[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17897-18050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5760]



[[Page 17897]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 58

March 26, 2012

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 65





National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer 
Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control 
Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards 
General Provisions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 17898]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 65

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0871; FRL-9645-1]
RIN 2060-AR00


National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and 
Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and 
Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission 
Standards General Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing National Uniform Emission Standards for 
Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control 
Devices, herein referred to as Uniform Standards. The EPA is also 
proposing supplemental revisions to the National Uniform Emission 
Standards General Provisions, which were proposed with the National 
Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange Systems, signed by the EPA 
Administrator on November 30, 2011.
    The proposed Uniform Standards would be referenced, as appropriate, 
in future revisions to new source performance standards and national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for individual source 
categories that are part of the chemical manufacturing and refining 
industries that have storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment 
leaks or control devices used to control process vents from reactors, 
distillation and other operations, as well as from emissions from 
storage vessels, transfer operations and equipment leaks that are 
routed to control devices. Establishing these Uniform Standards is 
consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued on January 18, 2011. In the 
future, as we periodically review and, if necessary, revise new source 
performance standards and national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants, as required by the Clean Air Act, we can direct those 
rulemakings to the proposed Uniform Standards, provided the Uniform 
Standards meet the applicable statutory stringency requirements for the 
specific rulemaking. The proposed Uniform Standards would ensure 
consistency and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
facilities with storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment 
leaks and process vents that must comply with multiple regulations.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by April 10, 2012 
requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will hold a public 
hearing on or about April 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Technical comments pertinent to the Uniform 
Standards should be identified as follows:
     Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer 
Operations should be marked, ``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0871.''
     Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks should be marked, 
``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.''
     Uniform Standards for Control Devices should be marked, 
``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.''
     Uniform Standards General Provisions or General Comments 
on the Uniform Standards should be marked, ``Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.''
    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No., 
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 
Docket Web site.
     Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to 
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as 
appropriate).
     Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).
     Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0871 (as appropriate). Please include a total of two copies. We request 
that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In addition, please mail a 
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as 
appropriate). Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal hours 
of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: All submissions must include agency name and docket 
number for this rulemaking. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). The EPA's policy is that all 
comments received will be included in the public docket 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 email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the 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.

[[Page 17899]]

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA 
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the proposed 
General Provisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards, contact 
Brenda Shine, (919) 541-3608, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-3608; Fax number (919) 541-0246; 
email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov.
    For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission 
Standards for Equipment Leaks, contact Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4607; Fax 
number (919) 541-0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov.
    For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission 
Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, contact Nick 
Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 
541-5372; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: 
parsons.nick@epa.gov.
    For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission 
Standards For Control Devices, contact Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies 
and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4036; Fax 
number (919) 541-0246; email address: bouchard.andrew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following 
acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

AMOS ample margin of safety
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
API American Petroleum Institute
AWP Alternative Work Practice
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CAM compliance assurance monitoring
CAR Consolidated Federal Air Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EFR external floating roof
EIIP Emissions Inventory Improvement Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology or management practice
gal/yr gallons per year
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HRVOC highly-reactive volatile organic compound
hr/yr hours per year
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
in. wc inch water column
kPa kilopascals
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/acm milligram per actual cubic meter
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
MW megawatts
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OLD organic liquids distribution
PID photo ionization detector
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QA quality assurance
QIP quality improvement program
SOCMI synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SR stoichiometric air ratio
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
STERPP Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program
TAC total annual costs
TCI Total capital costs
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
WWW World Wide Web

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. Public Hearing
II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for 
the proposed Uniform Standards?
    B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform 
Standards?
    C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and 
the referencing subparts?
    D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform 
Standards?
    E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?
    F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?
III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations--
Subpart I
    A. Summary
    B. Rationale
IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Subpart J
    A. Summary
    B. Rationale
V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M
    A. Summary
    B. Rationale
VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part 
65 Uniform Standards General Provisions--Subpart H
    A. Summary
    B. Rationale
VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule
    A. What are the cost increases associated with requirements 
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I?
    B. What are the cost increases associated with requirements 
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J?

[[Page 17900]]

    C. What are the cost increases associated with requirements 
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
    D. What are the cost impacts associated with the proposed 
reporting requirements for the Uniform Standards?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. The proposed rules would establish a series of 
national uniform emission standards for storage vessels and transfer 
operations, equipment leaks and control devices.
    We expect, in future rulemaking actions, to propose that new source 
performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for other source categories will also 
reference and require compliance with Uniform Standards, as 
appropriate, provided that the referencing subpart rulemakings 
demonstrate that the Uniform Standards meet the statutory stringency 
requirements that would apply to the referencing subpart source 
category, such as Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d), maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT), section 112(f), residual risk 
ample margin of safety (AMOS) and section 111(b), best systems of 
emission reduction (BSER). Examples of categories and entities 
potentially affected by the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage 
Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices 
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS \a\ code     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing.........             325  Manufacturing
                                                  industries,
                                                  particularly
                                                  petrochemical,
                                                  chemical, polymers,
                                                  plastics and specialty
                                                  chemicals
                                                  manufacturing.
Refining.......................             324  Petroleum refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities the EPA anticipates are likely to 
be potentially affected by this action through future, separate 
rulemaking actions.
    The table includes source categories currently subject to NESHAP 
under subparts in 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 and NSPS under 
subparts in 40 CFR part 60. The entities listed in the above table are 
not affected by this action unless and until the EPA proposes in a 
separate notice to apply a Uniform Standard to their source categories. 
As proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M would apply to 
owners or operators expressly referenced to part 65 from future 
rulemakings that may result in new subparts or revisions to current 
subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63. The list of categories and 
entities potentially affected by this proposed action in the future is 
provided solely to inform owners and operators of facilities in those 
categories of the potential for future rulemaking and to solicit 
comments from these entities at this time. If, in future rulemakings, 
the EPA were to propose to apply these Uniform Standards to a 
particular source category, there would be another opportunity to 
comment on the application to a specific industry. Because the EPA 
believes that establishing Uniform Standards for types of emission 
points found in a variety of industries will be efficient for 
facilities, state, local and tribal governments and the public, we seek 
broad input at this time. In the future, you would determine whether 
your facility, company, business or organization would be regulated by 
a proposed action by examining the applicability criteria in the 
referencing subpart. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 
air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional 
representative, as listed in the referencing subpart.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Mr. Roberto 
Morales, Document Control Officer, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as 
appropriate).
    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 the 
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. 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. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the appropriate person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Docket
    The docket numbers for the proposed action regarding the Uniform 
Standards are as follows:
     Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer 
Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0871.
     Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
     Uniform Standards for Control Devices (40 CFR part 65, 
subpart M) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.
     Uniform Standards General Provisions or general comments 
on the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65,

[[Page 17901]]

subpart H) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.
    To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
ID number(s) assigned to this action in the subject line on the first 
page of your response.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. Public Hearing

    If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the 
EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541-
7946 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, to 
determine if a hearing will be held or to determine the hearing 
location. If no one contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public 
hearing concerning this proposed rule by April 10, 2012, a hearing will 
not be held.

II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for the 
proposed Uniform Standards?

    Consistent with the authority under CAA section 301(a)(1) and CAA 
sections 111 and 112, we are proposing to establish the Uniform 
Standards as a set of foundational requirements that may be considered 
and adopted by future rulemakings under CAA sections 111 and 112. 
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator ``to 
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions 
under [the CAA].'' The proposed Uniform Standards, if finalized, would 
provide a set of common control requirement subparts describing 
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that 
would, if appropriate, be referenced in future CAA 111 and 112 
rulemakings. Future rulemakings would include CAA section 112(d) 
standards, based on MACT determinations and generally available control 
technology or management practice (GACT) determinations (for area 
sources), as well as CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews of existing 
standards and CAA section 112(f) revisions, which take into account the 
risk to public health remaining after application of the MACT-based 
standards. The proposed Uniform Standards could also be referenced 
during CAA section 111(b) rulemakings to establish NSPS for source 
categories, and as we periodically review and revise these standards, 
to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. CAA section 
111(b) standards require a level of control that historically has been 
referred to as ``Best Demonstrated Technology.'' In order to better 
reflect that CAA section 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that ``best 
systems'' may or may not be ``technology,'' the EPA is now using the 
term ``best system of emission reduction'' or BSER.
    As foundational requirements, the Uniform Standards would become 
applicable to a particular source category only if a subsequent 
rulemaking for that source category references the Uniform Standards. 
We have previously promulgated similar standards, such as the 40 CFR 
parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions (59 FR 12430, March 16, 1994) 
and the Consolidated Federal Air Rules (CAR) (65 FR 78267, December 14, 
2000), which only become applicable to a source category when 
referenced by another rulemaking. In this preamble, we refer to 
subparts that would reference the Uniform Standards as ``referencing 
subparts.'' The authority for the referencing standards would be 
provided under the referencing subpart. The rationale for each 
determination that the Uniform Standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subparts H, I, J or M are equivalent to MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER and 
comply with all other applicable statutory requirements would be 
presented in the rulemaking for the individual source category with an 
opportunity for public comment at that time.
    The proposed Uniform Standards are also responsive to Executive 
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which directs 
each federal agency to ``periodically review its existing significant 
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be 
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's 
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 
regulatory objectives.'' The proposed Uniform Standards reflect the 
EPA's regulatory experience from previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings 
involving similar kinds of sources and emission points. They 
incorporate our review of the most current technology and emission 
reduction practices, as detailed in sections III through V of the 
preamble, and provide updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements that may be referenced by future CAA 111 and 112 
rulemakings.
    The proposed Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks and Transfer 
Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices would be codified under 
40 CFR part 65 as subparts I, J and M. The General Provisions for the 
Uniform Standards and Uniform Standards for Heat Exchange Systems were 
previously proposed in a separate notice signed by the EPA 
Administrator on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012) and 
would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 as subparts H and L, 
respectively. We are proposing supplemental requirements for the 
General Provisions (subpart H) to include new provisions applicable to 
all Uniform Standards, as well as new provisions applicable to 
individual Uniform Standards in subparts I, J and M. As discussed in 
section VI.A of this preamble, we are maintaining the previously 
proposed five sections of subpart H and adding eleven new sections. Of 
the five previously proposed sections, we are proposing to make 
substantive changes to three sections. The EPA will consider all 
comments pertaining to the Uniform Standards General Provisions 
(subpart H) that were submitted in response to the previous proposal 
(77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), and will address those comments as we 
address the comments on the supplemental provisions proposed in this 
action.

B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform 
Standards?

    In a number of cases, the EPA has established CAA standards for 
different source categories that regulate the same kinds of emission 
points. Standards for a given type of emission point may require 
application of controls with similar control efficiencies and include 
similar design, component or operating standards, even though these 
emission points may be located at different types of sources or 
facilities. To avoid duplicative or disjointed requirements, and to 
promote consistency among technical requirements for similar emission 
points in different source categories, the EPA has established several 
common control requirement subparts describing testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain emission points

[[Page 17902]]

and emission controls that can be referenced from multiple source 
categories. For instance, we promulgated standard requirements for 
selected emission points (i.e., containers, surface impoundments, oil-
water separators and organic-water separators, tanks, and individual 
drain systems) in individual subparts under the NESHAP for Off-Site 
Waste and Recovery Operations (61 FR 34158, July 1, 1996), and we 
promulgated subparts for selected emission points (i.e., closed vent 
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas 
system or a process; equipment leaks; and storage vessels) as part of 
the Generic MACT program. The Generic MACT standards, which were 
promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW, were 
referenced in NESHAP requirements for individual source categories.
    Consolidation of compliance requirements under these subparts 
allows for ease of reference, administrative convenience and 
consistency in the technical requirements of the air emission control 
requirements applied to similar emission points under different source 
category regulations. The 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW 
are emission point- and emissions control-specific. They specify 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, but generally do 
not specify emissions reduction performance requirements or 
applicability thresholds. Instead, the referencing subpart specifies 
the emissions reduction performance requirements and applicability 
thresholds.
    By establishing these emission point- and emissions control-
specific subparts, other source category-specific regulations were able 
to reference a common set of design, operating, testing, inspection, 
monitoring, repair, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air 
emissions controls. This reduced the potential for duplicative or 
conflicting technical requirements, and promoted consistency of the air 
emission requirements applied to similar emission points, while 
allowing specific emission standards to be set within the context of 
the source category-specific regulations. Additionally, creating 
emission point-specific and emissions control-specific subparts ensured 
that all regulations that cross-referenced these subparts could be 
amended in a consistent and timely manner, through one regulatory 
action.
    We intend to establish, through the proposed Uniform Standards, a 
workable process for consolidation and a more efficient approach to 
rulemaking. The Uniform Standards have, in general, been modeled after 
the emission-point and emissions control-specific subparts of the 
Generic MACT. We are proposing the Uniform Standards in lieu of 
revising the Generic MACT because it is our intention to provide a set 
of common compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements that could be applied to emission points referenced from 
CAA 111 and 112 (NSPS and NESHAP, respectively) rulemakings. The 
Uniform Standards are designed to apply to chemical and refining 
facilities regulated under the authority of sections 111 and 112 of the 
CAA and who may currently be subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts 
60, 61 and 63. The Generic MACT is currently referenced by NESHAP under 
the provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and section 112 of the CAA; revising 
the current Generic MACT to be referenced by sources regulated under 
NSPS could create confusion regarding regulatory authority. In 
addition, the Generic MACT currently affects a large number of source 
categories and referencing subparts; therefore, a large revision of the 
Generic MACT could potentially be more confusing for regulated sources. 
Thus, we are proposing to establish the Uniform Standards under 40 CFR 
part 65 and anticipate, through future notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
to cross-reference subparts I, J and M from source category emission 
standards within at least two different parts of title 40 of the CFR--
parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS and NESHAP standards, 
respectively. The process of revising individual referencing subparts 
to reference the Uniform Standards or develop new subparts that 
reference the Uniform Standards is a clear-cut process that allows for 
review of the needs of specific source categories.

C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and the 
referencing subparts?

    This action may affect other source categories with similar 
emission points if the EPA takes action in the future to propose to 
apply the Uniform Standards to one or more other source categories for 
storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks or process 
vents. However, the EPA will determine applicability of these proposed 
Uniform Standards for another source category through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we will explain that all or a 
portion of 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are consistent with 
the CAA requirements at issue for the specific authority in the 
rulemaking. For example, in the context of an NSPS rulemaking, we could 
determine that subpart J is BSER for the source category at issue or, 
alternatively, we could determine that different emission standards 
should apply, but that recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements 
of subpart J are appropriate.
    We expect to see similar benefits for these Uniform Standards as we 
have seen for previous emission point- and emissions control-specific 
subparts, as described above, including the ability to reference a 
common set of standards for the same type of emission point located at 
sources within different source categories. This approach will maximize 
consistency between source categories for each type of emission point.
    As with the common control requirement subparts previously 
promulgated, the proposed Uniform Standards would include technical 
requirements and would not, in most cases, specify source category-
specific applicability thresholds or emissions reduction performance 
requirements, because these requirements are more properly established 
in source category-specific rules.
    However, we are proposing applicability thresholds, compliance 
requirements and monitoring frequencies that would apply if the 
referencing subpart does not specify these parameters. In the 
rulemaking actions that revise or propose standards to cross-reference 
40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M, we would address whether the 
referencing subpart should cross-reference subparts I, J and M in their 
entirety or cross-reference only a subset of subparts I, J and M. 
Moreover, we would determine whether the referencing (source category-
specific) subpart should include more or less stringent requirements 
than subparts I, J and M.
    As we revise or promulgate source category-specific standards that 
have emission points addressed by a uniform standard for storage 
vessels, transfer operations, equipment leaks and/or control devices, 
we would propose whether and to what extent we would reference the 
Uniform Standards in the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M. 
In making that decision, we would consider the applicable CAA 
requirements, analyses of the individual source category and the 
similarity of emission characteristics and applicable controls. We 
would consider factors such as: (1) The volume and concentration of 
emissions; (2) the type of emissions; (3) the similarity of emission 
points; (4) the cost and

[[Page 17903]]

effectiveness of controls for one source category relative to the cost 
and effectiveness of controls for the other source category; (5) 
whether a source has unusual characteristics that might require 
different analytical methods; and (6) whether any of the sources have 
existing emission controls that are dissimilar and more stringent than 
controls required for similar sources outside the source category. 
These factors would be considered on a source category-specific basis 
to ensure that sources are appropriately similar, and that emissions 
control technologies and reductions demonstrated outside of a source 
category are achievable for new and existing sources in an applicable 
source category.
    In future rulemakings, the referencing subpart would establish the 
source category-specific requirements, including the regulated 
materials, appropriate applicability thresholds or tiers, emissions 
limit requirements (including the format and units of measure) and 
other source category-specific requirements. Additionally, the 
referencing subpart would provide rationale for the use of surrogates, 
if the use of surrogates is appropriate for the source category; for 
example, the referencing subpart could establish limits on particulate 
matter (PM) to achieve control of non-volatile metallic hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP), yet refer to the Uniform Standards for monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For any provisions of the 
Uniform Standards not cross-referenced by a source category-specific 
subpart, the requirement would be expressly addressed in the source 
category-specific (referencing) subpart. A portion of 40 CFR part 65, 
subparts I, J and/or M could be cross-referenced and exceptions could 
be made within the referencing subpart, as necessary, to ensure that 
the proposed requirements are appropriate to the source category in 
light of the applicable CAA requirements. For example, the referencing 
subpart could specify a monitoring frequency other than that contained 
in the Uniform Standards if we determine that a different monitoring 
frequency is appropriate for the regulated emission point in that 
source category. A referencing subpart with applicability thresholds, 
for instance, may only direct to a portion of the Uniform Standards or 
not direct to the Uniform Standards at all for certain thresholds. 
Because the proposed Uniform Standards could be referenced in this 
manner, we believe that the requirements in subparts I, J and M would 
not inhibit the flexibility to address source category-specific needs.
    The rationale for each determination that the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 65, subparts H, I, J or M should be cross-referenced for an 
individual referencing subpart in light of the applicable CAA 
requirements, would be addressed in the rulemaking for the individual 
subpart at the time of proposal, and we would provide an opportunity 
for public comment at that time. A description of the analyses 
performed as part of that review would be presented in the rulemaking 
for the individual subpart and an opportunity for comment would be 
provided. We would also assess the costs, emission reduction, economic 
and other impacts as they relate to the specific source category at 
issue at that time.
    In light of these considerations, we have determined that the 
proposed Uniform Standards would promote the EPA's ability to simplify, 
clarify and improve implementation of the rules with which source 
owners or operators must comply, consistent with the objectives of 
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 
resulting in a cost and burden reduction for both the public and 
private sector.

D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform Standards?

    This action proposes the Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and 
Transfer Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I), Equipment Leaks (40 
CFR part 65, subpart J) and Control Devices (40 CFR part 65, subpart 
M), and revisions to the General Provisions for the Uniform Standards 
(40 CFR part 65, subpart H).
    This action is based on the EPA's review of the current 
requirements for equipment leaks, storage tanks and transfer operations 
and control devices used to control process vents in light of over 20 
years of regulatory implementation experience. The benefits of the 
proposed Uniform Standards include:
     Providing one-stop requirements for equipment leaks, 
storage tanks and control devices for the chemical manufacturing and 
refining industries;
     Providing strengthened control and monitoring requirements 
based on cost-effective advances in technology that could be considered 
for adoption in future rulemakings;
     Enhancing compliance and enforcement to ensure that the 
standards achieve the intended emissions reductions required for MACT, 
GACT or BSER; and
     Reduction of unnecessary and unproductive regulatory 
burden.
    These benefits also support the objectives of Executive Order 
13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Examples of the 
changes we are proposing that accomplish each of these objectives are 
below.
    The proposed Uniform Standards provide the benefit of one-stop 
compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
specific emission points that would be referenced in future rulemakings 
for the chemical manufacturing and refining industries. The EPA desires 
to facilitate implementation and compliance by making requirements 
easier to understand, incorporating streamlined compliance approaches 
and applying these approaches across industry sectors. Currently, the 
chemical manufacturing and refining industries may be subject to 
multiple NSPS and NESHAP, including the Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, 
subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW); the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing NESHAP (68 FR 63851, November 10, 2003) (MON); the 
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994) (HON), the 
Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (69 FR 5038, February 3, 
2004); the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (60 FR 43260, August 18, 1995); 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) rules 
(Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels 
(52 FR 11429, April 8, 1987); Standards of Performance for Equipment 
Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry 
(48 FR 48335, October 18, 1983); and SOCMI Reactor Processes (58 FR 
45962, August 31, 1993)). Several of these rules cover similar emission 
points, such as storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks or 
process vents that route to a control device. As a result, facilities 
subject to two or more of these rules may have overlapping or confusing 
compliance requirements for the same emission point. Additionally, 
facilities may have burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for multiple subparts to which they are subject. The proposed Uniform 
Standards revise and streamline the compliance approach for future 
rulemakings by applying a set of control and compliance methods that 
may be referenced from multiple subparts. In particular, the proposed 
Uniform Standards are structured so that facilities regulated under 
NSPS and NESHAP could reference the same cost-effective monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for storage tanks,

[[Page 17904]]

transfer racks, equipment leaks and process vents that route to a 
control device, provided the Uniform Standards are determined to be 
appropriate for the NSPS and NESHAP source categories (see section II.C 
of this preamble). By providing a consistent set of compliance, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the proposed 
standards would reduce the burden to the chemical manufacturing and 
refining industries. Additionally, applying these common emission 
point-specific requirements provides the benefit of easing the 
enforcement burden for government agencies.
    The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M also provide the 
groundwork for future rulemakings as a set of strengthened control and 
monitoring requirements that may be considered for use in future 
referencing subparts to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER. The proposed 
standards are based on a consolidation of existing requirements, but 
have been augmented where appropriate based on our survey of available 
technology and a review of existing regulations for each emission 
point. For example, under the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage 
Vessels and Transfer Operations, we are proposing to specify situations 
when landing a floating roof is allowable and the amount of time that a 
storage vessel with a landed floating roof may be left standing idle. 
These changes reduce the amount of time during which volatile regulated 
materials are exposed to the atmosphere and may be released. To improve 
detection of leaks on fixed roof storage tanks and thereby minimize 
emissions, we are also proposing to require monitoring for leaks from 
closure devices, pressure/vacuum vents and other potential leak 
interfaces on fixed roof storage vessels using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7, or optical gas imaging instead of visual inspections 
for defects. We are also proposing to include different delay of repair 
provisions in the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks which 
specify that if a valve or connector cannot be repaired within 15 days, 
``low leak technology'' must be used to repair the equipment when it is 
technically feasible to do so. ``Low leak technology'' that is 
available and cost effective includes replacing the valve packing, 
flange gaskets or the entire valve or connector. These requirements 
provide additional emissions reductions and could be referenced by 
future rulemakings as a means to meet applicable CAA requirements. The 
proposed Uniform Standards for Control Devices include strengthened 
provisions that require owners and operators of closed vent systems to 
provide monitoring for each bypass for pressure relief devices (PRD), 
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves 
or lines. We are proposing that this equipment is subject to the bypass 
line requirements to have a flow monitor or a car seal on each bypass 
line that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere, thereby 
minimizing emissions from these points. The proposed requirements under 
40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M have been designed to reflect 
advanced practices and control methods and provide robust air emissions 
control. This allows us to consider these proposed standards as a basis 
for review in future rulemakings for source categories with similar 
emission points. Further discussion of these provisions and other 
strengthened requirements under the Uniform Standards are included in 
the discussions for each individual subpart in sections III, IV and V 
of this preamble.
    The proposed Uniform Standards also provide the benefits of 
improved compliance and enforceability. We are proposing to facilitate 
implementation and compliance by clarifying current requirements that 
were vague or confusing. For example, current equipment leak rules 
require facilities to equip open-ended valves or lines with a cap, 
blind flange, plug or second valve to prevent emissions. We have 
retained that requirement in the proposed Uniform Standards for 
Equipment Leaks, but we have added a requirement to check that the cap, 
blind flange, plug or second valve is installed or closed properly 
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 at least once a year to 
ensure compliance with the standard. The EPA is also proposing to 
clarify requirements in the Uniform Standards that were confusing 
during implementation of previous rules, such as the monitoring 
requirements for small boilers and process heaters that are not part of 
a fuel gas system (see discussion in section V.B.3 of this preamble). 
As another example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks 
include all the types of equipment for which sensory monitoring is 
required in one section, which makes clear that the sensory monitoring 
requirements for all applicable types of equipment are identical. In 
other current standards, these requirements are spread throughout the 
rule, and slight differences in wording make it difficult to tell if 
the requirements are supposed to be the same. These clarifications are 
intended to improve compliance and enforceability as the Uniform 
Standards are considered during CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings and 
incorporated into future referencing subparts. Further clarifications 
are discussed in the individual subparts in sections III, IV and V of 
this preamble.
    The proposed Uniform Standards also provide benefits as they reduce 
unproductive burden within the chemical and refining sectors. For 
example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks include 
provisions to use optical imaging to monitor for leaks (where 
appropriate and allowed by the referencing subpart) instead of 
instrument monitoring. Because the optical gas imaging device can 
monitor many more pieces of equipment than conducting instrument 
monitoring in the same period of time, these provisions are expected to 
reduce the cost of labor required to meet the proposed Uniform 
Standards for Equipment Leaks. In particular, we have focused on 
simplifying recordkeeping and reporting requirements throughout each 
proposed subpart. For example, under the proposed General Provisions, 
we have specified that certain reports that are required to be 
submitted will be done so electronically, as discussed in sections II.F 
and VI.B.7 of this preamble. We are also proposing a revised record 
retention policy that allows that records can be maintained in 
electronic format and accessible within 2 hours of a request for the 5-
year record retention period. We have not included different retention 
periods for onsite and offsite records because the ability to maintain 
electronic records removes the need for specifying the storage 
location. An electronic record can be stored either onsite or offsite, 
but still be quickly accessible from onsite.
    Furthermore, we have developed the proposed Uniform Standards in 
keeping with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued January 18, 2011. Consistent 
with Executive Order 13563, the proposed standards are based on a 
thorough review of current regulations and reduce regulatory burden by 
consolidating and simplifying requirements, including eliminating 
duplicative requirements. These proposed standards further facilitate 
implementation and compliance by clarifying and improving current 
requirements, using new and streamlined compliance approaches and 
applying these approaches broadly. The proposed Uniform Standards also 
implement cost-effective control strategies without compromising 
environmental protection, and have

[[Page 17905]]

taken into consideration the latest control techniques. Finally, these 
standards provide a flexible, streamlined process for future 
rulemakings that will reduce burden and increase efficiency for both 
government regulators and industry.

E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?

    In keeping with previous emission point-specific and emissions 
control-specific subparts, we have structured the proposed Uniform 
Standards for 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M to provide a 
common set of monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. We intend the proposed Uniform Standards to provide 
common standards for environmental control that may be referenced from 
multiple regulations and that may be useful for a broad range of source 
categories. It is our view that the Uniform Standards will decrease 
inconsistencies between rulemakings for similar types of industries and 
reduce burden for both industry and government regulators.
    In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13563, 
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, we reviewed the current 
Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW; 
the MON (68 FR 63888, November 10, 2003); the HON (59 FR 19402, April 
22, 1994); and other recent rules in the development of the proposed 
Uniform Standards. The Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW were chosen as a starting point for the 
Uniform Standards because they were previously developed for the 
purpose of providing consistent requirements for storage vessels and 
transfer operations, equipment leaks and control devices used to 
control process vents that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP 
subparts, and they already incorporate technical improvements based on 
the EPA's experience with implementation of other subparts, such as the 
National Emission Standards for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart CC) and the HON. We augment these provisions in the proposed 
Uniform Standards by adding requirements from recent rulemakings, 
clarifying unclear requirements and incorporating alternative 
technologies and compliance approaches. As part of this process, we 
have investigated current practices and advances in technology and 
examined the cost effectiveness of applying certain technologies for 
control. Additionally, we reviewed the applicability determination 
index database, test reports, title V permit requirements, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance experience and recent EPA 
decisions to identify cost-effective technological, monitoring and 
compliance approaches that would reduce burden across source 
categories. In this proposal, we are referring to the existing flare 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flare compliance and 
are not proposing new flare requirements. We are continuing to gather 
data, review flare research papers and test reports, and investigate 
operating conditions that may influence the performance of a flare. 
Based on this information, we may in the future propose to add new 
flare requirements to the Uniform Standards.
    As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we expect that 
applying a common set of monitoring, testing and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements to multiple source categories would be feasible 
because several source categories within the chemical and refining 
industries use similar process operations and have similar emission 
points. Specifically, various industries require the regulation of air 
emissions from storage vessel and transfer operations, equipment leaks 
and control devices. Although these industries may have variations in 
their process operations and the regulated materials used, these 
emission sources are generally amenable to similar methods for control 
and demonstration of compliance.
    Our review of current regulations for storage vessel and transfer 
operations, equipment leaks and process vents found that these emission 
points often have similar requirements for the demonstration of 
compliance. In general, the mechanisms for release of emissions to the 
atmosphere from these emission points or emissions controls are 
similar, regardless of the specific regulated materials involved. With 
the knowledge of these similarities, we expect that compliance methods 
that have been determined to be cost effective for control of a 
specific amount of a given regulated material at one of the proposed 
emission points would generally be cost effective for the same 
regulated material at similar emission points, regardless of the source 
category. Specifically, the compliance methods proposed with the 
Uniform Standards have been developed with the consideration that they 
may be applied to emission points in a broad range of source 
categories. Although we considered how the proposed requirements would 
apply to petroleum refineries and chemical plants, we have structured 
the Uniform Standards to provide flexible compliance methods that could 
be useful for multiple industries. In determining the best and most 
cost-effective compliance methods, monitoring, and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for the proposed standards, we examined and drew 
guidance from current rules from many different source categories that 
contain storage vessel, transfer operations, equipment leaks, process 
vents, and a variety of control devices. These guiding rules are 
discussed further in sections III, IV and V of this preamble. While the 
current rules provide requirements for individual source categories 
with slight variations for the specific regulated materials and process 
methods used in the regulated industry, we propose that the Uniform 
Standards, which would consolidate consistent, cost-effective 
requirements from a wide range of compliance methods for the same 
emission points, could be easily and effectively applied to additional 
industries.
    Because the proposed Uniform Standards are intended to supply 
general requirements for source category-specific subparts, we expect 
that as current NSPS and NESHAP are periodically reviewed for 
technology advancements, they may refer to the Uniform Standards for 
compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions. Review 
of both NSPS and NESHAP under the CAA authorizes us to consider the 
cost impacts of control. Therefore, in reviewing the current 
requirements for these emission points across source categories, we 
examined the cost effectiveness of the compliance methods. For example, 
we have considered the cost effectiveness of control methods for 
equipment leaks on a volatile organic compound (VOC) basis. The 
majority of the emissions from equipment leaks are the result of gases 
or vapors escaping through leaks, either because the process fluid 
itself is a gas or vapor or because the process fluid is a liquid that 
volatilizes easily. Therefore, VOC are a class of compounds that are 
representative of these types of emissions. The proposed Uniform 
Standards, as a whole, reflect our determination of the best and most 
cost-effective compliance and control options for the regulated 
materials generally expected at the proposed emission points.
    To account for the differences between individual source 
categories, the proposed standards generally provide limited technical 
requirements for monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting for 
the identified emission points. Overall, we have determined that the 
regulated materials, applicability requirements, emission

[[Page 17906]]

limits or control levels are best determined on a source category 
basis, as discussed in section II.C in this preamble, to reflect the 
specific needs of the source category. However, we are proposing 
applicability thresholds for the Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks 
(including size and vapor pressure) and control levels for the Uniform 
Standards for Equipment Leaks (including thresholds at which leaking 
equipment must be repaired, or ``leak definitions''). These thresholds 
are provided for consideration in future referencing subpart 
rulemakings, and would only apply if the referencing subpart does not 
specify an applicability threshold and/or control level. The 
referencing subpart may choose to refer to these thresholds in the 
Uniform Standards or may establish more appropriate thresholds for a 
specific source-category (overriding the Uniform Standards), as 
discussed in section II.C.

F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

    Electronic reporting is becoming an increasingly common element of 
modern life (as evidenced by electronic banking and income tax filing), 
and the EPA is beginning to require electronic submittal of certain 
environmental data. Electronic reporting is already common in 
environmental data collection and many media offices at the EPA are 
reducing reporting burden for the regulated community by embracing 
electronic reporting systems as an alternative to paper-based 
reporting.
    One of the major benefits of reporting electronically is 
standardization, to the extent possible, of the data reporting formats, 
which provides more certainty to users of the data required in specific 
reports. For example, electronic reporting software allows for more 
efficient data transmittal and the software's validation mechanism 
helps industry users submit fewer incomplete reports. This alone saves 
industry and regulatory agencies report processing resources and 
reduces transaction times. Standardization also allows for development 
of efficient methods to compile and store much of the documentation 
required to be reported under this rule.
    We are proposing that certain reports required to be submitted 
through the Uniform Standards would be submitted electronically. These 
reports would include all performance test reports, continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) performance evaluation reports, the 40 CFR 
part 65, subparts I and J portions of the Notification of Compliance 
Status, and semiannual periodic reports specified in 40 CFR part 65, 
subparts H, I, J and M. All other reports would be submitted in hard 
copy or other method mutually agreed to between the source and the 
delegated authority. We have reasoned that reporting elements that are 
descriptive and contain a high level of detail would not be easily 
incorporated into the electronic reporting system at this time. For a 
discussion of each of these various types of reports, see sections III, 
IV, V and VI of this preamble.
    The availability of electronic reporting for sources subject to the 
Uniform Standards will provide efficiency, improved services, better 
accessibility of information and more transparency and accountability. 
Additionally, submittal of these required reports electronically 
provides significant benefits for regulatory agencies, industry and the 
public. The compliance data electronic reporting system is being 
developed such that once a facility's initial data entry into the 
system is established and a report is generated, subsequent data 
submittal would only consist of electronic updates to existing 
information in the system. Such a system would effectively reduce the 
burden associated with submittal of data and reports by reducing the 
time, costs and effort required to submit and update hard copies of 
documentation. State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies 
could also benefit from more streamlined and accurate electronic data 
submitted to them. Electronic reporting would allow for an electronic 
review process rather than a manual data assessment, making review and 
evaluation of the source-provided data and calculations easier and more 
efficient. Electronic reporting would also benefit the public by 
generating a more transparent review process and increasing the ease 
and efficiency of data accessibility. Furthermore, electronic reporting 
would reduce the burden on the regulated community by reducing the 
effort involved in data collection and reporting activities. With the 
complete information provided in electronic reports, we anticipate 
there will be a need for fewer and less substantial data collection 
requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk 
assessments or technology reviews. We anticipate that using electronic 
reporting for the required reports will result in an overall reduction 
in reporting costs; specifically, we estimated potential savings in 
reporting costs for an existing chemical plant to be approximately 
$6,780 (or a 42-percent cost reduction in hard copy reporting required 
by existing rules). For further discussion of the economic and cost 
impacts of electronic reporting, see section VII.D of this preamble.
    Another benefit of the proposed electronic data submittal is that 
these data will greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new 
emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data for 
establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the factors are 
more representative of current industry operational procedures. A 
common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission 
factors are outdated or not representative of a particular source 
category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from most 
performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that the updated 
emission factors become available to represent the most current range 
of operational practices.
    We are proposing that data entry of these electronic reports would 
be through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
(www.epa.gov/cdx). Data transmitted electronically through CEDRI will 
be stored in CDX as an official copy of record. Once you have accessed 
CEDRI, you will select the applicable subpart for the report that you 
are submitting. You will then select the report type being transmitted, 
enter the data into the form and click on the submit button. In some 
cases, such as with submittal of a Notification of Compliance Status 
Report, you will select the report type, enter basic facility 
information and then upload the report in a specified file format.
    In addition, we believe that there will be utility in allowing 
other reporting forms to be developed and used in cases where the other 
reporting forms can provide an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the EPA's form output format. This approach has been used 
successfully to provide alternatives for other electronic forms (e.g., 
income tax transmittal). The proposal to submit performance test data 
electronically to the EPA would apply only to those performance tests 
conducted using test methods that will be supported by the electronic 
reporting tool (ERT) which can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of 
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at 
the ERT Web site listed above. A generic form is also available for 
test methods that are not specifically supported by ERT and you may 
submit performance tests with non-

[[Page 17907]]

listed test methods using the generic form.
    In CEDRI, the user must then upload the ERT file. CEDRI transmits a 
copy of the ERT project data file directly to WebFIRE, where the data 
are made available. Where performance test reports are transmitted, 
WebFIRE notifies the appropriate state, local or tribal agency contact 
that an ERT project data file was received from the source.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with these reports 
would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of 
emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations--Subpart I

A. Summary

    We are proposing new Uniform Standards for control of emissions 
from storage vessels and transfer operations. These Uniform Standards 
would apply to a storage vessel or transfer operation only if that 
storage vessel or transfer operation is subject to a regulation that 
references such standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart I for 
control of air emissions from these sources. In section III of this 
preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA and the term ``you'' refers 
to owners and operators of sources affected by the proposed standards. 
Additionally, ``subpart I'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart 
I. Section III.B provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
1. What parts of my plant are affected by the proposed rule?
    Proposed subpart I would apply to atmospheric storage vessels, 
pressurized vessels and transfer operations for which another subpart 
references such standards in this subpart for air emission control. 
Different vessel size and stored material maximum true vapor pressure 
(MTVP) thresholds are specified for the different control requirements 
for storage vessels. Different throughputs and transferred material 
MTVP thresholds are specified for the different control requirements 
for transfer operations. We are not proposing to specify a compliance 
timeline in this subpart, since the compliance period would depend upon 
the proposal and final rule effective dates of the referencing subpart; 
thus, the compliance timeline for implementing these standards, as 
specified in the referencing subpart, would apply for that source 
category.
    As in current storage vessel rules, the proposed rule for storage 
vessels is based on design requirements, inspection requirements and 
emission standards. Current rules specify the size and vapor pressure 
thresholds that define which storage vessels must comply with the 
requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in proposed subpart I. 
As in current transfer operations rules, the proposed Uniform Standards 
for transfer operations are based on loading requirements, inspection 
requirements and emission standards. Current rules specify the size and 
vapor pressure thresholds that define which transfer operations must 
comply with the requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in 
proposed subpart I.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
    Your storage vessels and transfer operations would be subject to 
some or all of the requirements of subpart I when another subpart 
references the use of such requirements in subpart I for air emission 
control. In addition, you would be required to meet the general 
provisions applicable to 40 CFR part 65 (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR part 
65) and the general provisions applicable to the referencing subpart 
(i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63).
    Atmospheric storage vessels. Under proposed subpart I, you would be 
required to control emissions from each atmospheric storage vessel that 
contains regulated material (and is part of a regulated source subject 
to a referencing subpart). The type of control would depend on the size 
of the storage vessel and the MTVP of the stored regulated material. We 
are proposing four compliance approaches for each storage vessel that 
meets the capacity and MTVP thresholds presented in Table 1 of this 
preamble (and Table 1 of proposed subpart I). These approaches are: (1) 
Operate and maintain either an internal floating roof (IFR) or an 
external floating roof (EFR), provided the MTVP of the stored regulated 
material is less than 11.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia); (2) 
operate and maintain a vapor balancing system on a fixed roof tank; (3) 
vent emissions from a fixed roof tank through a closed vent system to a 
control device according to the requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M; or (4) route emissions from a fixed roof tank to a fuel 
gas system. For each storage vessel that does not meet either set of 
thresholds described above, you would be required to operate and 
maintain a fixed roof (or you may elect to comply with the requirements 
for larger tanks that store regulated material with higher MTVP). 
Inspections and repair of defects and leaks would also be required for 
all storage vessels. Each of the four compliance approaches is 
discussed in further detail in sections III.A.4 through 7 of this 
preamble.

                           Table 1--Control Thresholds for Atmospheric Storage Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         If the storage capacity is
              Comply with                                                          And the MTVP is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for fixed roof storage      <20,000 gal, or...........  Any level.
 vessels in Sec.   65.310.               <40,000 gal, or...........  <1.9 psia.
                                         >=40,000 gal..............  <0.75 psia.
Any one of four compliance approaches    >=20,000 gal, or..........  >=1.9 psia.
 specified in Sec.  Sec.   65.315,       >=40,000 gal..............  >=0.75 psia.
 65.320, 65.325 or 65.330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transfer operations. If you own or operate a transfer rack that 
loads regulated material into transport vehicles (i.e., cargo tanks or 
tank cars) or containers, you would have to control emissions from the 
transfer operations as specified in proposed subpart I. The specific 
control requirements would differ depending on the amount of regulated 
material transferred and the MTVP of the stored material. Details are 
discussed in sections III.A.9 and 10 of this preamble. The proposed 
rule does not specify requirements for loading regulated material into 
barges, which are currently regulated by the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and would remain so 
covered.

