Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries
Posted Date: 2006-11-07T12:55:10Z

[Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 65301-65319]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no06-18]                         

[[Page 65301]]

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

Part III

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

 40 CFR Part 60

 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic 
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for 
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; Proposed Rule

[[Page 65302]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-2006-0699; FRL-8239-9]
RIN 2060-AN71

 
Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of 
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA 
has reviewed the emission standards for volatile organic compounds 
contained in the standards of performance for equipment leaks of 
volatile organic compounds in the synthetic organic chemicals 
manufacturing industry and equipment leaks of volatile organic 
compounds in petroleum refineries. This action proposes amendments to 
these standards based on this review. Specifically, we are proposing 
amendments to increase the stringency of the leak definitions for pumps 
and valves. We are also proposing several technical clarifications and 
corrections to existing provisions. The clarifications and corrections 
in the regulations would apply to all sources that are subject to rules 
that reference these regulations.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed amendments must be received 
on or before January 8, 2007.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by November 27, 2006, a public hearing will be held on 
December 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0699, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and 
Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by Courier, deliver comments 
to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West Building, Room B-102, 
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit 
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal 
Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding 
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing 
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary 
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of 
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the 
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal 
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on 

docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket 
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the 

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Rackley, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-
0634; fax number (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: rackley.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category                NAICS* code     potentially regulated
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  32411............  Petroleum refiners
                                Primarily 325110,  Synthetic organic
                                 325192, 325193,    chemicals
                                 and 325199.        manufacturing
                                                    industry (SOCMI)
                                                    units, e.g.,
                                                    producers of
                                                    benzene, toluene, or
                                                    any other chemical
                                                    listed in 40 CFR
                                                    60.489.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65303]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 
CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so 
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the 
comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 
that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted 
for inclusion in the public docket.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander 
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate facility nearby. 
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Karen 
Rackley, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at 
least 2 days in advance of the hearing.
    Docket. The docket number for the proposed amendments to the 
standards of performance (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GGG) is Docket ID No. OAR-2006-0699. Legacy dockets for the 
standards of performance include Docket ID Nos. A-79-32 and A-80-44.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments?
    B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment 
leaks in the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV)?
    B. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment 
leaks in other NSPS?
IV. Request for Comments
V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the impacts for SOCMI process units?
    B. What are the impacts for petroleum refining process units?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which 
cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The 
primary purpose of the NSPS are to attain and maintain ambient air 
quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control 
technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions at numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated 
technology (BDT).
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA periodically to 
review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to 
reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions.

B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?

    New source performance standards for equipment leaks of volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) have been developed for four source categories. 
Subpart VV to 40 CFR part 60 applies to SOCMI process units. Subpart 
DDD to 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from 
the Polymer Manufacturing Industry, applies to polypropylene, 
polyethylene, polystyrene, and poly (ethylene terephthalate) process 
units. Subpart GGG to 40 CFR part 60 applies to petroleum refining 
process units. Subpart KKK to 40 CFR part 60 applies to onshore natural 
gas processing plants. Subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK of 40 CFR part 60 
cross-reference the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 
they specify source-category-specific definitions and exceptions to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    The NSPS for equipment leaks of VOC in the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV) were originally promulgated on October 18, 1983 (48 FR 
48335) and apply to all equipment, as defined by the rule, within a 
process unit in the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry 
(SOCMI) that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after January 5, 1981. For the purpose of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
the SOCMI consists of process units producing any of the chemicals 
listed in 40 CFR 60.489 of subpart VV. The standards apply to pumps, 
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, 
open-ended lines, valves, and flanges or other connectors in VOC 
service. Depending on the type of equipment, the standards require 
either periodic

[[Page 65304]]

monitoring for and repair of leaks, the use of specified equipment to 
minimize leaks, or specified work practices. Monitoring for leaks must 
be conducted using EPA Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 or 
other equivalent monitoring techniques. Owners and operators must keep 
records that identify the equipment that are subject to the standards, 
identify equipment that are leaking, and document attempts at repair. 
Information related to leaks and repair attempts also must be included 
in semiannual reports. This subpart has been amended several times 
between 1984 and 2000. Typically, these amendments added definitions, 
exemptions, alternative compliance options, and clarifications. For 
example, one amendment provides an option to comply with the equipment 
leak provisions in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) for 
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 65, subpart F). None of these amendments 
increased the intended performance level of the standards.
    The NSPS for equipment leaks of VOC in petroleum refineries (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GGG) apply to petroleum refining process units for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after 
January 4, 1983. Those standards were originally promulgated on May 30, 
1984 (49 FR 22606), and have been amended only once since the original 
promulgation (65 FR 61768, October 17, 2000) to update the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method references.

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing a variety of amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV; most of these amendments would also apply to affected sources under 
other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK). Some of the amendments to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV would change the leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) standards for pumps and valves in SOCMI process units that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification as of today's 
date. We are also proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG 
that would make the same changes in the LDAR standards for pumps and 
valves in new petroleum refining process units, but these changes would 
not apply to affected sources under 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD and 
KKK. Other amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV would add 
compliance options, add new provisions to ensure that existing 
standards achieve the expected emission reductions, clarify ambiguous 
provisions, and correct miscellaneous errors. These proposed amendments 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV would apply to affected sources under all 
other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK).
    We are proposing amendments to the LDAR requirements for pumps and 
valves in SOCMI process units that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV and begin construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after November 7, 2006. These amendments would increase the stringency 
of the leak definition for pumps in light liquid service from 10,000 
parts per million (ppm) to 2,000 ppm (5,000 ppm for pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers) and increase the stringency of the leak 
definition for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service from 
10,000 ppm to 500 ppm. We are also proposing to amend subpart GGG to 40 
CFR part 60 to specify that the above changes also apply to petroleum 
refining process units that begin construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after November 7, 2006. These proposed amendments reflect 
BDT for these sources based on the performance and cost of the LDAR 
programs.
    We are proposing several amendments to subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60 
which would add provisions designed to ensure that expected emissions 
reductions under the existing standards are being achieved. For 
example, these amendments would require an owner or operator to monitor 
the cap, plug, blind flange, or second valve on open-ended lines once 
per year. In addition, a calibration drift assessment would be required 
at the end of each day of monitoring, and records of monitoring 
instrument calibrations would be required. Finally, flow indicators or 
closure devices would be required on bypass lines that could divert 
flow away from control devices, consistent with requirements in the 
National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Equipment Leaks (HON) (40 CFR part 63, subpart H), the National 
Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks-Control Level 2 Standards 
(Generic MACT) (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), and the CAR (40 CFR part 
65, subpart F), hereafter referred to as ``other equipment leak 
rules.'' All of these proposed changes would apply to affected sources 
under rules that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK).
    We are proposing an amendment to simplify the compliance 
requirements for pumps. When indications of liquids dripping are 
observed during weekly inspections, 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV 
currently requires repair of the leak following the same procedures as 
if the leak were detected by monitoring. The proposed amendment would 
allow the owner or operator to either repair the leak by eliminating 
the indications of liquids dripping or determine if it is leaking based 
on the instrument reading obtained by monitoring the pump in accordance 
with EPA Method 21 or other equivalent monitoring techniques. This 
change would make the requirements in subpart VV consistent with the 
requirements in other equipment leak rules. This option would also be 
available for affected sources under subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK of 40 
CFR part 40.
    We are proposing an alternative compliance option consisting of 
less frequent monitoring for pumps and valves in process units that 
operate part-time during the year. This alternative would apply to 
currently required monthly, quarterly, and semiannual monitoring 
intervals; less frequent monitoring would not be allowed for monitoring 
that is currently required on an annual or less frequent basis. For 
example, pumps in a process that operates 5,250 hours per year (about 
60 percent of full-time operation) could be monitored every other month 
rather than monthly. This alternative is consistent with options in 
other equipment leak rules, and it would be available for affected 
facilities at sources subject to other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VV.
    Several proposed amendments are intended to clarify the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. These changes would make 
the rule language consistent with language that has been included in 
more recent equipment leak rules. These amendments include 
clarification of the definition of ``process unit,'' requirements for 
new equipment added to a process unit, requirements for containers in 
closed-purge sampling systems, monitoring requirements for pumps for 
which repair has been delayed, and examples of actions considered to be 
first attempts at repair of pumps. We are also proposing a 
clarification of the definition of ``process unit'' in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GGG that is comparable to the proposed clarification of the 
definition in subpart VV.
    Finally, the proposed amendments include a few technical 
corrections to fix references and other miscellaneous errors in both 
subpart VV and subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 60. The specific changes are 
detailed in sections III.A and III.B of this preamble.

[[Page 65305]]

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

    To determine the need for revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
we reviewed requirements in other Federal equipment leak rules (e.g., 
recent National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) and the CAR), State rules, and recent consent decrees between 
many petroleum refiners and the United States government (representing 
EPA and various individual States, depending on the petroleum refining 
company). State rules that were reviewed included rule 1173 in 
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, rule 8-18 in 
California's Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and requirements 
for highly reactive VOC in title 30, part 1, chapter 115, subchapter H 
of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). An example of the equipment 
leak provisions included in the petroleum refinery consent decrees 
(from the consent decree for Sunoco, Inc.) can be found in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. The consent decrees in their entirety are 
located at http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/. As a result of this 

review, we developed amendments to improve the performance of the 
Equipment Leak NSPS that would require lower leak definitions for pumps 
in light liquid service and valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid 
service. We also considered a second option that would require 
monitoring of connectors in gas/vapor or light liquid service and 
define a leak for all connectors as an instrument reading of 500 ppm or 
greater. We have decided not to propose this second option at this 
time. See section IV of this preamble for a discussion of this option.
    As a result of the review, we identified several other changes that 
would help ensure that the existing standards achieve the intended 
level of control. We also noted the need for a number of clarifications 
to make the requirements in the NSPS consistent with requirements in 
other equipment leak rules.

A. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment leaks in 
the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV)?

1. Amended Work Practice Standards
    Leak definition for pumps and valves. Typically, reducing the leak 
definition reduces emissions because leaks are identified and fixed 
when they are smaller. Leak definitions for pumps and valves in 
numerous other regulations and requirements are much lower than the 
10,000 ppm leak definitions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For example, 
all NESHAP for SOCMI sources (e.g., the HON, Generic MACT, and the CAR) 
specify leak definitions of 500 ppm for valves in gas/vapor service and 
light liquid service. The NESHAP also specify a leak definition of 
1,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service (except for pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers or in food/medical service, which have leak 
definitions of 5,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm, respectively). Although a pump 
is considered to be leaking at 1,000 ppm, repairs are required only if 
the instrument reading is at least 2,000 ppm.
    Requirements in documents other than Federal NESHAP also have lower 
leak definitions than subpart VV. For example, most of the consent 
decrees for petroleum refineries specify leak definitions of 500 ppm 
for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps. The consent decrees also require 
first attempts to repair valves when instrument readings exceed 100 ppm 
or 200 ppm. This effort has been only marginally successful because 
evidence to date shows such attempts are almost as likely to make 
emissions worse as to fix the valve. These results suggest that there 
are limits below which lowering the leak definition results in 
significantly diminished returns.
    Finally, some State rules also have leak definitions that are lower 
than in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For example, Air Quality Management 
Districts in California (e.g., BAAQMD rule 8-18) specify leak 
definitions as low as 100 ppm for valves and 500 ppm for pumps. Data on 
leak frequencies and other performance measures for facilities 
implementing LDAR programs with these very low leak definitions are not 
available.
    Based on our experience with NESHAP and the consent decrees with 
petroleum refiners, we have concluded that BDT for pumps and valves 
includes lower leak definitions than in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as 
currently written. Specifically, these regulations and other 
requirements indicate BDT includes leak definitions of 500 ppm for 
valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps. Even lower leak definitions 
theoretically would result in lower emissions, but available evidence 
to date does not support selection of lower values. Our impacts 
analysis indicates that lowering the leak definitions to 500 ppm for 
valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps would reduce emissions from new SOCMI 
sources by 230 Mg/yr in the fifth year after implementation of such 
requirements, and the cost would be $310/Mg removed. This cost is 
considered to be reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing to lower the 
leak definitions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV to 2,000 ppm for pumps 
and to 500 ppm for valves.
2. New Compliance Demonstration Requirements
    As mentioned previously, the proposed amendments include provisions 
to ensure that intended emissions reductions are being achieved. The 
proposed clarifications summarized in this section would apply to all 
process units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as well as units 
subject to subparts that reference subpart VV.
    Open-ended lines. Section 60.482-6(a)(1) specifies that, except in 
certain situations, each open-ended valve or line shall be equipped 
with a cap, plug, blind flange, or a second valve. If installed 
properly, the control efficiency of these measures is assumed to be 
essentially 100 percent. Inspections conducted by enforcement agencies, 
however, have found that many of these components are leaking due to 
improper installation. In order to increase compliance with the 
original standards for open-ended lines and achieve the intended 
emission reductions, we are proposing a requirement to monitor each 
open-ended line once per year. An instrument reading of 500 ppm or 
greater would be considered a leak. The 500 ppm level was selected 
because this requirement is comparable to the ``no detectable 
emissions'' option for pumps, compressors, and valves. Repair of leaks 
would be required within 15 days after the leak is detected. Examples 
of repair attempts include tightening or replacing the cap, plug, blind 
flange, or second valve. Records of all monitoring results, each leak 
detected, and each repair attempted would be required. Documentation of 
the total number of leaks and number for which repair was delayed would 
be required in semiannual reports.
    Requirements for Pumps. Sections 60.482-2(b)(2) and (d)(6)(i) of 
subpart VV currently specify that a leak is detected if indications of 
liquids dripping from the pump seal are observed during weekly 
inspections. These leaks must be repaired just as leaks detected by 
instrument readings greater than the leak definition must be repaired. 
We have determined that this requirement is overly burdensome because 
not all liquids dripping are process fluids, and not all drips of 
process fluids would create emissions concentrations greater than the 
applicable leak definitions. To mitigate this burden, we are proposing 
to revise the weekly inspection requirements in a

[[Page 65306]]

manner similar to the requirements in the CAR.
    The proposed amendments would require the owner or operator to 
either monitor the pump or designate visual indications of liquids 
dripping as a leak. If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the 
pump and the instrument reading is greater than or equal to the 
applicable leak definition, then a leak is detected, and it must be 
repaired following the same procedures as any other leak. If the 
instrument reading is less than the applicable leak definition, the 
indications of drips are not a leak, and no further action would be 
required. If the indications of liquids dripping are designated as a 
leak, then the owner or operator would have to repair the leak by 
eliminating the visual indications of liquids dripping. Eliminating 
visual indications of liquids dripping is less burdensome than meeting 
the definition of ``repaired'' because monitoring is not required to 
verify that the repair was successful. (Note that we are also proposing 
to revise the definition of the term ``repaired'' to be consistent with 
the definition in other equipment leak rules and to further clarify the 
definition. See section III.A.3 of this preamble.) Although 40 CFR part 
60, subpart VV does not explicitly specify procedures to follow when 
indications of liquids dripping are observed between scheduled weekly 
inspections, the Agency has determined that owners and operators must 
follow the same requirements as when indications of liquids dripping 
are found during the weekly inspection.
    The most obvious difference between the proposed amendments and the 
requirements in the CAR and Generic MACT is that the proposed 
amendments would explicitly require the owner or operator to designate 
visual indications of liquids dripping as a leak if monitoring is not 
conducted. However, this language is consistent with the intent of the 
CAR and Generic MACT. In the preamble to the proposed CAR (63 FR 57448, 
October 28, 1998), we explained that the new option to eliminate visual 
indications of liquids dripping constitutes leak repair for such 
situations. Another difference between the proposed amendments and the 
CAR is that the CAR essentially requires monitoring twice per month for 
pumps with continuing indications of liquids dripping (i.e., according 
to Sec.  65.107(b)(4)(i), monitoring is required after the first weekly 
inspection each month). The proposed language in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV would require monitoring after only the first weekly 
inspection that revealed indications of liquids dripping. For 
subsequent months, routine monitoring in accordance with Sec.  60.482-
2(a)(1) is still required, but no monitoring would be required after 
any of the weekly inspections. Note, however, that if the pump is 
repaired (by either eliminating indications of liquids dripping or 
other means), then the clock resets and monitoring would again be 
required after the first weekly inspection during which indications of 
liquids dripping are observed.
    Requirements for Closed-vent Systems. We are proposing to add a 
paragraph to the end of Sec.  60.482-10 requiring owners and operators 
to ensure that there is no flow through bypass lines that could divert 
flow away from control devices. This requirement may be fulfilled by 
installing a flow indicator on each bypass line or securing the bypass 
line valve in the non-diverting position. Corresponding recordkeeping 
requirements are being proposed in 40 CFR 60.486(d)(6) and include 
either hourly records of whether the flow indicator was operating and 
whether a diversion into the bypass line was detected or records of 
monthly visual inspections and whether the seal is broken. We are also 
proposing that semiannual reports include records of all periods when 
the vent stream is diverted from the control device through a bypass 
line and all times when maintenance is performed in car-sealed valves, 
when the seal is broken, when the bypass line valve position is 
changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type configuration has been 
checked out. The changes to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for bypass lines on closed-vent systems are 
being proposed to make 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV consistent with other 
equipment leak rules.
    Testing Requirements. We are proposing two changes to the testing 
methods and procedures in 40 CFR 60.485 of subpart VV: addition of a 
daily calibration drift assessment and clarification of the calibration 
gases that must be used.
    Section 60.485(b)(1) of subpart VV specifies that monitoring 
instruments must be calibrated before use each day. To ensure that the 
monitoring results are as accurate as possible, we are proposing to 
require a drift assessment at the end of each monitoring shift. The 
instrument would be checked with the same calibration gases as before 
use, and the percent difference from the initial calibration value 
would be calculated. If the drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent, equipment monitored since the previous 
calibration that showed readings between the leak definition and 20 
percent of the leak definition must be re-monitored. For example, 
equipment with readings between 100 ppm and 500 ppm would have to be 
re-monitored if the leak definition is 500 ppm, and equipment with 
readings between 400 ppm and 2,000 ppm would have to be re-monitored if 
the leak definition is 2,000 ppm. We are specifically requesting 
comments on the proposed calibration drift requirement. In particular, 
we are requesting information on the environmental benefit of this 
assessment and any alternatives that should also be considered.
    Section 60.485(b)(1)(ii) of subpart VV currently requires 
calibration with a mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a 
concentration of about, but less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane. 
This is appropriate for the 10,000 ppm leak definitions as currently 
specified in the rule. However, because we are proposing lower leak 
definitions for pumps and valves, we are also proposing to revise the 
calibration gas requirements to match the requirements in other 
equipment leak rules that specify a variety of leak definition levels, 
such as the Generic MACT (40 CRF 63.1023(b)(4)) and the CAR (40 CFR 
65.104(b)(4)).
    The proposed amendments would require a mixture of methane or n-
hexane and air at a concentration of no more than 2,000 ppm greater 
than the leak definition concentration of the equipment monitored. 
Alternatively, if the monitoring instrument allows for multiple 
calibration scales, then the lower scale should be calibrated with a 
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm above the applicable 
leak definition, and the highest scale should be calibrated with a 
calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000 ppm. If only one 
scale will be used during a day's monitoring, then only that scale will 
need to be calibrated.
    Records of Instrument Calibrations. EPA Method 21 specifies 
instrument calibration requirements, and as discussed above, we are 
proposing additional calibration requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV. Neither the method nor subpart VV, however, require records 
of the calibrations. This information is needed by enforcement agencies 
to ensure compliance. Therefore, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 
60.486(e) of subpart VV to require records of calibrations. The 
proposed amendments would require an owner or operator to maintain 
records of the calibration dates, identification of the operator 
performing the calibration,

