authority to enforce Yes 

standards 

§63.13 Addresses Addresses where reports, Yes 

notifications, and requests are 

sent 

§63.14 Incorporation Test methods incorporated by Yes 

by Reference reference 

§63.15 Availability Public and confidential Yes 

of Information information 

0^