[[Page 17908]]

3. What are the proposed requirements for fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessels that are small or store material that has a low vapor 
pressure?
    For fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels that are smaller than 
20,000 gallons, smaller than 40,000 gallons and store material with a 
MTVP less than 1.9 psia or greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and 
store material with a MTVP less than 0.75 psia, you would have to meet 
specified equipment, operating, inspection and repair requirements. The 
proposed equipment requirements are to: (1) Install the fixed roof in a 
manner that would avoid creating open spaces between roof section 
joints or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall; and 
(2) equip each opening in the fixed roof with a closure device that, 
when secured in the closed position, allows no open spaces in the 
closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure 
device. You would be required to operate the fixed roof with each 
closure device secured in the closed position except during those 
periods when access is needed. A conservation vent or similar device 
would be allowed to vent to the atmosphere when diurnal temperature 
changes or filling of the storage vessel cause pressure in the storage 
vessel to exceed the design range for the storage vessel (i.e., normal 
breathing and working emissions).
    To demonstrate compliance with the equipment and operating 
requirements, you would be required to conduct initial and periodic 
monitoring of the fixed roof and its closure devices for leaks. For 
parts of the fixed roof that you determine are unsafe to monitor, you 
would have to develop a written plan in which you document why those 
parts are unsafe to monitor and that specifies a schedule for 
monitoring when it is safe to do so.
    We are proposing two monitoring options. One option would be to use 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. This monitoring would be 
required annually, and you would detect a leak each time you obtain an 
instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv). 
The second option would be to use optical gas imaging. This monitoring 
would be required semiannually, and the instrument would have to be 
capable of detecting at least one of the compounds emitted from the 
storage vessel. A leak would be detected each time the instrument 
detects an image. This option also would reference a protocol for other 
requirements. We are currently developing the protocol and expect to 
propose it as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Public comment on the 
content of the proposed protocol will be requested in the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed protocol. In addition, we intend to 
provide an opportunity to comment on the application of appendix K to 
40 CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging provisions in these Uniform 
Standards. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, the protocol 
would also apply to optical gas imaging for equipment leaks. See 
section IV.A.5 of this preamble for a discussion of the information 
that we are planning to include in the protocol. Note, however, that 
the proposed bimonthly monitoring frequency for equipment leaks would 
not apply to monitoring of fittings on storage vessels.
    If leaks are discovered in a storage vessel during an inspection, 
you have to either complete repairs or completely empty the storage 
vessel within 45 days, although you would be allowed up to two 
extensions of up to 30 days each. If you use an extension, you must 
maintain records that document your use of the extension. These records 
must indicate that alternative storage capacity was unavailable and 
list the actions you took in an effort to repair or empty the tank in 
the allowed period before the extension.
4. What are the proposed requirements to control atmospheric storage 
vessels with a floating roof (``floating roof approach'')?
    If you elect to use a floating roof to control emissions from an 
atmospheric storage vessel that meets the size and MTVP thresholds for 
such control, you would have to comply with the proposed equipment, 
operating, inspection and repair requirements for floating roofs 
specified in this rule.
    The proposed rule includes rim seal equipment requirements that are 
consistent with current rules. If you use an IFR, you would be required 
to equip the IFR with a liquid-mounted seal, mechanical shoe seal or 
two seals mounted one above the other. If you use an EFR, you would 
have to equip the EFR with a liquid-mounted seal and secondary seal, or 
with a mechanical shoe seal and secondary seal.
    The proposed rule includes design and operation specifications for 
closure devices and other fittings for each type of opening through the 
deck of the floating roof. Most of these design and operational 
requirements for deck fittings are consistent with requirements in 
current rules. One difference is that the proposed rule explicitly 
specifies requirements for slotted ladder legs that are comparable to 
requirements for slotted guidepoles. Another difference is that the 
proposed rule defines automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vent) to 
include both devices that are activated by pressure and vacuum 
differences across the floating roof and devices that are activated 
when an extension leg contacts the floor of the storage vessel. The 
proposed rule also includes additional control options for slotted 
guidepoles that were developed for the Storage Tank Emission Reduction 
Partnership Program (STERPP) (65 FR 19891, April 13, 2000).
    The proposed rule would require that you equip each storage vessel 
with an alarm system that signals when the floating roof: (1) Is about 
to land on its legs or other support devices; or (2) is close to being 
overfilled. Each time the floating roof is landed, you would be 
required to estimate, record and report the amount of regulated 
material emitted during the time the roof was landed. Similarly, if the 
storage vessel is ever overfilled, you would be required to estimate, 
record and report the amount of regulated material spilled and emitted 
to the atmosphere.
    The proposed rule would require that the floating roof be floating 
on the liquid surface at all times except for certain instances when 
the floating roof is being supported on leg supports or other support 
devices (landed). We are proposing to limit both the total amount of 
time and the circumstances under which the floating roof may be landed 
to: (1) During the initial fill; (2) when necessary for maintenance, 
inspection or to support a change to an incompatible liquid, provided 
you either begin refilling the storage vessel or begin actions to 
completely empty the storage vessel within 24 hours; (3) when actions 
to completely empty the storage vessel begin within 24 hours after the 
roof is landed in order to take the storage vessel out of service; or 
(4) if the vapors are routed through a closed vent system to a control 
device from the time the roof is landed until the roof is within 10 
percent by volume of being refloated. Typically, once you begin 
refilling the storage vessel, you would not be allowed to suspend 
refilling or withdraw liquid until after the roof is refloated. The 
requirement for continuous refilling until the roof is refloated would 
not apply to a storage vessel that is used to store product from a 
batch process if the quantity of product from one batch is insufficient 
to refloat the roof, and the roof will be refloated when product from 
additional batches is added to the storage vessel. However, withdrawal 
of liquid from the storage vessel would still not be permitted until 
after the roof is refloated.

[[Page 17909]]

    The proposed rule would require that you inspect the floating roof 
deck, deck fittings and rim seals. One option would be to conduct 
visual inspections, measure gaps in rim seals for an EFR and measure 
gaps between gaskets and the surfaces they are intended to seal for 
deck fittings on both IFR and EFR. The proposed rule also specifies 
that Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 may be used as an 
alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement requirements for 
either type of floating roof and the rim-seal gap measurements on EFR. 
Another proposed alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement 
requirements is optical gas imaging. Requirements for monitoring using 
optical gas imaging would be the same as discussed in section III.A.3 
of this preamble for monitoring of fixed roofs. Monitoring using either 
optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 would 
be required while the floating roof is floating on the stored liquid. 
The proposed rule lists the conditions that would be considered 
inspection failure (i.e., stored liquid on the floating roof; holes or 
tears in the primary or secondary seal; floating roof deck, deck 
fittings or rim seals that are not functioning as designed; failure to 
comply with the operational requirements; and excessive gaps).
    The proposed rule includes inspection frequency requirements for 
both IFR and EFR. For IFR, you would have to inspect: (1) Before the 
initial fill of the storage vessel; (2) at least annually (tank top 
inspection only); and (3) each time the storage vessel is completely 
emptied and degassed (but no later than 10 years after the previous 
such inspection or no later than 5 years for IFR equipped with two rim 
seals). For EFR, you would have to inspect: (1) The primary and 
secondary rim seals and deck fittings within 90 days after the initial 
fill of the storage vessel; (2) the secondary seal, deck fittings and 
EFR at least annually; and (3) the primary seal no later than 5 years 
after the previous primary seal gap inspection. Delays in IFR and EFR 
inspection would be allowed if the storage vessel is out of service on 
the date 5 or 10 years after the last inspection, as applicable, 
provided the inspection is conducted prior to filling the storage 
vessel.
    If you determine that it is unsafe to perform the EFR inspections 
specified in the rule, you would have to either perform the inspections 
no later than 30 days after making this determination, or remove the 
storage vessel from service no later than 45 days after making this 
determination. You may use up to two extensions (up to 30 days each) if 
the storage vessel cannot be emptied within 45 days, provided you 
document this decision, explain why it was unsafe to perform the 
inspection, document that alternative storage capacity is unavailable 
and provide a schedule of actions taken in an effort to completely 
empty the storage vessel during the extension period. Not completely 
emptying the storage vessel before the end of the second extension 
period would be a deviation.
    In the event of an inspection failure, the proposed rule requires 
repair to correct the failure. In addition, if at times when you are 
not specifically conducting an inspection as required by the proposed 
rule, but you notice a condition that constitutes an inspection 
failure, you would be required to make the necessary repairs just as if 
the condition had been noted during a scheduled inspection. If you 
performed the inspection while the storage vessel was not storing 
liquid, you would have to complete repairs before refilling the storage 
vessel with liquid. If you performed the inspection while the storage 
vessel was storing liquid, you would have to complete repairs or remove 
the vessel from service within 45 days, but you would be allowed up to 
two extensions (up to 30 days each), as long as you document your 
decision to use the extension. The documentation would include a 
description of the failure, documentation that alternative storage 
capacity is unavailable and a schedule of actions taken in an effort to 
either repair or completely empty the storage vessel before the end of 
the applicable extension period. Not repairing or completely emptying 
the storage vessel before the end of the second extension would be a 
deviation.
    You have the option to request the substitution of an alternate 
device for any of the seals and fittings specified in the floating roof 
approach, as long as the alternate device has an emission factor less 
than or equal to the emission factor for the specified device and the 
emission factor for the alternate device was determined under tests 
that accurately simulated the conditions under which the device will 
operate (e.g., wind speed, temperature, pressure and filling rates).
5. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessels if I use vapor balancing (``vapor balancing 
approach'')?
    If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessel by using vapor balancing, you would have to comply with 
the proposed design, operating, monitoring and repair requirements for 
vapor balancing specified in this rule. You would have to operate, 
maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in 
section III.A.3 of this preamble. Unlike current rules, the proposed 
rule contains no requirements for offsite facilities that clean and/or 
reload the transport vehicles and barges.
    Under the proposed vapor balancing approach, you would have to 
design and operate the vapor balancing system to route the vapors 
displaced from storage vessel loading to the transport vehicle used to 
fill the storage vessel. Each transport vehicle would have to have a 
current certification of pressure testing conducted in accordance with 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, and you would 
have to keep records of these certifications. Barges would have to be 
pressure tested annually in accordance with procedures in the proposed 
rule; these procedures are consistent with requirements in the Marine 
Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and 
the Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart BB). 
You would be required to maintain copies of documentation showing that 
the required testing was performed. The fixed roof would have to meet 
the design and operating requirements described in section III.A.3 of 
this preamble.
    Under the proposed operating requirements, liquid may be unloaded 
only when the transport vehicle's vapor-collection equipment is 
connected to the storage vessel's vapor balancing system. Also, no PRD 
on the storage vessel, transport vehicle or barge may be open during 
loading, and PRD on the storage vessel would not be allowed to open at 
any time as a result of diurnal temperature changes (i.e., breathing 
losses would not be allowed). You would have to set PRD on storage 
vessels no lower than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) in order 
to prevent breathing losses, unless you provide a rationale for a lower 
value in your notification of compliance. In addition, you would have 
to keep records of the pressure relief vent settings that prevent 
breathing losses from the storage vessel. All vapor connections and 
lines on the storage vessel would have to be equipped with closures 
that seal upon disconnect.
    Most of the proposed requirements for inspecting, monitoring and 
repairing equipment in the vapor balancing system and the fixed roof 
are the same as for closed vent systems as described in section III.A.6 
of this preamble. The only difference is that for vapor balancing 
systems you may elect to

[[Page 17910]]

comply with the alternative monitoring frequencies for batch operations 
in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J if your vapor balancing system 
operates less than 75 percent of the hours during the year.
6. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device (``closed vent system approach'')?
    If you elect to vent emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel 
through a closed vent system to a control device, you would have to 
comply with the proposed equipment, operating, inspection and repair 
requirements specified in this rule for these systems.
    If your storage vessel and closed vent system are not in vacuum 
service, you would have to operate, maintain and inspect the fixed 
roof, and repair leaks as specified in section III.A.3 of this 
preamble, except that normal breathing and working emissions would not 
be allowed to vent to the atmosphere. Monitoring would not be required 
if the storage vessel and closed vent system are in vacuum service, but 
you would be required to demonstrate that vacuum is maintained by 
installing a pressure monitoring device and alarm as specified in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
    For the closed vent system, you would have to comply with the 
bypass line requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart 
M, and you would be required to comply with requirements for equipment 
in regulated material service in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. 
Either equipment controls (e.g., caps on open ended lines) or leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) would be required, as specified in 40 CFR 
65.420 through 65.427 of proposed subpart J, except that sensory 
monitoring in 40 CFR 65.428 of proposed subpart J would be allowed for 
connectors if your referencing subpart does not require instrument 
monitoring for connectors. Note that the option in proposed subpart J 
to conduct sensory monitoring for equipment in regulated material 
service less than 300 hours per year (hr/yr) would not apply to 
equipment in the closed vent system. The proposed leak detection 
monitoring methods include either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, or optical gas imaging in accordance with proposed 40 CFR 65.450 
(provided your referencing subpart specifies that optical gas imaging 
is allowed for LDAR). Required monitoring and inspections would have to 
be conducted either when an affected storage vessel is being filled or 
at any other time the equipment in the closed vent system is in 
regulated material service. Any other potential sources of vapor 
leakage (e.g., an access hatch) that are not defined as equipment would 
be subject to sensory monitoring and related repair requirements as 
specified in 40 CFR 65.428 and 65.430 of proposed subpart J.
    For a non-flare control device, you would be required to comply 
with the provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the 
applicable control device and reduce regulated organic material 
emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet 
concentration of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. To demonstrate 
initial compliance with this emission limit, proposed subpart I would 
allow you to conduct a design evaluation as an alternative to the 
performance test (note that the performance test is the default 
requirement in proposed subpart M). You would be required to comply 
with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flares used to 
comply with the referencing subpart.
    For those periods when you conduct planned routine maintenance of 
the control devices for your storage vessels, the proposed rule would 
require that you add no material to the storage vessel during those 
periods and limit the periods to a total of no more than 360 hr/yr. If 
you need more than 240 hr/yr, you would have to keep a record that 
explains why the extension was needed and describes how you minimized 
the amount of time beyond 240 hours. In addition, you would need to 
keep records of when the planned routine maintenance periods begin and 
end and the type of maintenance performed.
7. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions to a fuel gas system 
(``fuel gas system approach'')?
    If you elect to control storage vessel emissions by routing 
displaced vapor to a fuel gas system, you would be required to comply 
with the requirements for fuel gas systems, as specified in proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart M. Specifically, you would be required to: (1) 
Submit a statement in your Notification of Compliance Status that the 
emission stream is connected to the fuel gas system; (2) meet the 
requirements for equipment in regulated material service in proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart J for all equipment in the fuel gas system; (3) 
comply with proposed 40 CFR 65.724 for any small boilers or process 
heaters in the fuel gas system; and (4) not route halogenated streams 
to the fuel gas system. In addition, you would be required to operate, 
maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in 
section III.A.3 of this preamble. The proposed procedures for 
inspecting or monitoring the equipment also are the same as for 
equipment in a closed vent system as described in section III.A.6 of 
this preamble.
8. What are the proposed requirements for pressure vessels?
    The proposed rule defines a pressure vessel as a storage vessel 
that is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of 
compression of the vapor headspace in the vessel during filling of the 
vessel to its design capacity. The proposed rule would require all 
openings in a pressure vessel to be equipped with closure devices. In 
addition, you would be required to conduct annual performance tests 
using either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or optical gas 
imaging to show pressure vessels operate with an instrument reading 
less than 500 ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or 
no emissions are imaged by the instrument (for optical gas imaging). 
Each time you obtain an instrument reading equal to or greater than 500 
ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or emissions are 
imaged (for optical gas imaging), it would be a deviation of the 
emission limit, and you would be required to estimate, record and 
report the amount of regulated material emissions during the time the 
pressure vessel is out of compliance with the emission limit.
    The proposed rule would require that all purge streams be routed 
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces regulated 
material emissions by at least 98 percent or to an outlet concentration 
less than 20 ppmv. Inert material purging is a short duration 
maintenance procedure required by good engineering practice to ensure 
proper operation of this type of storage system. The closed vent system 
would be subject to the same bypass line requirements and monitoring 
and inspection requirements as for a closed vent system that conveys 
emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel to a control device; see 
section III.A.6 of this preamble for details. The proposed compliance 
requirements for a control device would be the same as for a control 
device that controls emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel; see 
section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.

[[Page 17911]]

9. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer 
operations to load transport vehicles?
    For each transfer rack that you use to load transport vehicles, you 
would be required to transfer the regulated material to the transport 
vehicles using submerged loading or bottom loading.
    In addition, you would be required to control displacement 
emissions of regulated materials from the transport vehicles if you 
transfer more than 35 million gallons per year (gal/yr) of liquids with 
a weighted average MTVP greater than 4 psia. The proposed rule includes 
three compliance approaches for these emissions. One approach is to 
route the displaced emissions from the transport vehicle through a 
closed vent system to any combination of control devices. In this case, 
the proposed requirements are the same as those proposed for closed 
vent systems and control devices used to control emissions from storage 
vessels; see section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.
    A second approach is to route the displaced emissions from the 
transport vehicle to a fuel gas system. Again, the proposed 
requirements are the same as the proposed requirements for storage 
vessels that are controlled by routing emissions to a fuel gas system.
    The third approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing 
system to route vapors that are displaced from loading regulated 
liquids into transport vehicles back to the storage vessel or to 
another storage vessel that is connected to a common header. The 
proposed vapor balancing approach includes the following requirements: 
(1) Designing the vapor balancing system to prevent any regulated 
material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing to another 
transfer rack; (2) equipping all vapor connections and lines in the 
vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system with closures 
that seal upon disconnect; (3) ensuring PRD in the system do not open 
while the transport vehicle is being filled with regulated material; 
(4) conducting the same LDAR procedures for equipment in the vapor 
balancing system as for equipment in a closed vent system; and (5) 
complying with the same bypass line requirements as in the proposed 
requirements for closed vent systems. You would not be allowed to use 
the vapor balancing approach if the applicable storage vessel has a 
floating roof.
    Each transport vehicle that you load with regulated material that 
has a MTVP of regulated material greater than 4 psia would be required 
to pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted using Method 27 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-8. All other transport vehicles that you load 
with regulated material must either pass an annual vapor tightness test 
conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or have a 
current certification in accordance with DOT pressure test requirements 
for cargo tanks or tank cars. You would be required to keep records of 
the DOT certifications and tests conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-8. You also would be required to take actions to 
assure that your vapor balancing system, closed vent system or fuel gas 
system is connected to the transport vehicle's vapor-collection 
equipment during each transfer of regulated material to transport 
vehicles.
10. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer 
operations to load containers?
    For each transfer of regulated material to a container at a 
transfer rack that loads only containers, you would be required, at a 
minimum, to use either submerged fill or fitted opening/transfer line 
purging. Whenever a container contains a regulated material, you would 
also be required to install and secure all covers and closure devices 
in the closed position, except when you need to access the container 
(e.g., for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning). You 
would also be required to demonstrate annually that containers, 55 
gallons and larger, that are loaded and then used for onsite storage 
are vapor tight by using one of two approaches. One approach is to use 
Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, under the same test 
conditions specified for testing transport vehicles, and the second 
approach is to monitor each potential leak interface on the container 
for leaks using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. When 
monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, an 
instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv would constitute a leak that 
you would be required to repair within 15 days.
    We are proposing three more effective compliance approaches that 
you may elect to comply with as an alternative to conducting submerged 
filling. The first approach is to route emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device in accordance with the same requirements 
that apply to closed vent systems and control devices that are used to 
control emissions from transfers to transport vehicles. The second 
approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing system that routes 
displaced vapors back to the storage vessel from which the transferred 
liquid originated. The requirements would be the same as for the vapor 
balancing approach for controlling emissions from transfers to 
transport vehicles. For example, vapor connection and lines in the 
vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system would have to be 
equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect. Any PRD on the 
container would have to remain closed while the container is being 
filled, and you would be required to comply with the same bypass line 
requirements and LDAR requirements for equipment in the vapor balancing 
system that are being proposed for closed vent systems. The third 
approach is to conduct the transfer operations inside a permanent total 
enclosure (meeting the criteria specified in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B) 
that is vented through a closed vent system to a control device. The 
requirements for the closed vent system and control device would be the 
same as in the first approach described above.
11. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
    Recordkeeping. Proposed subpart I would require records related to 
both storage vessels and transfer operations. For each storage vessel 
that contains a regulated material, you would be required to record the 
vessel dimensions, storage capacity and type of stored material. In 
addition, proposed subpart I would require records related to each type 
of storage vessel and each compliance approach. Many of these records 
would require documentation of the dates and results of inspections 
(for fixed roofs, floating roofs, closed vent systems, fuel gas systems 
and vapor balancing systems), including descriptions of repairs or 
actions taken to remedy leaks or inspection failures.
    Other records related to storage vessels would require 
documentation of: (1) The start and end dates of floating roof landing 
events and the procedure used to refloat the roof; (2) decisions to use 
extensions for inspections and repair/removal from service; (3) dates 
of each overfill event; (4) DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests 
for transport vehicles used to comply with the vapor balancing 
approach; (5) vapor tightness test results for barges used to comply 
with the vapor balancing approach; (6) date and time when periods of 
planned routine maintenance of a control device begin and end; and (7) 
identification of each potential source of vapor leakage in a closed 
vent system that is not defined as a piece of ``equipment.'' If you 
comply with closed vent system and control device requirements or fuel 
gas system

[[Page 17912]]

requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, you would 
also be required to keep applicable records as specified in proposed 
subpart M. Similarly, if you comply with equipment monitoring 
requirements for a closed vent system or fuel gas system, or if you 
operate a closed vent system in vacuum service, you would be required 
to keep records that are related to these provisions, as specified in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. If you comply with the vapor 
balancing approach, you would be required to keep a record of the 
setting on the PRD that prevents breathing losses from the storage 
vessel. You would also be required to keep records of your estimates of 
emissions from: (1) Each spill caused by overfilling a storage vessel; 
(2) a storage vessel while the floating roof is landed; and (3) a 
pressure vessel that does not comply with the required emission limit.
    For transfer operations, you would be required to keep records of 
vapor tightness tests of transport vehicles that are loaded with liquid 
that has a regulated material vapor pressure greater than 4 psia and 
DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests for other transport 
vehicles that are loaded with regulated material. If you comply with 
the approach to route emissions through a closed vent system to a 
control device or the fuel gas system approach, you would be required 
to keep records of monitoring, inspections and leak repairs, as 
specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, and you would be 
required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, for the applicable control device. 
If you comply with the approach to load containers inside an enclosure, 
you would be required to keep records of the most recent calculations 
and measurements performed to verify that the enclosure meets the 
criteria of a permanent total enclosure, as specified in 40 CFR 52.741, 
appendix B.
    Notification of Compliance Status. In the Notification of 
Compliance Status required by the referencing subpart and proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart H, you would be required to include the 
identification of each storage vessel, its storage capacity and the 
liquid stored in the storage vessel. You would also be required to 
include identification of each transfer rack that loads regulated 
material into transport vehicles or containers. In addition, if you 
comply with the vapor balancing approach for a storage vessel (i.e., 
proposed 40 CFR 65.320), and any PRD on that storage vessel is set to 
relieve at less than 2.5 psig, you would be required to provide 
rationale for why that setting is sufficient to prevent breathing 
losses from the storage vessel. Finally, if you comply with any 
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or 40 CFR part 65, subpart M of 
the Uniform Standards, you must comply with any notification 
requirements related to those provisions that are specified in subpart 
J or subpart M.
    Semiannual periodic report. Semiannual periodic reports must 
include: (1) Documentation of the date when a storage vessel was 
emptied or repaired if the action was not conducted before the end of a 
second extension period, as required in proposed 40 CFR 65.310(d) or 
65.315(d); (2) storage vessel identification and the start and end 
dates of each floating roof landing that does not meet one of the 
criteria in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1); (3) a copy of the inspection 
report for a pressure vessel when you obtain an instrument reading 
greater than 500 ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, or an image of emissions when monitoring using optical gas 
imaging; and (4) any information required in semiannual periodic 
reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you 
comply.
    Annual periodic reports. Annual periodic reports required by the 
referencing subpart must include the following information: (1) 
Inspection results for fixed and floating roofs when a failure or leak 
is detected; (2) estimated emissions each time a floating roof is 
landed; (3) estimated emissions each time a storage vessel is 
overfilled; (4) estimated emissions each time a pressure vessel fails a 
performance test; and (5) any information required in annual periodic 
reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you 
comply.
    Other reports. We are proposing that you notify the Administrator 
at least 30 days prior to each planned inspection of rim seals and deck 
fittings in storage vessels. If an inspection is unplanned and you 
could not have known about the inspection 30 days in advance, then you 
would be required to notify the Administrator at least 7 days before 
the inspection. A delegated state or local agency may waive the 
requirement for notification of inspections.

B. Rationale

    We developed the proposed requirements in subpart I based on a 
review of requirements in current federal and state rules, a survey of 
technology for controlling and monitoring emissions from storage 
vessels and transfer operations and an analysis of the cost impacts of 
various compliance approaches.
    The rules listed in Table 2 of this preamble include many 
provisions that we have developed as the most effective provisions for 
controlling emissions from storage vessels and transfer operations. 
These provisions form the backbone of proposed subpart I. In addition, 
the Generic MACT subparts were already organized to be referenced from 
source category-specific subparts. One difference between the Generic 
MACT rules and the proposed rule is how the storage vessel and transfer 
rack operating condition thresholds for a particular control 
requirement are specified. The Generic MACT relies on the referencing 
subpart to specify the range of characteristics that a storage vessel 
or transfer rack must possess to be subject to a particular control 
requirement. Conversely, proposed subpart I specifies both the 
thresholds and control requirements that would apply to storage vessels 
and transfer racks at any facility that is subject to a referencing 
subpart that incorporates those Uniform Standards provisions. If, while 
developing a referencing subpart, we identify a reason to select a 
different threshold for that source category (such as a difference 
driven by a prior MACT, AMOS or BSER decision for that subcategory), we 
would specify that threshold in the referencing subpart and indicate it 
applies in place of the threshold specified in proposed subpart I. The 
proposed subpart I thresholds and corresponding control requirements 
were determined based on the survey of technology and the cost impacts 
analysis; typically, the proposed requirements represent the best level 
of emission reduction for which we determined the costs are reasonable 
for model storage vessels and transfer racks.
    Another overarching difference between proposed subpart I and the 
Generic MACT subparts is that proposed subpart I was organized to be 
consistent with the ``plain language'' format that we have adopted 
since the Generic MACT rules were promulgated. The following sections 
describe the rationale for the proposed provisions in subpart I.

[[Page 17913]]



    Table 2--Rules Used To Develop Requirements in Proposed Subpart I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Current rule used as starting
   Provisions in proposed subpart I    point for the proposed provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floating roofs.......................  National Emission Standards for
                                        Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control
                                        Level 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                        WW; ``Generic MACT for Tanks
                                        Level 2'')
Fixed roofs..........................  National Emission Standards for
                                        Tanks--Level 1 (40 CFR part 63,
                                        subpart OO; ``Generic MACT for
                                        Tanks Level 1'')
Vapor balancing......................  National Emission Standards for
                                        Hazardous Air Pollutants:
                                        Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
                                        Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
                                        subpart FFFF; ``MON'')
Pressure vessels.....................  National Emission Standards for
                                        Hazardous Air Pollutants from
                                        Off-Site Waste and Recovery
                                        Operations (40 CFR part 63,
                                        subpart DD)
Transfer to transport vehicles.......  National Emission Standards for
                                        Hazardous Air Pollutants:
                                        Organic Liquids Distribution
                                        (Non-Gasoline) (40 CFR part 63,
                                        subpart EEEE; ``OLD NESHAP'')
Transfer to containers...............  National Emission Standards for
                                        Containers (40 CFR part 63,
                                        subpart PP; ``Generic MACT for
                                        Containers'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How is the EPA proposing to define the term ``storage vessel?''
    We are proposing a definition of ``storage vessel'' that is 
generally consistent with the definition in the Generic MACT for Tanks 
Level 2, in that it means ``a stationary unit that [* * *] is designed 
to hold an accumulation of liquids or other materials.'' The definition 
also contains many of the same elements as definitions in many rules in 
40 CFR part 63. For example, the proposed definition excludes vessels 
permanently attached to a motor vehicle, vessels containing regulated 
material only as impurities and wastewater tanks. Differences between 
the proposed definition and the definition in the Generic MACT for 
Tanks Level 2 and most other rules in 40 CFR part 63 are that the 
proposed definition specifically excludes process tanks, and it does 
not exclude pressure vessels. We excluded process tanks from the 
proposed definition because such vessels are in operation only when the 
process is operating, and they generally operate at process 
temperatures without the potential for significant emissions due to 
diurnal temperature changes. As a result, their emissions are more like 
other process vent emissions than storage tank emissions. We are 
proposing to include pressure vessels as a subset of storage vessels 
because we are proposing requirements for pressure vessels that differ 
from the requirements for atmospheric storage vessels. Proposed 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart H also defines both ``pressure vessel'' and 
``atmospheric storage vessel.''
    We request comment on the clarity of this definition and the effect 
it would have if it were to apply in place of the current definitions 
in rules that could someday reference proposed subpart I for storage 
vessel requirements. In particular, we are interested in identification 
of any types of materials stored that could become subject to a rule 
that are not currently subject under a current rule's definition.
2. How did the EPA determine the applicability thresholds and control 
approaches for atmospheric storage vessels?
    As discussed in section III.A.2 of this preamble, any one of four 
specified compliance approaches would be required to control emissions 
from each atmospheric storage vessel that exceeds any pair of tank 
capacity and regulated material MTVP thresholds in Table 1 of proposed 
subpart I. Emissions from all other storage vessels that contain 
regulated material would have to be controlled using either any of 
these same four approaches or by equipping the storage vessel with a 
fixed roof that meets specified design and operation criteria.
    As part of our survey of technology, we estimated impacts for 
several control options for typical fixed roof storage vessels and EFR 
storage vessels. One purpose of the analysis was to determine 
applicable thresholds above which the costs for each control option are 
reasonable. Consistent with requirements in current rules, the 
thresholds we examined were the vessel size and the vapor pressure of 
the stored material.
    All of the control options that we evaluated involved variations in 
the requirements for floating roofs or changes to the storage vessel. 
We focused on floating roof controls because these are the most common 
controls currently in use, and the only feasible options for baseline 
EFR storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for the other compliance 
approaches for fixed roof storage vessels for various reasons. We did 
not estimate the costs to connect fixed roof storage vessels to a 
closed vent system and control device because these costs have been 
shown in previous analyses to exceed the costs of floating roofs (e.g., 
see EPA-450/3-81-003a, EPA-450/3-80-025 or the memorandum titled MACT 
Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Storage 
Tanks at Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, in 
item II-B-28 in docket A-96-04). Many atmospheric fixed roof storage 
vessels are designed to operate at pressure much lower than the 2.5 
psig set pressure for PRD that is required in vapor balancing options. 
Therefore, we did not estimate costs for vapor balancing because this 
approach is technically feasible for only a subset of atmospheric 
storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for routing storage vessel 
emissions to a fuel gas system because this option would not be 
available at some facilities. Furthermore, the performance of these 
other control techniques is expected to be the same or only marginally 
superior to the performance of IFR, particularly for larger storage 
vessels and storage vessels storing material with higher vapor 
pressures.
    In the impacts analysis for fixed roof storage vessels, Control 
Option ST1 was installation of a typical IFR with typical rim seals and 
deck fittings, except that we varied the type of guide pole (none, 
solid and slotted). We assumed typical IFR are constructed from bolted 
aluminum panels, that the deck floats on pontoons and that the rim seal 
is a mechanical shoe seal. Based on information in AP-42 chapter 7, we 
assumed that even without a regulatory driver, roof legs, sample wells, 
stub drains and vacuum breakers typically are controlled in a manner 
consistent with the requirements in current rules such as 40 CFR part 
63, subpart WW. Control Option ST2 was to upgrade other fittings, as 
necessary, with gasketed covers, wipers and other features needed to 
meet requirements in current rules such as subpart WW. Additional 
controls were applied under control Option ST2 only for column wells, 
ladder wells, guidepoles,

[[Page 17914]]

automatic gauge float wells and access hatches. Current rules allow a 
variety of control options for slotted guidepoles. In this analysis, we 
assumed for Option ST2 that controlled slotted guidepoles in IFR 
storage vessels are equipped with a gasketed cover, pole sleeve and 
pole wiper. Note that Control Option ST2 is also a control option for a 
storage vessel that is currently equipped with a typical IFR.
    We assumed the baseline EFR storage vessel is equipped with a 
single rim seal (mechanical shoe) and typical fittings, except that we 
varied the type of guide pole (either solid or slotted). For such 
vessels, Control Option ST3 was to install a secondary rim seal, which 
we assumed would be rim-mounted. Control Option ST4 was to upgrade 
fittings, like in Control Option ST2 for fixed roof storage vessels. In 
this case, additional controls were applied under Control Option ST4 
only for guidepoles and automatic gauge float wells because other 
fittings typically would be controlled to current regulatory levels in 
the absence of a regulatory driver. For this analysis we assumed that 
controlled slotted guidepoles in EFR storage vessels are equipped with 
gasketed covers and flexible enclosures. Proposed subpart I would allow 
a variety of compliance approaches for slotted guidepoles; we elected 
to evaluate a flexible enclosure in the impacts analysis because it 
shows a net cost savings even for the most costly approach. Control 
Option ST5 was to install a dome over storage vessels that meet the 
Control Option ST4 requirements.
    We estimated baseline and controlled emissions using the AP-42 
procedures. Inputs for the analysis included meteorological conditions 
for Houston, Texas, and typical throughputs obtained from a survey of 
the chemical manufacturing industry (see EPA-450/3-80-025). Costs were 
obtained from vendors. Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the cost- 
effectiveness estimates of the two control options for three sizes of 
model fixed roof storage vessels storing materials with a range of 
vapor pressures. Table 4 of this preamble shows the cost-effectiveness 
estimates of the three control options for model EFR storage vessels. 
Table 4 of this preamble also shows that the cost of Control Option ST5 
(adding a dome over an EFR storage vessel that is already complying 
with Control Options ST3 and ST4) are unreasonable for all model 
vessels in the analysis; therefore, we rejected this control option 
from further consideration. Although we evaluated a variety of guide 
pole scenarios, as discussed above, the results in Table 3 of this 
preamble are for model storage vessels with a solid guide pole, and the 
results in Table 4 of this preamble are for model storage vessels with 
a slotted guide pole; the results for the other guide pole scenarios 
were not significantly different, and they would not lead to different 
conclusions. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for 
Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control 
Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for a more detailed 
discussion of how these impacts were developed.

Table 3--Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST1 and ST2 for
                    Model Fixed Roof Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Cost effectiveness \a\ ($/ton)
                             -------------------------------------------
  Model storage vessel size      Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius
            (gal)                               (psia)
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 0.5        0.75       1.9        3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Control Option ST1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000......................     16,300      8,800      2,100      1,100
40,000......................      6,300      3,300      1,300        730
200,000.....................      1,100        600        140         70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Control Option ST2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000......................     18,900     12,000      4,200      2,500
40,000......................     17,900     11,800      4,600      2,900
200,000.....................     19,000     12,000      4,200      2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST2 are incremental
  relative to Control Option ST1.


  Table 4--Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST3, ST4 and
                    ST5 for Model EFR Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Cost effectiveness ($/ton) \a\
                             -------------------------------------------
  Model storage vessel size      Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius
            (gal)                               (psia)
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 0.5        0.75       1.9        3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Control Option ST3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000......................     13,500      9,200      3,800      2,500
40,000......................     13,000      8,600      3,300      2,100
200,000.....................     10,500      6,800      2,600      1,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Control Option ST4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000......................      (450)      (580)      (760)      (800)
40,000......................      (360)      (510)      (720)      (780)
200,000.....................        (5)      (260)      (610)      (700)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17915]]

 
                           Control Option ST5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000......................    100,000     71,000     32,000     21,000
40,000......................    110,000     74,000     31,000     20,000
200,000.....................    120,000     78,000     33,000     21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST4 are incremental
  relative to Control Option ST3, and the cost-effectiveness values for
  Control Option ST5 are incremental relative to Control Option ST4.

    Current rules specify requirements comparable to the combined 
requirements in Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 for atmospheric 
storage vessels, but the size and vapor pressure thresholds in the 
rules vary. For comparison purposes, the HON requires control of 
emissions from storage vessels with a capacity of at least 40,000 
gallons that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 0.75 
psia, and storage vessels with a capacity of at least 20,000 gallons 
that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 1.9 psia. Tables 
3 and 4 of this preamble show the incremental cost impacts for storage 
vessels at these thresholds range from a cost savings for Control 
Option ST4 to $12,000/ton for storage vessels storing material with a 
vapor pressure of 0.75 psia under Control Option ST2.
    Although cost effectiveness is an important consideration in 
establishing thresholds for proposed subpart I, we also considered the 
practicality of setting thresholds less stringent than the thresholds 
in the HON and other current rules. This would be impractical because, 
when those rules are amended to reference the Uniform Standards, they 
would have to override such thresholds in order to satisfy statutory 
MACT, AMOS and other regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have 
decided to propose the thresholds that are used in the HON (see Table 1 
of this preamble). These thresholds are widely applicable because many 
current rules reference the HON, and we think they represent the best 
choice as defaults for the Uniform Standards. We request comment on 
this decision.
    For most chemical manufacturing facilities, the costs to comply 
with the combined requirements of Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 
for atmospheric storage vessels above the proposed thresholds are 
expected to be zero or minimal because they are already subject to 
current rules that have the same or similar thresholds and control 
requirements. However, many storage vessels at petroleum refineries are 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, which does not require control 
of deck fittings (i.e., Control Options ST2 and ST4). Based on 
information provided by petroleum refiners in response to an 
information request, we determined that nationwide there are 
approximately 2,400 storage vessels with an EFR and 1,400 storage 
vessels with an IFR that meet or exceed the proposed thresholds in 
Table 1 of this preamble and about 60 percent of these storage vessels 
have slotted guidepoles (see the petroleum refinery database in Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682). About 50 percent of the IFR storage 
vessels that have slotted guidepoles are controlled, and about two-
thirds of the EFR storage vessels that have slotted guidepoles are 
controlled. We assumed all of the other fittings have typical controls 
(i.e., consistent with Control Options ST1 and ST3). We also assumed 
each EFR is equipped with two rim seals, as required in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CC, and in Control Option ST3. To estimate current annual 
emissions, we first represented each storage vessel with one of four 
model sizes. Each model storage vessel also was assigned one of four 
model liquids, depending on the reported vapor pressure of the actual 
stored liquid. Storage vessels containing liquids with the lowest vapor 
pressures were represented with methyl ethyl ketone. The other storage 
vessels were organized into three groups, each of which was represented 
with a different grade of gasoline.
    We estimated the current and controlled emissions for each model-
refinery storage vessel using the AP-42 procedures and other 
assumptions, as described above in the discussion of the analysis to 
establish thresholds for control. We estimated costs to upgrade 
fittings for each storage vessel using the same information that we 
used in the analysis to establish thresholds for control. We also 
applied a product recovery credit of $500/ton of VOC to the prevented 
emissions. The emission reductions associated with upgrading the deck 
fittings on EFR storage vessels, particularly slotted guidepoles, 
resulted in a product recovery credit that exceeded the estimate of all 
costs associated with Control Options ST2 and ST4. Thus, the nationwide 
impacts of the control options for petroleum refineries is a cost 
savings of about $350/ton of VOC controlled. See the memorandum titled 
Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels Analysis of Impacts 
for Storage Vessel Control Options, in the docket for proposed subpart 
I for additional discussion of how these impacts were developed.
3. How did the EPA determine the control and compliance requirements 
for fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels?
    All atmospheric storage vessels below the capacity and MTVP 
thresholds noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble would have to be 
equipped with a fixed roof. Although most current rules do not specify 
standards for such storage vessels, we expect that storage vessels at 
facilities that may in the future be subject to rules that reference 
the Uniform Standards already meet this proposed requirement. Thus, we 
do not expect any cost or emission impacts to meet this requirement. We 
request comment on the accuracy of this assumption.
    The design and operating requirements that we are proposing for 
fixed roofs are based on the requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks 
Level 1. However, we are proposing the seven changes to the 
requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, described below, to 
control more effectively fugitive emissions, simplify requirements and 
enhance consistency with requirements for storage vessels that may be 
subject to other sections in proposed subpart I.