[[Page 65307]]

information about the cylinder gas(es) used, a description of any 
corrective action taken if the meter readout could not be adjusted to 
correspond to the calibration gas value, and results of calibration 
drift assessments.
3. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
    We are proposing several technical corrections to the current 
subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60 requirements in the proposed amendments. 
These amendments are being proposed to clarify the intent of the 
current requirements, correct inaccuracies, and correct oversights in 
previous versions that were promulgated. The proposed clarifications 
summarized in this section are consistent with other equipment leak 
rules and apply to all process units subject to subpart VV as well as 
units subject to subparts that reference subpart VV.
    Pumps. We are proposing several clarifications to the standards for 
pumps in light liquid service (40 CFR 60.482-2). The current provisions 
are unclear regarding when a new pump on an affected process unit must 
be monitored for the first time, especially if the new pump is added to 
the process unit between monitoring cycles. We are proposing to revise 
40 CFR 60.482-2(a)(1) to specify that a new pump must be monitored for 
the first time during the next regularly scheduled monitoring cycle for 
existing pumps.
    We are also proposing to amend the delay of repair requirements 
specific to pumps. We are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.482-9(f) to 
clarify that an owner or operator may elect to discontinue monitoring 
for a pump for which repair has been delayed; if this option is chosen, 
the pump is presumed to be leaking until repaired. Alternatively, an 
owner or operator may choose to continue monitoring and consider the 
pump to be repaired if two consecutive monthly monitoring instrument 
readings are below the leak definition.
    Finally, we are proposing several minor clarifications for pumps. 
We are proposing to add specific examples of practices that are 
considered to be options for first attempt at repair. The examples are 
consistent with other equipment leak rules. In a related amendment, we 
are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.482-8(d) to include a reference to 40 
CFR 60.482-2(c)(2) where first attempt at repair is discussed. We are 
also proposing to add 40 CFR 60.486(e)(6) to state explicitly that 
records of the weekly visual inspections must be kept.
    Valves. Similar to pumps, the current provisions are unclear 
regarding when a new valve on an affected process unit must be 
monitored for the first time. We are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.482-
7(a)(2) to specify that a new valve must be monitored for the first 
time within 1 month after installation to ensure that the valve has 
been properly installed, except for valves that are designated for no 
detectable emissions, as unsafe to monitor, or as difficult to monitor. 
Subsequent monitoring for the new valve would begin during the next 
regularly scheduled monitoring cycle for that process unit. Unlike when 
a process unit first becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
monitoring in two consecutive months before implementing less frequent 
monitoring would not be required. Similarly, we are proposing to add 40 
CFR 60.483-2(b)(7) to indicate that monitoring is required within 1 
month after installation of a new valve on a process unit being 
monitored according to the skip period frequency; subsequent monitoring 
for the new valve would begin during the quarter in which the existing 
valves on that process unit are monitored. The proposed amendments are 
consistent with the requirement to monitor valves monthly within a 
month after a process becomes subject to subpart VV, and they will 
ensure that a valve added to a process unit complying with 40 CFR 
60.482-7(c) or 40 CFR 60.483-2 does not leak for up to 3 months or 1 
year, respectively, before being monitored.
    We are also proposing to amend the delay of repair requirements 
specific to valves. Similar to pumps, we are proposing to add 40 CFR 
60.482-9(f) to clarify that an owner or operator may elect to 
discontinue monitoring for a valve for which repair has been delayed; 
if this option is chosen, the valve is presumed to be leaking until 
repaired. Alternatively, an owner or operator may choose to continue 
monitoring and consider the valve to be repaired once two consecutive 
monthly monitoring instrument readings are below the leak definition.
    Sampling Connection Systems. For consistency with other equipment 
leak rules, we are proposing to add definitions of ``closed-loop 
system'' and ``closed purge system'' that are consistent with the 
definitions in other equipment leak rules. In addition, we are 
proposing to clarify that containers that are part of a closed-purge 
system must be covered when not being filled or emptied. Stating this 
requirement explicitly in the rule language is consistent with previous 
amendments to other equipment leak rules. Finally, we are proposing to 
rearrange the paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.482-5 for clarity.
    Intermittent Process Operation. When process units operate on a 
variable, part-time basis during the year, there are issues about the 
monitoring requirements, particularly for batch processes. One issue is 
whether the monitoring frequency should be the same as for processes 
operating continuously, and another is how to monitor when the process 
does not operate during a normally scheduled monitoring period. For 
example, it is not clear what an owner or operator should do if a 
process unit is not operating during the first month of a quarter when 
valve monitoring would normally be required. To address these issues, 
we are proposing to add provisions like those in Sec.  
63.1036(c)(3)(iii) and (iv) of the Generic MACT for equipment leaks (40 
CFR part 63, subpart UU). These provisions reduce the frequency of 
monitoring required for part time operation, and specify that the 
monitoring intervals may be adjusted to accommodate process operations, 
provided the monitoring is conducted at a ``reasonable interval'' after 
completion of the last monitoring campaign. For example, monitoring 
pumps in a process that operates about 70 percent of the days in a year 
may be done every other month rather than monthly. In addition, for a 
process that is not operating in the first month of a quarter, a 
``reasonable interval'' is defined as within a period equal to 30 
percent of the monitoring interval (i.e., 30 percent of 3 months, if 
quarterly monitoring is otherwise required).
    Definitions. The current rule does not clearly specify whether 
equipment in lines between storage tanks and process vessels are part 
of the process and therefore part of the affected source. We are 
proposing to revise the definition of ``process unit'' to clarify our 
intent that the pipes and ducts connecting storage tanks and transfer 
racks to process vessels are included as part of a process unit. We are 
also proposing to add definitions of ``storage vessel'' and ``transfer 
rack'' to further clarify the definition of ``process unit.'' All of 
the above definitions are similar to the definitions found in other 
equipment leak rules.
    In a related amendment, we are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.485(b)(3) 
to allow flexibility in the monitoring of the equipment in a process 
unit. At some facilities, the storage tanks and transfer racks may be 
located far from the process vessels. Although the equipment on the 
pipes connecting the storage tanks and transfer racks to the process 
vessels are considered part of the same process unit, it may not make

[[Page 65308]]

geographic sense to monitor all the equipment at the same time. 
Instead, it may be more efficient to monitor all equipment on pipes or 
ducts near the tanks at a different time than the equipment on the 
process vessel. For example, a facility complying with quarterly 
monitoring for valves may choose to monitor the valves near the tanks 
in January and April and monitor the process vessel valves in February 
and May. Our intent in proposing a revision to the definition of 
``process unit'' is not to remove any monitoring flexibility. As long 
as all the equipment that is part of one process unit is monitored at 
the applicable leak definition for that process unit and the overall 
monitoring frequency is maintained as specified by the applicable 
provisions (such as in the example provided above), the process unit 
would be considered to be in compliance with the monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    We are also proposing a revised definition of ``repaired'' to 
reflect our clarifications regarding how a leak is determined. The 
current definition does not explicitly explain how to verify that a 
repair has been successful. One interpretation of this language is that 
a successful repair is any action taken to address one of the three 
indications of a leak as stated in the definition of ``repaired.'' 
However, this interpretation is not consistent with our intent or the 
language in other equipment leak rules. In addition, the current 
definition does not accurately reflect our proposed amendments to 
clarify the procedures when indications of liquids dripping from pumps 
are detected and to lower the leak definitions for new valves and 
pumps. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the definition of 
``repaired'' to address these concerns. The proposed definition does 
not include a specific reference to a leak definition of 10,000 ppm and 
clarifies that, typically, equipment must be monitored after it is 
repaired to verify that it is no longer leaking. The only exception is 
that pumps for which visual indications of liquids dripping were 
observed during weekly inspections may be repaired by eliminating the 
visual indications of liquids dripping.
    Recordkeeping. As specified above, 40 CFR 60.486 would be amended 
to correspond with particular proposed amendments for pumps in light 
liquid service, closed-vent systems with bypass lines, and calibration 
procedures. Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.486 to 
require records of the weekly visual inspections for pumps and 
documentation of the monitoring of bypass lines on closed-vent systems 
(either continuous records for a flow indicator or monthly visual 
inspections of the valve position).
    We are also proposing to add a requirement to keep records of all 
instrument readings. The information to record would include 
identification of the monitoring instrument, operator, and equipment 
monitored; date and time of monitoring; and the instrument reading. 
This information would be useful as a means of verifying that the 
monitoring was performed, and it would be useful for assessing leak 
growth rates and leak distributions. Many facilities already record 
this information; therefore, we expect this requirement to impose 
minimal burden.
    In addition, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.486(c), which 
specifies the information to record when a leak is detected. Currently, 
40 CFR 60.486(c)(4) requires only a note if an instrument reading above 
10,000 ppm is detected after a repair attempt (i.e., a note that the 
repair attempt was unsuccessful). We are proposing to amend this 
paragraph to require a record of the maximum instrument reading once 
the leak is either repaired or determined to be nonrepairable. This 
change would take into account changes in the leak definitions, as well 
as the fact that the leak definitions may not be the same for all 
components. This language would make this requirement consistent with 
other equipment leak rules.
    Reporting. As specified above, 40 CFR 60.487 would be amended to 
correspond with the proposed amendments for closed-vent systems with 
bypass lines and open-ended lines. Specifically, we are proposing to 
amend 40 CFR 60.487 to require semiannual reports to include records of 
all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device 
through a bypass line; records of all times when maintenance is 
performed in car-sealed valves, when the seal is broken, when the 
bypass line valve position is changed, or the key for a lock-and-key 
type configuration has been checked out; the number of open-ended lines 
for which leaks were detected; and the number of open-ended lines for 
which leaks were not repaired as required.
    Miscellaneous Corrections. We are proposing the following 
miscellaneous technical corrections throughout 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV:
     Replacing ``construction or modification'' with 
``construction, reconstruction, or modification'' throughout subpart 
VV;
     adding the word ``Value'' to the table in the definition 
of the term ``capital expenditure'';
     correcting the spelling of the word ``judgment'' in the 
definition of the term ``hard piping'';
     replacing ``Sec.  60.482(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h)'' 
with ``paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this section'' in 40 CFR 
60.482-3;
     correcting the spelling of the word ``equivalence'' in 40 
CFR 60.484(a); and
     replacing ``demonstrate that an equipment'' with 
``demonstrate that a piece of equipment'' in 40 CFR 60.485(e) to 
correct a grammatical error.

B. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment leaks in 
other NSPS?

    Of the four subparts in part 60 that contain NSPS for equipment 
leak emissions, our current review examines only subparts VV and GGG. 
We will review and determine the need for source-specific amendments to 
subparts DDD and KKK of 40 CFR part 60 at a later date. Except for the 
changes to the LDAR standards for pumps and valves, all of the other 
proposed amendments to subpart VV would apply to sources subject to any 
rule that cross-references subpart VV. Other proposed changes to 
subpart GGG are discussed below.
1. LDAR for Pumps and Valves
    The proposed amendments to the standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV (i.e., the increased stringency of the leak definitions for pumps 
and valves) have been written in such a way that they apply only to 
SOCMI affected sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after today's publication of the proposed amendments. 
Based on the requirements in consent decrees and the Petroleum 
Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC), however, it is clear 
that these proposed provisions are also technically viable and in 
widespread use for equipment leaks from petroleum refineries. Our 
impacts analysis (see section VI of this preamble) indicates that their 
implementation would reduce VOC emissions by 13 Mg/yr from new process 
units at refineries in the fifth year after implementing such 
requirements, and the cost to achieve these reductions would be $3,400/
Mg removed. The annual emissions reductions are relatively small 
because more than 76 percent of the refiners are currently complying 
with consent decrees that require compliance with comparable leak 
definitions. If these consent decrees expire at some point in the 
future, the potential emissions reductions would greatly increase. The

[[Page 65309]]

cost to achieve these reductions is considered reasonable. Therefore, 
we are proposing to add an exception in 40 CFR 60.593(f) of subpart GGG 
to specify that these changes to the standards in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV would also apply to petroleum refining process units that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after today's 
publication of proposed amendments.
2. Clarifications for Valves
    Section 60.592(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG currently allows a 
petroleum refiner to comply with the alternative standards for valves 
in 40 CFR 60.483-1 or 40 CFR 60.483-2 of subpart VV. We are proposing 
to allow compliance with the Phase III provisions in 40 CFR 63.168 of 
subpart H in the HON as an additional option. The Phase III provisions 
specify a leak definition of 500 ppm for valves, which we are proposing 
for new petroleum refining process units, as noted above. Many other 
Phase III requirements for monitoring and repairing leaking valves also 
are comparable to the requirements in subpart VV, but the Phase III 
provisions have slightly different ``skip monitoring'' options. 
Similarities include the requirement to conduct monitoring in 
accordance with EPA Method 21, to monitor monthly initially, and, if 
more than 2 percent leak when conducting ``skip-monitoring,'' to make a 
first attempt at repair no later than 5 calendar days after a leak is 
detected and complete repair no later than 15 calendar days after a 
leak is detected, and the requirements for valves that are unsafe-to-
monitor or difficult-to-monitor. The Phase III ``skip monitoring'' 
options allow an owner or operator to choose a monitoring frequency 
depending on the percentage of valves found to be leaking (e.g., if 
less than 1 percent of the valves in a process unit are leaking, the 
owner or operator may monitor once every two quarters; if less than 0.5 
percent of the valves in a process unit are leaking, the owner or 
operator may monitor once every four quarters). Subpart VV allows an 
owner or operator to skip quarterly monitoring periods until annual 
monitoring is established as long as the number of leaking valves 
remains below 2 percent for a process unit.
    Compliance with this option would achieve essentially the same 
emissions reductions as compliance with the proposed changes to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VV. Many petroleum refiners already have process units 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, as well as other petroleum 
refining process units that are subject to equivalent requirements 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. Allowing compliance with subpart H 
for petroleum refining process units that are subject only to the NSPS 
(i.e., no hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions) may reduce their 
burden if it reduces the number of different LDAR programs they must 
implement.
3. Clarifications for Open-Ended Lines
    There is a potential safety concern with requiring a cap, blind 
flange, plug, or a second valve on an open-ended line containing 
asphalt. Plugs may become stuck and require removal with a torch. If a 
secondary valve is used, some residual asphalt may remain in the line 
between the primary and secondary valves following sampling. This 
residual asphalt can harden in the line, resulting in no flow when the 
secondary valve is opened to obtain the next sample. When the secondary 
valve is opened wider to encourage flow, the hardened asphalt may be 
forced out of the line, splattering hot asphalt on the sampling 
technicians. Because of this safety issue, and because asphalt has a 
lower volatility than other petroleum products, we are proposing to add 
an exemption to the open-ended line requirements for process lines 
containing asphalt. We are also proposing to add a definition of 
``asphalt'' to subpart GGG to clarify which open-ended lines qualify 
for this exemption. Since asphalt is highly variable depending on the 
crude oil from which it is derived and the processing steps, we are 
specifically requesting comment on whether this definition adequately 
defines asphalt at petroleum refineries and whether the exemption 
should be limited to specific types of asphalt.
4. Clarification of Definitions
    We are proposing to make changes to the definition of ``process 
unit'' in 40 CFR 60.591 of subpart GGG consistent with the proposed 
changes to this definition in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. These changes 
would specify that storage tanks and transfer racks are included as 
part of a process unit. As in subpart VV, these changes are needed to 
clarify that equipment in the lines between feed or product storage 
tanks and process units, between process units and transfer racks, or 
between product storage tanks and transfer racks are subject to the 
equipment leak standards. This change will make the definition of 
``process unit'' in the NSPS consistent with the definition of 
``process unit'' in the subpart CC to 40 CFR part 63.
5. Miscellaneous Corrections
    We are proposing the following miscellaneous technical corrections 
throughout 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG:
     Replacing ``construction or modification'' with 
``construction, reconstruction, or modification'' in 40 CFR 60.590;
     changing ``Each compressor is presumed not be in hydrogen 
service'' to ``Each compressor is presumed not to be in hydrogen 
service'' in 40 CFR 60.593(b)(2);
     changing the reference to the section in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV regarding compressors from Sec. Sec.  60.482 through 60.482-
3 in 40 CFR 60.593(c); and
     changing the reference to the section incorporating test 
methods by reference from Sec. Sec.  60.18 through 60.17 in 40 CFR 
60.593(d).

IV. Request for Comments

    We welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. We 
are specifically requesting comments on two potential amendments that 
we have decided not to propose at this time. These potential amendments 
involve required repair attempts for valves and monitoring for 
connectors in gas/vapor service and light liquid service.

1. Drill and Tap Repair Attempts

    The State of Texas recently promulgated a rule requiring 
``extraordinary efforts'' to repair leaking valves in highly reactive 
volatile organic compound (VOC) service in eight counties before delay 
of repair is allowed (30 TAC 115.780 through 115.789). Similarly, 
recent consent decrees with petroleum refiners also require 
``extraordinary efforts'' to fix valves that are leaking at 
concentrations of either 50,000 ppm or 10,000 ppm before delay of 
repair is allowed. In both the Texas rule and the consent decrees, 
drill and tap procedures are identified as an example of an 
extraordinary repair method. We considered amending 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV to include a similar requirement. However, available 
information indicates that sealant injection procedures such as drill 
and tap methods have advanced in recent years to the point that they 
are a viable on-line repair technique for many leaking valves. Vendors 
market these services for valves in a wide range of service, and they 
indicate success rates greater than 90 percent. Based on this 
information, we believe that drill and tap procedures have evolved past 
``extraordinary'' methods and are more widely feasible. Therefore, we 
believe

[[Page 65310]]

that an amendment is not needed because subpart VV, as currently 
written, can be interpreted to require drill and tap repair attempts, 
at least for valves with leaks at or above the current leak definition 
of 10,000 ppm. According to 40 CFR 60.482-9(a) of subpart VV, delay of 
repair is allowed if repair is technically infeasible without a process 
unit shutdown, and 40 CFR 60.482-9(c) of subpart VV allows delay of 
repair of valves if emissions associated with immediate repair would 
exceed continued emissions from the leak. Since drill and tap is 
technically feasible, and emissions associated with such a repair 
attempt would be negligible, one interpretation of these provisions is 
that drill and tap repair attempts are required before delay of repair 
is allowed.
    We are soliciting comment on our interpretation of the delay of 
repair provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and that an explicit 
requirement to use drill and tap procedures would be redundant. We are 
specifically interested in information regarding any types of valves or 
applications where drill and tap repair attempts are inherently unsafe 
or unlikely to be successful. In addition, given that we are proposing 
to lower the leak definition for valves from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm, we 
are also interested in whether the interpretation that drill and tap is 
feasible should extend to valves with monitoring instrument readings in 
this range. Information on any other repair techniques that should be 
considered ``extraordinary'' and whether the rule should include a 
provision to require such techniques in certain situations is also of 
interest.