[[Page 17916]]

    First, we are not proposing to specify suitable materials for the 
fixed roof and closure devices. We decided that these decisions are 
best left to you and the storage vessel manufacturer. You would have 
the flexibility to choose whatever materials work best in your 
situation, provided you meet the design and operational requirements in 
proposed subpart I.
    Second, like the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I 
would allow opening of a closure device or removal of the roof when 
needed to provide access. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies 
that the closure devices may be opened to provide access for 
``performing routine inspection, maintenance, or other activities 
needed for normal operations'' and ``to remove accumulated sludge or 
other residues from the bottom of the tank.'' In proposed subpart I, we 
use an edited version of these statements to clarify that the opening 
is allowed for ``manual operations that require access such as 
inspections, maintenance, sampling, and cleaning.'' A related 
difference between the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 and the proposed 
rule is that the proposed rule does not explicitly state that the 
closure device must be secured in the closed position or the roof 
reinstalled when the activity that requires access is complete. Such a 
statement is unnecessary, because the inverse of the provision allows 
openings when access is needed. The proposed rule clearly states that 
closure devices must be closed at all times except when access is 
needed.
    Third, as in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I 
would allow you to route emissions from an opening through a closed 
vent system to a control device as an alternative to equipping the 
opening with a closure device. However, the Generic MACT for Tanks 
Level 1 does not specify compliance procedures for this control option. 
To ensure that emission reductions are consistent and quantifiable when 
a control device is used, we are proposing to require compliance with 
the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 65.325 for closed vent systems and 
control devices.
    Fourth, the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies at 40 CFR 
63.902(c)(3) that opening of a safety device is allowed at any time. 
This provision was not included in proposed subpart I because the 
referencing subparts will address malfunctions.
    Fifth, we are proposing delay of repair provisions that differ from 
the requirements in the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1. The 
primary difference between the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1 
and proposed subpart I is the time allowed to complete repair. The 
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 allows delay as long as the owner or 
operator demonstrates that alternative tank capacity is not available 
to accept the regulated material from the tank that needs to be 
repaired, whereas the proposed rule would allow a maximum delay of 105 
days (45 days plus up to two extensions of up to 30 days each). We have 
determined that 105 days is sufficient time to empty the tank, either 
to other existing tanks on site or to temporary storage, if necessary. 
Furthermore, current rules (and proposed subpart I) already include 
such requirements for repair of any floating roof, and applying the 
same requirements for fixed roof storage tanks would promote 
consistency and reduce the likelihood of inadvertent compliance errors. 
Sixth, we are proposing to require periodic monitoring of each 
potential source of vapor leakage from the fixed roof and fittings on 
the roof instead of annual visual inspections for defects. The 
monitoring could be conducted annually using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7 or semiannually using optical gas imaging (after 
promulgation of the protocol that we are developing for 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix K). See sections III.A.3 and IV.A.5 of this preamble for 
discussions of the protocol. Repairs would be required for each leak. A 
leak would be defined as any instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv 
when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or any 
emissions imaged when using an optical gas imaging instrument. We are 
proposing this monitoring change to better control fugitive emissions. 
As documented in the docket for proposed subpart I, EPA inspectors have 
often found significant leaks from fittings by sensory means 
(particularly olfactory) and optical gas imaging when visual 
inspections indicate the gaskets and other elements of closure devices 
appear to be sound, and the conservation vent is not actively releasing 
to relieve increased pressure caused by diurnal temperature changes or 
filling the storage vessel (see the memorandum titled Leaks Observed 
From Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings, in the docket for proposed 
subpart I).
    The estimated annual costs, emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness values for the three monitoring options are shown in 
Table 5 of this preamble. The estimated cost-effectiveness values for 
monitoring using either optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7 are less than $230/ton per storage vessel, which we 
determined is reasonable. Note that the emission reductions for these 
two options are relative to estimated uncontrolled emissions. We lack 
the data needed to attempt to quantify the reductions for the visual 
inspections option, but we expect the reductions to be significantly 
less than for the other two options given the results of agency 
inspections noted above.
    The impacts were estimated for a representative fixed roof storage 
vessel with eight fittings on the roof (an access hatch, gauge hatch, 
conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and four other 
miscellaneous types of valves and instruments). Costs were estimated 
assuming a visual inspection takes an average of 30 minutes and the 
other monitoring options take between 40 minutes and an hour, depending 
on the size of the facility at which the storage vessel is located. 
Based on the results of agency inspections, we estimated that initial 
optical gas imaging would find about 0.5 leaking fittings per storage 
vessel, and that monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, would find an average of about 1 leaking fitting per storage 
vessel. We assumed that subsequent monitoring would find about 5-
percent leaking fittings if optical gas imaging is conducted 
semiannually and monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, is conducted annually. As in equipment leak analyses, repair costs 
were estimated assuming 75 percent of the leaks could be eliminated by 
a simple adjustment to the fitting and that 25 percent of the fittings 
would require a more extensive repair or replacement. Recordkeeping 
costs were estimated assuming 1 hr/yr to document the results of visual 
inspections and 0.5 hr/yr to document the results of the other 
monitoring options. Reporting costs were estimated assuming 0.5 hour 
per reporting period, to include records in annual periodic reports of 
inspections of each storage vessel for which a leak was found, and that 
40 percent of the storage vessels have one leaking fitting each year 
(i.e., 5 percent of the fittings are found to be leaking, and each tank 
has an average of eight fittings). Uncontrolled emissions for the 
conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and miscellaneous 
valves were estimated using average emission factors from the Protocol 
for Equipment Leaks Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017) for such 
equipment in the SOCMI. Uncontrolled emissions for access hatches and 
gauge hatches were approximated using AP-42 factors for such fittings 
on EFR

[[Page 17917]]

(unbolted, gasketed cover for access hatches and gasketed, weighted 
mechanical actuation gauge hatches). Controlled emissions were 
estimated assuming the percent reduction in emissions equals the 
percent reduction in the number of fittings found to be leaking.

                 Table 5--Estimated Impacts of Monitoring Options for Fixed Roof Storage Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Emission
                                                                reduction           Cost        Incremental cost
            Monitoring option               Total annual       relative to      effectiveness     effectiveness
                                            cost  ($/yr)      uncontrolled         ($/ton)           ($/ton)
                                                                  (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual..................................               120           unknown           unknown               N/A
EPA Method 21...........................               170               1.1               150           unknown
Optical gas imaging.....................               260               1.1               230         undefined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tpy means tons per year.
N/A means not applicable.

    We request comment, with supporting rationale, on all aspects of 
the proposed requirements for fixed roof storage vessels that store 
regulated material. We are particularly interested in comment on the 
proposed monitoring requirements. For example, itemized cost estimates, 
data on mass emissions from leaks and information about the types of 
initial repairs that would be needed and the expected frequency of 
replacements would be useful. Comparisons of results obtained using 
both Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and optical gas imaging 
are requested.
4. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for atmospheric 
storage vessels that are controlled using an IFR or EFR?
    As noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble, we are proposing four 
different compliance approaches for atmospheric storage vessels that 
exceed specified capacity and MTVP thresholds. One of these approaches 
is to use a floating roof. The requirements that we are proposing for 
this approach in proposed 40 CFR 65.315 are essentially the same as the 
requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. We are proposing 
additional requirements and clarifications as described below.
    Rim seal design. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies 
alternative rim seal configurations for IFR and EFR storage vessels at 
40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, if certain conditions are 
met, 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(C) specify that full 
compliance with these configurations is not required for existing tanks 
until the next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and 
degassed or 10 years after promulgation of the referencing subpart, 
whichever occurs first. The storage vessel provisions in 40 CFR 
63.119(b) and (c) of the HON contain the same provision. We are not 
proposing this delayed compliance provision because we expect most 
rules that reference the Uniform Standards will be amended versions of 
current rules, and these amended rules will not reference the Uniform 
Standards until more than 10 years after their original promulgation. 
Thus, all existing storage vessels that are subject to a referencing 
subpart should already be equipped with the required rim seals before 
they become subject to the Uniform Standards.
    One of the objectives of rim seals is to help fill the annular 
space between the rim of the floating roof and the wall of the storage 
vessel thereby minimizing evaporative losses from this area. To meet 
this objective, rim seals must be constructed of a material that is 
impermeable to the stored material or any components of the stored 
material. A rim seal that is saturated with (or has been plasticized 
by) stored liquid would constitute an inspection failure because the 
rim seal would not be functioning as designed. In proposed subpart I, 
this requirement is specified in section 65.315(c)(1)(iii). We request 
comment on whether explicitly stating in subpart I that rim seal 
material saturated with (or plasticized by) stored liquid constitutes 
an inspection failure would help clarify this requirement. We also 
request comment on other possible approaches for clarifying this 
requirement. In addition, we are interested in strategies that could 
minimize repeated use of seal materials that are demonstrated to be 
less reliable than others. For example, we request comment on the 
feasibility and potential effectiveness of requiring more frequent 
inspections if a seal that failed during the first 5 years of use is 
replaced with a seal made from the same material.
    Sample well requirements. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 
specifies at 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(v) that each sample well and each 
deck drain that empties into the stored liquid may be equipped with a 
slit fabric seal or similar device that covers at least 90 percent of 
the opening instead of a deck cover. In other rules, such as the CAR, 
the HON and Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid 
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which 
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 
1984 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb; ``NSPS Kb''), the option for sample 
wells to use a slit fabric cover applies only for IFR. Therefore, to 
clarify the requirement, we are proposing to split the requirements for 
sample wells and deck drains into two paragraphs in subpart I. As an 
alternative to using a gasketed deck cover, proposed 40 CFR 
65.315(a)(3)(v) specifies that sample wells in IFR may be equipped with 
a slit fabric seal (or similar device) that covers at least 90 percent 
of the opening. Proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(vi) specifies that each 
opening for a deck drain (in any floating roof) that empties into the 
stored liquid must be equipped with a slit fabric (or similar device) 
that covers at least 90 percent of the opening.
    Control requirements for guidepoles. The Generic MACT for Tanks 
Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(vii) that each unslotted 
guide pole shall be equipped with a gasketed cap on the top of the 
guide pole. We are proposing an alternative to this provision for 
proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(viii) to indicate that a welded cap is an 
acceptable alternative to a gasketed cap for anti-rotational devices. 
The cap may be welded on an unslotted guide pole because such a guide 
pole is not used for gauging the liquid level. Emissions reductions are 
expected to be the same for both types of caps.
    As part of the STERPP, we offered to enter into agreements with 
companies that have installed or will install controls to reduce their 
slotted guide pole emissions from storage vessels that

[[Page 17918]]

are subject to Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for 
Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or 
Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978, and Prior to July 23, 1984 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka) or NSPS Kb. During development of the 
program, we identified two additional slotted guide pole control 
options that are not included in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. 
The STERPP included these options because their performance was 
determined to be comparable to the performance of other control options 
already specified in the rules. One of the new options is to use a 
flexible enclosure device that completely encloses the slotted guide 
pole and a cover on the top of the guide pole. The second new option is 
to install an internal guide pole sleeve, a pole wiper and a cover on 
the top of the guide pole. We are proposing to include both of these 
options in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(ix). As discussed above for 
unslotted guidepoles, the cover may be either gasketed or welded. There 
is no cost impact associated with these control options because these 
options are providing compliance flexibility without imposing new 
requirements.
    Control requirements for slotted ladder legs. Many IFR tanks have a 
ladder with one slotted leg so that the leg can also be used for 
gauging and/or sampling. Current rules specify that ladder wells must 
have gasketed sliding deck covers, and slotted guidepoles must be 
controlled using any one of several techniques. However, current rules 
do not explicitly specify requirements for slotted ladder legs. 
Therefore, we are proposing to require any one of three options for 
this type of fitting. One option is to use a pole float in the slotted 
leg and pole wipers for both legs. A second option is to use a ladder 
sleeve and pole wipers for both legs. The third option is to use a 
flexible device that completely encloses the ladder and either a 
gasketed or welded cap on the top of the slotted leg. Each option also 
includes the requirement to have a gasketed sliding deck cover. These 
controls are similar to the controls for slotted guidepoles, and they 
have been accepted in equivalency determinations for numerous storage 
vessels that are subject to current rules. Thus, the costs to comply 
with proposed subpart I would be the same as costs to comply with 
current rules.
    Delayed compliance date for deck fitting requirements. The Generic 
MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) that deck 
fitting requirements do not apply for an existing IFR or EFR until the 
next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed or 10 
years after the promulgation date of the referencing subpart, whichever 
occurs first. We have not included this provision in proposed subpart I 
for the same reason described above regarding a similar provision for 
rim seals (i.e., all existing storage tanks that may in the future be 
subject to rules that reference the Uniform Standards should have 
already complied with the deck fitting requirements before they become 
subject to the Uniform Standards).
    Operational requirements. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 
requires that the floating roof float on the stored liquid surface at 
all times, except for times when the floating roof is supported by its 
leg supports or other support devices such as hangers from the fixed 
roof (``landings''). Once the floating roof lands, ``the process of 
filling to the point of refloating the floating roof shall be 
continuous and shall be performed as soon as practical'' (40 CFR 
63.1063(b)(2)), and you must keep records of the date the roof landed 
and the date it was refloated (40 CFR 63.1065(c)). The language at 40 
CFR 63.1063(b)(2) is similar to the language in the CAR (40 CFR 
65.43(b) and 65.44(b)), and the preamble to the CAR has clarified that 
the intent of this language is ``to prevent the liquid level [in the 
storage vessel] from rising and falling while the roof is resting on 
the supports'' (63 FR 57768, October 28, 1998). However, neither the 
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 nor the CAR place any limits on the 
number of landings or the amount of time that a floating roof may be 
landed. The lack of limits is a concern because the standing idle 
emissions can be significant, especially relative to the emissions and 
emissions reductions for deck fittings while the roof is floating. For 
example, Table 6 of this preamble presents estimated emissions from 
typical gasoline storage tanks equipped with an EFR and standing idle 
for 2 or 5 days. These emissions were estimated using AP-42 procedures 
for a storage vessel in Corpus Christi, Texas. The landed height of the 
roof was assumed to be 5 feet above the floor of the storage vessel, 
and the liquid level was assumed to be 0.75 feet above the floor of the 
storage vessel.

     Table 6--Estimated Standing Idle Emissions From Gasoline Storage Vessels That are Equipped With an EFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Estimated
        Size of storage vessel  (gal)                 Stored contents          Number of days     standing idle
                                                                                standing idle    emissions  (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000,000...................................  gasoline......................                 2               830
                                                                                             5             2,100
7,000,000...................................  gasoline......................                 2             1,500
                                                                                             5             3,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other rules (e.g., NSPS Kb) allow floating roof landings only if 
the storage vessel is being completely emptied, and both the emptying 
and refilling processes must be continuous and as rapid as possible. 
This requirement has been interpreted as requiring the storage vessel 
to be emptied each time the floating roof lands. However, as we 
clarified in the preamble to the CAR (63 FR 57768), emptying the 
storage vessel every time the roof lands is undesirable because it 
increases the vapor space, which in turn increases emissions. Thus, 
emptying the storage vessel when landings are inadvertent or other 
times when emptying is not needed for operational reasons is 
counterproductive.
    To minimize emissions from landings and clarify the requirements, 
we are proposing several differences relative to the requirements in 
current rules. For example, instead of requiring the floating roof to 
be floating on the liquid surface at all times except when it is landed 
on its supports, we are proposing to list specific situations under 
which the floating roof is not required to be floating on the stored 
liquid (proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1)). We are proposing to allow the 
roof to be landed during the

[[Page 17919]]

initial fill because the landed height is typically several feet above 
the floor of the storage vessel. We are not proposing to require 
control of emissions in displaced gases during the initial fill because 
the average concentration of regulated materials in the vapor space 
over the course of the fill is relatively low, and the costs to vent 
such emissions to a control device are not reasonable. Like current 
rules, however, the proposed rule typically would require filling to 
the point of refloating the roof to be conducted continuously and as 
rapidly as practicable to minimize the amount of time a vapor space is 
present below the floating roof. The only exception to the proposed 
requirement for continuous filling until the roof is refloated would be 
for storage vessels that are used to store product from batch 
processes. The exemption would apply if the quantity of product from 
one batch is insufficient to refloat the roof, but sufficient product 
from additional batches to refloat the roof will be added before any 
material is withdrawn from the storage vessel.
    We also recognize that landings are required in order to take the 
storage vessel out of service, and they are often required in order to 
perform inspections, maintenance or before filling the storage vessel 
with a liquid that is incompatible with the liquid currently stored in 
the storage vessel. Therefore, we are proposing to allow roof landings 
in these situations, provided the time spent standing idle is limited 
to no more than 24 hours. After 24 hours, you would be required to 
either begin actions to completely empty (and clean, if necessary) or 
refill the storage vessel. These requirements clarify that you would 
not be required to empty a storage vessel when the storage vessel does 
not need to be empty in order to conduct maintenance or inspections. 
The limited number of situations when landings are allowed is intended 
to eliminate unnecessary or convenience landings, and the 24-hour limit 
is intended to prevent emissions from unnecessary time spent standing 
idle. We request comment on the suitability of the 24-hour limit. In 
particular, we request comment on specific situations where a storage 
vessel does not need to be completely emptied to perform maintenance or 
inspection, but the maintenance or inspection activity cannot be 
completed in less than 24 hours. We also request comment on the 
proposed list of circumstances under which floating roof landings would 
be allowed, in particular whether there are other circumstances that 
would require a floating roof landing or whether the list allows 
landings in situations where they are unnecessary.
    We are also proposing to allow landings if you elect to route 
emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces 
emissions by at least 90 percent while the roof is landed because this 
control technique will also reduce standing loss emissions relative to 
uncontrolled landings. To prevent liquid from being drawn into the 
closed vent system, control would be required only when the liquid 
fills less than 90 percent of the volume under the landed roof. We are 
not proposing to require control of displaced emissions during refill 
after these events because the cost to control, considering the 
estimated emissions reduction, would not be reasonable except for very 
large storage vessels that store highly volatile material. We request 
comment on the technical feasibility and cost of this control option. 
In particular, we are interested in test data showing the gas flow rate 
and inlet mass emissions to a control device that was used as we 
proposed; please also provide related supporting information, such as 
the diameter of the storage vessel, the height of the landed roof, the 
average height of the liquid, the type of material stored and the 
pressure drop across the floating roof. We also request comment on 
whether the rule should limit the number of days operating in this 
manner so that the total controlled emissions do not exceed the 
standing idle emissions from one day. We also request comment on 
whether any facilities would have no choice but to comply with this 
control option because it would not be possible to limit landings to 
the situations described in the paragraph above; please provide a 
description of any such facilities and explain why limiting landings 
would not be possible.
    Proposed subpart I would require you to estimate regulated material 
standing idle emissions from each landing and to submit the results in 
your next periodic report. As in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, 
you would also be required to keep records documenting the start and 
end times of all roof landing events. We have determined that 
maintaining information on the occurrence, time span and quantity of 
standing idle emissions for landings is needed to demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed limits on when landings are allowed. This 
information will also help inform decisions about where to target 
compliance inspections. We request comment on the feasibility and 
burden of estimating emissions from landings.
    Monitoring and alarm systems. Under the proposed rule, an 
inadvertent landing of a floating roof would be a deviation of the 
operating requirements described above. To minimize the number of 
unintended landings of floating roofs (and the additional emissions 
generated as a result), we are proposing to require that you equip each 
affected storage vessel with a system that provides a visual or audible 
signal when the floating roof is about to land on its legs (or other 
support devices). This monitoring is intended to alert you in time to 
take action to prevent an inadvertent landing and the resulting 
deviation. We are soliciting comment on the prevalence of such 
monitoring systems in use with existing storage vessels and the burden 
to add them to storage vessels that are not already so equipped. We 
estimated the cost to plan, purchase and install the required monitors 
to be about $2,000 per storage vessel. We estimated the annual costs, 
including costs to estimate emissions for each landing and related 
recordkeeping and reporting, to be about $900/year per storage vessel. 
These estimates assume each floating roof will be landed an average of 
two times per year, and that one of the landings will be inadvertent.
    IFR and EFR inspections. The proposed inspection requirements are 
consistent with the inspection requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(c) and 
(d), except for the six proposed changes discussed below. First, in an 
effort to improve clarity, we are proposing to tabulate many of the 
inspection and frequency requirements (see Tables 2 and 3 in proposed 
subpart I). The intent is not to change the requirements except as 
discussed below.
    Second, we are proposing to specify how an inspector is to 
demonstrate when a gap constitutes an inspection failure for a deck 
fitting. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies at 40 CFR 
63.1063(d)(1)(v) that a gap of more than \1/8\ inch between any deck 
fitting gasket, seal or wiper, and the surface that it is intended to 
seal is an inspection failure. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 does 
not, however, explicitly specify how an inspector is to determine 
whether gaps exceed this amount. Therefore, we are proposing to specify 
in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i) that an inspector must use a \1/8\-
inch diameter probe, and each location where the probe passes freely 
constitutes a gap. This procedure is consistent with the currently 
specified procedure for monitoring rim seal gaps in EFR tanks.
    Third, we are proposing an editorial change to the language from 40 
CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) that is incorporated in

[[Page 17920]]

40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i). In the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, 40 CFR 
63.1063(d)(1)(v) specifies that the gap limit for deck fittings applies 
to ``any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper.'' The use of the word 
``seal'' in this sentence may be misinterpreted as meaning the 
provision applies to rim seals because the design requirements for deck 
fittings refer only to gaskets and wipers. Therefore, to eliminate 
confusion and improve clarity, we are proposing in 40 CFR 
65.315(c)(2)(i) to specify that the gap limit applies to each deck 
fitting gasket or wiper.
    Fourth, to increase compliance flexibility and possibly emissions 
reductions, we are proposing to allow optical gas imaging or monitoring 
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 as an alternative to 
measuring rim seal gaps for EFR and deck fitting gaps for both IFR and 
EFR. The monitoring would be required on the same schedule as the 
otherwise applicable gap measurement requirements. An inspection 
failure would occur if you obtain an instrument reading greater than 
500 ppmv when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7, or when you obtain an image of emissions when using optical gas 
imaging. Conditions causing an inspection failure would have to be 
repaired. To ensure consistent and reliable results when using optical 
gas imaging, we are also proposing two additional requirements: (1) 
Optical gas imaging would be allowed only if at least one compound in 
the emissions from the storage vessel can be detected by the optical 
gas imaging instrument and (2) monitoring would be required in 
accordance with a new protocol for optical gas imaging. As discussed in 
sections III.A.3 and III.A.4 of this preamble, we are currently 
developing a protocol for using optical gas imaging instruments, and we 
expect that the protocol will be proposed as appendix K in 40 CFR part 
60. We anticipate that compliance with either of the proposed 
monitoring alternatives would result in lower emissions than compliance 
with the conventional gap measurement requirements because agency 
personnel using an optical gas imaging instrument have often seen 
images of emissions from seals and fittings that appear to be in good 
condition upon visual inspection (see the memorandum titled Leaks 
Observed from Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings, in the docket for 
proposed subpart I). We have not estimated cost effectiveness to 
conduct optical gas imaging or monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, because such monitoring is only an alternative 
to gap measurements, not a requirement. However, monitoring costs and 
burden for optical gas imaging may be lower if several fittings can be 
monitored simultaneously. We request comment on the technical 
feasibility, performance and costs of both proposed alternatives to gap 
measurement requirements.
    Fifth, we are proposing to require inspections of an EFR deck and 
fittings annually rather than at least every 10 years, as specified in 
the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 
requires annual secondary seal gap measurements, but complete 
inspections of the EFR, rim seals and deck fittings are required only 
when the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed, or every 10 
years, whichever occurs first. A commenter on the proposed changes to 
storage vessel requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (73 FR 66694, 
November 10, 2008), which would have referenced the Generic MACT for 
Tanks Level 2, stated that the annual inspection for EFR should be 
expanded to include inspection of the roof and deck fittings as well as 
the secondary seal because defects in the roof or fittings are often 
clearly visible during the secondary seal inspections (see Docket Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0176). Furthermore, the commenter noted that, 
under the current rule, it is unclear whether any such defects noted 
during the annual inspection are to be repaired, reported or ignored 
until the next complete inspection. Upon review, we have determined 
that annual inspections of the EFR deck and fittings are reasonable 
because: (1) An inspection for other failures can readily be 
accomplished each time an inspector is measuring secondary seal gaps; 
(2) conducting such failure inspections annually would more closely 
align the EFR inspection requirements with the current IFR inspection 
requirements; and (3) we estimated the additional burden and costs to 
be minimal. Measurement of gaps between deck fitting gaskets and the 
surfaces they are intended to seal is not required for IFR. However, 
given that EFR have a greater potential for emissions due to wind 
effects, we think the minimal additional time and cost to perform such 
measurements of EFR fittings is reasonable in light of the potential 
for reduced emissions. We estimated the additional labor costs for 
visual inspections, measurement of deck fitting gasket gaps and 
associated recordkeeping to be about $100/year. The additional burden 
was estimated to be about 2 hours per storage vessel.
    As noted above, we are proposing to allow monitoring using Method 
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 and optical gas imaging as 
alternatives to gap measurement requirements. We estimated the costs 
and burden to conduct annual monitoring of EFR deck fittings using 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to be about the same as for 
annual to measurement of gaps at each fitting because an inspector has 
to check each fitting individually in both cases. Theoretically, costs 
and burden to conduct optical gas imaging could be slightly less 
(assuming the facility is using a camera that has already been 
purchased for monitoring equipment leaks) because several emission 
points can be monitored simultaneously with an optical gas imaging 
instrument, but we assumed the same amount of time because time is 
needed to prepare the camera and to obtain images from multiple 
locations. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for 
Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control 
Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional discussion 
of how these costs and burden estimates were developed. We request 
comments that assess the effectiveness and burden of the proposed 
annual EFR inspections relative to the inspection requirements in the 
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2.
    We are also proposing to clarify that repair is required any time a 
condition that constitutes an inspection failure is noted, regardless 
of whether it was noted as part of a scheduled inspection. Although not 
stated explicitly, current rules imply that repair is required any time 
an inspection failure is noted because they state that inspections must 
be conducted at least once during a specified time period. Any time a 
condition that constitutes an inspection failure is noted is 
effectively an inspection, whether or not it was scheduled.
    Finally, we are proposing changes to clarify the required frequency 
of inspections because we received comments on proposed amendments to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, that the current requirements could be 
subject to different interpretations (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0146-0176). For example, the requirement to conduct inspections ``every 
10 years'' could mean in every tenth calendar year, no later than the 
date 10 years after the previous inspection or in the same month every 
10 years. The same uncertainties also apply to the inspection 
requirements that must be

[[Page 17921]]

conducted once per year or every 5 years. We have also been asked when 
the inspection must be conducted if the storage vessel is out of 
service on the date when the inspection must be completed. To address 
these questions, we are proposing to replace the requirements for 
inspections at least once per year with a requirement to conduct 
inspections at least annually. The proposed General Provisions in 40 
CFR part 65, subpart H specify that ``annually'' means once per 
calendar year, and successive occurrences of such events must be 
separated by at least 120 days. For the inspections that are required 
at least every 5 years and every 10 years under the Generic MACT for 
Tanks Level 2, we are proposing to require that the inspection 
typically must be conducted before the date 5 years (or 10 years) after 
the last inspection. The only exception is that an inspection may be 
delayed if the storage vessel is out of service on that date, but in 
such cases, the inspection must be conducted before the storage vessel 
is refilled.
    Repairs. The proposed requirements to repair conditions that caused 
inspection failures are similar to the requirements at 40 CFR 
63.1063(e) in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. We are proposing 
three changes to clarify the requirements. As discussed above, the 
first change clarifies that all conditions that cause an inspection 
failure, regardless of whether they were identified during a scheduled 
inspection, must be repaired.
    The second change would clarify terminology. The applicable repair 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e) differ depending on whether or not 
the inspection was conducted while the storage vessel was storing 
liquid. These requirements could be subject to inconsistent 
interpretations because the term ``storing liquid'' is not defined in 
the rule. The intent of the language was to apply different procedures 
depending on whether or not the storage vessel was completely empty 
when the inspection was conducted. The term ``completely empty'' is 
defined in the rule. Therefore, rather than define ``storing liquid,'' 
we are proposing to replace that term with the term ``completely 
empty'' to clarify the requirements.
    The third change would clarify the recordkeeping requirements when 
you use an extension to delay repair or emptying of a storage vessel 
beyond 45 days. The current requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e) imply 
that documentation of extensions is to be prepared before you use an 
extension and could be misinterpreted as requiring a request for 
approval to use an extension. Section 63.1067 of the Generic MACT for 
Tanks Level 2 also specifies that this documentation be submitted in 
periodic reports. We have determined that approvals are not necessary; 
records that document the type of failure, the reasons why an extension 
was needed, the steps taken to either repair or completely empty the 
storage vessel during the extension and the date on which repairs were 
completed or the storage vessel was completely emptied are sufficient 
to demonstrate compliance. Furthermore, requesting approval via a 
periodic report is impractical because the schedule of such reports is 
unlikely to coincide with many extension periods. Therefore, to clarify 
the reporting requirements, the language in the proposed rule differs 
from the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 in that it clearly requires 
records of each decision to use an extension.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for vapor 
balancing as a compliance approach for atmospheric storage vessels?
    We are proposing that the second approach for atmospheric storage 
vessels is vapor balancing (proposed 40 CFR 65.320). Proposed subpart I 
would require the same design, operating, monitoring and repair 
requirements for the fixed roof and closure devices that would be 
required for the closed vent system approach. See section III.B.6 of 
this preamble for a discussion of our rationale for these requirements. 
The vapor balancing requirements that we are proposing are similar to 
requirements in several rules in 40 CFR part 63 (e.g., the MON), except 
for the following three changes. First, we are proposing to replace the 
requirement to conduct quarterly monitoring of pressure relief valves 
on storage vessels using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, 
with a requirement to conduct applicable LDAR requirements for all 
equipment in the vapor balancing system. The proposed requirements are 
nearly identical to the proposed requirements for closed vent systems, 
as described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. The only difference 
is that you would have the option to reduce instrument monitoring 
frequencies (for types of equipment that must be monitored) consistent 
with the alternative for equipment in batch operations in proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart J. We proposed this difference because it would be 
possible to determine the total operating hours for a vapor balancing 
system, but not for a closed vent system. We are not proposing to limit 
the monitoring requirement to PRD because such monitoring provides 
information only for that one piece of equipment. Conducting monitoring 
of the entire vapor balancing system while the storage vessel is being 
filled provides more information about the integrity of the entire 
system, and it is information collected while the system is actually 
operating and most likely to be emitting vapors.
    The second difference from vapor balancing requirements in current 
rules is that the proposed rule would require design, operation, 
inspection and repair of openings and closure devices consistent with 
the requirements for fixed roofs in storage vessels that are controlled 
by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a control device, 
as described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. Although current 
rules and proposed subpart I require PRD be set at levels to prevent 
breathing losses, we determined that additional requirements are needed 
to minimize vapor leakage through the roof and fittings regardless of 
the method for controlling breathing and working losses.
    The third difference from vapor balancing requirements in current 
rules is that the proposed rule would specify no requirements for 
offsite facilities that reload (and in some cases clean) the transport 
vehicle or barge. In current rules, these facilities are subject to the 
same control requirements as the facility that has the affected storage 
vessel. Both the vapor balancing and closed vent system options were 
included in current rules in 40 CFR part 63 because they were 
determined to be at least as effective as using floating roofs, which 
represented the MACT floors. Based on recent analyses, we determined 
that requiring control of offsite facilities as part of a vapor 
balancing option results in better overall control than the other 
options. Furthermore, the total emissions from a regulated source 
implementing vapor balancing and an uncontrolled offsite cleaning/
reloading facility typically are about the same as the total emissions 
from both facilities when the regulated source implements the closed 
vent system approach. The performance of the closed vent system 
approach relative to vapor balancing will vary depending on the 
saturation level of the vapor space in the transport vehicle or barge 
when unloading of liquid to the storage vessel is complete. If the 
organic compound concentration in the vapor space of the transport 
vehicle or barge when transfer is complete is approximately the same as 
the concentration in the vapor space of the storage vessel, then the 
total mass of organic compounds in the transport

[[Page 17922]]

vehicle or barge (in both the vapor space and the liquid heel) would be 
the same under both approaches. Under these conditions, the performance 
of the two approaches is essentially the same, and control at the 
offsite cleaning/reloading facility as part of the vapor balancing 
approach is not needed to achieve the same level of control as the 
closed vent system approach. See the memorandum titled Vapor Balancing 
Emissions Estimates for Storage Vessels, in the docket for proposed 
subpart I for example calculations.
    Another issue with the vapor balancing approach, as specified in 
current rules, is that it imposes a significant burden on the offsite 
facilities (assuming these facilities are not required to control 
transfer operations emissions under a rule that currently applies to 
their source category). Furthermore, because facilities outside the 
United States are not required to comply with this rule, a regulated 
source would not be allowed to use the vapor balancing approach if the 
transport vehicle is cleaned outside of the United States. Therefore, 
we have decided not to include control requirements for offsite 
facilities in proposed subpart I because we have determined that such 
requirements result in greater overall emissions reductions than other 
storage vessel control approaches. This additional control is not 
needed to meet regulatory requirements such as MACT in current rules 
because the performance of vapor balancing without offsite control is 
at least equivalent to the performance of other control approaches, 
including those that represent MACT in current rules. As a result, the 
offsite control requirement also imposes an unnecessary burden on the 
offsite facilities. Furthermore, the vapor balancing approach without 
offsite controls imposes clearly enforceable requirements on the 
regulated facility. We request comment on the differences between the 
proposed vapor balancing requirements and the vapor balancing 
requirements in current rules. In particular, we are interested in 
whether the proposed lack of requirements for offsite facilities could 
result in significantly higher total emissions under some conditions. 
We are also interested in test data or theoretical calculations of the 
organic compound saturation level or concentration in the vapor space 
of freely vented transport vehicles at the time when unloading of 
various liquids is complete.
6. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of 
atmospheric storage vessels when routing emissions through a closed 
vent system to a control device?
    As discussed in section III.A.5 of this preamble, the proposed 
requirements are based on a combination of the procedures specified in 
40 CFR part 65, subpart M and several additional requirements. As 
discussed in section V.B of this preamble, we have structured the 
proposed requirements in subpart M to be applicable to any emissions 
stream that is controlled by routing through a closed vent system to a 
control device. Referencing these provisions from proposed subpart I 
promotes consistency for all emissions streams that are routed through 
a closed vent system to a control device. It is also intended to 
simplify and reduce the burden of compliance and reduce the potential 
for inadvertent errors. However, we are also proposing several 
additional requirements to ensure appropriate control for storage 
vessels.
    In addition to the proposed requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 
M, we are proposing to require design and operation of the fixed roof 
and closure devices consistent with the proposed requirements for fixed 
roof storage vessels, as discussed in section III.B.3 of this preamble, 
except that breathing and working losses would have to be controlled 
rather than vented to the atmosphere. We are also proposing to require 
the same type of monitoring and repair of all potential sources of 
vapor leakage from the fixed roof and closure devices, as discussed in 
section III.B.3 of this preamble. We request comment on whether the 
proposed monitoring frequencies are reasonable and if any changes to 
operating procedures for the monitoring devices would ensure that the 
alternative monitoring methods provide similar results.
    For equipment in a closed vent system, proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart M references the compliance requirements in proposed 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart J. However, in subpart I we are proposing to reference 
only the bypass line requirements in proposed subpart M and reference 
directly the applicable equipment leak requirements in proposed subpart 
J. We selected this approach to specify more easily that certain 
options in proposed subpart J do not apply to equipment in a closed 
vent system that conveys emissions from a regulated storage vessel. 
Specifically, the alternative monitoring frequency requirements for 
equipment in batch operations would not be allowed for equipment in 
such closed vent systems because the closed vent system must be in 
service continuously. Similarly, the provision that specifies sensory 
monitoring for equipment in service less than 300 hr/yr would not be 
allowed for equipment in such closed vent systems because determining 
the amount of time the system actually is conveying emissions is not 
practical.
    The applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J differ 
depending on whether the equipment is in regulated material service or 
if it contains or contacts fluid that contains regulated material at 
levels below the regulated material service threshold. Current rules 
typically require sensory monitoring of closed vent systems (only 
closed vent systems constructed of ductwork are subject to monitoring 
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). We are proposing 
instrument monitoring of closed vent systems in regulated material 
service to be consistent with the requirements for process lines that 
convey gaseous materials and to ensure that the emission streams reach 
the control device so that the required level of control is met. As an 
alternative to using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, we are 
proposing to allow monitoring using an optical gas imaging device 
(after the protocol is promulgated, as discussed in section III.A.3 of 
this preamble), provided at least one compound in the emissions can be 
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument.
    The proposed rule also specifies that all equipment in sections of 
closed vent systems that convey emissions from storage vessels that 
meet the thresholds for control (i.e., the thresholds specified in 
Table 1 of this preamble) are in regulated material service; no 
additional determination of the composition of gas streams in the 
closed vent system is required. This approach is being proposed because 
it provides an easy way for determining when equipment is in regulated 
material service and because the concentration of organic compounds in 
vapor that is in equilibrium with a liquid that has a vapor pressure of 
0.75 psia (the minimum threshold for control) is approximately 50,000 
ppmv, which after conversion to a weight basis, is comparable to or 
lower than typical 5 percent or 10 percent by weight thresholds in 
definitions of ``in organic HAP service'' or ``in VOC service'' in 
current rules. We request comment on other approaches that can 
accurately determine whether equipment is in regulated material service 
without imposing unreasonable burden.

[[Page 17923]]

    Current rules for storage vessels generally require non-flare 
control devices to reduce organic compound emissions by at least 95 
percent or to an outlet concentration of regulated material less than 
20 ppmv. They also require at least a 99-percent reduction or outlet 
concentration less than 20 ppmv for acid gases or halogen atoms (the 
acid gases may be part of the emission stream directly from the storage 
vessel, or they may be generated by burning halogenated organic 
compounds in combustion control devices). These levels are achievable 
by storage vessels storing a wide range of materials in a wide range of 
source categories, and they are at least equivalent to the reductions 
that are achieved when using floating roofs. Thus, we are proposing to 
specify these required control levels in proposed subpart I rather than 
in each of the individual referencing subparts, thereby improving 
consistency and simplifying the referencing subparts. The use of flares 
to control organic emissions from storage vessels is another option 
that would be allowed in proposed subpart I; all requirements for 
flares are covered in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A.
    Proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M specifies that control 
performance requirements will be specified in referencing subparts. 
Because proposed subpart I specifies the required reductions or outlet 
concentrations for non-flare control devices used to control emissions 
from storage vessels, subpart I (rather than the rule that references 
subpart I) would be the referencing subpart for the purpose of 
complying with proposed subpart M. Therefore, subpart I must specify 
the provisions for initial compliance determinations (i.e., design 
evaluation or performance test), if applicable for storage vessels. We 
determined that design evaluations provide sufficiently accurate 
results for demonstrating compliance with the reductions required for 
storage vessels. Thus, we are proposing to specify in subpart I that 
initial compliance with requirements for non-flare control devices that 
control emissions from storage vessels may be demonstrated using a 
design evaluation instead of a performance test, which is the default 
in subpart M. However, any control devices that control other emissions 
(e.g., process vents) in addition to storage vessel emissions, may 
still be required to conduct a performance test instead of a design 
evaluation, if another subpart references subpart M for the same 
control device.
    As in current rules, we are proposing to require different 
standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the control 
device. We are not proposing to require compliance with the same 
standard at all times because the cost of such a requirement would be 
unreasonable. Instead, we are proposing to prohibit the addition of 
material to the storage vessel during periods of planned routine 
maintenance and to limit the time of planned routine maintenance to 
less than 360 hr/yr. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, you would be 
required to keep a record documenting why 240 hours is insufficient and 
the steps you took to minimize the additional time for planned routine 
maintenance. In analyses for current rules, 240 hours has been 
determined as sufficient for most control device rebuilds.
7. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of 
atmospheric storage vessels when routing emissions to a fuel gas 
system?
    For fuel gas systems that control emissions from storage vessels, 
proposed subpart I references the fuel gas system requirements in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and specifies a few additional 
requirements to ensure appropriate control for storage vessels. See 
section V.B.4 of this preamble for a discussion of the requirements in 
subpart M for fuel gas systems. Proposed subpart I also would require 
the same design operating, monitoring and repair requirements for the 
fixed roof and closure devices that would be required for the closed 
vent system approach. See section III.B.6 of this preamble for a 
discussion of our rationale for these requirements. Proposed subpart I 
also would require compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J 
for the equipment in the fuel gas system. As for the closed vent system 
approach, all equipment in sections of a fuel gas system that convey 
emissions from an affected storage vessel are in regulated material 
service and subject to the monitoring and other LDAR requirements for 
equipment in regulated material service. See section III.B.6 of this 
preamble for a discussion of the rationale for these requirements.
8. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control for 
pressure vessels?
    A pressure vessel is defined in the Uniform Standards as a storage 
vessel that is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of 
compression of the vapor headspace in the vessel during filling of the 
vessel. We are proposing standards for all pressure vessels that 
contain any regulated material. We are not proposing thresholds for the 
following reasons. First, materials stored in a pressure vessel are 
likely to be highly volatile; thus, a low vapor pressure threshold 
would have little or no impact. Second, we do not expect the operating 
pressure or frequency of leaks to vary with the size of the storage 
vessel. Thus, the emissions for the same emission pathway would be the 
same regardless of the size of the storage vessel. Third, the fittings 
on the pressure vessel are comparable to the types of equipment (and in 
the same service as equipment) that would be subject to monitoring 
under proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
    The proposed requirements for pressure vessels are to equip each 
opening with a closure device, operate without emissions to the 
atmosphere at any time, monitor annually all potential leak interfaces 
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 (or semiannually when 
using optical gas imaging), estimate and report emissions from periods 
when instrument readings exceed 500 ppmv or an image is detected and 
route purge streams to a control device. Closure devices are an 
operational necessity for pressure vessels, and they prevent emissions 
as well. We are proposing periodic monitoring requirements as a means 
to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to operate without 
emissions to the atmosphere. We have determined that estimating and 
reporting emissions is needed to help inform decisions about where to 
target compliance inspections and to ensure that the pressure vessels 
are properly operating with no vents to the atmosphere. The burden to 
conduct monitoring and associated recordkeeping and reporting is 
estimated to be about 2 hr/yr per storage vessel, at a cost of about 
$170/year for monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7. The burden is estimated to be about 3.5 hr/yr at a cost of about 
$260/year for monitoring with an optical gas imaging instrument. The 
differences in the proposed Uniform Standards are due primarily to the 
different monitoring frequencies.
    We are proposing to include an alternative to the requirement of 
maintaining a closed system at all times. This alternative would allow 
you to purge inert materials that build up in the pressure vessel, 
provided the purge stream is routed through a closed vent system to a 
control device that achieves the same performance that is being 
proposed for atmospheric storage vessels (i.e., reductions of at least 
95 percent or to less than 20 ppmv or routed to a flare that meets the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b)). This

[[Page 17924]]

provision is consistent with an option for controlling emissions from 
pressure vessels that manage hazardous waste and are subject to the 
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR 264.1084 and 40 CFR 
265.1085. We are proposing this option in subpart I because it is 
consistent with and ensures control comparable to proposed requirements 
for atmospheric storage vessels.
9. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for overfill 
detection and alarms?
    We are proposing to require you to equip each storage vessel with 
an overfill detection sensor. A consortium of international oil 
companies conducted a study that concluded 11 percent of sunken-roof 
accidents were caused by overfilling the storage vessel (see 2008 
American Petroleum Institute (API) AST Conference, in the docket for 
proposed subpart I). According to instrumentation industry 
representatives, overfill detection systems are currently available, 
and storage vessels designed to American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) standards must be equipped with such monitoring and 
alarm systems. The proposed overfill monitoring requirement is intended 
to alert you to a potential overfill so that you can take action to 
prevent the overfill and, thus, avoid a deviation of design 
requirements. We estimated the average cost to plan, purchase and 
install the required monitor and alarm to be about $1,900 per storage 
vessel. We estimated the average annual cost of the proposed 
requirement, including recordkeeping and reporting, to be about $400/
year per storage vessel. We expect that this requirement will add 
little burden because we understand that most storage vessels are 
already equipped with overfill monitoring and alarm systems. Therefore, 
we request comment with descriptions of any types of affected storage 
vessels that are not already equipped with overfill protection systems. 
We also request comment on whether additional design or operational 
requirements are needed to ensure successful implementation and 
enforcement of the proposed overfill monitoring requirement, and 
whether other types of monitoring could better prevent overfill and the 
resulting emissions.
10. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of 
transfer operations to load transport vehicles?
    In the survey of technology for control of transfer operations that 
involve loading transport vehicles, we identified several compliance 
approaches. The most common is submerged loading (or bottom loading). 
We identified this compliance approach as Control Option TR1. We also 
identified four additional compliance approaches that are more 
effective than submerged loading alone: (1) Control Option TR2 is to 
route displaced emissions through a closed vent system to a flare; (2) 
Control Option TR3 is to route displaced emissions through a closed 
vent system to a control device that reduces regulated organic 
emissions by at least 98 percent or to less than 20 ppmv; (3) Control 
Option TR4 is to vapor balance the displaced emissions back to the 
storage vessel from which the transport vehicle is being loaded; and 
(4) Control Option TR5 is to route displaced emissions to a fuel gas 
system.
    We estimated impacts only for Control Options TR1 and TR2. We did 
not estimate impacts for the other compliance approaches for several 
reasons. We did not estimate costs for Control Option TR3 because, as 
part of the analysis for the OLD NESHAP, we determined that flares are 
the most common and least costly control device for transfer racks. See 
the memorandum titled Environmental and Cost Impacts of the Proposed 
OLD NESHAP, in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0053 for the flare 
analysis. Although vapor balancing may be less costly than control 
using a flare in some cases, we did not estimate impacts for Control 
Option TR4 because vapor balancing requires no venting from the system 
while a transfer is occurring. This will require pressure settings in 
the system that may not be feasible for some atmospheric storage 
vessels. We also did not estimate impacts for Control Option TR5 
because not all facilities have or could make use of a fuel gas system, 
and it would be impractical to install a fuel gas system to handle 
transfer emissions alone.
    Regardless of the control option, vapor tightness testing of the 
transport vehicle is an approach for ensuring that emissions are 
conveyed to the intended destination. Finally, LDAR for the equipment 
in the transfer rack is an approach for controlling fugitive emissions 
from the transfer rack itself. Each of the control options and other 
compliance approaches and how they have been incorporated into proposed 
subpart I are discussed in the sections below.
    Control Option TR1. According to AP-42 Chapter 5.2, splash loading 
results in a vapor-space saturation factor of 1.45, and submerged 
loading results in a saturation factor of 0.6. Reducing the saturation 
factor also reduces the concentration of organic compounds in the gases 
that are displaced when loading the transport vehicle. Thus, Control 
Option TR1 reduces transfer emissions by an estimated 60 percent 
relative to splash loading. As shown in Table 7 of this preamble, the 
costs for Control Option TR1 in light of the estimated emissions 
reductions also are reasonable for a wide range of transfer throughputs 
and average vapor pressures. In many cases, the switch to submerged 
loading would result in a cost savings. Thus, we are proposing that all 
transfers of regulated material to transport vehicles be conducted 
using submerged (or bottom) loading.

                     Table 7--Estimated Impacts for Submerged Loading of Transport Vehicles
                                              [Control option TR1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total transfer
                                 throughput at                                     Emission        Incremental
   Average vapor pressure of       facility        Number of     Total annual    reduction \a\        cost
 transferred material  (psia)    (million gal/   loading arms    costs  ($/yr)       (tpy)        effectiveness
                                      yr)                                                         \a\  ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.08..........................               2               1             710            0.13             5,400
0.08..........................              21               4           2,100            1.4              1,500
0.08..........................              45              12           7,300            2.9              2,500
1.............................               2               1             190            1.6                100
1.............................              21               4        (12,100)           17                (710)
1.............................              45               6        (28,000)           37                (770)
3.............................               2               2         (2,700)            4.9              (560)
3.............................              21               4        (43,000)           51                (840)

[[Page 17925]]

 
3.............................              45               6        (94,000)          110                (860)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to uncontrolled (i.e., splash loading).

    The emissions estimates for the model facilities in Table 7 of this 
preamble were estimated using procedures in AP-42 Chapter 5.2, assuming 
the average transfer temperature is 60[emsp14][deg]Farenheit and the 
average vapor molecular weight of transferred materials is 80. The 
total capital investment was scaled from a quote for converting a rack 
that has six arms from splash loading to submerged loading; this quote 
was provided by an industry trade association during development of the 
gasoline distribution area source rule (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0406-0060). Annual costs were developed for operation, maintenance 
and indirect costs such as capital recovery. We also included a product 
recovery credit for the emissions prevented by the change in loading 
procedures. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for 
Transfer Operations and Analysis of Impacts for Transfer Operation 
Control Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional 
information regarding the development of these impacts.
    Control Option TR2. In the impacts analysis for Control Option TR2, 
we evaluated the impacts for model facilities similar to those that we 
used in the analysis of submerged loading impacts. The resulting annual 
costs, emission reductions and incremental cost effectiveness relative 
to Control Option TR1 are shown in Table 8 of this preamble. See the 
memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for Transfer Operations 
and Analysis of Impacts for Transfer Operation Control Options, in the 
docket for proposed subpart I for a more detailed discussion of how the 
impacts were developed.

  Table 8--Estimated Impacts To Control Emissions From Loading of Transport Vehicles Using a Closed Vent System
                                                    and Flare
                                              [Control option TR2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Average vapor
                                 pressure of                                       Emission     Incremental cost
 Total transfer throughput at    transferred      Number of     Total annual    reduction \a\     effectiveness
  facility  (million gal/yr)      material      loading arms    costs  ($/yr)       (tpy)         \a\  ($/ton)
                                   (psia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15...........................               1               6          94,000              8.5            11,100
                                            3               2          79,000             25.4             3,100
                                            6               6          94,000             50.7             1,900
25...........................               1              10         116,000             14.1             8,200
                                            3               8         104,000             42.3             2,500
                                            6               8         104,000             84.5             1,200
45...........................               1               6          94,000             25.4             3,700
                                            3               6          94,000             76.1             1,200
                                            6              12         131,000            152                 860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to submerged loading.

    Based on the results in Table 8 of this preamble, we determined 
that the costs of Control Option TR2 are reasonable when a facility 
transfers more than 35 million gal/yr of liquids that contain regulated 
material, and the weighted-average vapor pressure of the transferred 
liquids is a little over 3 psia. Using the monthly temperature data in 
AP-42 Chapter 7.1 to calculate vapor pressures for several cities shows 
the average true vapor pressure often is about 80 percent of the MTVP. 
Thus, we are proposing to require control of displaced emissions from 
transport vehicle loading at facilities that meet thresholds of at 
least 35 million gal/yr throughput and a weighted average MTVP of at 
least 4 psia.
    As for storage vessels, some current rules specify thresholds for 
transfer operation control that are more stringent than the thresholds 
that we determined to be cost effective. For transfer operations, we 
decided not to propose any of the thresholds from current rules because 
few current rules require control of transfer operations, and the 
thresholds in these rules vary. We also have not conducted regulatory 
analyses for source categories that do not have control requirements 
for transfer operations. Therefore, we do not know what thresholds 
would be appropriate in those rules if they were to be amended to 
include requirements for transfer operations. At a minimum, the current 
analysis identifies the cost-effective thresholds that could be used as 
a starting point in more detailed analysis of requirements on a source 
category-specific basis.
    In contrast to some current rules (e.g., the HON), the proposed 
vapor pressure threshold is based on the MTVP instead of average vapor 
pressure. This is intended to reduce the compliance burden. If the 
temperature of the transferred material varies over the year, then 
significant calculations and recordkeeping is needed to document the 
vapor pressure for each transfer and the average over all transfers 
during the year. The burden grows as the number of materials 
transferred increases. We recognize that even determining the 
throughput-weighted MTVP could be burdensome for a rack that transfers 
numerous regulated materials. It also

[[Page 17926]]

requires you to project the total amount of various materials that you 
expect to transfer during the year so that you can determine whether 
there is a chance that you would exceed the thresholds. Basing the 
control threshold only on throughput as in some rules (e.g., the OLD 
NESHAP) would be less burdensome, but control would be required 
regardless of the material transferred. Therefore, we request comment 
on the proposed thresholds for control and suggestions for alternative 
thresholds that would impose less compliance burden while still 
ensuring control of emissions when the cost of such control is 
reasonable.
    Other compliance approaches. We are proposing to include several 
alternative compliance options with which you may elect to comply 
instead of using a flare. These alternatives are based on Control 
Options TR3, TR4 and TR5, and they are being included because their 
performance is the same as or possibly marginally better than the 
performance obtained by routing emissions through a closed vent system 
to a flare. We are proposing compliance procedures based on Control 
Options TR3 and TR5 that are the same as for the closed vent system and 
fuel gas system approaches for control of storage vessel emissions, 
except that monitoring or inspections would be required while a 
transport vehicle is being filled with regulated material. As in the 
requirements for storage vessels, we are proposing to allow you to 
demonstrate initial compliance with an emission limit using either a 
design evaluation or performance test regardless of the throughput. We 
are proposing this approach to minimize the compliance burden and 
because we have determined a design evaluation is sufficient given the 
relatively low level of emissions from transfer operations relative to 
other emission sources.
    The option based on Control Option TR4 is similar to the vapor 
balancing approach in the OLD NESHAP and other rules in that it 
includes both design requirements and inspection requirements (e.g., 
see 40 CFR 63.2346 and Tables 7 and 10 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE). Unlike current rules, however, we are also proposing to require 
the following specific design elements and operating procedures: (1) 
The vapor balancing system must be designed to prevent any regulated 
material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing to another 
transfer rack; (2) all vapor connections in the system must be equipped 
with closures that seal upon disconnect; and (3) PRD in the system must 
remain closed while regulated material is loaded in the transport 
vehicle. Meeting these requirements will help ensure that the vapors 
displaced from loading transport vehicles with regulated materials are 
returned to the storage tank from which the liquids being loaded 
originated. The second and third requirements also are consistent with 
proposed requirements for vapor balancing systems to control emissions 
from storage vessels. Finally, we are proposing to require LDAR of 
equipment in the vapor balancing system consistent with the proposed 
requirements for equipment in closed vent systems. The vapor balancing 
system monitoring requirements vary widely in current rules. For 
example, no monitoring requirement is specified in the MON; the HON 
requires either annual visual inspections or annual monitoring using 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, depending on whether the 
system is constructed of hard-piping or ductwork; and the OLD NESHAP 
requires quarterly monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7. We are proposing requirements consistent with those for 
closed vent systems to streamline the compliance procedures and because 
a vapor balancing system serves essentially the same purpose as a 
closed vent system.
    Transport vehicle tightness testing. As part of the compliance 
approaches that are based on Control Options TR2, TR3, TR4 and TR5, you 
would be required to transfer regulated materials only to transport 
vehicles that are determined to be vapor tight. We are proposing the 
vapor tightness requirement for transport vehicles that are loaded at 
affected transfer racks to ensure that the requirement to collect and 
convey emissions to control during transfer operations is effective. 
These requirements have the added benefit of minimizing emissions while 
the vehicle is in transport as well. To be considered vapor tight, each 
transport vehicle that is loaded with material that has a MTVP greater 
than 4 psia would be required to pass an annual vapor tightness test 
conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. All other 
transport vehicles would be required to have a current certification in 
accordance with DOT pressure test requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for 
cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. These proposed requirements 
are similar to requirements in several current rules. For example, 
several gasoline distribution rules require testing of gasoline 
transport vehicles using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 
(e.g., 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R). The 
OLD NESHAP requires EPA Method 27 testing for transport vehicles that 
are equipped with vapor-collection equipment, and other transport 
vehicles must meet the DOT certification requirements. In the preamble 
to the proposed OLD NESHAP, we noted that tank trucks in chemical 
service typically are not equipped with vapor-collection equipment (63 
FR 15682, April 2, 2002). Although we are uncertain whether vapor-
collection equipment is now more common on trucks used to transport 
chemicals than it was 10 years ago, we think it is appropriate that all 
vehicles used to transport materials with vapor pressure comparable to 
the vapor pressure of gasoline should be subject to the same vapor 
tightness requirements. The proposed MTVP threshold was set at 4 psia 
because this is about the minimum MTVP for any grade of gasoline. We 
request comment on the burden and costs of this proposed requirement to 
conduct vapor-tightness testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8. For example, we are interested in estimates of the number 
of vehicles that would have to be retrofitted with vapor-collection 
equipment, the costs of such retrofits and the fraction of the volume 
transported in such vehicles that exceeds the 4-psia threshold. In 
addition, since the MTVP of a given material varies depending on 
location, we request comment on whether a threshold based on another 
parameter would be easier to implement.
    Finally, as in current rules, you would be required to take actions 
to assure that your closed vent system, vapor balancing system or fuel 
gas system is connected to the transport vehicle's vapor-collection 
equipment when regulated material is transferred. These requirements 
are intended to ensure that the displaced emissions are routed to the 
required control. Examples of actions to satisfy this requirement 
include training drivers in the hookup procedures and posting visible 
reminder signs at the affected transfer racks.
11. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of 
transfer operations to load containers?
    In the survey of technology of emission controls for transfer racks 
that are used to load containers, we identified several control 
approaches that have each been included in one or more current rules. 
For example, one approach is to use controls such as submerged loading 
or fitted openings in conjunction with transfer line purging. We also 
identified operational practices to control emissions from containers 
that are storing transferred regulated

[[Page 17927]]

material (e.g., maintaining covers and other closure devices in the 
closed position except when access to the container is necessary). We 
also identified three more effective compliance approaches: (1) Vapor 
balance displaced emissions back to a storage vessel; (2) locate the 
transfer rack inside an enclosure that meets the requirements for a 
Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B, 
and exhaust the enclosure through a closed vent system to a control 
device; and (3) vent displaced emissions from the container itself 
through a closed vent system to a control device. In addition, vapor 
tightness testing can be conducted on containers, like transport 
vehicles.
    For the impacts analysis, we evaluated two control options: Control 
Option TR6, which combines submerged fill with the operational 
practices of using closure devices on stored containers and Control 
Option TR7, which consists of venting displaced emissions through a 
closed vent system to a flare. We did not estimate impacts for the 
enclosure approach (Control Option TR8) because costs for the enclosure 
are expected to result in higher total costs than for Control Option 
TR7, and the control device might have to be larger to handle the 
airflow needed to meet the requirements in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B. 
We did not estimate impacts for the vapor balancing approach (Control 
Option TR9) because we are not aware of any facility that is using this 
approach, and as with storage vessels, vapor balancing may not be 
feasible at all facilities due to allowable pressure limits for safe 
operation.
    The impacts of Control Options TR6 and TR7 for a series of model 
transfer racks are presented in Table 9 of this preamble. The models 
cover a range of typical throughputs as reported by facilities that 
responded to an information collection request (ICR) for OLD operations 
(see the memorandum titled Model Plants for the OLD Source Category, in 
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0052 for site-specific throughputs). 
The models also span a wide range of average vapor pressures.

       Table 9--Estimated Impacts of Control Options TR6 and TR7 for Loading Containers at a Transfer Rack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total
                                                              transfer      Total
                                                             throughput     annual      Emission        Cost
Average Reid vapor pressure of transferred material (psia)  at facility   costs ($/    reduction   effectiveness
                                                              (million       yr)         (tpy)      \a\ ($/ton)
                                                              gal/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Control Option TR6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.......................................................          0.1         700         0.016       43,000
1.5.......................................................            5         (13)         0.81          (16)
3.37......................................................          0.1         680         0.036       19,000
3.37......................................................            5        (920)          1.8         (510)
8.........................................................          0.1         630          0.12        5,500
8.........................................................            5      (3,200)        0.016         (550)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Control Option TR7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.......................................................          0.1      81,000         0.050    2,400,000
1.5.......................................................            5      81,000           2.5       47,000
3.37......................................................          0.1      81,000          0.11    1,100,000
3.37......................................................            5      81,000           5.6       21,000
8.........................................................          0.1      81,000          0.36      330,000
8.........................................................            5      81,000            18        6,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to uncontrolled for Control Option TR6 and relative to Control Option TR6 for Control Option TR7.

    Capital costs for submerged fill were estimated assuming the 
capital costs for retrofitting one station that loads containers are 
about half of the costs for retrofitting one arm that loads transport 
vehicles. Annual costs for submerged fill were estimated using the same 
procedures as in the analysis for Control Option TR1. Costs for the 
closed vent and flare system were scaled from costs developed from 
vendor information in the analysis for the OLD analysis (see docket 
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0053).
    Uncontrolled emissions were estimated using two approaches. One 
approach was to use the vehicle refueling equation presented in AP-42 
chapter 5.2. This approach was used in the analysis for the OLD NESHAP 
because surveyed OLD facilities were using nozzles like those used at 
gasoline service stations. A problem with this approach is that it is 
not reliable at low vapor pressures. Specifically, as the vapor 
pressure approaches zero, the emissions are estimated to be negative. 
Therefore, we also estimated emissions using a second approach, which 
was to use the transfer rack loss equation in AP-42 chapter 5.2 (i.e., 
the same approach that we used to estimate emissions from transport 
vehicles), but with one modification. It is not clear that the splash-
loading factor in AP-42 is applicable for container loading given the 
much lower fill rate of containers. Therefore, we selected a saturation 
factor (i.e., 0.88) that, when used in the transfer rack loss equation, 
produced the same emissions as the vehicle refueling equation when the 
Reid vapor pressure of transferred material is 3.37 psia (this is the 
vapor pressure used for models in the OLD analysis). Using this factor 
gave higher emissions estimates than the vapor refueling equation for 
Reid vapor pressures lower than 3.37 psia, and it gave higher emissions 
for Reid vapor pressures higher than 3.37 psia. To estimate controlled 
emissions for Control Option TR6, we assumed the saturation factor 
would be 0.6, as in the analysis for Control Option TR1. Thus, we 
assumed Control Option TR6 reduces emissions by 32 percent ([0.88 - 
0.6]/[0.88] = 0.32). Controlled emissions for Control Option TR7 were 
assumed to be 2 percent of the emissions for Control Option TR6.
    The results of this analysis show the cost impacts for Control 
Option TR6 are reasonable for throughputs greater than about 1 million 
gal/yr over the range of vapor pressures specified for the model 
transfer racks. The analysis also shows

[[Page 17928]]

the cost impacts of Control Option TR7 are unreasonable for all of the 
same model transfer racks. Thus, for transfer operations that include 
the loading of regulated material into containers, we are proposing 
that the Uniform Standards require submerged loading. In addition, when 
a loaded container contains regulated material and is maintained on 
site, all openings in the containers would have to be equipped with 
covers and closure devices, which you would have to maintain in the 
closed position except when access to the container is necessary (e.g., 
for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning).
    We are also proposing other options that have equal or better 
performance that may be used instead of submerged loading, or that may 
be required, if justified, by referencing subparts. These other options 
include using fitted openings in conjunction with transfer line 
purging, which is specified in the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart R). We are also proposing requirements for compliance 
approaches that are based on Control Options TR8 and TR9. These 
proposed requirements are a consolidated and streamlined version of the 
requirements in the Generic MACT for Containers and OLD NESHAP. If you 
use a closed vent system and control device, the control device would 
be required to reduce regulated material emissions by 95 percent, as in 
current rules. Inspection requirements for both closed vent systems and 
vapor balancing systems would be the same as for such systems used to 
convey emissions from loading of transport vehicles.
    If you load a container 55 gallons or larger with material that has 
a MTVP greater than 4 psia and use the container for onsite storage of 
that material, then the container would be subject to either annual 
vapor tightness testing in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8, or annual monitoring of potential leak interfaces using 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The leak definition for the 
EPA Method 21 testing would be 500 ppmv. These testing or monitoring 
requirements are needed to demonstrate that transferred materials with 
high vapor pressures are not emitted from storage. We request comment 
on the burden and costs of this proposed requirement to conduct vapor-
tightness testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. For 
example, we are interested in estimates of the number of containers 
that would have to be retrofitted with vapor-collection equipment, the 
costs of such retrofits and the fraction of the volume stored in such 
containers that exceeds the 4-psia threshold. In addition, since the 
MTVP of a given material varies, depending on location, we request 
comment on whether a threshold based on another parameter would be 
easier to implement.
12. How did the EPA determine the definitions of terms used in proposed 
subpart I?
    As discussed in section VI.B.16 of this preamble, all definitions 
are located in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. Most of the 
definitions that are used in proposed subpart I are unchanged from the 
definitions in current rules, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and 
subpart EEEE. We are also proposing definitions for the terms 
``barge,'' ``fittings'' and ``pressure vessel,'' which are not defined 
in current rules. The vapor balancing requirements for storage vessels 
specify that emissions from the storage vessel may be vapor balanced to 
a barge that is providing the liquid to fill the storage vessel. To 
clarify what type of vessel qualifies as a barge, we are proposing to 
define a barge as ``any vessel that transports regulated material 
liquids in bulk on inland waterways or at sea.''
    We are proposing to add a definition for the term ``storage 
capacity.'' This term is intended to take the place of the term 
``capacity'' that is defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. We are 
proposing the change to avoid possible confusion because the term 
capacity is also used in a different context in proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M. We are also modifying the definition to specify that 
storage capacity of a flat-bottomed storage vessel is determined by 
multiplying the internal cross-sectional area of the storage vessel by 
the internal height of the shell, but the calculation for storage 
vessels with a sloped bottom or cone-up or cone-down bottoms need to be 
adjusted to account for the fact that the floor is not flat.
    We are proposing to include a definition for ``automatic bleeder 
vent (vacuum breaker vent).'' Vacuum breaker vents equalize the 
pressure across a landed floating roof when liquid is either being 
withdrawn or added below the landed roof. Current rules do not include 
a definition for such devices, but historically vacuum breaker devices 
have been a covered well opening with a leg attached to the underside 
of the cover. When the roof lands, the leg opens the vent by lifting 
the cover off the well. Recently, we learned of a new design that is 
activated by pressure or vacuum differences across the roof. 
Theoretical calculations have shown such vents should open only while 
the roof is landed, not while it is floating. Based on this analysis, 
we have decided to include both mechanically activated and pressure/
vacuum activated devices in the proposed definition of ``automatic 
bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent).'' We request additional 
information, in particular, any test data that either supports or 
contradicts the theoretical analysis.
    Finally, we are proposing to use a new definition of ``maximum true 
vapor pressure'' that excludes the list of methods that may be used to 
determine MTVP. In proposed subpart I, this list has been moved to 40 
CFR 65.306. We also added a new method to the list: Test Method for 
Vapor Pressure of Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy Crude Oil Using 
Gas Chromatography. This method was developed because existing methods 
cannot be applied to heavy crude oils. We moved the list of methods to 
40 CFR 65.306 because we are also proposing three additional changes to 
the procedures for determining MTVP that cannot be readily included in 
a definition. First, we are proposing to require testing to determine 
MTVP of mixtures (such as petroleum liquids) and to allow information 
from reference texts to be used only for pure compounds. We are 
proposing this change because we are concerned that the compositions of 
mixtures (e.g., crude oils) vary considerably depending on their source 
and how they are handled before storage. Thus, average or generic 
values for a class of materials do not necessarily accurately represent 
the characteristics of the material in each storage vessel. Second, we 
are proposing to require new determinations each time a storage vessel 
is filled with a different type of material. This is an implied 
requirement in current rules, but this change clearly states the 
requirement. Third, because the composition of mixtures can vary (as 
noted above), we are proposing to require redetermination of the MTVP 
annually if stored materials are mixtures and previous testing has 
determined the MTVP is below the thresholds for control, as specified 
in Table 1 of proposed subpart I (and Table 1 of this preamble).

IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Subpart J

A. Summary

    We are proposing new Uniform Standards for control of emissions 
from equipment leaks. These Uniform Standards for equipment leaks would

[[Page 17929]]

apply only to equipment that is subject to a regulation that references 
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, for control of equipment 
leaks. We would only issue regulations that reference provisions of 40 
CFR part 65, subpart J, once we have determined that those provisions 
meet applicable statutory requirements for a particular source category 
(e.g., MACT, AMOS, BSER).
    In section IV of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA 
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators affected by the 
proposed standards. Section IV.A.1 of this preamble identifies the 
regulated sources under the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. 
Sections IV.A.2 through 4 of this preamble summarize the proposed 
standards for equipment leaks. Section IV.A.5 of this preamble 
summarizes the proposed standards for using an optical gas imaging 
instrument to detect leaks. Section IV.A.6 of this preamble summarizes 
the notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 
IV.B of this preamble presents the rationale behind the development of 
the proposed standards.
1. What parts of my plant are affected by the proposed rule?
    The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J includes requirements for 
equipment in process units, closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, 
including valves, pumps, connectors, agitators, PRD, compressors, 
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves and lines, 
instrumentation systems and any other types of equipment specified by 
the referencing subpart that contain or contact regulated material (as 
defined by the referencing subpart). This subpart also includes 
requirements for closed-purge and closed-loop systems used to control 
emissions from certain types of equipment. Proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J does not include applicability provisions; instead, the 
referencing subpart would define what equipment in that source category 
is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
    Your equipment would be subject to some or all of the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 65, subpart J when another subpart references the use of 
provisions of subpart J for air emission control. In addition, you 
would be required to meet the general provisions applicable to part 65 
(i.e., subpart H of 40 CFR part 65) and the general provisions 
applicable to the referencing subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 
60, 61 or 63).
3. What are the types of techniques we are proposing to reduce 
emissions from equipment leaks?
    Equipment leak standards consist of techniques to detect leaks 
based on sensory inspections, instrument monitoring or use of an 
optical gas imaging instrument, as applicable. Equipment design 
standards specify requirements regarding the use, design or operation 
of the equipment. Each of these techniques is summarized in this 
section.
    Sensory monitoring. Sensory monitoring includes visual, audible, 
olfactory or any other sensory detection method used to determine a 
potential leak to the atmosphere. If you found indications of a 
potential leak, you would be required either to: (1) Repair the 
equipment such that the indications of a potential leak to the 
atmosphere are no longer evident; (2) determine that no bubbles are 
observed at potential leak sites during a leak check using a soap 
solution; or (3) conduct instrument monitoring as described in the next 
paragraph to determine if the instrument reading is above the 
applicable threshold (indicating that the equipment is leaking) and, if 
the equipment is leaking, repair the leak as described in section 
IV.A.4 of this preamble.
    Instrument monitoring. Instrument monitoring would require you to 
check for leaks with a portable instrument in accordance with Method 21 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. A leak would be detected if you obtain 
an instrument reading above the threshold (i.e., leak definition) 
specified in the applicable section of the proposed regulation. If you 
detect a leak, you would be required to repair the leak as described in 
section IV.A.4 of this preamble. The frequency at which you would be 
required to conduct instrument monitoring is specified for each type of 
equipment. For some equipment, the required monitoring frequency varies 
depending on the percentage of the equipment in the applicable process 
unit that was determined to be leaking in previous monitoring periods. 
In addition to following the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7, the proposed rule would require you to conduct a 
calibration drift assessment at the end of each monitoring day. The 
proposed rule also specifies procedures that would allow you to correct 
instrument readings for background concentrations of regulated 
materials.
    Optical gas imaging. Another method of detecting leaks from 
equipment is to scan equipment using a device or system specially 
designed to use one of several types of remote sensing techniques, 
including optical gas imaging of infrared wavelengths, differential 
absorption light detection and ranging [DIAL], and solar occultation 
flux. The most common optical gas imaging instrument (also referred to 
as a ``camera'') is a passive system that creates an image based on the 
absorption of infrared wavelengths. A gas cloud containing certain 
hydrocarbons (i.e., leaks) will show up as black or white plumes 
(depending on the instrument settings and characteristics of the leak) 
on the optical gas imaging instrument screen. This type of optical gas 
imaging instrument is the device on which our optical gas imaging 
provisions are based.
    On December 22, 2008, we published an Alternative Work Practice 
(AWP) for LDAR that includes a combination of optical gas imaging and 
instrument monitoring techniques (73 FR 78199). The AWP provisions are 
located in the General Provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, so any 
source subject to LDAR requirements in any current equipment leak rule 
may elect to comply with this AWP. (This includes the proposed Uniform 
Standards, as proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H specifies that those 
sections would continue to apply to the referencing subparts.) In 
addition, we are proposing the optical gas imaging-only provisions 
described in section IV.A.5 of this preamble. If specifically allowed 
by your referencing subpart, you would be allowed to use optical gas 
imaging rather than instrument monitoring to detect leaks from your 
equipment. You would be required to comply with the leak survey 
procedures for an optical gas imaging device that will be proposed in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
    Equipment design. Proposed standards for some equipment consist of 
design features that either provide an additional barrier to emissions 
or provide for collection of otherwise discharged material for recycle, 
reuse or treatment. Where applicable, the specific requirements for 
each type of equipment and control level are described in section 
IV.A.4 of this preamble.
4. What are the specific equipment leak standards we are proposing?
    As in current equipment leak rules, the proposed Uniform Standards 
for equipment leaks are based on a combination of standards, including

[[Page 17930]]

LDAR programs, equipment design standards and performance standards. In 
addition, we are proposing two alternative means of compliance that can 
be used only in specific situations. Many of these proposed equipment 
leak standards are consistent with current equipment leak standards. 
The discussion in this section IV.A of the preamble describes all 
elements of the proposed standards. Section IV.B of this preamble 
discusses how we developed the proposed provisions and describes how 
the proposed provisions are consistent with one or more previous rules 
or why we are introducing additional requirements unique to this 
proposal.
    For most types of equipment, current rules specify separate 
requirements for equipment in different types of service (e.g., gas and 
vapor service, light liquid service). The proposed Uniform Standards 
also follow this type of approach; for certain types of equipment 
(e.g., valves), the proposed Uniform Standards include specific 
instrument monitoring requirements for equipment in gas and vapor 
service and equipment in light liquid service and specify specific 
sensory monitoring requirements for equipment in heavy liquid service. 
We are also proposing that the sensory monitoring requirements would 
apply to other equipment that meet certain criteria, such as equipment 
in regulated service less than 300 hr/yr and equipment that contains or 
contacts regulated material, but not in sufficient quantities to be 
operating in regulated material service.
    Section IV.A.4 of this preamble describes proposed standards for 
specific types of equipment. After you identify indications of a 
potential leak using sensory monitoring or identify a leak using 
instrument monitoring, optical gas imaging or other method, the 
proposed rule would require you to repair the leaking equipment using 
procedures that also are summarized in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. 
Finally, alternative equipment leak standards that are provided in the 
proposed rule are summarized in section IV.A.4 of this preamble.
    Proposed requirements for valves in gas and vapor service and 
valves in light liquid service. We are proposing that for valves in gas 
and vapor service and valves in light liquid service, you would be 
required to conduct instrument monitoring on a monthly basis for at 
least the first 2 months after initial startup. An instrument reading 
of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater would indicate a leak 
requiring repair. Following the first 2 months, you would be required 
to conduct instrument monitoring at a frequency dependent upon the 
percentage of leaking valves within the process unit in those first 2 
months (the proposed frequencies range from monthly if more than 2 
percent of the valves were leaking to biennially if less than 0.25 
percent of the valves were leaking). We are also proposing that you may 
use prior monitoring data in lieu of conducting initial monthly 
monitoring. For example, if your valves in gas and vapor service and 
valves in light liquid service are already subject to instrument 
monitoring and repair of leaks at 500 ppm or greater, you would be able 
to consider the monitoring data collected under your current rule to 
determine your monitoring frequency for the Uniform Standards.
    We are also proposing provisions for subgrouping valves for 
monitoring purposes. We are proposing specific monitoring and repair 
requirements for valves located at a plant site with fewer than 250 
total valves, valves for which the valve mechanism is not connected to 
a device that penetrates the valve housing (e.g., most check valves), 
unsafe-to-monitor valves and difficult-to-monitor valves.
    Proposed requirements for pumps in light liquid service. We are 
proposing monthly instrument monitoring for pumps in light liquid 
service. The instrument reading indicating a leak would vary based on 
the type of material being handled by that pump: 5,000 ppm or greater 
for pumps handling polymerizing monomers and 2,000 ppm or greater for 
all other pumps. In addition to instrument monitoring, you would be 
required to conduct a weekly visual inspection of all pumps in light 
liquid service for dripping liquids. If you found indications of 
liquids dripping, you would be required either to repair the pump seal, 
eliminating the indications of liquids dripping or to conduct 
instrument monitoring. If you elected to conduct instrument monitoring, 
the instrument reading that defines a leak requiring repair would be 
5,000 ppm for a pump handling polymerizing monomers or 2,000 ppm for 
all other pumps.
    We are also proposing specific monitoring and repair requirements 
for pumps equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a 
barrier fluid system, pumps with no externally actuated shaft 
penetrating the pump housing, pumps located within the boundary of an 
unmanned plant site, unsafe-to-monitor pumps and difficult-to-monitor 
pumps.
    Proposed requirements for connectors in gas and vapor service and 
connectors in light liquid service. If your referencing subpart 
specifically references proposed 40 CFR 65.422, you would be required 
to conduct instrument monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor 
service and connectors in light liquid service, and you would be 
required to conduct initial instrument monitoring within 12 months of 
the compliance date specified in a referencing subpart or 12 months 
after initial startup, whichever is later. We are also proposing to 
specify that if all the connectors in a process unit have been 
monitored for leaks prior to the compliance date specified in the 
referencing subpart, no initial monitoring is required, provided that 
either no process changes have been made since the prior monitoring or 
you can show that the results of the monitoring reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite process changes. Following the initial monitoring, 
you would be required to conduct instrument monitoring at a frequency 
between annually and every 8 years, depending on the percentage of 
leaking connectors within the process unit. An instrument reading of 
500 ppm or greater would indicate a leak that would require repair. We 
are also proposing specific monitoring and repair requirements for 
unsafe-to-monitor connectors; difficult-to-monitor connectors; and 
inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined connectors. Note that you would 
only be required to conduct instrument monitoring for connectors in gas 
and vapor service and connectors in light liquid service if your 
referencing subpart specifies that you must comply with proposed 40 CFR 
65.422.
    Proposed requirements for agitators in gas and vapor service and 
agitators in light liquid service. We are proposing monthly instrument 
monitoring for agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in 
light liquid service. An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater 
would indicate a leak that would require repair. In addition to 
instrument monitoring, you would be required to conduct weekly visual 
inspection of agitators. If you found indications of liquids dripping 
from the agitator seal, you would be required either to repair the 
agitator seal, eliminating the indications of liquids dripping or to 
conduct instrument monitoring. If you elected to conduct instrument 
monitoring, the instrument reading that defines a leak would be 10,000 
ppm or greater. We are also proposing specific monitoring and repair 
requirements for agitators equipped with a dual mechanical seal system 
that includes a barrier fluid system, agitators with no externally 
actuated shaft penetrating the

[[Page 17931]]

agitator housing, agitators located within the boundary of an unmanned 
plant site, agitators obstructed by equipment or piping, unsafe-to-
monitor agitators and difficult-to-monitor agitators.
    Proposed requirements for PRD. Proposed 40 CFR 65.424 includes 
operational requirements and pressure release management requirements 
for all PRD in regulated material service. We are proposing that you 
operate PRD in gas or vapor service with an instrument reading less 
than 500 ppm above background. If your PRD includes or consists of a 
rupture disk, you would be required to install a replacement disk no 
later than 5 calendar days after each pressure release. In addition, 
after each pressure release from a PRD in gas or vapor service 
(regardless of the type of PRD), you would be required to conduct 
instrument monitoring to confirm that the instrument reading is less 
than 500 ppm no later than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to 
regulated material service following a pressure release.
    In addition, we are proposing provisions that would apply only if 
your referencing subpart specifies that no releases to the atmosphere 
are allowed from any PRD in regulated material service. We are 
proposing that for each such PRD, you would be required to install and 
operate a monitor capable of identifying a pressure release, recording 
the time and duration of each pressure release and notifying operators 
that a pressure release has occurred. We are also proposing that if the 
monitor is capable of monitoring concentration of any flow through the 
PRD, then you would not also be required to conduct separate instrument 
monitoring no later than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to 
regulated material service following a pressure release to confirm that 
the instrument reading is less than 500 ppm. You would also be required 
to calculate, record and report the quantity of regulated material 
released during each pressure relief event. Note that your referencing 
subpart may include other requirements for releases to the atmosphere 
as well.
    Proposed requirements for compressors. We are proposing two 
compliance options for compressors in regulated material service. The 
first would be to equip the compressor with a seal system that includes 
a barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of process fluid to 
the atmosphere. You would determine, based on design considerations and 
operating experience, a criterion that indicates failure of the seal 
system, the barrier fluid system or both. You would also be required to 
equip the compressor with a sensor that would detect a failure of the 
seal system, the barrier fluid system or both. If a failure is 
indicated by either of those methods, a leak is detected, and you would 
be required to repair the leak. You would also be required to conduct 
sensory monitoring for all potential points of vapor leakage on the 
compressor other than the seal system.
    The second option would be to designate that the compressor 
operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background at all times. After you initially confirm that the 
compressor has an instrument reading less than 500 ppm, you would be 
required to conduct ongoing instrument monitoring at least annually to 
demonstrate that the compressor operates with an instrument reading of 
less than 500 ppm above background. If the instrument reading from any 
part of the compressor is 500 ppm above background or greater, the 
compressor would not be in compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J until the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background.
    Proposed requirements for sampling connection systems. We are 
proposing equipment design standards for sampling connection systems. 
You would be required to equip the sampling connection system with a 
closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system. You would be required 
to control purged process fluids by returning them to the process line, 
to a process, routing them to a control device, routing them to a fuel 
gas system or treating them in a waste management unit, a hazardous 
waste treatment facility or a device used to burn used oil for energy 
recovery (all of which would be required to meet specific standards). 
Gases displaced during filling of the sample container and gases 
remaining in the tubing or piping between the closed-purge system 
valve(s) and sample container valves(s) after the valves are closed and 
the sample container is disconnected are not considered to be purged 
process fluids and would not be required to be collected or captured. 
We are proposing to clarify that analyzer vents are considered sampling 
connection systems (and that CEMS are not considered analyzer vents). 
In-situ sampling systems and systems without purges would be exempt 
from these standards.
    Proposed requirements for open-ended valves and lines in gas and 
vapor service and open-ended valves and lines in light liquid service. 
We are proposing equipment and operational standards for open-ended 
lines and open-ended valves. You would be required to equip open-ended 
valves and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve. The 
cap, blind flange, plug or second valve would be required to seal the 
open-ended valve or line at all times, except during operations 
requiring process fluid flow through the open-ended valve or line, 
during maintenance or during operations that require venting the line 
between block valves in a double block and bleed system. If the open-
ended valve or line is equipped with a second valve, you would be 
required to close the valve on the process fluid end before closing the 
second valve.
    In addition, you would be required to conduct annual instrument 
monitoring to demonstrate that the open-ended valve or line operates 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background (i.e., 
that the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve seals the open-ended 
valve or line at all times). If the instrument reading is 500 ppm above 
background or greater, the open-ended valve or line would not be in 
compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J until the next 
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background.
    Open-ended valves and lines in an emergency shutdown system that 
are designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset 
would be exempt from the equipment design and instrument monitoring 
requirements. However, if your referencing subpart specifies that 
releases to the atmosphere from these types of open-ended valves and 
lines are not allowed, then any time an open-ended valve or line of 
this type does release to the atmosphere, it would not be in compliance 
with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. (Note that your referencing 
subpart may include other requirements for releases to the atmosphere 
as well.) In addition, open-ended valves and lines containing materials 
that would auto catalytically polymerize or would present an explosion, 
serious overpressure or other safety hazard if capped or equipped with 
a double block and bleed system would be exempt from the equipment and 
instrument monitoring requirements. Instead, you would be required to 
conduct sensory monitoring for these open-ended valves and lines.
    Proposed requirements for equipment in closed vent systems and fuel 
gas systems. We are proposing operational standards for equipment in 
closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. You would be required to 
conduct annual instrument monitoring to demonstrate that each piece of 
equipment in a closed vent system or fuel gas system operates with an 
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. If the