2. Leak Detection and Repair for Connectors

    We have considered amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (and 
possibly 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG) to require monitoring of 
connectors in gas vapor service and light liquid service. Arguments in 
favor of such amendments are that NESHAP for chemical manufacturing 
sources already require connector monitoring for new processes that 
emit HAP, and our impacts analysis shows the cost of such monitoring 
would be reasonable, at least for SOCMI processes. Furthermore, the 
potential emission reductions from connector LDAR are greater than the 
potential reductions for the proposed amendments to the LDAR for pumps 
and valves. However, because of uncertainties regarding the leak 
frequencies and emission factors, we have decided not to propose LDAR 
requirements for connectors at this time. We are soliciting comments on 
this decision and the underlying data and assumptions; these data and 
the accompanying analyses can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699. Based on information provided by commenters, we may decide 
to propose connector LDAR in the future.
    Many of the SOCMI processes listed in 40 CFR 60.489 of subpart VV 
and subject to subpart VV will also be subject to the HON, the NESHAP 
for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF), or the NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology Standards (Ethylene NESHAP) (40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY). All of these NESHAP require monitoring of connectors 
at new sources, and the leak definition in each rule is 500 ppm. About 
62 percent of the SOCMI chemicals are chemicals that are also listed in 
Table 1 to subpart F of the HON, 8 percent are ethylene or propylene, 
and the remainder are materials meeting the criteria listed in 40 CFR 
63.2435 of the MON. Only three types of processes would not be subject 
to one of these NESHAP: (1) Processes at area sources for HAP 
emissions; (2) processes that emit VOC, but no HAP; and (3) processes 
making MON materials that are not part of a new affected source under 
the MON. Of the existing SOCMI process units, we estimated that 15 
percent of them are at area sources based on information in the 2002 
National Emission Inventory database; see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699 for details regarding how this estimate was developed. Except 
for a small percentage of the processes making MON materials, we 
assumed that all of the processes use or generate HAP and, thus, would 
be subject to the NESHAP if other applicability requirements are met. 
In the absence of process-specific emissions information, we assumed 
that 20 percent of the processes making MON materials would emit VOC 
but no HAP. A new affected source under subpart VV would be part of a 
new affected source under the MON only if it were part of a greenfield 
facility or it was a dedicated process unit that by itself has the 
potential to emit HAP at levels above one of the major source 
thresholds (i.e., 10 tons per year (tpy) of one HAP or 25 tpy of a 
combination of HAP). Due to the prevalence of batch operations for 
specialty chemical manufacturing, we anticipate that most new process 
units that make MON materials will be part of existing sources under 
the MON. Therefore, we assumed that only 20 percent of the process 
units making MON materials would be part of a new affected source under 
the MON. Overall, we expect a majority of process units that become 
affected sources under subpart VV in the next 5 years will be subject 
to connector LDAR under a NESHAP. We are unaware of any technological 
differences that would preclude connector monitoring for the other 
SOCMI process units.
    Petroleum refining process units, on the other hand, are not 
subject to connector monitoring under any NESHAP. The preamble to the 
final rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, 60 FR 43244, August 18, 1995) 
states that connector monitoring was not required because of 
uncertainty in the emission and cost estimates. However, Texas requires 
monitoring of connectors in highly reactive VOC service in certain 
counties (see 30 TAC 115.352 and 115.781), and the leak definition is 
500 ppm. Several Air Districts in California (Bay Area, Ventura County, 
South Coast, and San Joaquin Valley) also require connector monitoring, 
and the applicable leak definitions range from 100 ppm to 10,000 ppm. 
Although we expect few new petroleum refining process units will be 
subject to connector LDAR under other rules, we are unaware of any 
technological limitations that would preclude an LDAR requirement.
    To estimate the impacts of LDAR for connectors, we estimated the 
number of affected processes over the next 5 years, represented these 
process units using model processes that were developed for NESHAP 
impacts analyses, estimated average uncontrolled and controlled 
emission rates per connector, and estimated the various monitoring and 
repair costs. Details of the analysis are presented in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. The results show an LDAR program with a leak 
definition of 500 ppm would reduce emissions from connectors by about 
250 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) and 83 Mg/yr for SOCMI and petroleum 
refining process units, respectively. In addition, the average LDAR 
cost-effectiveness, without considering recovery credits, is estimated 
to be about $2,500/Mg of VOC controlled for SOCMI process units and 
$12,000/Mg of VOC controlled for petroleum refining process units. Two 
factors account for most of the difference in the costs. First, 
although implementing LDAR would reduce emissions from connectors by 
nearly 50 percent in both cases, the estimated controlled and 
uncontrolled emission factors are about three times higher for SOCMI 
units than for petroleum

[[Page 65311]]

refining process units. This occurs even though the leak frequencies 
were estimated to be lower for SOCMI units. The second reason the costs 
for SOCMI units are lower is that the lower leak frequency means the 
SOCMI units could be monitored every 4 years while connectors in 
petroleum refining process units would have to be monitored annually 
(assuming the LDAR program includes skip monitoring as in other rules 
like the HON and Generic MACT). Based on this analysis, the costs of 
connector LDAR for SOCMI units are considered to be reasonable, but the 
costs for petroleum refining process units are unreasonable.
    Given the information presented above, we considered amending 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV to require connector LDAR for SOCMI units and 
exempt affected facilities subject to other rules that cross-reference 
subpart VV. However, we have not yet proposed such amendments because 
we have reservations about some of the data and assumptions used in the 
impacts analysis. We are requesting comments and data to either bolster 
support for the existing analysis or provide rationale for changes to 
it. One of our concerns involves the emission factors for uncontrolled 
and controlled connectors in SOCMI units. The uncontrolled factor was 
derived from initial leak fraction data (for a variety of chemical and 
polymer manufacturing processes) that were provided by industry in 
comments on the proposed MON (Docket Number A-96-04, Docket Item IV-D-
123). Since this initial leak fraction was less than 0.5 percent (well 
below the performance level of 2 percent in other rules), we assumed 
the final leak fraction after implementing LDAR would not be any lower. 
We also assumed that after repair, the leak fraction would not return 
to this level until the end of the 4-year monitoring cycle, and that it 
would increase in direct proportion to the time elapsed. This means the 
average leak fraction over the 4-year cycle was 1 one-half of the 
initial leak fraction. We also assumed these leak fractions are what an 
affected source would measure when implementing an LDAR program, but 
enforcement inspectors would measure higher leak fractions. We assumed 
the actual leak fractions would be 1.7 times higher than the measured 
leak fractions, based on information from enforcement inspections of 
valves at refineries. Average leak rates were estimated using these 
actual leak fractions and the procedures in ``Protocol for Equipment 
Leak Emission Estimates'' (EPA-453/R-95-017). As a result, we estimated 
uncontrolled and controlled leak rates of 0.000307 kilograms per hour 
per connector (kg/hr/connector) and 0.000162 kg/hr/connector, 
respectively, which indicated the LDAR would reduce emissions by nearly 
50 percent. Another issue is whether there are any specific 
technological or economic factors that should change the analysis for 
area sources relative to major sources. We also are interested in any 
other arguments for or against amending 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and 
GGG to include LDAR for connectors.

V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

    Existing affected sources that are modified or reconstructed would 
be subject to today's proposed amendments. A modification is any 
physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in 
an increase in the facility's emission rate (40 CFR 60.14 of subpart 
A). Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an increase 
in the emission rate, either because the nature of the change has no 
effect on emissions or because additional control technology is 
employed to offset an increase in the emission rate, are not considered 
modifications. In addition, certain changes have been exempted under 
the General Provisions (40 CFR 60.14 of subpart A). These exemptions 
include an increase in the hours of operation, addition or replacement 
of equipment for emission control (as long as the replacement does not 
increase the emission rate), and use of an alternative fuel if the 
existing facility was designed to accommodate it.
    Rebuilt SOCMI and petroleum refinery process units would become 
subject to the proposed amendments under the reconstruction provisions, 
regardless of changes in emission rate. Reconstruction means the 
replacement of components of an affected facility such that; (1) the 
fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the cost 
of an entirely new SOCMI or petroleum refinery process unit of 
comparable design, and (2) it is technologically and economically 
feasible to meet the applicable standard (40 CFR 60.15 of subpart A).

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative 
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs 
and benefits, as well as the energy, solid waste, and other effects. We 
request comment on whether we have identified the appropriate 
alternatives and whether the proposed standards adequately take into 
consideration the incremental effects in terms of emission reductions, 
energy, and other effects of these alternatives. The EPA will consider 
the available information in developing the final rule.
    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed 
amendments that change the performance standards: the 500 ppm leak 
definition for valves and the 2,000 ppm leak definition for pumps. The 
other proposed amendments are clarifications to the existing 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts VV and GGG to ensure that the expected emission 
reductions are being achieved and have no emission reduction impacts. 
The costs, environmental, and economic impacts of the amendments are 
expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of SOCMI and 
petroleum refining process units complying with the proposed amendments 
and the current NSPS requirements (i.e., baseline). The impacts are 
presented for new SOCMI and petroleum refining process units 
constructed over the next 5 years. The analyses and the documents 
referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699.
    The EPA estimates that there are no significant energy or secondary 
environmental impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. The 
proposed amendments are changes to work practice requirements and do 
not require changes to equipment or control devices. Use of fuel or 
electricity is not expected to increase significantly as a result of 
the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would not increase 
wastewater or solid waste from SOCMI or petroleum refinery process 
units.