[[Page 17932]]

instrument reading is 500 ppm above background or greater, the 
equipment would not be in compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J until the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background.
    Proposed requirements for detecting leaks from other equipment. We 
are proposing that sensory monitoring would be the basic level of 
control for all equipment. Sensory monitoring would be required for all 
equipment that contains or contacts regulated material, but is not 
required to comply with the specific requirements in proposed 40 CFR 
65.420 through 65.427. This would include: (1) Equipment at a plant 
site with less than 1,500 total pieces of equipment; (2) equipment that 
contains or contacts regulated material, but not in sufficient 
quantities to be operating in regulated material service; (3) equipment 
in regulated material service less than 300 hr/yr; (4) valves, pumps, 
connectors and agitators in heavy liquid service; (5) connectors not 
required by your referencing subpart to comply with 40 CFR 65.422; (6) 
instrumentation systems; (7) PRD in liquid service; (8) any equipment 
for which sensory monitoring is required specifically by a provision in 
proposed 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427 (e.g., potential points of vapor 
leakage on the compressor other than the seal system, open-ended valves 
and lines containing materials that would auto catalytically polymerize 
or would present an explosion, serious overpressure or other safety 
hazard if capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system); and 
(9) any other equipment, as specified by your referencing subpart. If 
you found indications of a potential leak, you would be required either 
to repair the equipment, eliminating the indications of the potential 
leak or conduct instrument monitoring to confirm whether there is a 
leak within 5 calendar days of detection. If you elected to conduct 
instrument monitoring, the instrument reading that defines a leak 
requiring repair is specified in proposed Table 1 to subpart J of 40 
CFR part 65.
    We are also proposing special requirements for equipment in vacuum 
service. You would be required to identify equipment operating in 
vacuum service. You would also be required to demonstrate that the 
equipment is operating in vacuum service by installing and maintaining 
a pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator 
immediately and automatically when the equipment is not operating 
vacuum service. If the alarm were triggered, you would be required 
either to initiate procedures immediately to return the equipment to 
vacuum service or to begin to comply with the applicable requirements 
of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J (e.g., comply with the instrument 
monitoring requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.420 for valves in gas and 
vapor service and valves in light liquid service).
    Proposed repair requirements. We are proposing to specify that when 
the standards indicate that you are required to repair a leak, you 
would be required to do so as soon as practical, but not later than 15 
calendar days after the leak is detected. You would also be required to 
make a first attempt at repair no later than 5 calendar days after the 
leak is detected. For leaks detected through instrument monitoring or 
optical gas imaging, repair would include instrument monitoring or 
optical gas imaging within the specified time frame to verify that the 
leak was repaired successfully.
    We are also proposing to allow repairs to be delayed in a few 
specific situations. First, you would be allowed to delay repair if the 
repair is technically infeasible within 15 days of detection without a 
process unit shutdown. We are proposing to require repair of this 
equipment as soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next 
process unit shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner. 
Any shutdown of 24 hours or longer would be considered the next process 
unit shutdown during which you would be required to repair the leak. 
Second, you would be allowed to delay repair if you determine that 
repair personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a 
consequence of complying with the repair requirement and you designate 
the equipment as unsafe-to-repair. Third, a delay in repair would be 
allowed for equipment that is isolated from the process and that does 
not remain in regulated material service. Fourth, for valves, 
connectors and agitators, delay of repair would be allowed if you 
demonstrate that emissions of purged material resulting from immediate 
repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result 
from delay of repair. When you do repair the valve, connector or 
agitator, you would be required to ensure the purged material is 
collected and destroyed, collected and routed to a fuel gas system or 
process or routed through a closed vent system to a control device. 
Finally, for pumps, you would be allowed to delay repair up to 6 months 
after the leak was detected if you demonstrate that repair would 
require a design change such as replacement of the existing seal design 
with a new seal system or a dual mechanical seal system, installing a 
pump with no external shaft or routing emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device or to a fuel gas system. Regardless of the 
reason that you delay repair, you would be required to continue 
instrument monitoring on the appropriate schedule for that type of 
equipment.
    If you delay repair of a valve or connector beyond 15 days, we are 
proposing to require that you repair the leaking equipment by replacing 
the leaking equipment with low leak technology unless it is not 
technically feasible to do so. You would have several types of ``low 
leak technologies'' from which to select. For valves, you could elect 
to repack the valve, replace the leaking valve with a valve designed to 
accommodate specific types of packing or replace the existing valve 
with a bellow seal valve. For connectors, you would have the option to 
replace the flange gasket or the entire connector. If you cannot 
replace the leaking equipment with low leak technology, then you would 
be required to explain why that replacement is technically infeasible 
in your annual periodic report and to keep records of the demonstration 
that replacement is technically infeasible. In addition, if that 
equipment leaks again in the future and you delay the repair beyond 15 
days, you would be required to conduct a new analysis of the technical 
feasibility of using low leak technology (i.e., you would not be 
allowed to just refer to the previous demonstration).
    Proposed alternative standards. We are proposing to provide an 
alternative compliance option specifically for equipment in regulated 
material service in batch operations. If you conduct instrument 
monitoring for equipment in batch operations, we are proposing to 
provide alternative monitoring frequencies to accommodate non-
continuous operation. In addition, each time you reconfigured the 
process components and transport piping in the batch operation for the 
production of a different product, you would be required to monitor the 
equipment in the reconfigured process for leaks within 30 days of 
beginning operation of the process.
5. What are the proposed standards for using an optical gas imaging 
device to detect leaks?
    We anticipate that for some source categories, specific 
requirements for using an optical gas imaging device to detect leaks 
without accompanying instrument monitoring could be an

[[Page 17933]]

appropriate alternative to the requirements described in section IV.A.4 
of this preamble. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the use of 
optical gas imaging as a standalone technique for detecting equipment 
leaks in regulated material service. These provisions for leak 
detection would be allowed as an alternative only if your referencing 
subpart includes a direct reference to proposed 40 CFR 65.450. At this 
time, we are allowing only limited use of optical gas imaging because 
we believe that this technique currently is not suitable for detection 
of leaking compounds in all industry sectors due to the limitation of 
the number of compounds that can be screened using this technology. 
However, we fully expect that the technology will improve over time and 
that the number of industry sectors allowed to use this option will 
increase in the future.
    Additionally, we are currently developing a protocol for using 
optical gas imaging techniques. The protocol will be proposed to be 
promulgated as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Proposed 40 CFR 65.450 
specifies that you must follow this protocol if you opt to use optical 
gas imaging in lieu of EPA Method 21. This protocol will outline 
specifications of the equipment that must be used, calibration 
techniques, procedures for conducting surveys and training requirements 
for optical gas imaging instrument operators. The protocol will not 
specify the instrument that must be used, but it will provide 
specifications and performance criteria that must be met. The protocol 
will contain techniques to verify that your instrument can image the 
most prevalent chemical in your process unit. Because field conditions 
greatly impact detection of the regulated material using optical gas 
imaging, the protocol will describe the impact that these field 
conditions may have on readings and how to address them, as well as 
when monitoring with this technique is inappropriate. These field 
conditions include distance to the target, complex thermal 
environments, position of the sun, background temperatures, humidity, 
wind speed, wind direction, angle to the target and time of day. The 
protocol will also address difficulties with identifying equipment and 
leaks in dense industrial areas.
    We note that, to date, appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 has not been 
proposed for review and comment. When appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 is 
proposed, we will request comments on that appendix K. In addition, we 
intend to provide an opportunity to comment on the application of 
appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging provisions in 
these Uniform Standards.
    If you elect to comply with 40 CFR 65.450, then we are proposing 
that, unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, you would 
monitor your equipment bimonthly, and that the optical gas imaging 
instrument would be required to detect leaks at 60 grams per hour or 
greater. Any image that appears on the optical gas imaging instrument 
screen would be considered a leak requiring repair, regardless of the 
type of equipment leaking. You would be required to follow the repair 
requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.432, except that the monitoring to 
verify repair would be monitoring using the optical gas imaging 
instrument rather than instrument monitoring. You would be allowed to 
delay repair of leaks under the same provisions as if you conducted 
instrument monitoring (proposed 40 CFR 65.432(d)), including leaks that 
are technically infeasible to repair without a process unit shutdown 
and leaks in unsafe-to-repair equipment.
6. What are the notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
    Notification of Compliance Status. We are proposing that the 
Notification of Compliance Status required by 40 CFR 65.225 would 
include: (1) The process unit, closed vent system or fuel gas system 
identification; (2) the number of each equipment type (e.g., valves, 
pumps); (3) method of compliance with the standard for that equipment; 
and (4) whether you used monitoring data generated before the regulated 
source became subject to the referencing subpart to qualify for less 
frequent monitoring of valves and/or connectors. If your method of 
compliance is a closed vent system and control device or a fuel gas 
system, you would include the applicable information specified in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In addition, if your referencing 
subpart required you to comply with 40 CFR 65.424(c) for PRD in 
regulated material service, you would be required to provide: (1) A 
description of the monitoring system to be implemented and (2) a 
description of the alarms or other methods by which operators will be 
notified of a release.
    Semiannual periodic report. We are proposing that the semiannual 
periodic report required by 40 CFR 65.225 would include: (1) For 
compressors that you choose to operate at an instrument reading of less 
than 500 ppm, the date of an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater 
and the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm; (2) for 
PRD in gas or vapor service, any instrument reading of 500 ppm or 
greater more than 5 days after the PRD returns to service after a 
release; (3) for open-ended valves and lines, the date of an instrument 
reading of 500 ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument 
reading less than 500 ppm; (4) for PRD for which the referencing 
subpart states may not release to the atmosphere, information about 
each release, including duration of the release and an estimate of the 
quantity of substances released; (5) if your referencing subpart 
specifies that releases to the atmosphere from open-ended valves and 
lines in an emergency shutdown system that are designed to open 
automatically in the event of a process upset are not allowed, 
information about each release; (6) for equipment in closed vent 
systems and fuel gas systems, the date of an instrument reading of 500 
ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument reading less than 
500 ppm; and (7) for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas 
systems, the applicable information specified in proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M.
    Annual periodic report. We are proposing that the annual periodic 
report would include a summary table showing: (1) The process unit 
identification; (2) the number of each type of equipment for which 
leaks were detected, either by instrument monitoring or by other method 
(e.g., sensor on a compressor seal system); (3) the total number of 
valves and connectors monitored and the percent leaking; (4) the number 
of leaks for each type of equipment that were not repaired; and (5) the 
number of valves that are determined to be non-repairable. The annual 
periodic report also would include: (1) Information about instances of 
delayed repairs, including the demonstration that it was technically 
infeasible to replace a leaking valve or connector with low leak 
technology; (2) for PRD in gas and vapor service, confirmation that you 
conducted all required instrument monitoring to demonstrate that the 
instrument reading was less than 500 ppm no later than 5 calendar days 
after a PRD returned to regulated material service following a pressure 
release; (3) for compressors operated at an instrument reading of less 
than 500 ppm and open-ended valves and lines, confirmation that you 
conducted all required instrument monitoring to demonstrate that the 
instrument reading is less than 500 ppm; (4) for open-ended lines and 
valves, confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to demonstrate 
that the instrument reading is less than 500 ppm; (5) for equipment

[[Page 17934]]

in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, confirmation that you 
conducted all monitoring to demonstrate that the instrument reading is 
less than 500 ppm; (6) for closed vent systems, control devices and 
fuel gas systems, the applicable information specified in proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart M; (7) for regulated sources not included in the 
Notification of Compliance Status due to later compliance dates, the 
information required under the Notification of Compliance Status; and 
(8) any revisions to items reported in an earlier Notification of 
Compliance Status if the method of compliance has changed since the 
last report.
    Recordkeeping. We are proposing that you would keep the following 
general records: (1) Equipment identification (including identification 
of unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment) if the equipment is not 
physically tagged; (2) for unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment, 
an explanation of why it is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor and a 
planned monitoring schedule; (3) identification of compressors 
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm; (4) 
documentation of the determination that equipment is in heavy liquid 
service or is in regulated material service less than 300 hr/yr; (5) 
for equipment in vacuum service, records of any pressure alarms 
triggered and the duration the equipment was not in vacuum service; (6) 
monitoring instrument calibrations; (7) documentation and dates of 
monitoring events, leak detection, repairs and repair attempts, 
including documentation explaining why repair must be delayed and why a 
valve or connector could not be repaired using low leak technology, if 
applicable; and (8) the applicable records specified in proposed 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart M for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel 
gas systems used to comply with this subpart.
    We are also proposing that you would keep the following records 
specific to equipment type: (1) For valves, the monitoring schedule for 
each process unit, documentation of the percent leaking calculation and 
documentation of valve subgrouping; (2) for pumps, documentation of 
visual inspections, documentation of dual mechanical seal pump visual 
inspections and documentation of the criteria that indicate failure of 
the seal system or the barrier fluid system; (3) for connectors, the 
start date and end date of each monitoring period for each process unit 
and documentation of the percent leaking calculation; (4) for 
agitators, documentation of visual inspections, documentation of dual 
mechanical seal agitator visual inspections and documentation of the 
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system or the barrier fluid 
system; (5) for PRD, the dates and results of each compliance test 
conducted for PRD in gas or vapor service after a pressure release and, 
if applicable, documentation of pressure releases (including duration 
and quantity of regulated material released); (6) for compressors, 
documentation of the criteria that indicate failure of the seal system 
or the barrier fluid system and, if applicable, the dates and results 
of each compliance test for compressors operating under the alternative 
compressor standard; (7) for sampling connection systems, documentation 
of the date and amount of each purge; (8) for open-ended lines and 
valves, the dates and results of each compliance test; and (9) for 
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, the dates and 
results of each compliance test.
    If you elect to perform instrument monitoring to demonstrate 
compliance for equipment in batch operations, you would record: (1) A 
list of equipment added to the batch operation since the last 
monitoring period; (2) the date and results of the monitoring for 
equipment added to a batch operation since the last monitoring period; 
(3) a statement that the inspection was performed if no leaking 
equipment is found; and (4) the proportion of the time during the 
calendar year that all the equipment in regulated material service in 
the batch operation is in use, including documentation that the 
equipment is in regulated material service the day you conduct 
monitoring.
    For optical gas imaging, you would be required to keep: (1) 
Identification of the equipment and process units for which you choose 
to use the optical gas imaging instrument; (2) any records required to 
be kept by 40 CFR part 60, appendix K; (3) the video record used to 
document the leak survey results; and (4) the documentation of repairs 
and repair attempts otherwise required by proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J.

B. Rationale

    The proposed equipment LDAR requirements in the Uniform Standards 
are based on a survey and analysis of emissions reduction techniques 
that considered current practices and advances in technology, as well 
as the emissions reduction impacts and the cost impacts for model 
plants implementing those practices and technologies. The options 
considered in this analysis were developed mostly based on current 
federal rules, such as the National Emission Standards for Equipment 
Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU; ``Level 2 
EL Generic MACT''), the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of 
VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which 
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November 
7, 2006 (40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa; ``NSPS VVa'') and the National 
Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 
Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H; ``HON''). Other options were 
developed from state and local rules and would be additional 
requirements not yet included in current federal regulations.
    The proposed requirements for each type of equipment are the 
requirements that we determined are the most effective and reasonable 
for reducing emissions from equipment leaks after reviewing current 
rules and considering the costs and emissions reductions associated 
with each option. As noted previously in this preamble, we will 
determine the nationwide emissions reductions and cost impacts for any 
source category from which we propose to reference these Uniform 
Standards in the future to ensure those impacts continue to be 
reasonable on a nationwide basis, as well as meet any applicable 
statutory requirements (e.g., MACT, AMOS, BSER). The remainder of 
section IV.B of this preamble summarizes how the results of the 
analysis led us to the proposed requirements; a more detailed 
description of the development of the analysis is available in the 
technical memorandum, Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for 
Equipment Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
1. What were the options considered in the analysis and what are the 
cost and VOC emissions reduction impacts of those options?
    We developed six model plants--three to represent chemical 
manufacturing processes and three to represent petroleum refineries. 
The chemical manufacturing models represent a range of process sizes, 
from a simple process with about 1,200 total pieces of equipment to a 
complex process with nearly 13,000 total pieces of equipment. The 
refinery models also represent a range of sizes, from a simple topping 
refinery with a total of about 1,800 pieces of equipment to a complex 
refinery with over 43,000 total pieces of equipment. These models 
allowed us to consider the costs and VOC emissions

[[Page 17935]]

reduction impacts for processes of various sizes in multiple 
industries. We are aware that there are process units and facilities 
larger than our largest model; however, these models were intended to 
cover a range of sizes representing a majority of the process units and 
facilities potentially subject to 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. In 
addition, the options considered for the Uniform Standards that are 
affected by economies of scale will have a greater impact on smaller 
processes than larger processes. We note that for each subpart that we 
propose to reference the Uniform Standards in the future, we will 
estimate nationwide costs and emissions reductions on a source 
category-specific basis. In most cases, we expect that since we have 
developed representative models for this analysis of the Uniform 
Standards, we will be able to use these model plants as a basis for 
each source category-specific analysis. We will then use available data 
from each specific source category to adjust the models to represent 
that industry more accurately, which will provide a better estimate of 
the source category-specific nationwide costs and emissions.
    As a first step, we decided to consider the impacts of implementing 
a LDAR program at an uncontrolled facility. While we expect that most 
equipment in regulated material service is already subject to a basic 
LDAR program, we wanted to evaluate the impacts of that program rather 
than simply assuming that a basic LDAR program is effective. We 
determined the costs and VOC emissions associated with implementing a 
basic LDAR program (hereafter referred to as the ``baseline'') for each 
of the six models. The elements that make up the baseline LDAR program 
are described in the following paragraphs.
    Most current equipment leaks regulations include two types of leak 
detection methodologies: Instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and sensory monitoring. Based on our review 
of the requirements and the applicability of current rules, including 
federal, state and local rules, we determined that baseline was 
implementation of a LDAR program equivalent to the requirements in the 
National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1 (40 
CFR part 63, subpart TT; ``Level 1 EL Generic MACT'') and Standards of 
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic 
Compound Manufacturing Industry for which Construction, Reconstruction, 
or Modification Commenced After January 5, 1981 but Before November 7, 
2006 (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV; ``NSPS VV''). These requirements 
include instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7, for valves and agitators in gas and vapor service and for 
valves, pumps and agitators in light liquid service. The baseline leak 
definition for all of the above types of equipment is 10,000 ppm, and 
each piece of equipment must be monitored monthly, although valves may 
be transitioned to a less frequent monitoring schedule if they meet 
certain criteria (e.g., the owner or operator may elect a reduced 
monitoring schedule if the percentage of valves leaking is equal to or 
less than 2.0 percent). The baseline requirements also include sensory 
monitoring for connectors; pumps, valves and agitators in heavy liquid 
service; PRD in liquid service; and instrumentation systems. Finally, 
the baseline requirements include instrument monitoring of PRD in gas 
and vapor service after a release to verify that the PRD is operating 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm; equipping compressors 
with a seal system or maintaining them at or below an instrument 
reading of 500 ppm; handling of the process fluid collected through 
sampling connection systems properly; and equipping open-ended valves 
and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve.
    We determined the cost and VOC emissions reduction impacts of the 
baseline LDAR program described above for each of the six models. We 
then calculated the cost effectiveness for the six models. The results 
of these calculations are shown in Table 10 of this preamble.

                              Table 10--Baseline LDAR Program Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Model Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annualized                                       Total VOC
                                         Uncontrolled    Capital cost    costs without   VOC recovery        Total         emissions      Overall cost
              Model                      VOC emissions        ($)          recovery       credit ($)      annualized       reduction    effectiveness ($/
                                             (tpy)                        credits ($)                      costs ($)         (tpy)          ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models....   1               10          91,000          41,000         (2,900)          38,000             5.9             7,000
                                    2               79         460,000         130,000        (32,000)          98,000              63             2,000
                                    3              160         860,000         230,000        (62,000)         160,000             120             1,800
����������������������������������----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........   4               30         160,000          57,000        (14,000)          43,000              28             2,000
                                    5              270         960,000         260,000       (130,000)         140,000             250             1,000
                                    6              470       1,700,000         460,000       (210,000)         250,000             420             1,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When we compared the cost effectiveness of the baseline conditions 
for each model to the number of pieces of equipment in the models, we 
found that implementing the baseline LDAR program is more cost 
effective for models with higher equipment counts. This is due to the 
fact that there are several costs in the analysis that are fixed 
regardless of the number of pieces of equipment, such as the cost of 
the monitoring instrument and the number of hours spent on 
administrative activities and preparing reports. In particular, we note 
that baseline is the least cost effective for the model with less than 
1,500 pieces of equipment.
    From baseline, we evaluated a total of five regulatory options, two 
for valves, two for pumps and one for connectors. In each of these 
options, we considered the impacts of increasing the stringency of one 
piece of the LDAR program, each option building on the one before it 
for that specific piece of equipment. We decided to develop the options 
in this manner to consider the effectiveness of each piece of the 
program separately and ensure that the LDAR program proposed for the 
Uniform Standards included the most appropriate pieces. The calculation 
methodologies used to develop the cost and emissions reduction impacts 
for each of the models are described in the technical memorandum, 
Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks, in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
    Throughout the rest of this section of the preamble, we present the 
impacts and cost effectiveness for each of the models. The costs and 
VOC emissions associated with each of the regulatory options were 
compared with the baseline costs and VOC emissions (or the previous 
option costs and VOC emissions, as appropriate) to determine the 
incremental costs and VOC emissions reduction impacts.

[[Page 17936]]

    In Option 1 for valves, we considered the effect of lowering the 
leak definition from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves in gas and vapor 
service and valves in light liquid service. Table 11 of this preamble 
shows the incremental costs and VOC emissions reductions of lowering 
the leak definition from 10,000 ppm (baseline) to 500 ppm for valves in 
gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service.

     Table 11--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Valves (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annualized
                                                         Capital cost    costs without   VOC recovery        Total       VOC emissions    Overall cost
                      Model                                   ($)          recovery       credit ($)      annualized       reduction    effectiveness ($/
                                                                          credits ($)                      costs ($)         (tpy)          ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models....................   1            1,700             360           (350)              15            0.69                22
                                                    2            6,200           1,300         (1,200)              97            2.4                 40
                                                    3           14,000           2,900         (2,500)             360            5.0                 71
��������������������������������������������������------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................   4            1,200             480           (210)             270            0.42               630
                                                    5           13,000           5,400         (2,300)           3,000            4.7                650
                                                    6           34,000          14,000         (5,900)           7,700           12                  650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Option 2 for valves, we considered further lowering the leak 
definition for valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light 
liquid service to 100 ppm. The leak definition of 100 ppm for valves is 
required in some state and local regulations, as well as consent 
decrees. However, we estimate that the incremental costs to reduce a 
ton of VOC emissions for this option increase significantly for all of 
the models compared to Option 1 for valves. Table 12 of this preamble 
shows the incremental costs and VOC emissions reductions of lowering 
the leak definition from 500 ppm (Option 1 for valves) to 100 ppm for 
valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service.

   Table 12--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 2 for Valves (Leak Definition of 100 ppm) Incremental to Option 1 for
                                                                         Valves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annualized
                                                                         costs without   VOC recovery        Total       VOC emissions    Overall cost
                     Model                            Capital cost ($)     recovery       credit ($)      annualized       reduction      effectiveness
                                                                          credits ($)                      costs ($)         (tpy)         ($/ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models..................   1              3,800             960            (62)             900            0.12             7,300
                                                  2             14,000           3,400           (360)           3,000            0.73             4,200
                                                  3             31,000           7,500           (910)           6,600             1.8             3,600
������������������������������������������������--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models......................   4              5,300           2,900           (170)           2,800            0.33             8,400
                                                  5             59,000          29,000         (1,500)          28,000             3.1             9,000
                                                  6            150,000          83,000         (4,300)          79,000             8.7             9,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Option 1 for pumps, we considered the effect of lowering the 
leak definition from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid 
service. Table 13 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and VOC 
emissions reductions of lowering the leak definition from 10,000 ppm 
(baseline) to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service. The analysis 
showed that Option 1 for pumps is more cost effective for the chemical 
manufacturing models than for the refinery models.

     Table 13--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Pumps (Leak Definition of 2,000 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annualized
                                                         Capital costs   costs without   VOC recovery        Total       VOC emissions    Overall cost
                      Model                                   ($)          recovery       credit ($)      annualized       reduction    effectiveness ($/
                                                                          credits ($)                      costs ($)         (tpy)          ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models....................   1            2,200             440           (130)             310            0.26             1,200
                                                    2            5,900           1,200           (350)             830            0.70             1,200
                                                    3            8,300           1,700           (490)           1,200            0.98             1,200
��������������������������������������������������------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................   4              260             200            (15)             190           0.030             6,300
                                                    5            2,300           1,800           (130)           1,600            0.26             6,300
                                                    6            5,800           4,500           (330)           4,200            0.65             6,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17937]]

    While this particular analysis showed that Option 1 for pumps is 
less cost effective for the refinery models, we note that there appear 
to be some anomalies in the values themselves. The large chemical 
manufacturing model (Model 3) and the small refinery model (Model 5) 
have a similar number of pumps, and the annualized costs (without VOC 
recovery credits) for these models is also very similar. However, the 
VOC recovery credit and VOC emissions reductions per year for Model 3 
are over 3.5 times higher than those for Model 5. This trend is due to 
the fact that the calculated emissions factors for refinery pumps in 
this analysis range from about 2 to 5 times lower than the emissions 
factors for chemical manufacturing pumps. Part of that difference is 
expected and is due to the differences in the emissions equations in 
the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017, 
November 1995). However, part of the difference is also due to the 
assumed distribution of leaking pumps in each sector. The distribution 
of leaking pumps at refineries was based on a study of quarterly 
monitoring of pumps in the 1990s (Analysis of Refinery Screening Data, 
prepared by Hal Taback Company for API, November 1997). It is possible 
that monthly monitoring data or data collected more recently would 
result in a different cost-effectiveness value for refinery pumps.
    In Option 2 for pumps, we considered further lowering the leak 
definition for pumps in light liquid service to 500 ppm. The leak 
definition of 500 ppm for pumps appears in a few consent decrees. 
However, we estimated a significantly higher incremental cost to reduce 
a ton of VOC emissions for all of the models compared to Option 1 for 
pumps. Table 14 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and VOC 
emissions reductions of lowering the leak definition from 2,000 ppm 
(Option 1 for pumps) to 500 ppm for pumps in light liquid service.

 Table 14--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 2 for Pumps (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Option 1 for Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Annualized
                                                       Capital costs   costs without   VOC recovery        Total        VOC emissions     Overall cost
                     Model                                  ($)          recovery       credit ($)      annualized     Reduction (tpy)  effectiveness ($/
                                                                        credits ($)                      costs ($)                          ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models..................   1            1,000             370            (12)       350                   0.024            15,000
                                                  2            2,700             980            (32)       940                   0.063            15,000
                                                  3            3,700           1,400            (44)     1,300                   0.088            15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models......................   4              140             440          (0.15)       440                 0.00031         1,400,000
                                                  5            1,200           3,800           (1.3)     3,800                  0.0026         1,400,000
                                                  6            3,000           9,600           (3.4)     9,600                  0.0067         1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Option 1 for connectors, we considered the impact of adding 
instrument monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor service and 
connectors in light liquid service as in Level 2 EL Generic MACT. In 
this option, the leak definition is 500 ppm. Connectors are monitored 
annually, but similar to valves, there are provisions for less frequent 
monitoring if the connectors meet certain conditions. When we evaluated 
the costs and emission reduction impacts relative to the number of 
connectors in the models, we again noticed that the option was more 
cost effective for models with the most connectors. Again, this trend 
is due to the fact that the number of hours spent on administrative 
activities and preparing reports is fixed regardless of the number of 
connectors. Table 15 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and 
VOC emissions reductions (from baseline) of requiring monitoring of 
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid 
service at a leak definition of 500 ppm.

   Table 15--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Connectors (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annualized
                                                         Capital costs   costs without   VOC recovery        Total       VOC emissions    Overall cost
                      Model                                   ($)          recovery       credit ($)      annualized       reduction    effectiveness ($/
                                                                          credits ($)                      costs ($)         (tpy)          ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models....................   1           19,000           7,900           (510)           7,400            1.0              7,200
                                                    2           66,000          16,000         (1,900)          14,000            3.7              3,700
                                                    3          180,000          35,000         (5,200)          30,000           10                2,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................   4           19,000           7,900           (200)           7,700            0.41            19,000
                                                    5          170,000          34,000         (2,000)          32,000            4.0              8,000
                                                    6          520,000          93,000         (6,100)          87,000           12                7,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered annual instrument monitoring for open-ended 
valves and lines. The requirement in nearly all equipment leak 
standards to equip open-ended valves and lines with a cap, blind 
flange, plug or a second valve is intended to essentially eliminate 
emissions from open-ended valves and lines. However, as we noted when 
we proposed amendments to NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006), 
inspections conducted by enforcement agencies have found that many of 
these closure devices are leaking due to improper installation. 
Therefore, some states have begun to require instrument monitoring of 
open-ended valves and lines in addition to requiring a cap, blind 
flange, plug or a second valve. For example, in the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria area of

[[Page 17938]]

Texas, petroleum refining and SOCMI process units in which a highly-
reactive volatile organic compound (HRVOC) is a raw material, 
intermediate, final product or in a waste stream are subject to the 
requirements of part 30, chapter 115, subchapter H, division 3 of the 
Texas Administrative Code. One of those requirements is quarterly 
monitoring of blind flanges, caps or plugs at the end of a pipe or line 
containing HRVOC and repair of leaks above 500 ppm (30 TAC 
115.781(b)(3)). If the open-ended line is used for sampling of the 
process fluid and the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve is 
opened, then the instrument monitoring indicates whether the cap, blind 
flange, plug or second valve was re-closed properly after sampling. The 
monitoring will also indicate whether the open-ended valve is leaking.
    We considered the cost of instrument monitoring for open-ended 
valves and lines separately from the other options in this analysis. 
Since the cap, blind flange, plug or a second valve is required to seal 
the open-ended valve or line and eliminate emissions, we do not expect 
that monitoring would achieve any additional emissions reduction. 
Rather, the instrument monitoring would ensure compliance with the 
requirement that the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve seal the 
open-ended valve or line. The nationwide cost of these monitors would 
be incorporated into the estimate of monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting burden for the referencing subpart. The costs for the model 
plants ranged from a capital cost of $810 and an annualized cost of 
$180 for the simple chemical manufacturing model to a capital cost of 
$23,000 and an annualized cost of $5,400 for the complex refinery 
model.
    Similarly, we also estimated the costs of requiring electronic 
monitoring of PRD. This analysis was conducted separately from the 
options listed above because installation of electronic monitors is not 
expected to achieve additional emissions reductions. Rather, the 
electronic monitors would be used to notify operators when there is a 
pressure release and aid them in ensuring compliance with the 
requirement that there be no releases from the PRD. The nationwide cost 
of these monitors would be incorporated into the estimate of 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting burden for the referencing 
subpart. The costs for the model plants ranged from a capital cost of 
$11,000 and an annualized cost of $1,600 for the simple chemical 
manufacturing model to a capital cost of $130,000 and an annualized 
cost of $19,000 for the complex refinery model. We note that the 
requirement to install this type of monitor would only apply if a 
referencing subpart specifically referenced this section.
2. How did the EPA develop the proposed regulations based on the 
analysis of regulatory options?
    The analysis of regulatory options described in section IV.B.1 of 
this preamble provided us with the information needed to determine the 
appropriate level of stringency for the requirements for the Uniform 
Standards for equipment leaks from valves, pumps and connectors. The 
next step was to determine the details for the proposed requirements, 
as well as determine what other provisions were appropriate to propose 
as part of the Uniform Standards. Rather than developing all-new 
regulatory language to describe these requirements, we reviewed the 
language provided in current equipment leaks regulations. We elected to 
use the Level 2 EL Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU) as a 
starting point for developing the Uniform Standards for equipment 
leaks. We determined that, as one of the most recently promulgated 
standards for equipment leaks, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes 
many of the provisions that we determined through the analysis 
described in section VI.B.I of this preamble are the appropriate level 
of control for the Uniform Standards. In addition, the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT was already organized to be referenced from source 
category-specific subparts. The major overarching change that we made 
to the format of the Level 2 EL Generic MACT was to rearrange and 
rephrase all of the provisions to be consistent with our most recent 
``plain English'' regulations.
    We note that the Level 2 EL Generic MACT specifies certain types of 
equipment that are not subject to any of the requirements of that rule, 
such as equipment in lines with no process fluids. We have elected not 
to propose this specific provision in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. 
Rather, we are proposing the requirements for detecting and repairing 
leaks in subpart J, and we expect that the referencing subpart will 
define clearly what equipment must comply with subpart J. Similarly, we 
are not proposing that equipment in vacuum service would be exempt from 
subpart J; instead, we are proposing the monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements described in section IV.A.3 and section IV.B.5 of this 
preamble.
    We also note that when reviewing the various equipment leak 
regulations, we noticed that while the requirements themselves are 
similar, the regulations are not consistent in defining a leak that 
must be repaired. As a specific example, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 
specifies how to handle indications of liquids dripping that you find 
during a visual pump inspection, but it does not specifically say that 
indications of liquids dripping is a leak. Conversely, NSPS VVa 
specifically states that indications of liquids dripping is a leak and 
that removing the indications of liquids dripping is considered repair 
(although you are not required to conduct instrument monitoring to 
confirm repair in that case).
    We believe that the standards are clearer if ``repair'' is defined 
based on the detection method used to identify the potential leak or 
leak. For example, for a leak detected using instrument monitoring, 
repair requires instrument monitoring to confirm that there is no 
longer a leak, while indications of a potential leak detected using 
sensory monitoring are considered repaired once you adjust or alter the 
equipment to eliminate the indications of a potential leak. Therefore, 
we are proposing in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H that ``repaired'' has 
different, specific meanings, depending on how the leak or potential 
leak is detected. We note that if you observe indications of a 
potential leak (e.g., liquids dripping) during sensory monitoring and 
you elect to confirm the presence of a leak through instrument 
monitoring, you would be required to repair the leak only based on the 
instrument monitoring definition of ``repair'' (i.e., not also based on 
the sensory monitoring definition of ``repair''). Although the Level 2 
EL Generic MACT interpretation and language is different from the 
interpretation in NSPS VVa, we note that the substance of the proposed 
requirements is essentially the same as both these current rules.
    We are clarifying in this preamble that the proposed option to 
maintain certain types of equipment (e.g., such as compressors, PRD, 
open-ended valves and lines, and equipment in closed vent systems and 
fuel gas systems) below 500 ppm above background is considered a 
performance standard and not a leak definition indicating a leak 
requiring repair. Therefore, the instrument monitoring that we are 
proposing for those types of equipment is to confirm that the 
performance standard is being met; it is not instrument monitoring to 
detect a leak. Additional details regarding these proposed requirements 
are provided in the equipment-specific paragraphs in section IV.B.4 of 
this preamble.