A. What are the impacts for SOCMI process units?

    Using the 2004 SRI Consulting Directory of Chemical Manufacturers 
and the list of chemicals provided in 40 CFR 60.489 of subpart VV, we 
estimated that there are currently 1,272 total SOCMI process units 
potentially subject to subpart VV. To estimate the number of new and 
reconstructed SOCMI process units, we assumed that the SOCMI industry 
would grow proportionally to the projected increase in the gross 
domestic product (GDP). Estimates of the annual increase in the GDP 
over the next 5 years range from 2.7 to 3.4 percent. Assuming an annual 
average growth rate of 3 percent, we estimate that there will be 191 
new or reconstructed SOCMI process units over the next 5 years.
    SOCMI process units subject to the HON, the MON, or the Ethylene

[[Page 65312]]

NESHAP are already subject to the lower leak definitions proposed for 
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Therefore, the baseline impacts for process 
units subject to these standards are equivalent to the impacts of the 
proposed amendment. As previously discussed (see section IV of this 
preamble), we assumed that 15 percent of the new or reconstructed SOCMI 
process units would be located at area sources and that 20 percent of 
the processes making MON chemicals would emit VOC but no HAP. An 
estimated 39 process units meet these criteria and would not be subject 
to a NESHAP.
    Our analysis included several other assumptions and estimates as 
well. The basic structure for the impacts analysis was adapted from the 
analysis performed to estimate impacts for other equipment leak rules, 
and several assumptions were kept, including the percentage of the 
process units represented by the small, medium, and large process unit 
models and the monitoring costs. We also assumed that of the 191 new or 
reconstructed sources over the next 5 years, 60 percent will be new and 
40 percent will be reconstructed. Initial costs of lowering the leak 
definition for a reconstructed process unit are expected to be lower 
than initial costs of beginning an LDAR program for a new process unit. 
Initial leak fraction data were provided by industry in comments on the 
proposed MON (Docket Number A-96-04, Docket Item IV-D-123), and the 
methodology for estimating emissions was based on procedures in 
``Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates'' (EPA-453/R-95-017, 
November 1995) (the Protocol document).
    Based on the assumptions described above, we estimate that the 
proposed amendments will reduce emissions of VOC about 230 Mg/yr from 
the baseline. The estimated increase in annual cost, including 
annualized initial costs, is about $72,000. The cost-effectiveness is 
about $310 per ton of VOC removed. The estimated nationwide 5-year 
incremental emissions reductions and cost impacts for the proposed 
amendments are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble. In addition to 
the annual cost for the proposed lower leak definitions for valves and 
pumps, the estimated increase in annual cost for the proposed record 
keeping and reporting requirements is $369,000.

   Table 1.--National Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for SOCMI Units Subject to Amended Standards Under
                             Subpart VV of 40 CFR Part 60 (5th Year After Proposal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Annual emissions   Total initial cost                      Cost-effectiveness
            Amendment             reductions (Mg/yr)        ($/yr)        Annual cost ($/yr)        ($/Mg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower leak definition for valves                230             130,000              72,000                 310
 and pumps......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the impacts for petroleum refining process units?

    We estimated that there are currently 150 petroleum refineries, 
based on the 2004 Oil and Gas Journal and the Energy Information 
Administration 2004 Refinery Capacity Report, and we estimated the 
average number of process units at each refinery from information 
presented in the 2004 Oil and Gas Journal. To project the number of new 
or reconstructed petroleum refinery process units, we assumed that the 
growth will be proportional to the distribution of process units at an 
average refinery. We estimated that about three refineries' worth of 
process units would become subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG per 
year (equivalent to a 2 percent growth rate), with 60 percent of those 
being new process units. We estimate that there will be 195 new or 
reconstructed process units that emit VOC over the next 5 years.
    In estimating the impacts of the proposed amendments for petroleum 
refineries, we took into account that a large number of petroleum 
refineries (equivalent to 76.5 percent of the industry capacity) 
currently comply with a consent decree, and new or reconstructed units 
at these facilities will be subject to requirements equivalent to the 
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG. Therefore, 
the baseline impacts for process units subject to a consent decree are 
equivalent to the impacts of the proposed amendment (i.e., there are no 
incremental impacts for these process units). Subpart CC to 40 CFR part 
63 includes lower leak definitions for valves and pumps on new sources 
since July 14, 1994, so the baseline impacts for process units subject 
to this standard are also equivalent to the impacts of the proposed 
amendment. Therefore, we estimated the impacts of the proposed 
amendments to lower the leak definition for valves and pumps for the 17 
new or reconstructed process units not subject to subpart CC or a 
consent decree.
    Our analysis included several other assumptions and estimates as 
well. Most are similar to the assumptions described above for the SOCMI 
analysis, including the monitoring costs per component. There are, 
however, a few major differences. One difference is that the model is 
based on number of process units subject to a certain scenario (e.g., 
number of new process units subject to a consent decree) rather than 
size of the process unit (although the model does consider the 
differences in number of components on a process unit at a small 
refinery versus a unit at a large refinery). Also, emissions estimates 
are based on data provided in Analysis of Refinery Screening Data 
(American Petroleum Institute, November 1997) as well as the Protocol 
document.
    Based on the assumptions described above, we estimate that the 
proposed amendments will reduce emissions of VOC about 13 Mg/yr from 
the baseline. The estimated increase in annual cost, including 
annualized initial costs, is about $45,000. The cost-effectiveness is 
about $3,400 per ton of VOC removed. The estimated nationwide 5-year 
incremental emissions reductions and cost impacts for the proposed 
amendments are summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. In addition to 
the annual cost for the proposed lower leak definitions for valves and 
pumps, the estimated increase in annual cost for the proposed record 
keeping and reporting requirements is $120,000.

[[Page 65313]]

    Table 2.--National Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts for Petroleum Refinery Units Subject to Amended
                     Standards Under Subpart GGG of 40 CFR Part 60 (5th Year After Proposal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Annual emissions   Total initial cost                      Cost-effectiveness
            Amendment             reductions (Mg/yr)        ($/yr)        Annual cost ($/yr)        ($/Mg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower leak definition for valves                 13              27,000              45,000               3,400
 and pumps......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the economic impacts?

    An economic impacts analysis was performed to compare the control 
costs associated with producing a product at petroleum refineries and 
various types of SOCMI facilities to the average value of shipments 
from such facilities. Since we are unable to associate projected 
control costs with specific facilities, we examined the polar costs of 
all of the affected process units being at one facility in the industry 
versus no more than one affected process unit at any given facility. In 
all cases, the magnitude of the costs is quite small. The only scenario 
for which the control costs reach 0.2 percent of the facility value of 
shipments is if all the national costs for SOCMI fell on one average 
ethyl alcohol manufacturing facility. The impact of the regulation on 
prices and profitability depends on the extent that the costs of 
control are passed on in the form of higher prices or absorbed by the 
facility. Because the costs are so small, any price increases or loss 
of profit would be quite small. No significant impact is expected 
because of the proposed amendments to standards of performance for 
equipment leaks of VOC for the petroleum refining industry and SOCMI.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 
therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has previously approved the information collection 
requirements in the existing rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and 
GGG). The information collection requirements in this proposed rule 
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1854.05 for 
the consolidation of all ICRs related to rule that apply to the SOCMI, 
including 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and EPA ICR number 0983.09 for 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GGG.
    The information to be collected for the proposed amendments to 40 
CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG are based on recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart A, which are mandatory for all operators subject to new 
source performance 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 amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG 
would require sources to maintain records of leaking open-ended lines, 
instrument calibration activities, all instrument readings, the results 
of weekly pump inspections, and information about possible flow in 
lines that bypass control devices. Additionally, the sources would be 
required to include information about leaking open-ended lines and flow 
in bypass lines in semi-annual compliance reports.
    The annual projected burden for EPA ICR number 1854.05 (40 CFR part 
60, subpart VV) to owners and operators of affected sources subject to 
the final rule is estimated to be 1,999,723 labor-hours per year, with 
a total annual cost of $95.3 million per year. The hour burden is based 
on an estimated 199.6 hours per response on a semi-annual basis by 
3,349 respondents.
    The annual projected burden for EPA ICR number 0983.06 (40 CFR part 
60, subpart GGG) to owners and operators of affected sources subject to 
the final rule is estimated to be 8,317 labor-hours per year. The hour 
burden is based on an estimated 82 hours per response on a semi-annual 
basis by 49 respondents.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB controls numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Submit 
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. 
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after November 7, 2006, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 7, 
2006. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedures 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

[[Page 65314]]

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
according to Small Business Administration size standards by the NAICS 
category of the owning entity; (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 that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. For 
the SOCMI, a small business ranges from less than 500 employees to less 
than 1,000 employees, depending on the NAICS code. For petroleum 
refiners, a small business has no more than 1,500 employees and a crude 
oil distillation capacity of no more than 125,000 barrels per calendar 
day.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern 
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    An economic impacts analysis was performed to compare the control 
costs associated with producing a product at petroleum refineries and 
various types of SOCMI facilities to the average value of shipments 
from such facilities. In all cases, the costs are small relative to 
facility sales figures. Thus, any price increases or loss of profit 
would be quite small. While the distribution of costs to small entities 
is unknown, no significant impact is expected for facilities of any 
size. For more information on the results of the analysis of small 
entity impacts, please refer to the economic impact analysis in the 
docket.
    Although the proposed NSPS would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on small 
entities. In the proposed amendments, the Agency is applying the 
minimum level of control and the minimum level of monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting to affected sources allowed by the CAA. 
This provision should reduce the size of small entity impacts. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to 
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most 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 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 why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do 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. As discussed earlier in this preamble, 
the estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year 
after proposal are $72,000 for SOCMI units and $41,000 for petroleum 
refineries. Thus, the proposed amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, EPA has determined that the proposed amendments 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. The proposed amendments contain no 
requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon 
them, and would not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, 
the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
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. None of the affected 
facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on these proposed 
amendments from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR

[[Page 65315]]

67249, November 9, 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.'' 
The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial direct effects 
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to the proposed amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency 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 Agency.
    EPA interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on 
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.480 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.480  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Any affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that 
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 
5, 1981, shall be subject to the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
    3. Section 60.481 is amended in paragraph (a)(3) by:
    a. Revising the table heading ``Table for Determining Applicable 
for B'' to read ``Table for Determining Applicable Value for B'' in the 
definition of ``Capital expenditure'';
    b. Revising the word ``judgement'' to read ``judgment'' in the 
definition of ``Hard-piping'';
    c. Revising the definitions ``Process unit'' and ``Repaired''; and
    d. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions ``Closed-loop 
system,'' ``Closed-purge system,'' ``Storage vessel,'' and ``Transfer 
rack'' to read as follows:

Sec.  60.481  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Closed-loop system means an enclosed system that returns process 
fluid to the process and is not vented directly to the atmosphere.
    Closed-purge system means a system or combination of systems and 
portable containers to capture purged liquids. Containers must be 
covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
* * * * *
    Process unit means the equipment assembled and connected by pipes 
or ducts to process raw materials and to produce, as intermediate or 
final products, one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec.  60.489 of 
this part. A process unit can operate independently if supplied with 
sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for 
the product. For the purpose of this subpart, process unit includes any 
feed, intermediate and product storage vessels, product transfer racks, 
and connected ducts and piping. A process unit includes pumps, 
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, 
open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, instrumentation 
systems, and control devices or systems.
* * * * *
    Repaired means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, in 
order to eliminate a leak as defined in the applicable sections of this 
subpart and, except as otherwise specified in Sec.  60.482-2(c)(2)(ii) 
and (d)(6), is re-monitored as specified in Sec.  60.485(b) to verify 
that emissions from the equipment are below the applicable leak 
definition.
* * * * *
    Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
organic liquids that are used in the process as raw material 
feedstocks, produced as products, or generated as wastes.
* * * * *
    Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading 
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are used to fill tank trucks and/
or railcars with organic liquids.
* * * * *
    4. Section 60.482-1 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.482-1  Standards: General.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) If a dedicated process unit operates less than 365 days 
during a year, an owner or operator may monitor

[[Page 65316]]

to detect leaks from pumps and valves at the frequency specified in the 
following table instead of monitoring as specified in Sec. Sec.  
60.482-2, 60.482-7, and 60.483.2:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Equivalent monitoring frequency time in use
   Operating time (% of days during   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                year)                          Monthly                 Quarterly               Semiannually
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to < 25%............................  Quarterly..............  Annually...............  Annually.
25 to < 50%...........................  Quarterly..............  Semiannually...........  Annually.
50 to < 75%...........................  Bimonthly..............  Three times............  Semiannually.
75 to < 100%..........................  Monthly................  Quarterly..............  Semiannually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Pumps and valves that are shared among two or more process 
units that are part of an affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.480 
may be monitored at the frequencies specified in paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section, provided the operating time of all such process units is 
considered.
    (3) The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section are not requirements for monitoring at specific intervals 
and can be adjusted to accommodate process operations. An owner or 
operator may monitor at any time during the specified monitoring period 
(e.g., month, quarter, year), provided the monitoring is conducted at a 
reasonable interval after completion of the last monitoring campaign. 
For example, if the equipment is not operating during the first month 
of a quarter when valve monitoring is normally scheduled, the 
monitoring may be done within a period equal to 30 percent of the 
applicable monitoring period after startup. Similarly, if a process is 
not operating during the second week of a month when pump monitoring is 
normally scheduled, the monitoring can be done within 30 percent of the 
applicable monitoring period after startup.
    5. Section 60.482-2 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
    b. Revising paragraph (b);
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
    d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(4), (d)(5), and 
(d)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.482-2  Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.

    (a)(1) Each pump in light liquid service shall be monitored monthly 
to detect leaks by the methods specified in Sec.  60.485(b), except as 
provided in Sec.  60.482-1(c) and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this 
section. A pump that is placed into light liquid service after the 
initial startup date for the process unit must be monitored for the 
first time during the next monthly monitoring period for the existing 
pumps in the process unit, except as provided in Sec.  60.482-1(c) and 
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b)(1)(i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section, if an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per million (ppm) or 
greater is measured, a leak is detected.
    (ii) If the affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.480 commences 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 7, 2006, 
the instrument reading that defines a leak is specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) 5,000 ppm or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers;
    (B) 2,000 ppm or greater for all other pumps.
    (2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal 
at the time of the weekly inspection, the owner or operator shall 
follow the procedure specified in either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of 
this section. This requirement does not apply to a pump that was 
monitored after a previous weekly inspection if the instrument reading 
for that monitoring event was less than the concentration specified in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, whichever is applicable, 
and the pump was not repaired since that monitoring event.
    (i) Monitor the pump as specified in Sec.  60.485(b). A leak is 
detected if the instrument reading measured during monitoring indicates 
a leak as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, 
whichever is applicable. The leak shall be repaired using the 
procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Designate the visual indications of liquids dripping as a 
leak, and repair the leak using either the procedures in paragraph (c) 
of this section or by eliminating the visual indications of liquids 
dripping.
    (c) * * *
    (2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 
calendar days after each leak is detected. First attempts at repair 
include, but are not limited to, the practices described in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, where practicable.
    (i) Tightening the packing gland nuts;
    (ii) Ensuring that the seal flush is operating at design pressure 
and temperature.
    (d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that 
includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (a), provided the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (6) of this section are met.
* * * * *
    (4)(i) Each pump is checked by visual inspection, each calendar 
week, for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seals.
    (ii) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump 
seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the owner or operator shall 
follow the procedure specified in either paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) or (B) 
of this section prior to the next required inspection.
    (A) The owner or operator shall monitor the pump as specified in 
Sec.  60.485(b) to determine if there is a leak of VOC in the barrier 
fluid. If an instrument reading of 2,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 
leak is detected.
    (B) Designate the visual indications of liquids dripping as a leak.
    (5)(i) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) is checked 
daily or is equipped with an audible alarm.
    (ii) The owner or operator determines, based on design 
considerations and operating experience, a criterion that indicates 
failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
    (iii) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the 
barrier fluid system, or both, based on the criterion established in 
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak is detected.
    (6) When a leak is detected pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) or 
(d)(5)(iii) of this section, it shall be repaired as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section. A designated leak pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(4)(ii)(B) of this section shall be repaired either as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section or by

[[Page 65317]]

eliminating visual indications of liquids dripping.
* * * * *
    6. Section 60.482-3 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.482-3  Standards: Compressors.

* * * * *
    (j) Any existing reciprocating compressor in a process unit which 
becomes an affected facility under provisions of Sec.  60.14 or Sec.  
60.15 is exempt from paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this 
section, provided the owner or operator demonstrates that recasting the 
distance piece or replacing the compressor are the only options 
available to bring the compressor into compliance with the provisions 
of paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this section.
    7. Section 60.482-5 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  60.482-5  Standards: Sampling connection systems.

    (a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a 
closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system, except as provided in 
Sec.  60.482-1(c).
    (b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as 
required in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Gases displaced during filling of the sample container are not 
required to be collected or captured.
    (2) Containers that are part of a closed-purge system must be 
covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
    (3) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system shall be 
designed and operated to meet requirements in either paragraph 
(b)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section.
    (i) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line.
    (ii) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid to a process.
    (iii) Capture and transport all the purged process fluid to a 
control device that complies with the requirements of Sec.  60.482-10.
    (iv) Collect, store, and transport the purged process fluid to any 
of the following systems or facilities:
    (A) A waste management unit as defined in 40 CFR 63.111, if the 
waste management unit is subject to, and operated in compliance with 
the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, applicable to Group 1 
wastewater streams;
    (B) A treatment, storage, or disposal facility subject to 
regulation under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266; or
    (C) A facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to 
manage municipal or industrial solid waste, if the process fluids are 
not hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261.
* * * * *
    8. Section 60.482-6 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.482-6  Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Each open-ended valve or line shall be monitored annually to 
detect leaks by the methods specified in Sec.  60.485(b), except as 
provided in Sec.  60.482-1(c) and paragraphs (d) and (e) of this 
section. If the open-ended valve or line is equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, or plug, monitoring shall occur at the interface of the cap, 
blind flange, or plug and the end of the line. If the open-ended valve 
or line is equipped with a second valve, monitoring shall occur at the 
open end of the line. If an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is 
measured, a leak is detected. When a leak is detected, it shall be 
repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days 
after the leak is detected, except as provided in Sec.  60.482-9. 
Examples of attempts at repair include replacing gaskets, adding Teflon 
tape, or tightening or replacing the cap, plug, blind flange, or second 
valve.
* * * * *
    9. Section 60.482-7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.482-7  Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light 
liquid service.

    (a)(1) Each valve shall be monitored monthly to detect leaks by the 
methods specified in Sec.  60.485(b) and shall comply with paragraphs 
(b) through (e), except as provided in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of 
this section; Sec.  60.483-1 and 2; and Sec.  60.482-1(c).
    (2) A valve that is placed into gas/vapor service or light liquid 
service after the initial startup date for the process unit must be 
monitored for the first time within 1 month after being placed into 
service to ensure proper installation, except as provided in paragraphs 
(f), (g), and (h) of this section. Subsequent monitoring must be on the 
same schedule as monitoring for existing valves in the process unit, 
except as provided in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section; 
Sec.  60.483-1 and 2; and Sec.  60.482-1(c).
    (b)(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if 
an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 
detected.
    (2) If the affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.480 commences 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 7, 2006 
and an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 
detected.
    (c)(1) Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2 successive 
months may be monitored the first month of every quarter, beginning 
with the next quarter, until a leak is detected. As an alternative to 
monitoring all of the valves in the first month of a quarter, an owner 
or operator may elect to subdivide the process unit into 2 or 3 
subgroups of valves and monitor each subgroup in a different month 
during the quarter, provided each subgroup is monitored every 3 months. 
The owner or operator must keep records of the valves assigned to each 
subgroup.
* * * * *
    10. Section 60.482-8 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.482-8  Standards: Pumps and valves in heavy liquid service, 
pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and 
connectors.

* * * * *
    (d) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the 
best practices described under Sec. Sec.  60.482-2(c)(2) and 60.482-
7(e).
    11. Section 60.482-9 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.482-9  Standards: Delay of repair.