[[Page 17939]]

    As we reviewed the regulatory language of current equipment leak 
rules, we noticed that the rules include definitions of some types of 
equipment (e.g., connector, open-ended valve or line) but not others. 
We request comment on whether we should add definitions of ``valve,'' 
``pump,'' ``agitator'' and ``compressor,'' as well as other terms that 
are used throughout the proposed Uniform Standards, but not defined 
(e.g., ``dual mechanical seal system''). The intended purpose of adding 
definitions of these terms to 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, would not be 
to make the standards more or less stringent than current standards. 
Rather, the goal is to ensure that the standards are interpreted 
consistently. Therefore, comments on additional definitions should 
include proposed language for those definitions and describe how 
defining the term would result in interpretations that are more 
consistent.
    The following sections describe the rationale for specific proposed 
provisions.
3. How did the EPA determine that the proposed compliance requirements 
of sensory monitoring for certain equipment are appropriate?
    As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, most current 
equipment leaks regulations include requirements for sensory 
monitoring, as well as instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7. Sensory monitoring has traditionally been 
required for certain equipment for which it is considered not cost 
effective to require instrument monitoring, such as equipment in heavy 
liquid service and equipment that is in use a very short time during 
the year. Our analysis of emissions reduction techniques showed that 
sensory monitoring is still necessary and appropriate for certain types 
of equipment. For the specific types of equipment listed in 40 CFR 
65.428, we are proposing to require sensory monitoring equivalent to 
the monitoring required in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, including 
equipment in heavy liquid service, equipment in regulated material 
service less than 300 hr/yr, PRD in light liquid service and 
instrumentation systems.
    The list also includes equipment types that may not be specified in 
other rules. First, as noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we 
determined that instrument monitoring at the baseline level (i.e., 
10,000 ppm leak definition) is the least cost effective for a plant 
site with less than 1,500 total pieces of equipment, so we are 
proposing to require only sensory monitoring for a plant site with less 
than 1,500 total pieces of equipment. Second, we are proposing to 
clarify that sensory monitoring is required for connectors in gas and 
vapor service and connectors in light liquid service if the referencing 
subpart does not require compliance with the instrument monitoring 
provisions for connectors (40 CFR 65.422). Third, we determined that 
sensory monitoring is necessary for any equipment that contains or 
contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated material service. 
For example, if a valve contains or contacts a light liquid process 
fluid with 3-percent regulated material (i.e., less than the amount 
required to be defined as ``in light liquid service''), instrument 
monitoring is not cost effective and would not be required. However, if 
that valve leaks, there are emissions in that release that need to be 
addressed. We have determined that sensory monitoring is an appropriate 
standard in that case. Fourth, we are proposing that the list of 
equipment for which you are required to conduct sensory monitoring 
includes any equipment for which sensory monitoring is required by a 
provision in proposed 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427. Throughout these 
sections of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, there are exceptions to 
the instrument monitoring requirements for specific types of equipment. 
This proposed requirement will help to ensure operators keep an eye out 
for these potential leaks without placing undue burden on the 
operators. The requirement to conduct sensory monitoring for specific 
types of equipment is discussed throughout the remainder of section 
IV.B.4 of this preamble. Finally, we are proposing sensory monitoring 
for other equipment, as required by the referencing subpart. This 
provision is included partly to provide some flexibility to the 
referencing subpart in defining the requirements for specific types of 
equipment (based on source category-specific and subpart-specific 
analyses) and partly to indicate that sensory monitoring should be the 
minimum requirement for any equipment not otherwise required to conduct 
instrument monitoring or meet a performance standard.
    The change in format (i.e., specifying types of equipment required 
to conduct sensory monitoring in one location and referencing one 
section for LDAR requirements) better indicates that the level of 
control for all these types of equipment is the same. In some current 
equipment leak regulations, these requirements are spread throughout 
the rule with minor variations in language, and it is not clear whether 
the monitoring and repair requirements are intended to be identical. In 
addition, as noted above, the change in format more clearly indicates 
that sensory monitoring is the minimum requirement for all types of 
equipment for which instrument monitoring is not required. While we 
expect that sensory monitoring will continue to be specified mostly for 
equipment in heavy liquid service and instrumentation systems, we 
recognize that if instrument monitoring is not currently required for 
other types of equipment in a specific source category, analyses may 
show that it is not appropriate to begin instrument monitoring in that 
specific source category. In that case, we wanted to ensure that it is 
clear that you would, at a minimum, continue conducting sensory 
monitoring for these pieces of equipment.
4. How did the EPA determine the proposed compliance requirements for 
specific types of equipment?
    Based on the analysis described in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, 
we are proposing requirements mostly equivalent to the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT, as well as instrument monitoring for open-ended valves 
and lines to ensure compliance with the proposed performance standard. 
We are also proposing several new requirements for delay of leak 
repair, including a requirement to install low leak technology when a 
leaking valve or connector is repaired more than 15 days after 
detection (i.e., when repair of a leaking valve or connector has been 
delayed under 40 CFR 65.432(d)). We are also proposing several 
clarifications (relative to the Level 2 EL Generic MACT) and new 
requirements that are specific to certain types of equipment. This 
section includes rationale for those clarifications and requirements, 
as well as some rationale for requirements that we considered, but are 
not proposing.
    Valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service. 
The requirements that we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.420 for valves in 
gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service are 
essentially the same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, including the 
requirement to calculate the percent of valves leaking and the option 
to subgroup valves for monitoring purposes. The differences between the 
Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the proposed Uniform Standards are 
clarifications that are described in this section.
    We are proposing to clarify how to determine monitoring frequency 
for valves in 40 CFR 65.420(a)(2)(i). In the

[[Page 17940]]

Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the decision point for the monitoring 
frequency determinations is expressed in terms such as ``less than the 
greater of 2 valves or 2 percent of the valves in a process unit.'' For 
these Uniform Standards, we are proposing language similar to the HON 
to clarify the terminology for this determination. We are not proposing 
any changes to the procedure itself. If the number of leaking valves is 
2 percent of the valves or higher, you must either monitor monthly or, 
if the sum of the total valves leaking over the previous two monitoring 
periods is three or less, you must monitor at least quarterly.
    We are also proposing to clarify that the provision for 250 or 
fewer valves in a process unit in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT is 
intended to ensure that monthly monitoring is not required and that 
quarterly is the most frequent monitoring required. Regardless of the 
number of valves in your process unit, you may monitor valves less 
frequently than quarterly if the percent leaking calculation qualifies 
that process unit for less frequent monitoring.
    We are proposing to clarify that you are not required to conduct 
instrument monitoring for valves with a valve mechanism that is not 
connected to a device that penetrates the valve housing (e.g., most 
check valves). As we stated in the background information document for 
NSPS VV (EPA-450/3-83-033a, November 1980), a valve that ``has no stem 
or subsequent packing gland * * * is not considered to be a potential 
source of fugitive emissions.'' Therefore, it is not necessary to 
conduct instrument monitoring to detect leaks, and we consider this 
proposed provision to be a clarification of our original intent. 
However, we are proposing to require you to conduct sensory monitoring 
to ensure that there are no fugitive emissions from other parts of 
these types of valves.
    We are proposing to retain the requirement found in many current 
equipment leaks rules to limit the number of difficult-to-monitor 
valves in a new source to less than 3 percent of the valves in that 
source. The Uniform Standards would not define a new source; a new 
source would be defined by the referencing subpart. We are also 
proposing that you would not have to limit the number of difficult-to-
monitor valves in a new source (as defined by the referencing subpart) 
if all of the difficult-to-monitor valves in that new source meet the 
description of low leak technology (see sections IV.A.4 and IV.B.5 of 
this preamble). We also considered requiring all valves in a new source 
to be designed to meet the description of low leak technology (not just 
those that you designate as difficult-to-monitor), unless it is 
technically infeasible to do so. If we included that provision in the 
Uniform Standards, we would consider removing the 3-percent restriction 
on difficult-to-monitor valves in a new source, since the potential for 
leaks from all of the valves would be reduced. We request comment on 
the proposed provision providing the option of designing difficult-to-
monitor valves in a new source to meet the description of low leak 
technology, as well as the idea of requiring all valves in a new source 
to be designed to meet the description of low leak technology.
    Finally, as we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we 
evaluated the impacts of lowering the leak definition from 500 ppm to 
100 ppm for valves. Based on our analysis, we concluded that for this 
proposed rule, 500 ppm is the appropriate leak definition for valves. 
However, we note that our analysis was general and based on assumptions 
that may not be applicable to all source categories. We expect that 
when conducting the analysis to determine whether it is appropriate to 
reference these Uniform Standards from each source category, we will 
consider the appropriate leak definition for valves in that source 
category. If the analysis shows that referencing the Uniform Standards 
would be appropriate with a lower leak definition than 500 ppm for 
valves, then the referencing subpart could specify that lower leak 
definition and override the requirements in the Uniform Standards. We 
request comment and additional data supporting a different leak 
definition for valves in the Uniform Standard.
    Pumps in light liquid service. The requirements that we are 
proposing in 40 CFR 65.421 for pumps in light liquid service are mostly 
the same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. Section IV.B.1 of this 
preamble presents the model plant impacts of lowering the leak 
definition from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid 
service. We also considered additional information when determining the 
appropriate level of control to propose. Specifically, data collected 
through an ICR for petroleum refineries (76 FR 5804, February 2, 2011) 
indicate that 93 percent of the pumps that are currently monitored for 
leaks are monitored at a leak definition of 2,000 ppm. We did 
reorganize the sections slightly and revise the language relative to 
the Level 2 EL Generic MACT to better indicate the similarity between 
the provisions for pumps and agitators. Other differences between the 
Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the proposed Uniform Standards are 
described in this section.
    We are proposing to maintain the leak definition of 5,000 ppm for 
pumps handling polymerizing monomers. This leak definition was set 
nearly 20 years ago, during the development of the HON, based on the 
argument that since mechanical seals cannot be used on pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers, these pumps cannot achieve a 2,000-ppm leak 
performance level. We request comment and any available data either to 
support maintaining the 5,000-ppm leak definition for pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers or to support lowering the leak definition for 
pumps handling polymerizing monomers.
    We are proposing to include the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 
requirements for weekly inspections of pumps subject to 40 CFR 65.421, 
including dual mechanical seal pumps. Like the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, 
we are proposing that if you find indications of liquids dripping 
during a weekly inspection, you could choose whether to repair the 
pump, eliminating those indications of liquids dripping or conduct 
instrument monitoring to determine if there is a leak. We are proposing 
to add a requirement that if you choose to repair the pump to eliminate 
the potential leak rather than conducting instrument monitoring, you 
would be required to do so before the next weekly inspection. This 
limit of time is similar to the 5 days allowed to repair equipment 
subject to sensory monitoring requirements. However, if we required 
repair within 5 days of detection and the next weekly inspection 
occurred less than 5 days after the inspection in which you observed 
the indications of liquids dripping (see the ``reasonable interval'' 
provisions in the General Provisions), then you would presumably 
continue to see the indications of liquids dripping that you are 
already planning to eliminate, and that weekly inspection would not 
provide any new information. We request comment on the amount of time 
provided to repair pumps with indications of liquids dripping.
    We are also proposing an additional clarification regarding weekly 
inspections for pumps consistent with NSPS VVa. The aim of an LDAR 
program is to find and repair leaks. In some instances, the liquids 
found dripping from pumps are not leaks; for example, the liquids could 
simply be condensation from the atmosphere. Therefore, we are proposing 
to clarify in 40 CFR 65.421(c), consistent with NSPS VVa, that if you 
see liquids dripping during a weekly inspection, you choose to conduct 
instrument monitoring and

[[Page 17941]]

the instrument reading shows that the pump is not leaking, then for 
subsequent weekly inspections, you would not be required to conduct 
instrument monitoring when you find indications of liquids dripping, as 
long as the characteristics of the liquids dripping have not changed 
since the last weekly inspection. You would continue to conduct the 
weekly inspection, record the results, and conduct the monthly 
instrument monitoring, as required in proposed 40 CFR 65.421(a). Note, 
however, that if you repair the pump, then the clock would ``reset'' 
regarding the weekly inspections. In other words, if monthly instrument 
monitoring indicates that a leak has developed, then you would be 
required to repair the leak, and the next time you notice indications 
of liquids dripping during a weekly inspection, you would be required 
to choose whether to repair the potential leak or conduct instrument 
monitoring to determine if there is a leak.
    We note that persistent liquids dripping may indicate an operation 
problem that should be addressed by maintenance. If indications of 
liquids dripping are noted for one pump during multiple weekly 
inspections, we encourage you to ensure that the pump is operating 
properly.
    We are not proposing to require you to implement a quality 
improvement program (QIP) for pumps. In the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, 
you are required to implement a QIP if ``at least the greater of either 
10 percent of the pumps in a process unit or three pumps'' are leaking. 
However, evaluation of compliance with current rules that include these 
provisions has shown that these provisions are complicated and rarely 
used. We request comment on whether there is need to include QIP 
provisions for pumps in these Uniform Standards. We also request 
comment on whether we should substitute the QIP provisions with a 
similar, but more straightforward requirement. For example, we could 
include a requirement that if 10 percent of the pumps in a process 
leak, you would have to replace a certain percentage of those pumps 
with dual mechanical seal pumps within a set amount of time. A 
provision like this would achieve similar goals to the QIP, but would 
be much simpler to understand and implement.
    As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we evaluated the 
impacts of lowering the leak definition from 2,000 ppm to 500 ppm for 
pumps. Based on our analysis, we concluded that for this proposed rule, 
2,000 ppm is the appropriate leak definition for pumps. However, as 
with valves, our analyses were general and were based on assumptions 
that may not be applicable to all source categories that could 
reference these Uniform Standards. We expect that when conducting the 
analysis to determine whether it is appropriate to reference these 
Uniform Standards from each source category, we will consider the 
appropriate leak definitions for pumps. If the analysis shows that 
referencing the Uniform Standards would be appropriate with a lower 
leak definition for pumps, then the referencing subpart can specify the 
lower level and override the requirements in the Uniform Standards. We 
request comment and additional data supporting a different leak 
definition for pumps in the Uniform Standard.
    Connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid 
service. We note that the analysis described in section VI.B.1 of this 
preamble showed that the cost effectiveness of requiring instrument 
monitoring for connectors varies widely, depending on the number of 
connectors in each model. In addition, as noted previously in this 
section, our analysis was general and based on assumptions that may not 
be applicable to all source categories. Therefore, it is possible that 
instrument monitoring of connectors could be more cost effective on a 
nationwide basis for a source category in which a majority of the 
affected process units has a large number of connectors. As a result, 
we determined that the best approach was to include the provisions for 
instrument monitoring of connectors in the proposed Uniform Standards, 
but to leave the decision of whether to require instrument monitoring 
of connectors in gas and vapor service and instrument monitoring of 
connectors in light liquid service up to the rulemakings for the 
referencing subparts.
    We expect that we will estimate the costs and emissions reduction 
impacts of the Uniform Standards for each potential referencing 
subpart. At that time, we will evaluate the necessary factors 
(including cost effectiveness, if appropriate) and determine whether to 
require instrument monitoring for connectors. By including the 
connector monitoring provisions in the Uniform Standards, we can ensure 
that the instrument monitoring provisions for connectors will be 
consistent with the instrument monitoring provisions for other 
equipment in the Uniform Standards if we determine in the future that 
instrument monitoring of connectors is appropriate for a particular 
source category.
    Therefore, we are proposing that you would conduct instrument 
monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in 
light liquid service, as in Level 2 EL Generic MACT, only if required 
by your referencing subpart. We did rearrange the paragraphs and make 
small clarifications to the language, but aside from specifying in the 
Uniform Standards that connector monitoring and repair is required only 
if specified by your referencing subpart, there are no substantive 
differences between the connector requirements in the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT and the connector requirements proposed in the Uniform 
Standards. The differences between the Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the 
proposed Uniform Standards are described in this section. We request 
comment on whether there are other requirements for connectors that we 
should consider.
    If your referencing subpart does require connector monitoring, we 
are proposing two requirements to clarify that the connector 
requirements are analogous to the requirements for valves. First, 
connector monitoring data generated less than 12 months before a 
process unit becomes subject to this subpart would be allowed in 
determining monitoring frequency (as well as counting as the initial 
monitoring for connectors). Second, the monitoring that you are 
required to perform after repairing a leaking connector and within 90 
days of detecting the leak is not the same monitoring that you must 
perform to meet the definition of ``repair.''
    Finally, we are proposing to limit the types of connectors that can 
be classified as ``inaccessible'' connectors in 40 CFR 65.416(b). We 
are not proposing to include connectors that cannot be reached without 
elevating personnel (as in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT). These 
connectors would already be classified as difficult-to-monitor 
connectors under proposed 40 CFR 65.416(a)(2). In addition, we are not 
specifically including connectors that cannot be accessed at any time 
in a safe manner to perform monitoring. Instead, we consider these 
connectors to be classified as unsafe-to-monitor under proposed 40 CFR 
65.416(a)(1). See section IV.B.5 of this preamble for additional detail 
about unsafe-to-monitor and difficult-to-monitor equipment.
    Agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid 
service. The requirements that we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.423 for 
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid 
service are mostly the same as both the Level 1 EL Generic MACT and

[[Page 17942]]

the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We did reorganize the sections slightly 
and revise the language relative to the Level 2 EL Generic MACT to 
indicate more clearly the similarity between the provisions for pumps 
and agitators. We are also proposing to include the Level 2 EL Generic 
MACT requirements for weekly inspections of agitators subject to 40 CFR 
65.423 with clarifications identical to those described in section 
IV.B.4 of this preamble for pumps in light liquid service.
    Given the similarities between pumps and agitators in design, 
operation and current regulatory requirements, we considered lowering 
the leak definition for agitators from 10,000 ppm. However, we do not 
currently have sufficient data on agitator monitoring to conduct such 
an analysis. We request comment and additional data supporting either 
maintaining the leak definition at 10,000 ppm or lowering the leak 
definition.
    PRD. We are proposing to require that all PRD in gas or vapor 
service be operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 
above background. No later than 5 days after the PRD begins operating 
in regulated material service again following a pressure release, you 
would be required to conduct instrument monitoring to demonstrate that 
the PRD is once again in compliance with the requirement to operate 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. We 
note that the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes a similar standard for 
PRD in gas and vapor service to operate at 500 ppm above background.
    In addition, your referencing subpart may specify that no releases 
are allowed from any PRD, as release events from PRD have the potential 
to emit large quantities of regulated material. In that case, it is 
important to identify and control any releases in a timely manner. 
Therefore, if your referencing subpart specifies that no releases be 
allowed from your PRD, we are proposing to require you to install 
electronic indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and 
record the time and duration of each pressure release. In addition to 
ensuring that significant releases are addressed, these requirements 
will also alert operators to any operational problems with the PRD seal 
that could be resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. (We are also 
proposing that if your electronic indicator can measure the 
concentration of any flow through the PRD, such that it is capable of 
verifying that the PRD has reseated properly after any release, you 
would not be required to conduct additional instrument monitoring to 
verify that the PRD is operating below 500 ppm above background 
following a pressure release. You would still be required to keep a 
record of the concentration provided by this monitor to demonstrate 
that the concentration is less than 500 ppm above background.)
    We request comment on the proposed requirements, including whether 
the PRD in liquid service should be required to meet the 500-ppm 
performance standard rather than conducting sensory monitoring. We also 
request comment on other approaches we could take to reduce leaks and 
manage releases from PRD.
    Compressors. We are proposing that compressors either (1) be 
equipped with a seal system or (2) be maintained at a condition 
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background. We did rearrange the paragraphs and make small 
clarifications to the language, but there are few substantive 
differences between the compressor requirements in the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT and the compressor requirements proposed in the Uniform 
Standards. One of these differences is for compressors complying with 
40 CFR 65.425(a). While the compressor seal is the most likely part of 
the compressor to leak, it is possible to have small leaks from other 
parts of the compressor. Therefore, we are requiring sensory monitoring 
for potential sources of VOC emissions other than the seal system.
    As noted in section IV.B.2 of this preamble, we are clarifying that 
the proposed alternative to maintain compressors at an instrument 
reading below 500 ppm above background is considered a performance 
standard. We did consider specifying a time frame for repair if you 
monitor the compressor and get an instrument reading above 500 ppm. 
However, we determined that since the instrument reading above 500 ppm 
is a deviation from the standard and not a leak, we should not allow a 
set number of days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, the 
deviation for that compressor would be continued until you return the 
compressor to a condition indicated by an instrument reading less than 
500 ppm above background. To encourage you to take action as soon as 
possible to return the compressor to compliance, we are proposing to 
require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic report the 
date of the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or greater and 
the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm above 
background (i.e., the number of days that the deviation lasted) for 
each compressor. We request comment on whether there are other 
requirements for compressors that we should consider.
    Sampling connection systems. We are proposing requirements for 
sampling connection systems that are similar to NSPS VVa, including 
arranging the paragraphs of 40 CFR 65.426 for clarity. In addition, we 
realize that when collecting gas samples, the tubing or pipe between 
the valves on the sample container and in the closed-loop system will 
contain process gas. This trapped gas does not need to be collected or 
captured because it is not a purged process fluid. Therefore, 
consistent with NSPS VVa, we are specifying that you would not be 
required to collect or capture gases remaining in the tubing or piping 
between the closed-purge system valve(s) and sample container valves(s) 
after the valves are closed and the sample container is disconnected.
    We are also proposing to allow you to collect and recycle the 
purged process fluid to a process, consistent with NSPS VVa. We are 
proposing to add this option in 40 CFR 65.426(a)(4) for design of the 
closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system because the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT requirement to return the purged process fluid 
``directly'' to a process line could be interpreted to mean that you 
could not route the process fluid to a process using any method other 
than direct piping. We intend that use of the word ``collect'' in this 
proposed option means the purged fluid should not be allowed to escape. 
The use of either containers or piping would be an acceptable means of 
complying with this option. Consistent with the Level 2 EL Generic 
MACT, we are also proposing to allow you to collect and recycle the 
purged process fluid to a fuel gas system that meets the requirements 
of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M.
    We are proposing to clarify through the definition of ``sampling 
connection system'' in proposed 40 CFR 65.295 that lines that convey 
samples to analyzers and analyzer bypass lines are considered part of 
sampling connection systems. You would be required to meet the same 
requirements for the purged process fluid in these lines that you are 
required to meet for other purged process fluids. We are also 
clarifying that, for the purposes of this provision, CEMS are not 
considered analyzers, as they are typically located on stacks and are 
analyzing emissions rather than process fluids.
    Finally, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes three options for 
collecting, storing and transporting purged process fluids, and 
consistent with NSPS VVa, we are proposing to add two other options in 
40 CFR 65.426(a)(4)(iv).

[[Page 17943]]

Specifically, we are proposing to allow you to collect, store and 
transport the purged process fluid to a device used to burn off-
specification used oil for energy recovery in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 279, subpart G, because the combustion operation will result in 
destruction levels comparable to the other options. We are also 
proposing to allow you to collect, store and transport the purged 
process fluid to a waste management unit subject to and operated in 
compliance with the treatment requirements of 40 CFR 61.348(a) because 
waste management units meeting the treatment requirements in 40 CFR 
61.348(a) and the management requirements in 40 CFR 61.343 through 
61.347 must achieve emission suppression and treatment requirements 
similar to the requirements for group 1 streams in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart G, which was already provided as an option in the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT.
    However, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes an exception to the 
option to collect, store and transport the purged process fluid to a 
waste management unit that is operated in compliance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G that we are not proposing, 
consistent with NSPS VVa. Specifically, we are not proposing to allow 
you to transport purged process fluid that contains regulated material 
to a waste management unit that has a National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit instead of to a waste management unit 
operated in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
G, applicable to group 1 wastewater steams because NPDES permits do not 
require suppression from the wastewater treatment system. Therefore, 
the emissions from the purged process fluid would not be controlled 
adequately if we allowed you to send purged process fluid to a waste 
management unit that has a NPDES permit.
    Open-ended valves and lines. Like the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the 
proposed requirements for open-ended valves and lines specify that, 
except in certain situations, each open-ended valve or line shall be 
equipped with a cap, plug, blind flange or a second valve that seals 
the open-ended valve or line. As noted in section IV.B.1 of this 
preamble, inspections conducted by enforcement agencies have found that 
many of these closure devices are leaking due to factors such as 
improper installation. Therefore, we are proposing to require annual 
instrument monitoring of the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to 
demonstrate that it seals the open-ended valve or line. An instrument 
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater would indicate that the 
open-ended valve or line is not sealed. Similar to the alternative 
standard for compressors, we did consider specifying a time frame for 
repair for an instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or 
greater. However, we determined that, since the instrument reading of 
500 ppm above background or greater indicates a deviation from the 
standard for the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to seal the 
open-ended valve or line rather than the presence of a leak, we 
determined that it would not be appropriate to provide a set number of 
days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, we expect you to 
take action as soon as possible to properly seal the open-ended valve 
or line with the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve and obtain an 
instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background, and we are 
proposing to require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic 
report the date of the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or 
greater and the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm 
above background (i.e., the number of days the deviation lasted) for 
each open-ended valve or line. We request comment on the appropriate 
requirements for open-ended valves and lines, including any additional 
data either supporting the proposed requirements or demonstrating that 
we should consider different requirements.
    We are proposing to require sensory monitoring for open-ended 
valves and lines containing materials that would auto catalytically 
polymerize or would present an explosion, serious overpressure or other 
safety hazard if capped or equipped with a double block and bleed 
system. These open-ended valves and lines are exempt from the 
requirement to install a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 
because of the risk of serious overpressure leading to catastrophic 
failure and, potentially, greater emissions to the atmosphere than if 
the line is left uncapped. However, we do believe that it is 
appropriate to require sensory monitoring in this case, as indications 
of a potential leak from the open-ended valve or line could indicate a 
leak in the seal of the open-ended valve.
    In addition, we are proposing a few clarifications to the 
definition of ``open-ended valve or line.'' First, we recognize that 
the literal interpretation of the phrase ``one side of the valve seat 
in contact with process fluid and one side open to atmosphere, either 
directly or through open piping'' could lead you to the inaccurate 
conclusion that once you install a cap, plug, blind flange or second 
valve on the open-ended valve or line, you no longer have one side of 
the valve seat open to the atmosphere, so it is no longer an ``open-
ended valve or line.'' However, that is not our intended 
interpretation. Instead, we consider an open-ended valve or line with a 
cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to be a controlled open-ended 
valve or line. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify that an open-
ended valve or line with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve on 
the side that would be otherwise open to the atmosphere is still 
considered an open-ended valve or line. Second, we are adding the words 
``any length of'' to that phrase, so it reads ``or one side open to 
atmosphere, either directly or through any length of open piping.'' 
This proposed language clarifies that a valve with one side of the 
valve seat open to the atmosphere through a very long length of pipe is 
still considered an open-ended valve or line.
    Equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. Current 
equipment leak rules are not always consistent regarding regulation of 
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. We expect that 
closed vent systems and fuel gas systems transport gaseous streams to 
control devices or combustion devices, respectively, without releases 
to the atmosphere. Therefore, we are proposing to specify that 
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems operate with an 
instrument reading below 500 ppm above background. Similar to 
compressors, PRD and open-ended valves and lines, we are proposing to 
require annual instrument monitoring of the equipment in closed vent 
systems and fuel gas systems to demonstrate that it operates with an 
instrument reading below 500 ppm above background. An instrument 
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater would be a deviation.
    Similar to the alternative standard for compressors, we did 
consider specifying a time frame for repair for an instrument reading 
of 500 ppm above background or greater. However, we determined that 
since the instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or greater 
indicates a deviation from the standard rather than the presence of a 
leak, we determined that it would not be appropriate to provide a set 
number of days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, we expect 
you to take action as soon as possible to return the equipment to an 
instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background. We are proposing 
to require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic report, 
the date of

[[Page 17944]]

the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or greater and the date 
of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background 
(i.e., the number of days that the deviation lasted) for each piece of 
equipment in a closed vent system or fuel gas system. We request 
comment on the appropriate requirements for equipment in closed vent 
systems and fuel gas systems, including data either supporting the 
proposed requirements or demonstrating that we should consider 
different requirements.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed general compliance 
requirements for equipment leaks?
    We are proposing several general clarifications and new 
requirements that are not specific to certain types of equipment. These 
clarifications and new requirements are described below.
    Equipment in vacuum service. In the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, 
equipment in vacuum service is exempt from all of the LDAR 
requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting. In the Uniform 
Standards, we are proposing to require demonstration that equipment is 
in vacuum service in 40 CFR 65.416(e), including installation of a 
pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator immediately 
and automatically when the pressure is such that the equipment no 
longer meets the definition of in vacuum service. While we continue to 
agree that monitoring the equipment in vacuum service for leaks is not 
necessary, we do find that it is appropriate for you to demonstrate 
continuously that your equipment is in vacuum service.
    Equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor. The provisions 
for equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor are largely the 
same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We are proposing to clarify that 
equipment of any type for which you are required to conduct instrument 
monitoring may be designated as unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor if they 
meet the appropriate conditions in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(1) or (2). The 
Level 2 EL Generic MACT limited difficult-to-monitor equipment to 
valves and agitators, and we found no technical feasibility reason that 
you should not be permitted to designate pumps and connectors as 
difficult-to-monitor, as well. We are also proposing to clarify that 
the written monitoring plans required in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(4) must 
address repair of any leaks you find when you conduct instrument 
monitoring according to the plan.
    Finally, we evaluated the provisions for inaccessible connectors, 
and we determined that two of the provisions are more appropriately 
classified as factors that make the connector either difficult-to-
monitor or unsafe-to-monitor. In addition, we saw no reason why these 
provisions should be limited to connectors rather than applicable to 
all equipment. Therefore, we are proposing to add ``equipment that you 
cannot access without the use of a motorized man-lift basket in areas 
where an ignition potential exists'' and ``equipment in near proximity 
to hazards such as electrical lines'' to the list of examples of 
unsafe-to-monitor equipment in proposed 40 CFR 65.416(a).
    Sensory monitoring. Consistent with the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, if 
your equipment is subject to sensory monitoring requirements and you 
find evidence of a potential leak, we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.430(b) 
that you would be required either to use instrument monitoring to 
determine if there is a leak needing repair or to repair the equipment, 
eliminating the evidence of the potential leak. We are also proposing 
in 40 CFR 65.430(b)(1) to add a limit to the amount of time you would 
have to repair the equipment (i.e., eliminate the evidence of a 
potential leak) to 5 days after detection, which is consistent with 
NSPS VVa.
    Monitoring instrument calibration. Consistent with the Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT, we are proposing that you would calibrate the monitoring 
instrument with zero air and methane in air. However, we have received 
information that while methane in air is commonly used to calibrate 
flame ionization detector (FID)-based instruments, methane is not 
appropriate for calibrating photo ionization detector (PID)-based 
instruments. The other calibration gas provided in NSPS VV and NSPS 
VVa, n-hexane in air, is difficult to find, as 10,000 ppm n-hexane in 
air is close to the lower explosive limit. Instead, many users of PID-
based monitoring instruments use isobutylene as the calibration gas 
because the response factor of isobutylene is representative of most of 
the gases they expect to encounter. Therefore, we are proposing to 
allow isobutylene in air as a calibration gas. Again, consistent with 
the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, we are proposing that if the instrument 
does not respond to methane or isobutylene, you may use another 
compound in air to calibrate the instrument, so the calibration 
procedures continue to be flexible. We request comment on whether 
isobutylene in air is an appropriate calibration gas and whether the 
use of other calibration gases is widespread enough that they should be 
included.
    To ensure that the monitoring results are as accurate as possible, 
we are also proposing in 40 CFR 65.431(a)(3)(ii) to require a 
calibration drift assessment similar to the requirements in NSPS VVa. 
At a minimum, you would be required to perform a calibration drift 
assessment at the end of each monitoring day. Post-test calibration 
drift assessments constitute good practice and are a useful quality 
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tool to validate the proper operation 
of the monitor during the monitoring period and, hence, the measurement 
data. We note that the proposed requirement for a calibration drift 
assessment is not an effort to make the method more accurate than was 
originally intended; it is intended as an additional quality assurance 
check.
    As proposed, you would be required to check the instrument with the 
same calibration gases as before use and calculate the percent 
difference from the most recent calibration value. If the drift 
assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent, then you 
would have to calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative drift 
and re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with 
instrument readings below the applicable leak definition and above the 
leak definition adjusted for negative drift. For example, if your leak 
definition is 500 ppm and you calculated the negative drift to be 15 
percent, you would calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative 
drift as 425 ppm, and you would have to re-monitor equipment with 
instrument readings above 425 ppm and below 500 ppm to confirm that 
those pieces of equipment are not leaking. If the drift assessment 
shows a positive drift of more than 10 percent, then you would have the 
option to re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration 
with instrument readings above the applicable leak definition and above 
the leak definition adjusted for positive drift. Using the same 
example, you would calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative 
drift as 575 ppm, and you could elect to re-monitor equipment with 
instrument readings above 500 ppm and below 575 ppm to show that those 
pieces of equipment are not actually leaking.
    Delay of repair. We are proposing a limit on the amount of time you 
can delay repair of leaking equipment in 40 CFR 65.432(d). We agree 
that there are times when repair will be technically infeasible without 
a process unit shutdown, and we are not proposing to require immediate 
shutdown to accomplish those repairs. However, we are aware that some 
process units shut

[[Page 17945]]

down very infrequently, allowing equipment to continue leaking for many 
years. Therefore, we are proposing to specify that you may only delay 
repair up to the end of the next process unit shutdown or up to 5 years 
after the leak is detected, whichever is sooner. We believe that a 
limit of no more than 5 years will allow you to schedule repairs during 
a planned process unit shutdown while preventing repair from being 
delayed indefinitely. We request comment on the limit of 5 years; for 
comments supporting a longer amount of time, we request supporting 
documentation and examples demonstrating why a longer amount of time is 
necessary.
    We are also proposing that if you have a process unit shutdown of 
longer than 24 hours, planned or unplanned, you would take the time 
during that shutdown to repair all equipment for which you delayed 
repair until the next process unit shutdown. We expect that you would 
purchase the supplies needed to repair the leaks when the leaks are 
first detected so that you would be prepared to make repairs during an 
unplanned shutdown. You would not be required to begin making repairs 
until the shutdown lasts 24 hours, but you would be required to extend 
the shutdown until all equipment for which you delayed repair until the 
next shutdown have been repaired. You would not be required to repair 
leaks detected less than 15 days before the shutdown. While we expect 
that you would have ordered the supplies needed for repair, they may 
not arrive in less than 15 days. In addition, the delay of repair 
requirements are intended for equipment that cannot be repaired in 15 
days, so it is not reasonable to expect that you will always know in 
less than 15 days that a leak cannot be repaired without a process unit 
shutdown. We request comment on requiring repairs during any shutdown 
longer than 24 hours.
    We are clarifying that you would continue to conduct instrument 
monitoring on the schedule required by 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427 
while repair of the leak is delayed. The current equipment leaks 
requirements do not specify clearly that monitoring may be suspended, 
but we are aware that some owners and operators have interpreted the 
current regulations to mean that monitoring is not required. However, 
continuing to conduct instrument monitoring while repair is delayed 
provides information about the magnitude of the leak during that time. 
If the leak grows significantly over time, you may determine that it is 
appropriate to reschedule the next shutdown to repair the leak sooner. 
You would not be required to report the results of the continued 
monitoring, but you would be required to keep records of those results. 
We are also proposing that for a pump or agitator for which you have 
delayed repair, you may suspend the weekly inspection until the pump or 
agitator is repaired.
    Finally, we are proposing that unless it is technically infeasible 
for you to do so, when you do repair valves and connectors for which 
you delayed repair, you must replace leaking valves and connectors with 
low leak technology (e.g., replacing the valve packing, flange gaskets 
or the entire valve or connector). While it is not cost effective to 
require replacement of all equipment at one time, requiring replacement 
for equipment that cannot be repaired within 15 days would give you 
time to plan the repair and purchase the necessary supplies or 
equipment. In addition, experience has shown that these techniques 
result in a longer period of time before that specific piece of 
equipment leaks again, so you would have fewer leaks in the process and 
likely would be able to take advantage of the less frequent monitoring 
allowed for valves and connectors. In addition, over time, you would be 
required to conduct fewer repairs, reducing the cost and time necessary 
to repair leaks. These cost reductions are expected to offset the 
increases in capital cost associated with the low leak technology 
(estimated to be about 10 to 35 percent for valves; see the 
presentation ``Low Leak Valve and Valve Packing Technology (Low-E 
Valve)'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869).
    We recognize that there are situations where replacing the packing, 
gaskets or entire piece of equipment may not be technically feasible. 
In that case, you would be required to document the demonstration that 
such repair was technically infeasible and include the documentation in 
your annual periodic report. We are proposing that you would be 
required to evaluate this demonstration each time you delay repair for 
a piece of equipment. For example, suppose you previously determined 
that it was technically infeasible to install low leak technology to 
repair a valve for which you delayed repair. If that valve leaks again 
in the future and you have to delay repair beyond 15 days again, you 
would be required to demonstrate that it is still technically 
infeasible to install low leak technology to repair a valve; you cannot 
simply refer to your previous determination. We request comment on this 
proposed requirement, including whether there are other times that we 
should require installation of low leak technology and whether we 
should provide specific circumstances for which installation of low 
leak technology would not be required due to technical infeasibility 
(and if so, what those circumstances should be).
    We note that, as we stated in the preamble to the proposed 
amendments to NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006), 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. Therefore, we are again clarifying 
in this proposal that if sealant injection procedures such as drill and 
tap are a technically feasible type of repair for a specific valve, 
then those procedures should be attempted before you determine that it 
is necessary to delay repair for that valve.
6. How did the EPA determine the requirements for the alternative 
compliance options for equipment leaks?
    Alternative for batch operations. The proposed requirements for the 
alternative compliance option for batch operations are essentially the 
same as the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.1036(c) of the Level 2 
EL Generic MACT. The proposed requirements include the option to elect 
adjusted monitoring frequencies for process units that operate 
infrequently, but we are also proposing to specify the minimum amount 
of time, or ``reasonable intervals,'' between monitoring events 
consistent with NSPS VVa. Section VI.B of this preamble discusses the 
rationale for including reasonable intervals in these Uniform 
Standards, and the reasonable intervals are specified in proposed 40 
CFR 65.280 (the General Provisions to the Uniform Standards). We 
request comment on the reasonable intervals specific to the alternative 
compliance option for batch operations.
    Alternative for routing equipment leak emissions to a closed vent 
system and control device or to a fuel gas system. The Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT includes exceptions from instrument monitoring or other 
standards if you route emissions from leaks of certain types of 
equipment directly to a fuel gas system or to a control device via a 
closed vent system. We considered including these provisions as a 
centralized alternative compliance option in the Uniform Standards. 
However, we believe that these options have limited applicability. For 
example, only certain types of equipment and seals physically can be 
routed directly to a closed vent system or fuel gas system. Therefore, 
we have

[[Page 17946]]

elected to provide the provisions where they are the most directly 
applicable (i.e., with the other monitoring requirements or performance 
standards for that type of equipment). Specifically, we are proposing 
that PRD that release through a closed vent system to a control device 
would not be required to be operated at less than 500 ppm above 
background because any vapors released with an instrument reading 
higher than 500 ppm would be controlled by the control device. 
Similarly, the proposed Uniform Standards provide a compliance option 
consistent with the Level 2 Generic MACT for dual mechanical seal 
pumps, dual mechanical seal agitators and compressor seal systems 
routed to a fuel gas system or through a closed vent system to a 
control device. If you use a closed vent system and non-flare control 
device or a fuel gas system to meet the requirements of this subpart, 
we are proposing that both the closed vent system and non-flare control 
device or the fuel gas system, as applicable, must comply with the 
applicable standards of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In 
addition, consistent with the Level 2 Generic MACT, we are specifying 
that a non-flare control device must reduce regulated material 
emissions reductions by 95 percent or to an outlet concentration of 20 
ppmv and we are requiring a design evaluation or performance test, as 
specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the non-flare 
control device. We are proposing that flares used to comply with the 
applicable standard meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart 
A, as well as proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the closed vent 
system associated with the flare.
    However, we are not proposing the alternative to route equipment 
leaks from other pumps and agitators to a fuel gas system or through a 
closed vent system to a control device. Based on our information, we 
believe the alternative is rarely, if ever, used for these types of 
equipment. We request comment on specific situations for which this 
alternative would apply, particularly from any owners and operators 
complying with a similar alternative under current equipment leak 
standards.
    Alternative for enclosing a process unit and routing equipment leak 
emissions to a closed vent system and control device. The Level 2 EL 
Generic MACT includes exceptions from instrument monitoring if you 
enclose a process unit or portion of a process unit and vent the 
equipment leak emissions through a closed vent system to a control 
device. We considered including these provisions as alternative 
compliance options as part of the Uniform Standards. However, we 
believe that these options have limited applicability, and we expect 
that the types of processes an owner or operator might choose to 
enclose would be limited, based on factors such as the process fluid 
characteristics (i.e., the owner or operator likely would not elect to 
enclose all processes at a facility). Therefore, we are not proposing 
any alternatives or exceptions based on enclosing process units and 
routing equipment leaks through a closed vent system to a control 
device. We request comment on this decision, including examples of 
specific situations in which that alternative would be most likely to 
apply.
    Alternative for routing emissions to the process. We are not 
proposing specific provisions for routing emissions from equipment 
leaks to a process. Instead, we are clarifying through this preamble 
that the line routing the emissions to the process would be considered 
part of the process and would be required to comply with the otherwise 
applicable provisions.
    Alternative for pressure testing. We are not proposing to include 
the alternative compliance option for pressure testing that is in the 
Level 2 EL Generic MACT. Based on the results of comparative testing 
and observations, we have concerns that the pressure-testing 
alternative may not be equivalent to the otherwise applicable LDAR 
requirements. Therefore, we have decided not to include that 
alternative in these Uniform Standards. If there is a specific source 
category for which the pressure-testing alternative is appropriate, we 
expect that the referencing subpart for that source category would 
include the provisions for that alternative.
    Requesting an alternative means of emission limitation. The Level 2 
EL Generic MACT includes specific procedures for requesting an 
alternative means of emission limitation not already included within 
that subpart. However, the provisions in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 
provisions are fairly general, and there is nothing specific to 
requesting an alternative means of emission limitation for equipment 
leaks in the provisions. Therefore, after reviewing these provisions, 
the CAA and the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 
63, we have decided not to propose those provisions within 40 CFR part 
65, subpart J. We are proposing to include provisions within the 
General Provisions to the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart H) 
for requesting an alternative means of emission limitation. See section 
VI.B.11 of this preamble for additional details on these provisions.
7. How did the EPA determine the requirements for using the optical gas 
imaging device to detect leaks?
    As noted in section IV.A.5 of this preamble, we anticipate that for 
some source categories, specific requirements for using an optical gas 
imaging device to detect leaks without accompanying instrument 
monitoring could be an appropriate alternative to the requirements 
described in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. Therefore, we are 
proposing to allow the use of optical gas imaging as a standalone 
technique for detecting equipment leaks in regulated material service. 
However, as we also noted in section IV.A.5 of this preamble, we 
believe that this technique is not currently suitable for detection of 
leaking compounds in all industry sectors, in part, due to the 
limitation of the number of compounds that can be screened using this 
technology. Therefore, we are proposing that the provisions for use of 
an optical gas imaging instrument for leak detection would be allowed 
as an alternative only if your referencing subpart includes a direct 
reference to 40 CFR 65.450. We expect that a referencing subpart will 
include a direct reference to 40 CFR 65.450 only if it is technically 
feasible for the sources in that source category to follow the protocol 
proposed in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. Structuring the requirements in 
this way ensures that the optical gas imaging techniques are applied 
consistently over the various source categories, but provides the 
referencing subpart the flexibility to define clearly when the optical 
gas imaging provisions may be used.
    We are proposing to include a monitoring frequency of bimonthly and 
a leak detection level of 60 grams per hour in the Uniform Standards 
that would apply if the referencing subpart allows you to use the 
optical gas imaging alternative, but does not specify a monitoring 
frequency and/or leak detection level. We believe that the appropriate 
monitoring frequency and leak detection level for a given source 
category is likely to vary depending on the regulated material and 
other industry-specific factors. However, we currently do not have data 
to support setting different parameters, so we are proposing to set the 
levels in the Uniform Standards consistent with the AWP. Unless and 
until industry-specific and regulated material-specific data can be 
gathered using the optical gas imaging instrument, it is not reasonable 
to expect each referencing subpart to set

[[Page 17947]]

a source category-specific monitoring frequency and leak detection 
level. However, if data are available, the referencing subpart can 
include a specific monitoring frequency and/or leak detection level 
other than those set in the Uniform Standards.

V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 
Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M

A. Summary

    This section summarizes the requirements proposed under 40 CFR part 
65, subpart M in this action. The proposed requirements summarized in 
this section are based on the EPA's review of current regulations for 
closed vent systems; control devices used to control process vents from 
reactors, distillation and other operations, as well as from emissions 
from storage vessels, transfer and equipment leaks; and fuel gas 
systems used for air emissions control. These requirements reflect our 
intent to implement a simplified approach to rulemaking that results in 
consistent requirements for these emission points across multiple 
source categories. Subpart M consolidates and simplifies monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements from current NSPS and NESHAP, 
eliminates duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome requirements and 
examines advances in control practices and technology that could be 
considered for control options in future rulemakings.
    In section V of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA 
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators of sources affected 
by the proposed standards. Section V.B of this preamble provides our 
rationale for the proposed requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. 
Additionally, ``subpart M'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, Subpart 
M.
1. What is the purpose of the proposed rule?
    The proposed rule specifies requirements for closed vent systems 
collecting regulated materials from a regulated source under the 
referencing subpart; control devices that are used to reduce regulated 
material emissions from emission points affected by a subpart that 
references the use of subpart M, including small boilers and process 
heaters, oxidizers, absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, biofilters, 
fabric filters, sorbent injection and other control devices; and fuel 
gas systems used to meet the air emission control requirements of a 
referencing subpart. The owner or operator would use subpart M to 
comply with emission standards for any emission unit type (e.g., 
process vents, transfer racks, storage tanks and equipment leaks) for 
which emissions are routed to a control device or fuel gas system.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
    General requirements. Facilities would be subject to some or all of 
the requirements of subpart M when another subpart references the use 
of subpart M for air emission control, or when directed by another 
subpart under the Uniform Standards. You would be required to meet the 
general provisions applicable to part 65 (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR 
part 65) and the general provisions applicable to the referencing 
subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63).
    General requirements for halogenated vent streams. As part of the 
general requirements for proposed subpart M, you would be required to 
identify each emission stream as either a halogenated or non-
halogenated vent stream for purposes of determining which requirements 
of subpart M apply to each vent stream.
3. What are the proposed requirements for closed vent systems?
    We are proposing to require that all owners and operators using a 
control device to comply with a referencing subpart meet the 
requirements for closed vent systems. For a closed vent system that 
contains bypass lines that can divert the stream away from the control 
device to the atmosphere, you would be required to either (1) install, 
maintain and operate a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
for flow that is capable of recording the volume of gas that bypassed 
the control device and is equipped with an automatic alarm system that 
will alert an operator immediately when flow is detected in the bypass 
line, or (2) to secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting 
position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. You 
would be required to inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least 
once per month to verify the valve is maintained in the non-diverting 
position. Use of a bypass at any time regulated materials are flowing 
in the closed vent system that results in a release of regulated 
materials to the atmosphere is considered an emissions standards 
deviation under the proposed rule.
    The closed vent system equipment collecting regulated material from 
a regulated source would be subject to the applicable requirements of 
the equipment leak Uniform Standards of proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble).
4. What are the proposed monitoring and compliance requirements I must 
meet for each control device?
    Under the proposed requirements, you would be required to conduct 
continuous monitoring for each boiler, process heater, oxidizer, 
absorber, adsorber, condenser, sorbent injection, biofilter, fabric 
filter or other control device used to comply with standards in the 
referencing subpart. The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements proposed in subpart M are applicable to all control 
devices. This includes control devices in series with one another 
(e.g., an absorber and a thermal oxidizer).
    For each of these control devices, you must install a CEMS capable 
of measuring regulated material in the exhaust stream of the control 
device or you may elect to install and operate a CPMS, unless 
disallowed by a referencing subpart. You would be required to establish 
operating limits for monitored parameters that indicate the control 
device is meeting the specified emission standard of the referencing 
subpart. For fabric filters, we are proposing that you equip your 
fabric filter with a bag leak detection system with a device able to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor. Additionally, 
the bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system 
that will sound when an increase in PM emissions is detected and which 
does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-
month period; if the alarm sounds more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during a 6-month period, it is considered a deviation. The 
proposed rule provides guidance for calculating the alarm time and 
directs the corrective actions to be taken.
    As part of the proposed general monitoring requirements for control 
devices, CEMS and CPMS must follow the requirements specified in 
proposed 40 CFR 65.711 and 40 CFR 65.712. For each CEMS used to comply 
with the referencing subpart, we are proposing that you operate and 
maintain each CEMS according to the requirements of your CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan. We are proposing that you 
conduct initial and periodic performance evaluations of each CEMS used 
to comply with the referencing subpart according to this plan. In 
addition, for each CPMS used to comply with the referencing subpart, we 
are proposing that you operate and maintain each CPMS according to the 
requirements of your CPMS monitoring

[[Page 17948]]

plan. For each bag leak detection system, you must maintain a CPMS 
monitoring plan, a corrective action plan and records of any bag leak 
detection alarm, as described in proposed 40 CFR 65.724.
    All CPMS would be required to meet minimum calibration and quality 
control requirements, as specified in Table 4 of subpart M. For each 
monitored parameter, you would establish an operating limit, pursuant 
to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.713. Table 3 of subpart M 
specifies the operating parameters, operating limits and data 
monitoring, recordkeeping and compliance frequencies for each type of 
control device covered by proposed subpart M. Tables 1 and 2 of subpart 
M specify the monitoring equipment requirements when using CEMS and 
CPMS. You would be required to keep monitoring system records for your 
CEMS or CPMS, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 65.860. Additionally, you 
would be required to meet the control device-specific monitoring 
requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.724 through 65.800 for the specific 
control measure(s) being used.
    In addition to monitoring, we are proposing that for each control 
device, you must conduct a performance test to determine compliance 
with the referencing subpart unless you meet the exemptions specified 
in proposed 40 CFR 65.702(e). You must conduct the performance test for 
each control device according to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 
65.820 through 65.829 (see section V.A.7 of this preamble). For fabric 
filters, you would be required to conduct a performance evaluation 
consistent with the Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance (EPA-454/
R-98-015, September 1997, incorporated by reference). As a burden 
reduction for existing regulated sources transitioning to the Uniform 
Standards, we are not requiring performance tests for which a previous 
performance test report has been submitted, if the performance test was 
conducted within the last 5 years and was conducted as specified in 
proposed subpart M. We note that some transitioning sources may be 
required to conduct a performance test in cases where new parameter 
monitoring is required (e.g., carbon absorbers). We anticipate that the 
referencing subpart will specify, as appropriate for the individual 
source category, if a new performance test is required or if a prior 
performance test will satisfy the requirement.
    Owners or operators using a fuel gas system to comply with the 
requirements of the referencing subpart would be required to submit a 
statement that the emission stream is connected to the fuel gas system 
in the Notification of Compliance Status Report. Fuel gas systems used 
to meet air emissions control would be subject to the applicable 
proposed equipment leak Uniform Standards of 40 CFR part 65, subpart J 
(see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to the individual 
equipment components comprising the fuel gas system. These requirements 
include specific instrument monitoring requirements for equipment in 
gas and vapor service and equipment in light liquid service, and 
specific sensory monitoring requirements for equipment in heavy liquid 
service and other equipment that meets certain criteria. You would also 
be required to meet the control device provisions in proposed 40 CFR 
65.724 for small boilers and process heaters that are a part of the 
fuel gas system if regulated material is routed to the fuel gas system 
for control.
    For each small boiler or process heater, thermal oxidizer, 
catalytic oxidizer, absorber, adsorber, condenser, biofilter, sorbent 
injection system or other control device used to comply with the 
referencing subpart, you would be required to keep the records 
described in section V.A.8 of this preamble.
5. What are the performance testing requirements?
    The performance testing requirements for subpart M are included in 
proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829. Proposed 40 CFR 65.820 provides 
requirements for notification, development and submittal of a 
performance test plan, and specifies the ``performance testing 
facilities'' that must be provided by owners and operators required to 
conduct a performance test (see proposed 40 CFR 65.820(d)).
    For each control device controlling regulated materials for which a 
performance test is required, the proposed standards specify 
requirements on how to test vent streams from continuous process 
operations, batch process operations and combined continuous and batch 
process operations in proposed 40 CFR 65.821. For continuous process 
operations, we are proposing that you conduct performance tests during 
``maximum representative operating conditions for the process.'' 
Specifically, we are proposing that you must operate your process 
during the performance test in such a way that results in the most 
challenging condition for the control device. The most challenging 
condition for the control device may include, but is not limited to, 
the highest HAP mass loading rate to the control device, or the highest 
HAP mass loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of 
solubility for scrubbing media.
    For batch process operations, performance tests must be conducted 
at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case 
conditions. The proposed standards define the criteria for selecting 
the absolute worst-case and hypothetical worst-case conditions in 40 
CFR 65.822 (see section V.B.6 of this preamble). We are also proposing 
that you develop an emissions profile that would describe the 
characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device 
under those absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions you 
selected. You would then be required to control and achieve the 
emission limit prescribed under the referencing subpart, and conduct 
your performance tests for those periods of worst-case conditions you 
selected (see section V.B.6 of this preamble).
    For combined continuous and batch process operations, you must 
conduct performance tests when the batch process operations are 
operating at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case 
conditions, and the continuous operations are operating at the maximum 
representative operating conditions for the process.
    Table 5 to proposed subpart M specifies the applicable test methods 
and procedures for each test run, based on the type of emission limit 
specified in the referencing subpart. As discussed in section II.E of 
this preamble, we anticipate that the referencing subpart will 
establish the emission limit that best represents the level of control 
needed for the source category. The referencing subpart would provide 
rationale for the format and units of measure for each limit, or, if 
applicable, rationale for the use of a surrogate in cases where methods 
for a specific pollutant are insufficient.
    We are proposing that if you make a change to process equipment or 
operating conditions that would affect the operating parameter values 
of a control device and render the operating limits ineffective as 
indicators of compliance with the standard, you must conduct a 
performance test within 180 days of the date of startup of the change 
to establish new operating limits and demonstrate that you are in 
compliance with the applicable emission limit of the referencing 
subpart.
    We have included additional requirements for performance testing, 
including sampling, duration and calculations for determining 
compliance

[[Page 17949]]

in proposed 40 CFR 65.823 through 65.829.
6. What are the additional requirements for batch process operations?
    In proposed 40 CFR 65.835, we have included a method for 
demonstrating compliance with an aggregated percent reduction emission 
standard. These requirements apply when a referencing subpart allows 
the owner or operator to show compliance with a percent reduction by 
aggregating emissions over the full batch process. To demonstrate 
compliance, the owner or operator would use the proposed engineering 
evaluation methodologies to calculate uncontrolled emissions from all 
batch process operations for a given process that they do not want to 
control. The owner or operator would still determine, through 
performance testing, uncontrolled and controlled emissions from batch 
process operations that are controlled. All emissions from all batch 
process operations (i.e., those emissions determined from the proposed 
engineering evaluation methodologies and those emissions determined 
from performance testing) would then be considered when determining 
compliance with the percent reduction emission limit.
    In addition, we are proposing that you use these engineering 
evaluation methodologies if you choose to develop an emissions profile 
by process for determining absolute worst-case conditions of your batch 
process operations. You would also use these methodologies as part of 
your condenser design evaluation (see the specific condenser section of 
section V.B.3 of this preamble).
7. How can I demonstrate compliance through design evaluation?
    Except for condensers, under the proposed standards, you may 
demonstrate compliance for a non-flare control device by conducting a 
design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, if allowed by the 
referencing subpart. The design evaluation would require documentation 
that the control device being used achieves the emission limit required 
by the referencing subpart. For condensers, we are proposing that you 
must conduct a design evaluation (see section V.B.3 of this preamble). 
The evaluation must also include documentation of the composition of 
the vent stream entering each control device, including flow, regulated 
material concentration and other site-specific information for each 
control device, as provided in proposed 40 CFR 65.850. If you choose to 
do a design evaluation, you would also submit a monitoring description 
with the Notification of Compliance Status. The monitoring description 
would contain a description of the parameters to be monitored and the 
associated operating limit(s), an explanation of the criteria used for 
selection of that parameter (or parameters) and the operating limit(s), 
the frequency with which monitoring will be performed, and the 
averaging time for each operating parameter being measured. Once the 
design evaluation has been conducted and operating parameters have been 
established, the non-flare control device must be operated and 
maintained such that the monitored parameters remain within the 
established operating limit.
8. What are the recordkeeping, notification and reporting requirements?
    We are proposing that each owner or operator of the affected 
control device must keep the records in proposed 40 CFR 65.860. These 
include:
     Continuous records of the monitoring equipment operating 
parameters or emissions. If certain requirements are met, you have the 
option of maintaining a record of each measured value, or block hourly 
average data and the most recent three valid hours of continuous 
records.
     Records of the daily average value or operating block 
average value of each continuously monitored parameter or emissions for 
each operating day.
     Non-continuous records as specified in 40 CFR 65.860(b).
     Records of each operating scenario, each emission episode, 
and each emission profile you develop as described in proposed 40 CFR 
65.860(f) for batch operations.
     Control device monitoring, calibration and maintenance 
records.
     Records of periods when the regulated source, control 
equipment or CPMS are out of control, inoperative or are not operating 
properly.
     For batch process operations, records of whether each 
batch operation was considered a standard batch, including estimated 
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each nonstandard batch.
     Performance test records for each performance test 
performed, as described in proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829 (and 
discussed further in section V.A.7 of this preamble). For control 
devices for which a performance test is required, you would be required 
to keep records of the percent reduction of regulated material achieved 
by the control device or the concentration of regulated material at the 
outlet of the control device, as applicable.
    You would be required to submit the reports in proposed 40 CFR 
65.880, 65.882, 65.883 and 65.884; certain reports must be submitted 
electronically, as specified in the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H 
(see section II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble). As specified in 
proposed 40 CFR 65.880, you would be required to submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status by the date provided by the 
referencing subpart. The Notification of Compliance Status would 
require certifications of compliance with rule requirements, including 
batch calculations and design evaluation records. The report would also 
include the established operating limit for each monitored parameter. 
For halogenated vent streams, you would be required to identify any 
halogenated vent streams as part of the Notification of Compliance 
Status. The Notification of Compliance Status would also include a 
statement about any emissions being routed to a fuel gas system. For 
existing control devices that may be redirected to the Uniform 
Standards as current regulations are revised, you would also be 
required to submit a Notification of Compliance Status. However, in 
order to reduce burden for transitioning sources, we are providing that 
you would be allowed to rely on previous performance test reports as 
part of the submittal, as long as the performance test was conducted 
within the past 5 years and conducted as specified under proposed 
subpart M. As discussed in section V.A.4 of this preamble, some 
transitioning sources may be required to conduct a performance test in 
cases where new parameter monitoring is required.
    You would be required to submit semi-annual and annual periodic 
reports according to the requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.882 and 
65.883. Generally, semi-annual reporting of deviations is required to 
submit electronically, and annual reporting of non-deviation elements 
is required to be submitted in hard copy, as discussed under Types of 
reports in section VI.B.7 of this preamble. We are proposing, under 40 
CFR 65.884, that you submit certain reports at varying times, based on 
the activity being reported, including a notification of the 
performance test, any application to substitute a prior performance 
test for an initial performance test, a CEMS performance evaluation 
notification or CPMS monitoring plan submittal, a batch pre-compliance 
report and certain information, if you chose to use a control device 
other than those listed in this subpart.

[[Page 17950]]

9. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
    We are not proposing to specify a compliance timeline in subpart M, 
so the compliance timeline specified in the referencing subpart would 
apply for that source category.

B. Rationale

    This section provides rationale for the proposed compliance 
requirements for vent streams that are routed to fuel gas systems or 
through closed vent systems to control devices. Rationale for the 
associated monitoring, performance testing, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements is also included.
    In keeping with our intent to provide a smarter, streamlined 
process for rulemaking and ensure consistent standards across multiple 
source categories, we have structured the National Uniform Emission 
Standards for Control Devices to provide a common set of monitoring, 
testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that may be 
referenced from multiple regulations, including NSPS and NESHAP. The 
proposed Uniform Standards in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M are generally 
based on a review of the Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS. Additionally, we reviewed other recent rules, the 
applicability determination index database, test reports and recent EPA 
decisions to identify advances in control technologies, monitoring and 
compliance approaches. This is in keeping with our intent that the 
proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices would 
provide a set of supporting requirements that could be considered in 
future rulemakings under CAA section 111 and 112 to meet the applicable 
statutory requirements.
    The requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS were chosen as the 
best starting point for these proposed standards because they were 
previously developed for the purpose of providing consistent control 
device requirements that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP 
subparts, and they already incorporate some improvements based on the 
EPA's experience with implementation of other subparts, such as the MON 
(71 FR 40333, issued on July 14, 2006) and the HON (59 FR 19402, issued 
on April 22, 1994). We have augmented the subpart SS provisions by 
adding requirements from other subparts to provide additional 
continuous monitoring options, to better accommodate batch processes 
and to provide requirements for additional regulated materials (e.g., 
metals, PM) and types of control devices (e.g., fabric filters, sorbent 
injection) not covered by subpart SS.
    We have developed the Uniform Standards for Control Devices to 
create a set of requirements that will ensure continuous compliance 
with the standards established under a referencing subpart. In 
developing the proposed requirements, we had the opportunity to review 
typical compliance methods for control devices controlling vent streams 
from regulations representing a variety of source categories. From this 
review, we considered the variation in requirements between rules and 
identified the most effective requirements for each control device. As 
such, we are proposing subpart M with more stringent requirements than 
may currently apply to some source categories; however, this stringency 
can always be overridden by the referencing subpart if deemed 
appropriate for the particular source category. These more stringent 
requirements reflect our intention to provide a consistent set of 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that reflect the 
most current control technologies and that are accessible and 
applicable for the majority of source categories complying with MACT 
and that would potentially reference the Uniform Standards to meet 
MACT. These consistent standards, if promulgated, will reduce the 
current overlapping and inconsistent provisions from multiple NSPS and 
NESHAP that may apply to a single source into a single set of 
requirements, thereby reducing the compliance burden for sources and 
government alike. Providing this common set of requirements also 
circumvents any undue burden on a single source category (for instance, 
source categories currently subject to multiple regulations). 
Furthermore, this approach would reduce the number of requests for 
alternative monitoring requirements, which are frequently made by 
sources required to comply with multiple NESHAP and NSPS. The proposed 
Uniform Standards for Control Devices also provide some additional 
requirements in places that we discovered, through our regulatory 
survey, were not adequately addressed by current regulations (e.g., we 
have included provisions for regenerative carbon absorbers that specify 
how the source should handle desorbed contaminants). We note that the 
referencing subpart establishes the applicability of the Uniform 
Standards for Control Devices and the specific provisions of subpart M 
that may apply; therefore, a referencing subpart may structure more or 
less stringent requirements for a given source category as is best 
determined to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER. (See Relationship to 
Referencing Subpart below.)
    In keeping with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, we have also incorporated changes to 
simplify and streamline the language, improve consistency, incorporate 
the latest technical requirements and remove unnecessary regulatory 
burden to create the National Uniform Emission Standards for Control 
Devices. We believe that these improvements will result in a 
consistent, yet flexible set of standards that may be easily referenced 
by multiple source categories in CAA section 111 and 112 rulemakings, 
resulting in a more efficient regulatory process that will benefit both 
regulated entities and government agencies. Throughout this section, we 
will describe the rationale for each major proposed change from the 
previous rules.
    Relationship to Referencing Subpart. In contrast to the Uniform 
Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations and the Uniform 
Standards for Equipment Leaks, the proposed subpart M does not 
establish applicability thresholds or control levels that may be relied 
upon by a referencing subpart. Rather, subpart M requires that the 
referencing subpart establish all applicability, including thresholds 
or tiers. We have developed subpart M without these types of thresholds 
because there is a greater variety of emission streams expected to be 
controlled under subpart M. Storage tanks and equipment leaks are 
generally controlled on a unit level, with a standard configuration, 
and the emissions mechanism by which pollutants are released to the 
atmosphere from these emission points is generally limited. In general, 
these emissions points are single points that, individually, do not 
represent large emission sources, and that all behave similarly. 
Therefore, control of emissions from these points has historically been 
homogenous with applicability thresholds and control levels that are 
easily set; storage tanks, for instance, have historically been 
controlled using preventative maintenance practices, while emissions 
from equipment leaks have been historically controlled by LDAR 
requirements.
    Conversely, subpart M provides requirements for control devices 
that may control a variety of emission

[[Page 17951]]

streams with various configurations, flow and concentrations. It is 
possible for multiple process streams throughout a facility to be 
joined with and directed to a single control device in numerous 
configurations, combining emissions in one stream for control of a very 
large emission source. Furthermore, the number of vents to a control 
device may vary greatly across source categories; some source 
categories may reflect a standard configuration in which the process 
streams require multiple control devices; other source categories may 
reflect a standard configuration in which a single process stream 
requires control. Because of the many configurations that exist for 
individual facilities across multiple source categories, the emissions 
mechanism for process streams routed to control devices may vary 
greatly. Therefore, we have determined that the referencing subpart is 
the best place to determine the applicability threshold or control 
level for a specific source category, as the referencing subpart may 
consider the unique configurations, flow and concentration of regulated 
material within a given process stream or streams.
    The Uniform Standards for Control Devices assume that the 
referencing subpart will establish and provide the rationale for the 
specific emission limits that best support the source category being 
regulated. The referencing subpart would address and assign 
applicability thresholds or control levels for any provisions of the 
Uniform Standards not cross-referenced by the referencing subpart. The 
referencing subpart could cross-reference or make exceptions, as 
necessary, to ensure that the proposed requirements of subpart M are 
appropriate to the source category. For instance, a referencing subpart 
with multiple applicability thresholds may only direct to a portion of 
subpart M for sources meeting one of those thresholds. Additionally, 
the referencing subpart could determine to not direct to subpart M at 
all for certain applicability thresholds. For example, a referencing 
subpart may only require CEMS for streams above a defined threshold.
    Organization of Proposed Subpart M. The proposed rule is structured 
so that the compliance requirements for each control device are 
provided in separate sections. Each control device section includes the 
specific requirements for that control device, including monitoring, 
performance testing, conducting a design evaluation, and recordkeeping 
and reporting. Specific continuous monitoring requirements for control 
devices are provided in Tables 1 and 2 of subpart M. We have organized 
the standards this way to facilitate ease of reading and understanding, 
to congregate requirements for similar control devices in one place and 
to remove redundant text. For example, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 
includes a general section for performance testing procedures 
containing a specific requirement regarding the selection of sampling 
sites for vent streams introduced with combustion air or as a secondary 
fuel into certain types of boilers or process heaters. We have moved 
these requirements, specific only to small boilers and process heaters, 
to a small boiler and process heater section, which is located in 
proposed 40 CFR 65.724. Additionally, although subpart SS includes a 
separate section of requirements for halogenated scrubbers, we have 
consolidated these provisions with the requirements for absorbers. We 
reasoned that a halogenated scrubber is a specific type of absorber, 
and the previous requirements overlapped; combining these requirements 
reduces redundancy and allows for a streamlined compliance approach.
    Because the proposed standards contain general monitoring and 
performance testing requirements that would be applicable to more than 
one type of control device, we have included separate sections for 
general monitoring requirements and performance testing requirements to 
reduce redundancy across rule sections. We additionally congregated the 
requirements for the correct operation of CEMS and CPMS, as well as 
requirements for establishing the operating parameters for each CPMS, 
into individual sections. In addition to the specific control device 
section that applies to you, you would comply with these proposed 
general monitoring requirements, located in 40 CFR 65.710 through 
65.712. Likewise, you would comply with the proposed general 
performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829, which 
include detailed provisions on the methods required for testing. We 
have also designated a section for general requirements for performing 
design evaluations. It is our intent that the proposed standards of 
subpart M, as organized, will have improved clarity and consistency, 
which will facilitate both reading and compliance as the standards are 
referenced in future rulemakings.
    General differences between proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Although the requirements of subpart M are 
primarily based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we revised some of the 
terminology used in subpart SS to provide clarification and accommodate 
the broad range of source categories and control devices that could be 
covered by the proposed standards in the future. The National Uniform 
Emission Standards for Control Devices are intended to provide a common 
set of testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
that may be referenced from multiple regulations, including NSPS and 
NESHAP. Therefore, subparts referencing subpart M may define a range of 
pollutants and pollutant types (e.g., HAP, criteria pollutants). To 
accommodate the variety of pollutants and pollutant types that may be 
regulated under future NSPS and NESHAP, we have used the term 
``regulated material'' to mean the pollutant regulated by the 
referencing subpart. We have also used the term ``oxidizer'' in lieu of 
``incinerator'' to refer to control devices such as thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers in order to differentiate these devices from other 
regulated incineration units.
    We revised some provisions included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 
that are redundant or unclear, including the ``route to process'' 
provisions. Subpart SS includes an option to route regulated material 
emissions from non-process operations (i.e., storage tanks, transfer 
equipment and equipment leaks) to a process for control. The 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting language from subpart SS for 
this option is not included in proposed subpart M, as these 
requirements add unnecessary regulatory burden. The proposed Uniform 
Standards are consistent with the intent of subpart SS, in that owners 
and operators will continue to have the flexibility to route vent 
streams, as necessary, to control releases. However, these emission 
streams will not be subject to additional monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting if they are simply integrated into the process. We have 
assumed that vent streams that are routed to a process would be 
eventually released to the atmosphere through a regulated emissions 
point (e.g., process operation, wastewater stream, equipment leak, 
etc.) or incorporated into a product or byproduct. Therefore, these 
requirements were unclear and unnecessary for the purposes of subpart 
M. We are soliciting comments on this change, including comment on the 
assumptions presented in this section. We are also requesting comments 
on whether some vent streams routed to the process are not released to 
the atmosphere through a regulated emissions point.
    The proposed subpart M does not contain requirements for flares.

[[Page 17952]]

Proposed subparts I and J refer to 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for 
emissions routed to flares from storage tanks, transfer operations, and 
leaking equipment. It is anticipated that for process vents controlled 
by flares, a referencing subpart will reference either 40 CFR 63.11(b) 
of subpart A or include other provisions that are determined to be 
applicable for flares used at the source category regulated by the 
referencing subpart. However, we are in the process of gathering data, 
reviewing flare research papers and test reports, and investigating 
operating conditions that may impact the performance of a flare, 
including situations of over steaming, excess aeration, flame lift off, 
and high winds. Based on this information, we may in the future propose 
to add new flare requirements to the Uniform Standards in subpart M, 
which can be referenced by subparts I and J and referencing subparts.
1. How did the EPA determine the general monitoring requirements and 
the requirements for CEMS and CPMS?
    The general monitoring requirements that we are proposing are 
modeled after specific requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 
which were based on monitoring and inspection requirements previously 
developed by the EPA for use in implementing standards for various 
chemical industry sources. We are supplementing these requirements by 
proposing continuous monitoring through the installation and operation 
of either a CEMS or a CPMS. CEMS have been widely used to demonstrate 
that air pollution control devices are being operated in a manner that 
ensures that emission limitations are being met, and recent regulations 
reflect the increasing use of CEMS as a monitoring device across 
multiple source categories. However, in evaluating the use of CEMS in 
multiple NESHAP, we determined that monitoring of individual regulated 
materials may not be reasonable or technically feasible for certain 
streams. For instance, CEMS may not be available for certain individual 
HAP species, or may not be economically feasible for smaller sources. 
In such cases, parameter monitoring provides an alternative option that 
ensures the control device is operating consistently and continues to 
achieve the required emission limits. This also provides a more cost-
efficient option for some sources, without reducing compliance. 
Therefore, in order to create a set of standards that could be applied 
to a broader range of source categories, we have included requirements 
for both CEMS and CPMS. During the development of referencing subparts 
that will direct to the Uniform Standards, we will continue to assess 
the best monitoring option for a given source category from a technical 
and economic standpoint. We will provide rationale upon proposal or 
promulgation as to why CEMS or CPMS would be more appropriate for an 
individual source category, or whether additional flexibility for 
industry and reduced burden on smaller sources within an individual 
source category could be granted by allowing either a CEMS or CPMS to 
be used. We anticipate that in future regulations, the referencing 
subpart may even override the monitoring options of the proposed 
subpart M and require a specific monitoring technique.
    We have incorporated and updated the CEMS requirements established 
in the MON, which were developed in consideration of a combination of 
monitoring requirements from the HON and Pharmaceuticals Production 
source categories. We have supplemented these requirements with 
provisions based on the CEMS-specific requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. These provisions are consolidated under proposed 40 CFR 
65.711 in order to establish a set of similar requirements for CEMS in 
one place that may more generally apply to sources regulated under 40 
CFR part 60, 61 or 63 in future rulemakings.
    For CPMS, we selected monitoring equipment criteria for overall 
system accuracy and compatibility. These requirements, which ensure 
accuracy in measurements and provide confidence for testing results, 
were inconsistently provided in previous regulations. When these 
criteria are not established, there is potential that sources could 
elect to use very costly CPMS equipment, which is inappropriate or 
ineffective for measuring certain parameters and, therefore, provides 
inadequate data for the source category. By applying a consistent set 
of criteria that applies to multiple source categories, we are 
improving data accuracy, reducing potential costs and removing undue 
burden for specific source categories. We are requesting comment on 
whether the proposed approach for establishing CEMS calibration ranges 
and assessing performance will adequately ensure the accuracy of the 
reported average emissions that might include measurements at 
concentrations above the span value. We are also seeking comments on 
how owners and operators of CPMS are currently employing quality 
control and calibration methods. Additionally, we welcome information 
on the lifetime and degradation of CPMS equipment used to measure 
temperature, liquid or gas volumetric flow, pH, mass flow, pressure and 
sorbent injection; and whether a ``sunset period'' for existing CPMS 
equipment is necessary in cases where the lifetime of the monitoring 
components is limited.
    The requirements for measurement range were selected to ensure that 
the CPMS could detect and record measurements beyond the normal 
operating range. We believe that requiring a range of at least 20 
percent beyond the normal operating range is reasonable and the minimum 
measurement range needed to encompass most deviations. Owners and 
operators may desire to select equipment with even wider ranges if it 
is likely that measurements beyond 20 percent of the normal operating 
range will occur. Additionally, we are requiring a resolution of one-
half the accuracy requirement or better to ensure that the accuracy of 
the CPMS can be calculated to at least the minimum number of 
significant figures for the data accuracy assessment to be meaningful. 
Selecting a resolution of one-half the required accuracy ensures that 
measurements made during validation checks can be readily compared to 
the accuracy requirement. We are soliciting comments on whether the 
proposed measurement range and accuracy requirements are reasonable and 
consistent with what is currently being used.
    We are proposing calibration and quality control requirements for 
CPMS to ensure that measured parameter data is accurate to demonstrate 
compliance with the referencing subpart. These measures, which 
establish requirements for the design, operation and evaluation of 
CPMS, are intended to ensure the generation of good quality data both 
initially and on an ongoing basis and determine that the control device 
is meeting the required emission limit, as specified in the referencing 
subpart. The specifications are located in Table 4 to proposed subpart 
M and would apply if you were to use a temperature, liquid or gas 
volumetric flow, pH, mass flow, pressure or sorbent injection 
measurement device to determine compliance with an operating limit. 
These requirements also reflect the EPA's intention to improve the 
quality of data collected and disseminated by the agency, which will 
improve the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, future 
air quality regulations.
    For temperature CPMS, we reviewed rules promulgated under parts 60, 
61 and 63 that specify accuracy requirements for temperature. Although 
there is a wide range of accuracies specified in these rules, the 
accuracy

[[Page 17953]]

required for temperature CPMS associated with high temperature (non-
cryogenic) applications, such as thermal oxidizers or boilers, 
generally ranges from 0.75 to 1.0 percent or from 0.5 degrees Celsius 
to 2.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit to 4.5 degrees 
Fahrenheit). For lower temperature (cryogenic) applications, such as 
wet scrubbers, the specified percent accuracies often are not as 
stringent; that is, accuracies are specified as a higher percentage of 
the measured temperature. The reason for specifying higher-percentage 
accuracy for lower temperature ranges is to offset the fact that the 
accuracy percentage applies to a lower value. Our selection of 
temperature accuracies of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) or 
1 percent for non-cryogenic applications, and 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 
degrees Fahrenheit) or 2.5 percent for cryogenic applications is 
consistent with the required accuracies for most standards, and we 
believe that the accuracies specified in the proposed performance 
specifications are adequate for ensuring good quality data. In 
addition, a review of vendor literature indicates that temperature CPMS 
that satisfy these accuracy requirements are readily available at 
reasonable costs.
    Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61 and 63 that require flow rate 
monitoring specify flow rate accuracy in terms of percent. For liquid 
flow rate measurement, these rules generally require accuracies of 5 
percent, and rules that require steam flow rate monitoring generally 
require an accuracy of 10 percent or better. We have revised these 
performance specifications in the proposed subpart M to require 
accuracies of 2 percent over the normal range of flow measured. Based 
on our review of vendor literature, we determined a 2-percent accuracy 
criterion is appropriate and available. Recognizing the differences in 
the relative magnitudes and the commonly used units of flow rate 
measurement for liquids and gases, we have specified in the proposed 
performance standards separate accuracy criteria for liquid and gas 
flow rates. For liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically are associated 
with wet scrubber operation, the minimum accuracy would be 1.9 liters 
per minute (0.5 gallons per minute) or 2 percent, whichever is greater. 
For gas flow rate CPMS, which often are used to monitor stack gas flow 
rate, the proposed performance specifications would require a minimum 
accuracy of 28 liters per minute (10 cubic feet/minute) or 2 percent, 
whichever is greater. The relative accuracy criterion of 2 percent was 
selected because the proposed Uniform Standards have been developed to 
provide the greatest level of air emissions control that may be 
required by a referencing subpart. As advancements in technology have 
improved (and are estimated to continue to improve), we have determined 
that future rulemakings would require more stringent accuracy 
requirements, and a 2-percent accuracy criterion is reasonable and 
achievable for the currently available flow CPMS. We note that these 
requirements could be revised by the referencing subpart, if a higher 
or lower accuracy is deemed more appropriate for a specific source 
category.
    Although we have incorporated an accuracy criteria for liquid flow 
rate and gas flow rate as a percent of flow rate and in units of 
volumetric flow in proposed subpart M, we have concluded that it would 
not be reasonable to specify accuracy criteria for mass flow in units 
of mass flow because of the wide range of flow rates that could be 
monitored (e.g., carbon injection rate v. rotary kiln raw material feed 
rate). As discussed above for liquid flow rate and gas flow rate, the 
2-percent accuracy criterion is based on our review of vendor 
literature and is a reasonable and achievable requirement for the 
currently available mass flow CPMS.
    Manufacturer and vendor literature indicates that pH CPMS generally 
have accuracies of 0.01 to 0.15 pH units. Based largely on the vendor 
literature, we have decided to require pH CPMS to have accuracies of 
0.2 pH units or better. An accuracy of 0.2 pH units should allow most 
facilities that currently monitor pH to continue using their pH CPMS, 
provided the CPMS satisfies the other criteria specified in the 
proposed Uniform Standards for Control Devices.
    For pressure monitoring, we reviewed the existing part 60, 61 and 
63 rules that require pressure monitoring. These rules also specify a 
minimum accuracy. The accuracy specified generally is either 0.25 to 
0.5 kilopascals (kPa) (1 to 2 inch water column (in. wc)) or 5 percent 
for pressure drop, and 5 to 15 percent for liquid supply pressure. A 
review of vendor literature indicates that most pressure transducers 
are accurate from 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all but the lowest grade 
(Grade D) of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-rated 
pressure gauges have accuracies better than 5 percent. For the proposed 
performance specifications for CPMS, we selected an accuracy 
requirement of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc) or 1.0 percent, whichever is 
greater. We believe this level of accuracy is appropriate, considering 
that some control devices operate with pressure drops of less than 1.2 
kPa (5 in. wc). This criterion was selected because the proposed 
Uniform Standards have been developed to provide the greatest level of 
air emissions control that may be required by a referencing subpart. 
The one percent criterion is consistent with vendor literature, which 
indicates that CPMS that are capable of achieving this accuracy are 
readily available.
    For sorbent injection, we are specifying accuracy requirements of 
within 5 percent of the normal range for the sorbent injection rate, 
with annual performance evaluations and 3-month visual checks. These 
requirements are consistent with the accuracy requirements for other 
CPMS, including the requirements for carrier gas flow rate monitors (a 
similar type of monitor) in the Standards of Performance for New Sewage 
Sludge Incineration Units (76 FR 15404, March 21, 2011).
    If your operation could be intermittent, we are requiring that you 
install and operate a flow indicator to identify periods of flow and no 
flow at the inlet or outlet of the control device. The proposed 
requirements are necessary to identify periods when monitored parameter 
or emission readings are not required or erroneous and should not be 
included in the daily or operating block average values. It is not 
necessary to monitor a control device during periods when regulated 
material is not routed to the control, and monitoring data during these 
times should not be averaged in calculating the daily or operating 
block average. We are proposing an annual verification check of the 
flow indicator to ensure that it is correctly identifying periods of no 
flow. We are not considering the flow indicator to be a CPMS that must 
meet all the provisions of proposed 40 CFR 65.712.
    We are proposing to include monitoring requirements from the 
General Provisions of parts 60, 61 and 63 in the monitoring sections of 
subpart M. This places all the applicable requirements associated with 
monitoring (including quality checks, monitoring plan requirements, 
calibration, monitoring data reduction, recordkeeping and reporting) in 
one place and consolidated using consistent terminology. For instance, 
we are including provisions for a CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan and a CPMS monitoring plan (formerly the ``site-
specific performance evaluation plan'') from the part 63 General 
Provisions (40 CFR 63.8) in proposed 40 CFR 65.711 and 65.712,

[[Page 17954]]

respectively. Subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 states that a specific 
subpart will indicate whether the plan must be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval. In the proposed rule, we are requiring that 
the plan be sent to the Administrator for approval for sources 
regulated under parts 60 and 61, as well as 40 CFR part 63. We have 
determined that a CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan or a 
CPMS monitoring plan, as appropriate, is necessary under subpart M to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits of a referencing 
subpart. However, the source must comply with the CEMS performance 
evaluation and monitoring plan or the CPMS monitoring plan upon 
submitting it to the Administrator. Changes may be necessary when the 
Administrator completes the review.
2. How did the EPA determine the requirements for closed vent systems?
    Under the proposed standards, all closed vent systems would be 
required to meet the applicable provisions of proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to the 
individual equipment components that comprise the closed vent system. 
In previous rules, equipment that are in closed vent systems have been 
subject to annual monitoring and have not been subject to more frequent 
monitoring. We are proposing these requirements to ensure that a vent 
stream in regulated material service is properly routed to the closed 
vent system and delivered to the control device for reduction. The 
proposed rule also requires you to install and maintain a CPMS for flow 
through a bypass for each closed vent system bypass line that could 
divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. The CPMS for flow must be 
capable of recording the volume of the gas that bypasses the control 
device and be equipped with an alarm system that will alert an operator 
immediately and automatically when flow is detected in the bypass. 
These provisions are to ensure that any flow directed through a bypass 
is detected and identified by the operator. Alternatively, you may 
secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with a seal 
mechanism. For this option, you would be required to inspect the seal 
or closure mechanism at least once per month to confirm that the valve 
is in the non-diverting position, or, for a lock-and-key type lock, 
maintain records that the key has been checked out. If the alarm sounds 
or if it is determined during the monthly inspection that a bypass has 
occurred, you would be required to report a deviation and to include an 
estimate of the resulting emissions of regulated material that bypassed 
the control device. The EPA's intent is that control devices are not to 
be bypassed; therefore, use of the bypass at any time to divert a 
regulated vent stream to the atmosphere would be a deviation from the 
emissions standards set forth by the referencing subpart.
    We have not included requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 
that provided monitoring exclusions for equipment such as PRD, low leg 
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves or 
lines needed for safety purposes. This equipment could provide a means 
of bypassing the control device; therefore, we are proposing bypass 
monitoring for these devices under subpart M of the proposed standards. 
It is our intent that analyzer vents should be subject to the control 
requirements for sampling connection systems in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
UU. Additionally, applying the bypass monitoring requirements to PRD, 
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves 
or lines are consistent with the District of Columbia Circuit Court's 
2008 ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, which states that emission standards 
must apply at all times (see section VI.B.5 of this preamble). For a 
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these monitoring 
requirements, see section VII of this preamble.
    Following the guidance of Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, we have not included requirements 
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that we determined were redundant or an 
unnecessary burden on sources. For instance, although we are not 
changing the intent of the requirements from subpart SS, we have not 
included language providing specific instructions for bypass monitoring 
for loading arms and PRD at transfer racks; specifically, these 
provisions required that closed vent systems collecting regulated 
material from a transfer rack be operated such that regulated material 
vapors collected at one loading arm would not pass through another 
loading arm to the atmosphere. For PRD, the requirements prevented the 
PRD in the transfer rack's closed vent system from opening to the 
atmosphere during loading. These provisions are equivalently handled 
under the general bypass monitoring requirements of proposed 40 CFR 
65.720(c) for closed vent systems, in which you would be required to 
prevent diversion of the stream to the atmosphere. Therefore, we are 
not including specific language associated with bypasses from transfer 
rack closed vent systems, as this additional language is redundant to 
the general bypass requirement. The requirement not to bypass remains.
3. How did the EPA determine the proposed compliance requirements for 
each control device?
    For each control device, we are proposing that you meet the 
continuous monitoring requirements of Table 1 or Table 2 to subpart M. 
Table 1 to subpart M provides the requirements for facilities who 
comply with the referencing subpart using CEMS. We have consolidated 
the specific parametric monitoring requirements for each control device 
in Table 2 to subpart M to provide the requirements in a simplified, 
easily referenced format to facilitate compliance.
    You must conduct a performance test for each control device 
according to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829, 
unless you meet the general control measures of proposed 40 CFR 
65.702(e). A performance test is required because emissions measurement 
remains the best method to demonstrate initial compliance with 
regulations and determine control device performance. However, we have 
made exceptions for: (1) Control devices for which a CEMS is used to 
monitor the performance, (2) when the referencing subpart allows a 
design evaluation in lieu of a performance test or (3) if certain 
provisions have been made for a performance test extension, exemption 
or waiver. These exemptions allow greater flexibility for referencing 
subparts and are consistent with our desire to provide workable, 
consolidated requirements that could apply across multiple source 
categories.
    Small boilers and process heaters. The proposed standards under 
subpart M include requirements that apply to small boilers and process 
heaters used to control emissions of regulated materials. Small boilers 
and process heaters are defined in the proposed rule as having a 
capacity less than 44 megawatts (MW) and a design such that the vent 
stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary fuel. 
The capacity threshold and the monitoring, performance testing and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these units were modeled 
after 40 CFR 63, subpart SS. We have modified these provisions for the 
proposed Uniform Standards to provide clarification for requirements 
that were found to be confusing during the implementation of subpart 
SS. Under subpart SS, the requirements for boilers and process heaters 
overlapped

[[Page 17955]]

with the requirements for fuel gas systems.
    Fuel gas system is defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS broadly as 
the ``* * * piping * * * that gathers gaseous streams for use as fuel 
gas in combustion devices. * * *'' Therefore, owners or operators that 
use a boiler or process heater to combust vent gas could be subject to 
either the boiler and process heater or the fuel gas system 
requirements. The testing and monitoring requirements under the control 
device and fuel gas system provisions of subpart SS are the same for 
boilers or process heaters larger than 44 MW or which have the vent gas 
introduced with or as the primary fuel; performance testing and 
monitoring are not required for vent gas routed to a fuel gas system, a 
boiler or process heater larger than 44 MW or a boiler or process 
heater in which the vent gas is introduced as or with the primary fuel. 
However, under the control device provisions of subpart SS, performance 
testing and monitoring is required in those situations in which the 
vent gas is introduced with combustion air or as a secondary fuel into 
a boiler or process heater smaller than 44 MW. Conversely, if these 
units (smaller than 44 MW) are part of a fuel gas system, monitoring 
and testing is not required under subpart SS. We propose to clarify the 
requirements by differentiating small boilers (less than 44 MW) with 
vent gas introduced to the boiler with combustion air or as a secondary 
fuel from larger units and those units with vent gas introduced as or 
with the primary fuel. Therefore, we have distinguished separate 
requirements for performance testing and monitoring for small boilers 
and process heaters under proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829, with 
specific parametric monitoring requirements specified in Table 2 of 
subpart M. Units not considered small boilers or process heaters would 
be required to meet the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.732 for fuel 
gas systems. The proposed fuel gas system provisions also specify that 
any small boilers or process heaters that are part of a fuel gas system 
must meet the requirements of the small boiler and process heater 
provisions. These changes clarify whether each unit would be subject to 
the requirements for boilers and process heaters or the requirements 
for fuel gas systems.
    Additionally, we are not incorporating the requirements of 40 CFR 
63.988(a)(3), which stipulate that the vent stream from the boiler or 
oxidizer must be introduced into the flame zone. Although we are 
preserving the intent of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we have reasoned 
that this language is superfluous. We are proposing to clarify the 
definition of small boilers in this category as having a design such 
that the vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a 
secondary fuel. It is assumed that secondary fuel and combustion air 
are introduced into the flame zone and, therefore, the vent gas would 
be introduced into the flame zone.
    In the proposed rule, we have not included the exemptions from 
conducting a performance test or design evaluation included in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS for small boilers and process heaters which have 
been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and comply with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H or which have certified 
compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 
subpart H. It is our expectation that these facilities are no longer 
subject to the air emissions requirements under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act permitting rules (other than requirements 
that pertain during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM)); rather, 
all boilers and oxidizers previously subject to these requirements are 
now subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. We have included a 
performance test exemption for small boilers or process heaters burning 
hazardous waste who have certified compliance with the requirements of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE by conducting comprehensive performance 
tests and submitting a Notification of Compliance Status per 40 CFR 
63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d), and who comply with these requirements at 
all times, even when burning non-hazardous waste. Additionally, we have 
not included the subpart SS provision allowing owners or operators of 
small boilers and process heaters with a minimum temperature of 760 
degrees Celsius and a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds to omit the 
rationale for these design parameters in the design evaluation (40 CFR 
63.985(b)(1)(i)(B)) documentation. This minimum temperature and 
residence time does not necessarily ensure a 95- or 98-percent 
reduction efficiency for all possible emission stream chemical 
compositions (see technical memorandum, Design Criteria for Combustion, 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868). Because the Uniform Standards 
are designed to provide requirements for a variety of source categories 
and emission streams, we are not proposing this exception to design 
evaluation rationale. Instead, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator of the small boiler or process heater be required to consider 
the auto-ignition temperature and the residence time when developing 
the rationale showing that their small boiler or process heater meets 
the applicable control efficiency and that their chosen operating 
parameters and ranges are appropriate. The owner or operator may 
determine that the appropriate temperature and residence time are 760 
degrees Celsius and 0.5 seconds for their process; however, under the 
proposed rule, they would have to provide the rationale in their design 
evaluation documentation (see technical memorandum, Design Criteria for 
Combustion, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868).
    Oxidizers. We are proposing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for oxidizers, based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We are 
proposing the requirements for thermal oxidizers and catalytic 
oxidizers in 40 CFR 65.726 and 65.728, respectively; these provisions 
are included in separate sections for ease of reading and to 
accommodate the additional monitoring requirements that are necessary 
to ensure compliance for catalytic oxidizers.
    For catalytic oxidizers, we are including sampling, analysis and 
inspection requirements to ensure that the oxidizer is capable of 
meeting the required emission limits specified in the referencing 
subpart. We are including a monitoring method for inlet temperature 
monitoring, provided the difference between the inlet and outlet 
temperature of the catalytic bed is less than 10 degrees Celsius. A 
differential of 10 degrees Celsius was chosen based upon the accuracy 
requirements of temperature monitoring systems specified in this 
standard, and the typical operating temperature of a catalytic 
oxidizer. Allowing for measurement error on both sides of the oxidizer 
(inlet and outlet), 10 degrees Celsius was determined to be a range 
within measurement capability. The proposed method would allow you to 
determine a schedule for sampling and analysis of the catalyst 
activity, based on the degradation rate of the catalyst. If results 
from the catalyst sampling and analysis indicate that your catalyst 
will become inactive within the next 18 months, you would be required 
to replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent 
with the manufacturer's recommendations by 3 months before the catalyst 
is anticipated to become inactive or within half the time available 
between receiving the catalyst activity report and when the catalyst is 
expected to become inactive, whichever is less.