* * * * *
    (f) When delay of repair is allowed for a leaking pump or valve 
that remains in service, the owner or operator may elect to discontinue 
monitoring the pump or valve until it is repaired. If the owner or 
operator elects to continue monitoring, the pump or valve may be 
considered to be repaired if two consecutive monthly monitoring 
instrument readings are below the leak definition.
    12. Section 60.482-10 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.482-10  Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices.

* * * * *
    (n) Except for equipment needed for safety purposes such as 
pressure relief devices, low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer 
vents, and open-ended valves or lines, the owner or operator shall 
comply with the provisions of either paragraphs (n)(1) or (2) of this 
section for each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that 
could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere.
    (1) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that 
takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes.

[[Page 65318]]

Records shall be generated as specified in Sec.  60.486(d)(6)(i). The 
flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any bypass line.
    (2) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with 
a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of 
the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every 
month to ensure the valve is maintained in the non-diverting position 
and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line. Records 
shall be generated as specified in Sec.  60.486(d)(6)(ii).
    13. Section 60.483-1 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  60.483-1  Alternative standards for valves-allowable percentage 
of valves leaking.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2)(i) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, 
if an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak 
is detected.
    (ii) If the affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.480 commences 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 7, 2006 
and an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 
detected.
* * * * *
    14. Section 60.483-2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) and 
adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.483-2  Alternative standards for valve-skip period leak 
detection and repair.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing 
the sum of valves found leaking during the current monitoring and 
valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number of valves 
subject to the requirements of this section. If the process unit has 
been subdivided in accordance with Sec.  60.482-7(c)(1), the sum of 
valves found leaking during the current monitoring includes all 
subgroups.
* * * * *
    (7) A valve that is placed into gas/vapor service or light liquid 
service after implementing the provisions in this Sec.  60.483-2 must 
be monitored for the first time within 1 month after being placed into 
service to ensure proper installation. Subsequent monitoring must begin 
in the next quarter during which all existing valves in the process 
unit must be monitored.

Sec.  60.484  [Amended]

    15. Section 60.484 is amended by revising ``equivalance'' to read 
``equivalence'' in paragraph (a).
    16. Section 60.485 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
    b. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
    c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  60.485  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration no 
more than 2,000 ppm greater than the leak definition concentration of 
the equipment monitored. If the monitoring instrument's design allows 
for multiple calibration scales, then the lower scale shall be 
calibrated with a calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm 
above the concentration specified as a leak, and the highest scale 
shall be calibrated with a calibration gas that is approximately equal 
to 10,000 ppm. If only one scale on an instrument will be used during 
monitoring, the owner or operator need not calibrate the scales that 
will not be used during that day's monitoring.
    (2) A calibration drift assessment shall be performed, at a 
minimum, at the end of each monitoring shift. Check the instrument 
using the same calibration gases that were used to calibrate the 
instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21, 
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration 
gas value. Record the instrument reading for each scale used as 
specified in Sec.  60.486(e)(7), and calculate the percent difference 
from the initial calibration value. If any calibration drift assessment 
shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent from the initial 
calibration value, then all equipment monitored since the last 
calibration with instrument readings below the appropriate leak 
definition and above 20 percent of the leak definition must be re-
monitored.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator shall demonstrate that a piece of 
equipment is in light liquid service by showing that all the following 
conditions apply:
* * * * *
    17. Section 60.486 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraph (a)(3);
    b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c) introductory 
text, and (c)(4); and
    c. Adding paragraphs (d)(6), (e)(6), and (e)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.486  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The owner or operator shall record the information specified in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for each monitoring 
event required by Sec. Sec.  60.482-2, 60.482-3, 60.482-6, 60.482-7, 
60.482-8, and 60.483-2.
    (i) Monitoring instrument identification.
    (ii) Operator identification.
    (iii) Equipment identification.
    (iv) Date and time of monitoring.
    (v) Instrument reading.
    (b) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec.  60.482-2, 
60.482-3, 60.482-6, 60.482-7, 60.482-8, and 60.483-2, the following 
requirements apply:
* * * * *
    (c) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec.  60.482-2, 
60.482-3, 60.482-6, 60.482-7, 60.482-8, and 60.483-2, the following 
information shall be recorded in a log and shall be kept for 2 years in 
a readily accessible location:
* * * * *
    (4) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A at the time the leak is successfully repaired or 
determined to be nonrepairable.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that 
could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the 
atmosphere, the owner or operator shall keep a record of the 
information specified in either paragraph (d)(6)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (i) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under 
Sec.  60.482-10(n)(1) was operating and whether a diversion was 
detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the 
starting and ending times of all periods when the vent stream is 
diverted from the control device or the flow indicator is not 
operating.
    (ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec.  60.482-
10(n)(2), hourly records of flow are not required. In such cases, the 
owner or operator shall record that the monthly visual inspection of 
the seals or closure mechanisms has been done, and shall record the 
occurrence of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass 
line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type 
lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been 
broken.
    (e) * * *
    (6) The date and results of the weekly visual inspection for 
indications of liquids dripping from pumps in light liquid service.
    (7) Records of the information specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(i) 
through (vi) of this section for monitoring

[[Page 65319]]

instrument calibrations conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of 
EPA Method 21 and Sec.  60.485(b).
    (i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing the 
calibration.
    (ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification date, 
and certified concentration.
    (iii) Instrument scale(s) used.
    (iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the meter 
readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the calibration gas 
value in accordance with section 10.1 of EPA Method 21.
    (v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by Sec.  
60.485(b)(2) (i.e., instrument reading for calibration at end of 
monitoring shift and the calculated percent difference from the initial 
calibration value).
    (vi) If an owner or operator makes their own calibration gas, a 
description of the procedure used.
* * * * *
    18. Section 60.487 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii), (c)(2)(iv), and (c)(2)(vi);
    b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(vii) as paragraph (c)(2)(xi); and
    c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2)(vii) through (c)(2)(x) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.487  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Number of pumps for which leaks were detected as described in 
Sec.  60.482-2(b), (d)(4)(ii)(A), or (d)(5)(iii),
    (iv) Number of pumps for which leaks were not repaired as required 
in Sec.  60.482-2(c)(1) and (d)(6),
* * * * *
    (vi) Number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as 
required in Sec.  60.482-3(g)(1),
    (vii) Number of open-ended lines for which leaks were detected as 
described in Sec.  60.482-6(a)(3),
    (viii) Number of open-ended lines for which leaks were not repaired 
as required in Sec.  60.482-6(a)(3),
    (ix) Starting and ending times of all periods recorded under Sec.  
60.486(d)(6)(i) when the vent stream is diverted from the control 
device through a bypass line,
    (x) Instances recorded under Sec.  60.486(d)(6)(ii) when 
maintenance is performed in car-sealed valves, when the seal is broken, 
when the bypass line valve position is changed, or the key for a lock-
and-key type configuration has been checked out, and
    (xi) The facts that explain each delay of repair and, where 
appropriate, why a process unit shutdown was technically infeasible.
* * * * *

Subpart GGG--[Amended]

    19. Section 60.590 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.590  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Any affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that 
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 
4, 1983, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
    20. Section 60.591 is amended by adding a definition in 
alphabetical order for ``Asphalt'' and revising the definition of 
``Process unit'' to read as follows:

Sec.  60.591  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Asphalt (also known as Bitumen) is a black or dark brown solid or 
semi-solid thermo-plastic material possessing waterproofing and 
adhesive properties. It is a complex combination of higher molecular 
weight organic compounds containing a relatively high proportion of 
hydrocarbons having carbon numbers greater than C25 with a high carbon 
to hydrogen ratio. It is essentially non-volatile at ambient 
temperatures with closed cup flash point of 445 [deg]F (230 [deg]C) or 
greater.
* * * * *
    Process unit means the equipment assembled and connected by pipes 
or ducts to process raw materials and to produce intermediate or final 
products from petroleum, unfinished petroleum derivatives, or other 
intermediates. A process unit can operate independently if supplied 
with sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities 
for the product. For the purpose of this subpart, process unit includes 
any feed, intermediate and product storage vessels, product transfer 
racks, and connected ducts and piping. A process unit includes pumps, 
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, 
open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, instrumentation 
systems, and control devices or systems.
    21. Section 60.592 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.592  Standards.

* * * * *
    (b) For a given process unit, an owner or operator may elect to 
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this 
section as an alternative to the requirements in Sec.  60.482-7.
    (1) Comply with Sec.  60.483-1.
    (2) Comply with Sec.  60.483-2.
    (3) Comply with the Phase III provisions in 40 CFR 63.168, except 
an owner or operator may elect to follow the provisions in Sec.  
60.482-7(f) instead of 40 CFR 63.168 for any valve that is designated 
as being leakless.
* * * * *
    22. Section 60.593 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2) and paragraphs 
(c) and (d); and
    b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.593  Exceptions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Each compressor is presumed not to be in hydrogen service 
unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is 
in hydrogen service.* * *
* * * * *
    (c) Any existing reciprocating compressor that becomes an affected 
facility under provisions of Sec.  60.14 or Sec.  60.15 is exempt from 
Sec.  60.482-3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) provided the owner or 
operator demonstrates that recasting the distance piece or replacing 
the compressor are the only options available to bring the compressor 
into compliance with the provisions of Sec.  60.482-3 (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (h).
    (d) An owner or operator may use the following provision in 
addition to Sec.  60.485(e): Equipment is in light liquid service if 
the percent evaporated is greater than 10 percent at 150 [deg]C as 
determined by ASTM Method D86-78, 82, 90, 95, or 96 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  60.17).
* * * * *
    (f) When Sec. Sec.  60.482(b)(1)(ii), 60.482-7(b)(2), and 60.483-
1(c)(2)(ii) refer to an affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.480, 
it means an affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.590 for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (g) Open-ended valves or lines containing asphalt as defined in 
Sec.  60.591 are exempt from the requirements of Sec.  60.482-6(a) 
through (c).

[FR Doc. E6-18646 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P