[[Page 17956]]

    Additionally, you would be required to conduct an annual internal 
inspection of the catalyst bed. The inspection frequency would increase 
to semiannual or a more stringent frequency, as specified in proposed 
40 CFR 65.728(a)(2)(ii), if any issues are found during the annual 
inspection that require corrective action. These requirements are based 
on our survey of the MON and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
Surface Coating NESHAP, which included similar alternatives for 
monitoring the inlet stream temperature. The MON provided an option for 
monitoring the inlet stream temperature with the requirement of a 12-
month check of the catalyst bed; this option was provided to 
accommodate emissions streams with low flow or diluted concentrations 
in which it would not always be possible to achieve a measurable 
temperature differential.
    As determined under the MON, when monitoring only the inlet 
temperature, a catalyst-activity-level check also is needed. This is 
because catalyst beds can become poisoned and rendered ineffective 
without any apparent change in operation. The proposed sampling, 
analysis and inspection requirements discussed above are modeled after 
the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP, 
which expand on the MON's requirement to conduct a 12-month check of 
the catalyst bed. We are providing the option to determine the schedule 
for sampling and analysis based on the degradation of the catalyst to 
provide flexibility for multiple source categories that may reference 
the Uniform Standards, while ensuring that catalyst beds are replaced 
or that other corrective actions are taken in a timely manner. A 
referencing subpart may determine the specific sampling and analysis 
schedule, in order to ensure compliance, prevent excessive downtime or 
avoid unreasonable costs to an individual source category.
    We have included this option in subpart M only for sources in which 
the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of the 
catalytic oxidizer during normal operating conditions is less than 10 
degrees Celsius. We are not proposing this option for sources with a 
temperature differential of greater than 10 degrees Celsius because 
inlet and outlet temperature monitoring is a more accurate method of 
parameter monitoring and should be used, if possible, to measure the 
temperature differential.
    As discussed for small boilers and process heaters in this section, 
we have not included the design evaluation or performance test 
exemptions included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for oxidizers that 
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, but only 
those oxidizers burning hazardous waste who have certified compliance 
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Additionally, as 
discussed for small boilers and process heaters, we have not included 
the subpart SS provision allowing oxidizers with a minimum temperature 
and residence time to omit the rationale documentation for the design 
evaluation.
    Absorbers. In developing the proposed standards for absorbers, we 
have incorporated the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS and added several monitoring options to accommodate the many 
absorber designs that may be used. Alternative monitoring approaches 
for absorbers have been the most commonly requested alternative by 
industry under current rules. Because of this, we have incorporated 
multiple monitoring schemes based upon the alternatives approved by the 
EPA, the different monitoring schemes in various chemical sector rules 
and support documents prepared by the EPA for the compliance assurance 
monitoring (CAM) regulation. (See Technical Guidance Document: 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring, August 1998, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html.) Furthermore, because halogenated 
scrubbers are a type of absorber and the monitoring requirements are 
the same, we have merged the requirements for halogen scrubbers into 
the proposed standards for absorbers to reduce redundant text. We 
believe that integrating these additional monitoring options into the 
proposed standards will reduce the need for owners and operators to 
request the use of alternative monitoring requirements and for the EPA 
to review these requests, thereby improving the efficiency of the 
regulatory process. This is consistent with the objectives of Executive 
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which requires 
that we periodically review existing regulations to examine ways to 
improve regulatory efficacy or reduce burden.
    We are proposing the installation and operation of either a CEMS or 
a CPMS, following the requirements in Tables 1 or 2 of proposed subpart 
M. As discussed in the general monitoring requirements in section V.B.1 
of this preamble, we have included provisions for both CPMS and CEMS to 
accommodate the variety of sources that may be controlled by a 
referencing subpart.
    The most critical parameter for monitoring absorption systems is 
liquid flow to the absorber, therefore we are requiring liquid flow be 
monitored for all absorption systems, but have provided an option for 
monitoring of the liquid-to-gas ratio. Rather than calculating one 
minimum flow rate at maximum operating conditions that must be 
continuously adhered to, this alternative provision allows a facility 
to optimize the liquid flow for varying gas flow rates. By using a 
liquid-to-gas ratio, sources may save resources by reducing the liquid 
rate with reductions in gas flow due to periods of lower production 
rates.
    Pressure drop is also a valuable operating parameter to monitor for 
absorbers. It can signal abnormal column conditions such as plugging, 
channeling or mal-distribution of the packing. We are proposing that 
you monitor the pressure drop for all absorbers as long as the normal 
pressure drop across the absorber is greater than 5 inches of water. If 
the pressure drop is typically less than 5 inches of water, it is not a 
sensitive monitor for absorber performance. We have also included a 
requirement to monitor pH for acid gas absorbers. For non-water 
absorbers used for VOC control, we are proposing that the chemical 
strength and flow rate of the chemical must be monitored. Monitoring 
the oxidation strength and flow rate of the chemical will ensure that 
enough chemical is being added to the absorber to attain at least the 
required amount of absorption. For particulate and metal absorbers, if 
the pressure drop is normally less than 5 inches of water, the owner or 
operator will have the choice of monitoring the inlet and outlet gas 
temperature; the specific gravity and outlet gas temperature; or the 
liquid feed pressure and outlet gas temperature. These monitoring 
parameters provide information on whether there has been sufficient 
contact between the liquid and gas.
    Similar choices were provided for VOC absorbers if the normal 
pressure drop across the absorbers is less than 5 inches of water and 
the scrubbing liquid is water. The source would monitor the inlet and 
outlet gas temperatures, or the liquid feed pressure and outlet gas 
temperature.
    Adsorbers. We are proposing standards for adsorbers used as control 
devices, based on the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We have 
clarified language in the proposed adsorber requirements in order to 
develop a more inclusive set of

[[Page 17957]]

standards. Specifically, we have revised the former subpart SS 
requirements for ``carbon adsorbers'' to apply to ``adsorbers,'' and 
modified the applicability to pertain to adsorbers containing any type 
of adsorbent such as carbon, zeolite or adsorbing polymers. These 
proposed standards address many different adsorber configurations 
existing in service today, including carbon adsorbers; adsorbers that 
use adsorbing media other than carbon; adsorbers that use vacuum as a 
regeneration technique; adsorber systems that use steam or other media 
for regeneration; and adsorbers that are not regenerated on site. These 
changes allow the proposed requirements to be more broadly referenced 
in future CAA section 111 and 112 rulemakings and provides additional 
options for control for multiple source categories. Additionally, this 
change reduces the need for owners and operators to request the use of 
alternative adsorbents or monitoring methods and for the EPA to review 
these requests, thereby eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden to 
industry and improving the efficiency of the regulatory process.
    Many current regulations address carbon adsorber operation, and the 
proposed rule has been written to address performance issues that have 
been identified by the EPA in implementing and enforcing these rules. 
Known performance issues include: The regeneration frequency of the 
adsorbent; the effectiveness of regeneration; the life of the adsorbent 
material before replacement is required; mechanical issues with the 
system operation including valve sequencing; and for non-regenerative 
systems, the expected life of the bed before replacement. The proposed 
rule incorporates different monitoring requirements for adsorption 
systems based on our review of 40 CFR part 63, subparts G, SS, GGG, 
MMM, FFFF, GGGGG and BBBBBB, as well as monitoring approaches that have 
been outlined and approved by the EPA in monitoring alternative 
requests.
    We are proposing the use of CEMS or CPMS to ensure the adsorption 
system operates consistently; we have included parametric monitoring 
provisions in Table 2 of subpart M in order to accommodate systems 
where a CEMS is not used. Because there is no single parameter you can 
monitor to ensure that all operating aspects are functioning properly, 
the proposal combines several monitoring approaches, each of which 
addresses common adsorber system performance issues. These include: (1) 
Monitoring of the regeneration process, (2) establishing and adhering 
to a regeneration frequency, (3) daily verification of system operating 
parameters and (4) routine sampling of the vent stream.
    The regeneration process monitoring provisions for non-vacuum 
systems include regeneration stream flow and adsorber temperature. 
These are key parameters to ensure the adsorption bed is sufficiently 
desorbed at the start of an adsorption cycle, and have long been known 
to influence adsorption performance. We have added the requirement to 
establish and adhere to a pre-defined interval for regeneration 
frequency in order to prevent overloading the bed and possibly 
incurring breakthrough during the adsorption cycle before regeneration 
is initiated. We considered alternatives to a pre-defined interval that 
would take into account the organic loading on the bed, but determined 
that regeneration on a prescribed schedule provides greater assurance 
that there would be sufficient adsorptive capacity at all times.
    Regenerative adsorption processes are typically multiple bed 
systems with complicated valve and piping arrangements designed to 
handle the vent streams and desorption streams on a batch basis. 
Because the consistent operation of the valves in these systems is 
critical to performance, we have included requirements for daily 
verification of the adsorber valve sequencing and cycle time. This 
daily system check will ensure that the adsorber is operating with 
proper valve sequencing and cycle time.
    While adsorption systems can achieve high levels of efficiency for 
removal of organic compounds from vent streams, performance degrades 
over time as the adsorption media deteriorates or becomes fouled. 
Because of this known performance deterioration, and because there are 
many mechanical elements in the system which can cause performance 
problems, we are proposing weekly measurements of the adsorber bed 
outlet VOC or regulated material concentration over the last 5 minutes 
of an adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed. These measurements are 
not meant to be a check against the emissions limit established by the 
referencing subpart; rather, it is a check to determine if the absorber 
performance is deteriorating and/or has deviated from typical 
operation. By conducting weekly checks, the owner or operator will 
establish knowledge of typical operating conditions, so that if 
performance does degrade, it will become clear based on changes in the 
weekly measurements. We are proposing that the owner or operator 
establish a maximum normal concentration to compare to the weekly 
measurements. If a measurement is obtained that is above the maximum 
normal concentration, a corrective action process must be initiated 
within 8 hours. We are proposing that you must develop a corrective 
action plan that includes investigation of the adsorbent and its 
efficacy, the valve sequencing system and regeneration process, and 
additional monitoring, as well as site-specific corrective actions 
appropriate to the system. This plan is not required to be submitted to 
the Administrator for approval, but is required to be kept as a record 
per the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.742(j)(1).
    Measurements for the weekly checks on each adsorber may be taken 
with a portable analyzer using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 for open ended lines, or using chromatographic analysis. Acceptable 
levels for end-of-cycle measurements, the maximum normal concentration 
will be established based on a statistical evaluation of the last 5 
minutes of at least eight adsorption cycles for each adsorber. Because 
these measurements are taken in the last 5 minutes of the adsorption 
cycle, they indicate the worst-case emissions over the adsorber cycle. 
Therefore, they are not indicators of compliance with the emission 
limit, but instead are indications of non-normal operation, which 
trigger a corrective action. An adsorber would not be considered to be 
in deviation unless three consecutive weekly measurements are taken 
that are above the maximum normal concentration; if the requirement to 
initiate corrective action within 8 hours is not met; or if a weekly 
measurement is not performed. See section VII of this preamble for a 
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these requirements.
    Because the materials desorbed during the regeneration process are 
regulated materials and are either recovered or disposed of, we are 
proposing explicit requirements to treat the regulated materials 
extracted from a regenerative system as process wastewater or vent 
streams subject to control, as specified by the referencing subpart.
    Very few previously published rules have addressed adsorption 
systems, which are not regenerated onsite. Because there is wide 
application of non-regenerative adsorption systems, we are including 
provisions for these systems in the proposed rule. For clarity, we have 
differentiated the proposed requirements for absorbers generated onsite 
and the requirements for non-regenerative adsorbers or

[[Page 17958]]

regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite in separate 
sections.
    As a guideline for the proposed monitoring, we used the National 
Emission Standards for Site Remediation (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGGGG), as well as monitoring approaches approved by the EPA in 
alternative requests for monitoring and in enforcement actions to 
address historical compliance issues with non-regenerated adsorbers. We 
are proposing CEMS monitoring for the adsorber exhaust. Alternatively, 
we are proposing requirements for dual adsorbent beds in series and 
daily monitoring. We have prescribed a dual bed system because the use 
of a single bed does not ensure continuous compliance unless the bed is 
replaced significantly before breakthrough. A dual bed system will 
allow one bed to be saturated before it is replaced and, therefore, 
makes efficient use of the adsorber bed without exceeding the emission 
limits. Facilities utilizing non-regenerative adsorbers must typically 
replace the adsorber bed at the end of the absorbent life and already 
have a second bed onsite. Therefore, we have determined that these 
requirements would not impose a cost increase; it would only require a 
second adsorber bed to be purchased earlier than it would have under 
previous rules. In addition, once the second adsorber was purchased, 
the source would need to purchase and install canisters at the same 
rate they would have under previous rules. In fact, the source could 
likely reduce costs over time because the adsorber beds can be used to 
a greater saturation level without risking non-compliance. Under 
current rules that do not require a second bed, sources must replace 
the beds, based on temperature readings, the vendor's bed life 
expectancy estimates or past history, and may replace the bed 
prematurely in order to avoid non-compliance. The burden of purchasing 
the initial additional adsorber bed, when compared to the large 
increase in compliance assurance, is small.
    Similar to regenerative adsorbers, in order to monitor performance 
deterioration, we are proposing measurements of VOC or regulated 
materials using a portable analyzer or chromatographic analysis for 
non-regenerative absorbers. We are proposing that these measurements be 
taken daily on the outlet of the first adsorber bed in series using a 
sample port. Furthermore, in order to relieve some monitoring burden, 
we have included the option to reduce the frequency of monitoring with 
the portable analyzer from daily to weekly or monthly. If you choose 
this option, you would first be required to establish an average 
adsorber bed life. For periods when more than 2 months remain on the 
bed life, monthly monitoring can be conducted, and when more than 2 
weeks remain on the bed life, weekly monitoring can be conducted. For a 
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these monitoring 
requirements, see section VII of this preamble.
    Condensers. The proposed standards include requirements for 
condensers used as control devices, which are based on the standards of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Subpart SS requires that ``exit (product 
side)'' temperature be monitored; the proposed rule clarifies that the 
temperature of the ``condensate receiver'' be monitored. The proposed 
standards require a design evaluation be conducted on condensers 
instead of a performance test to demonstrate compliance. The 
equilibrium calculation for condensers using the actual measured 
temperature and a thorough understanding of the stream composition is 
an accurate method for estimating emissions in the exiting gas stream 
from a condenser. A performance test for condensers generally does not 
provide additional information that equilibrium calculations would not 
provide. Furthermore, requiring a design evaluation will reduce overall 
costs for owners and operators who are referred to the Uniform 
Standards for Control Devices. However, a performance test could be 
required by the referencing subpart if it is determined to be more 
appropriate for a given source category.
    As part of the design evaluation, we are proposing that you use the 
engineering evaluation methodologies in 40 CFR 65.835(d) with the 
temperature of the condensate receiver to determine the outlet organic 
regulated material concentration. You would then be required to show 
the concentration meets the emission standard established in the 
referencing subpart, or to conduct additional calculations to 
demonstrate a percent reduction or aggregate percent reduction for 
batch process vents in a referencing subpart was being met.
    In the design evaluation for condensers, we have included a 
provision to consider conditions under which entrainment of the 
condensing liquid could occur, as well as the other operating 
conditions traditionally included in a condenser design evaluation, 
such as the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity and temperature. 
Entrainment is an important factor in condenser performance that should 
be considered in a design evaluation in order to document that the 
condenser achieves the required emission reduction from a referencing 
subpart.
    Biofilters. We are proposing standards for biofilters used as 
control devices in proposed 40 CFR 65.748. We are providing these 
requirements as an additional control option for the Uniform Standards 
for Control Devices in order to add flexibility for industry. 
Compliance requirements for biofilters were included in a final 
amendment to the MON (71 FR 40333, July 14, 2006) as a response to 
comment by commenters. The final amendments specified that biofilters 
are an option for complying with the 95-percent reduction emission 
limit for batch process operations. A biofilter control option was not 
made available for continuous process operations in the MON because of 
concerns that biofilters could not meet the 98-percent control 
efficiency standard for continuous process operations. We are proposing 
biofilters as a control option for both batch and continuous process 
operations if you can demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limitation or percent reduction required by the referencing subpart. We 
are proposing you install a CEMS capable of measuring regulated 
materials, or you may install a temperature CPMS for the biofilter bed.
    In biofiltration, microbial activity is the primary means by which 
the process stream is controlled; the effectiveness of the device is 
maximized by maintaining preferential conditions for the growth of 
appropriate microbes. Temperature is a significant factor affecting the 
growth and maintenance of healthy microbes within the bed--temperatures 
that are too high or too low will result in reduced microbe colonies 
and reduced performance for the bed. It is also a good indicator of the 
health of the microbes since healthy microbes will generate heat 
themselves. Therefore, we are requiring bed temperature monitoring to 
ensure that the biofilter can achieve and maintain the emission limits 
specified in the referencing subpart. For a discussion of the economic 
and cost impacts of these requirements, see section VII of this 
preamble.
    Given the concerns expressed in the preamble to the final MON rule 
regarding continuous process operations, we are also proposing 
requirements to monitor the moisture content of the biofilter bed and 
pressure drop through the biofilter bed to ensure that the biofilter 
can achieve the emission limit or percent reduction requirements of the 
referencing subpart. The moisture content of the biofilter bed

[[Page 17959]]

is another indicator of the health of microbes. Pressure drop through 
the biofilter bed is important to ensure the filter bed is not plugged.
    In lieu of these additional monitoring requirements, we are also 
considering requiring weekly measurements of VOC or regulated material 
at the outlet of each biofilter bed using a portable analyzer or 
chromatic analyzer to monitor performance deterioration, similar to 
those requirements proposed for adsorbers. We are soliciting comment, 
including the identification or submittal of information or data, as to 
whether biofilter bed temperature monitoring would be enough for 
continuous compliance demonstration. Additionally, we are soliciting 
comments and supporting data or studies that assess the effectiveness 
of measuring additional parameters to ensure performance and 
compliance.
    The MON does not allow a design evaluation to demonstrate 
compliance for biofilters; however, we have included provisions for a 
design evaluation if the referencing subpart allows one. A design 
evaluation for a biofilter may be adequate to demonstrate compliance 
for certain source categories; however, this will need to be considered 
on a source category-specific basis and justified in the referencing 
subpart rulemaking.
    Sorbent injection and collection systems. In order to provide 
additional control technologies that will expand the options for future 
rulemakings, we are proposing requirements for sorbent injection 
systems that remove pollutants from exhaust gas. Sorbent injection is 
an emissions control technique that was developed to reduce pollutants 
from exhaust gas, primarily from combustion sources. The sorbent 
injected into the gas stream may be activated carbon, lime or any other 
type of material injected into a gas stream for the purposes of 
capturing and removing regulated materials.
    Activated carbon is used in sorbent injection systems where control 
of mercury or dioxin and furan emissions is required. Lime or other 
sorbents may also be used in sorbent injection systems to remove acid 
gasses, such as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid. Sorbent injection 
is used in conjunction with a filtration device designed to collect the 
sorbent after injection.
    As a basis for developing the proposed rule, we have adapted the 
requirements for sorbent injection systems that were included in the 
final rule for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (75 FR 54970, September 
9, 2010). This recent NESHAP determined monitoring and performance 
specification requirements for sorbent injection systems and carrier 
gas systems that reflect the latest technical developments for these 
control options. In addition, facilities complying with the proposed 
provisions for sorbent injection would also be required to meet the 
requirements for fabric filters in proposed 40 CFR 65.762. The Portland 
Cement NESHAP requires facilities to specify and use the brand and type 
of sorbent used during the performance test until a subsequent 
performance test is conducted. We are proposing that you would be 
required to test if you wanted to substitute a different brand or type 
of sorbent. Although the Portland Cement NESHAP allows an owner or 
operator to substitute different brands or types of sorbent without 
having to do a new performance test (provided that the replacement has 
equivalent or improved properties compared to the sorbent used in the 
previous performance test), we have modified the proposed standards to 
require a new performance test if the sorbent is replaced with a 
different brand and type of sorbent than was used in the most recent 
performance test. As we intend the Uniform Standards for Control 
Devices to be referenced in both NSPS and NESHAP rulemakings across 
multiple source categories, this change ensures that the control device 
will continue to meet the emission limits or percent reduction 
requirements of a referencing subpart when a change of sorbent occurs. 
A referencing subpart may override this retest requirement if it is 
determined in its rulemaking to be unnecessary for the source category 
being regulated.
    Provisions for a design evaluation for sorbent collection systems 
are proposed for this rule in the event that a referencing subpart 
allows a design evaluation to be conducted in lieu of a performance 
test. Because this is a relatively new control technology, there were 
no current rules that provided guidance for a design evaluation of a 
sorbent collection system. Therefore, we have developed the proposed 
requirements using recently published articles on activated carbon 
injection as a control technology. This research indicates that the 
parameters identified in proposed 40 CFR 65.760(d) provide the best 
evaluation of sorbent injection system performance.
    Other control or devices. We have incorporated requirements for 
performance testing and the development of monitoring requirements on a 
case-by-case basis in order to address control devices that may be used 
by industry, but are not described specifically in this rule. These 
requirements are unchanged from the current provisions of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS. Additionally, if other major control devices are used 
in specific source categories as a primary means for control, the 
referencing subpart can lay out such requirements needed in order to 
demonstrate compliance.
4. How did the EPA determine requirements for fuel gas systems?
    In consideration of our experience implementing previous rules 
addressing fuel gas systems as control devices, we are proposing 
updated standards that clarify the definition of fuel gas system and 
ensure that these systems are achieving good combustion and control. 
Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, owners and operators are permitted to 
route vent streams from storage tanks, transfer equipment and equipment 
leaks to a fuel gas system as a method of control (this compliance 
option is not specifically provided for process operations). Fuel gas 
systems are considered a part of the process, therefore process vent 
streams that are routed to a fuel gas system are not considered vent 
streams requiring control because they are not released to the 
atmosphere. The proposed rule does not specifically state that this 
control option is only for equipment leaks, storage tanks and transfer 
operations emissions. It is not necessary to allow this option for only 
some of the emission unit types, given that the proposed Uniform 
Standards may be referenced in future NESHAP and NSPS for multiple 
source categories and industry types, and those rulemakings can 
determine whether to restrict the control options for specific types of 
emission units.
    As previously discussed for small boilers and process heaters in 
section V.B.3 of this preamble, small boilers or process heaters 
receiving vent streams subject to subpart M with a capacity less than 
44 MW (in which the vent stream is introduced with combustion air or as 
a secondary fuel) would be subject to the requirements of proposed 40 
CFR 65.724, whether they are part of a fuel gas system or not. If your 
fuel gas system directs the vent stream to small boilers or process 
heaters, you would still be required to meet the performance testing 
and monitoring requirements for small boilers and process heaters. As 
discussed in section V.B.3 of this preamble, larger boilers and process 
heaters in which the vent gas stream is introduced with or as the 
primary fuel have been recognized as units that can be confidently 
assumed to achieve good combustion. There is not

[[Page 17960]]

the same confidence in the performance of small boilers and process 
heaters; therefore, we are proposing that the units be tested and 
continuously monitored.
    We expect, in most cases, the vent gas stream of fuel gas systems 
will be introduced as the primary fuel and/or will be routed to larger 
units. We want to continue to encourage the use of this otherwise waste 
gas. However, if small boilers and process heaters are attached to the 
fuel gas system, then you would be required to conduct performance 
testing and monitoring. We do not expect this scenario to be common. We 
also considered defining a fuel gas system such that the vent gas must 
be introduced with or as a primary fuel, but determined that this would 
reduce flexibility for sources.
    Under the proposed standards, all fuel gas systems that are in 
regulated material service must perform quarterly LDAR monitoring and 
would be required to meet the applicable provisions of proposed 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to 
the individual equipment components that comprise the fuel gas system. 
We are proposing these requirements to ensure that a vent stream in 
regulated material service is properly routed by the fuel gas system 
and delivered to the combustion device for destruction. We expect that 
most fuel gas systems meet the applicability of the LDAR requirements 
and are already conducting LDAR monitoring; therefore, these 
requirements are not expected to introduce a new or unnecessary 
regulatory burden for industry.
    The proposed standards revise the definition of fuel gas system to 
include the requirement that the fuel in the fuel gas system be 
nonhalogenated. It is common for chemical sector rules to include a 
prohibition on combustion of halogens and a requirement for hydrogen 
halides or halogen reduction after combustion. However, this 
requirement was not explicit for vent streams routed to a fuel gas 
system under previous rules, and it is not our intent to allow 
halogenated streams to be combusted without additional control. Because 
fuel from fuel gas systems can be used in any number of combustion 
sources, hydrogen halide and halogen reduction after combustion is less 
likely to be feasible. Additionally, because process vent streams could 
be routed to the fuel gas system and not be subject to the rule, yet 
could still contain significant amounts of halogens, we are proposing 
this definition change to ensure that HAP are not created through the 
combustion of a regulated material.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for fabric 
filters?
    We have incorporated requirements for fabric filters in subpart M 
with the intent to simplify future rulemakings that would refer to the 
Uniform Standards. The proposed monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements may be referenced by new or revised NSPS or NESHAP that 
would establish standards for PM or other regulated materials 
controlled by fabric filters and not previously covered by other 
consolidated rulemakings. As such, the consolidation of fabric filter 
requirements in subpart M facilitates more efficient rulemaking and 
ensures consistent standards for these control devices across multiple 
source categories. The monitoring, design evaluation and recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for fabric filters were modeled after the 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MMM, as referenced by the MON) and the final rule for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry, published on September 9, 2010 (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL, 75 FR 54970). The proposed requirements include the 
installation of a bag leak detection system equipped with an alarm that 
will sound when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset 
level is detected.
    The Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP required that the bag leak 
detection system be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of 
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 
cubic meter (mg/acm) or less. Because we intend the proposed Uniform 
Standards to be applicable for the majority of source categories 
complying with MACT, we considered that there may be future rulemakings 
that need to specify lower PM emission limits and would require a lower 
allowable detection limit for the bag leak detectors. Based on vendor 
literature, modern bag leak detection systems are capable of detecting 
baseline emissions as low as 1 mg/acm (see, Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997, incorporated by 
reference). Therefore, we are requiring that the bag leak detection 
system be certified at a detection level of 1 mg/acm or less. This 
requirement may be overridden by a referencing subpart in future 
rulemakings, as appropriate, based on the specific needs of the source 
category.
    We have also added a provision previously included in the Major 
Source Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process 
Heaters NESHAP (76 FR 15608, March 21, 2011), requiring that the bag 
leak detection system must be operated and maintained such that the 
alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 
6-month period. We are requiring records of the total alarm time and 
corrective actions taken following an alarm sounding for demonstration 
of compliance. These requirements are operation and maintenance 
requirements that could be adopted in future rulemakings to ensure that 
the fabric filter is being operated at the conditions for which the 
control device is meeting the emission limit specified in the 
referencing subpart.
    Additionally, the proposed rule requires that you conduct a 
performance test on your fabric filter, but provisions have been 
included for those situations where a design evaluation is acceptable 
and allowed by the referencing subpart (see sections V.A.9 and V.B.8 of 
this preamble).
6. How did the EPA determine the performance testing requirements?
    The performance testing requirements that we are proposing are 
modeled after specific requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 
which are based on performance testing requirements previously 
developed by the EPA for use in implementing standards that could apply 
to a variety of chemical industry sources.
    We have organized the performance testing requirements to group 
similar topics together, and added new methods for performance testing 
to develop a more generic and inclusive set of control requirements 
that may be easily referenced in future rulemakings. In addition to 
using the term ``regulated material'' (see General differences between 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS at 
the beginning of section V.B of this preamble), we are proposing 
performance testing requirements that reflect this broader range of 
pollutants.
    Although based on language from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, where 
we propose that you conduct all performance tests at maximum 
representative operating conditions for continuous process operations, 
we have defined maximum representative operating conditions to be those 
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the 
control device. In an effort to provide more flexibility to owners and 
operators regarding the identification of the

[[Page 17961]]

proper testing conditions, the most challenging condition for the 
control device may include, but is not limited to, the highest HAP mass 
loading rate to the control device, or the highest HAP mass loading 
rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for 
scrubbing media. The EPA understands that there may be cases where 
efficiencies are dependent on other characteristics of emission 
streams, including the characteristics of components and the operating 
principles of the devices. For example, the solubility of emission 
stream components in scrubbing media, or emission stream component 
affinity in carbon adsorption systems can also define the most 
challenging condition for a particular control device.
    For batch process operations, we are proposing consistent 
requirements to those in 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and FFFF, and are 
requiring that you develop an emissions profile and conduct your 
performance test at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical 
worst-case conditions. Although continuous operations tend to have 
products and operations that remain relatively constant, the control 
devices for batch operations may be subject to a wide variability of 
products and emission stream characteristics, and a performance test at 
``maximum representative'' conditions for batch operations may not be 
representative at a later date when the products have changed. Absolute 
worst-case conditions are based on an emissions profile that shows 
periods of time when the maximum load, the regulated material loading 
or stream composition (including non-regulated material) is the most 
challenging condition for the final control device. To provide 
flexibility for sources, we are also proposing that you may test under 
hypothetical worst-case conditions as an alternative. Hypothetical 
worst-case conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, 
contain the highest hourly load of regulated material emissions that 
would be predicted to vent to the final control device, based on an 
emissions profile.
    The agency's intent, when requiring the development of an emissions 
profile, is to determine the maximum HAP loading to a control device 
over time. Therefore, the proposed rule requires that the emissions to 
the device be evaluated by plotting HAP emissions versus time. To 
provide multiple options for compliance, we have allowed for the 
emission profile to be determined by process, by equipment or by 
capture and control device limitation (this would be dependent on how 
you choose to characterize your worst-case conditions). When sources 
test under worst-case conditions, this reduces, and may eliminate, in 
some cases, the need for any retesting at a later date when conditions 
change. If a source tested under normal operating conditions, then any 
change from these conditions would trigger a need to retest the source 
under the revised normal operating conditions. The concept of worst-
case conditions allows sources to anticipate potential changes so that 
only one (initial) test is generally required, which would reduce the 
burden on the source. We note that the referencing subpart could 
require a re-test (e.g., annual or every 5 years) if it is appropriate 
to demonstrate compliance for a given source category; this would be 
determined during the rulemaking process for the referencing subpart.
    Building off the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the 
MON uses a hierarchy to determine applicable requirements for combined 
emission streams in 40 CFR 63.2450(c)(2). For example, the MON allows 
you to comply with only the batch process operation requirements for 
combined batch and continuous process operations. However, for the 
proposed rule, we are not establishing a hierarchy because the 
referencing subpart must consider the applicable statutory requirements 
for the specific type of rulemaking (CAA section 111 or section 112). 
Instead, we are proposing that you must meet all requirements for each 
emission stream type in a combined emission stream (i.e., both 
continuous and batch process operation requirements must be met). The 
proposed rule is written in this way to ensure compliance for each 
emission stream. A hierarchy may be appropriate for certain source 
categories; however, this will need to be considered on a source 
category-specific basis during the development of the referencing 
subpart. A referencing subpart can override specific requirements in 
the Uniform Standard, as appropriate.
    We are proposing that if you make a change to process equipment or 
operating conditions that would affect the correlation between the 
operating parameter values of a control device and the emission 
reduction performance of that control device, and would render the 
previously established operating limits ineffective, you must conduct a 
performance test within 180 days of the date of startup of the change. 
This performance test would be necessary to establish new operating 
limits and demonstrate that you are in compliance with the applicable 
emission limit of the referencing subpart. For instance, a facility 
could institute changes that increase the mass flow to a thermal 
oxidizer, requiring a higher operating limit for temperature to 
maintain compliance with the emission standard of the referencing 
subpart. This proposed requirement is necessary to ensure that the 
control device remains effective for compliance with the referencing 
subpart.
    We have consolidated the allowed test methods in Table 5 of subpart 
M for ease of reading. The proposed rule provides test methods based on 
the types of emissions limits that we anticipate would be specified in 
a referencing subpart. As was done in the MON (for gas streams 
containing formaldehyde) and in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP 
(for gas streams containing carbon disulfide), we have provided 
specific test methods for determining compliance when formaldehyde or 
carbon disulfide makes up a significant portion of the vent stream. 
Consistent with our previous determinations under these rules, we have 
ascertained that not all methods detect these compounds accurately and 
these specific methods are necessary in the proposed Uniform Standards.
    We also are proposing that you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A as an alternative to using Method 18 or Method 26/26A of 
40 CFR part 60, appendices A-6 through A-8, to determine compliance 
with a specific organic regulated material compound outlet 
concentration or percent reduction emission limit, or a hydrogen halide 
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart. In response to a 
public comment, the Method 320 of CFR part 63, appendix A option was 
added to the MON at final promulgation (68 FR 63852, November 10, 
2003). The EPA declared that Method 320 of CFR part 63, appendix A was 
an acceptable method to demonstrate compliance for any type of batch or 
continuous vent stream. We have augmented this provision by specifying 
that EPA Method 320 may only be used to demonstrate compliance with a 
halogen emission limit if you can show that there are no diatomic-
halogen molecules present in the vent stream being tested. For vent 
streams with diatomic-halogens molecules, we have determined that EPA 
Method 18 and EPA Method 26/26A are more effective. In addition, we are 
not allowing EPA Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 and EPA Method 320 to test 
for total regulated material because these methods only work for 
determining the quantity of known pollutants; therefore, you could

[[Page 17962]]

fail to identify the ``total'' regulated material.
    Because a referencing subpart may have requirements for organic HAP 
and metal HAP, or requirements for use of a surrogate, such as PM or 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for metal HAP, we have 
incorporated provisions from the MON that tell you how to determine 
compliance with a PM or PM2.5 emission limit specified in a 
referencing subpart. (As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, 
the referencing subpart would establish and provide rationale for the 
use of a surrogate.) As determined under the MON, Method 29 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-8 allows you to determine the quantity of each HAP 
metal at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s). Furthermore, 
the MON allows for a second option, since controls for PM would also 
control the HAP metals, to use Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 
to determine the quantity of PM at the inlet and outlet of the control 
device(s). We are proposing Methods 201A and 202 at 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M, or, if the stack contains entrained water droplets (e.g., 
immediately after a wet scrubber), Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-3 and Method 202 for total PM2.5. We have determined that 
EPA Methods 201 and 202 are more accurate for measurement of 
PM2.5. It is our determination that the methods proposed 
represent the best and most recent methods for measurement of HAP, VOC, 
PM and PM2.5.
7. How did the EPA determine the requirements for batch processing 
operations?
    We are proposing language from the MON and the Pharmaceuticals 
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG) to accommodate batch 
process operations. The MON primarily references the batch process 
operation provisions in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. The 
proposed standards are intended to be referenced from multiple 
regulations representing different source categories, and do not set 
group determinations or levels of control.
    We have included provisions in proposed 40 CFR 65.826 and 40 CFR 
65.827 explaining how compliance should be demonstrated for the 
different emission limit formats that a referencing subpart may use for 
batch process operations. The language accommodates percent reduction 
or outlet concentration limits for control devices. We have included 
the emission limit format from the MON that requires the owner or 
operator to show compliance with a percent reduction by aggregating 
emissions over the full batch process. These requirements would apply 
only when a referencing subpart requires the owner or operator to show 
compliance with a percent reduction using this method (see section 
V.A.8 of this preamble). We have included language (see equations 29 
through 31 of proposed 40 CFR 65.835(a)) clarifying how to determine 
compliance with a percent reduction where a referencing subpart 
requires the owner or operator to aggregate batch emissions. The 
equations illustrate how you would compare the sums of the controlled 
and uncontrolled emissions for all batch process operations subject to 
control within the process to calculate the percent reduction achieved. 
This is a clarification of the MON language, which stated that 
uncontrolled and controlled emissions should be compared to demonstrate 
compliance, but did not provide additional details to explain how this 
should be done.
    We are proposing engineering evaluation methodologies that are 
incorporated by reference from section 3 of the EPA's Emissions 
Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for 
Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, August 
2007, Final, (EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Volume 
II: Chapter 16). These methods are similar to those used in the 
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, but include some refinements, such 
as an iterative methodology for purging, or gas sweep of a partially 
filled vessel emission episode. EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 also 
contains additional methodologies (that were not included in the 
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) for calculating emissions from 
charging to a partially filled vessel with miscible contents, and 
evaporation from an open top vessel or spill. We are proposing that you 
conduct an engineering assessment to calculate uncontrolled emissions 
from other emissions episodes not described in EPA EIIP Volume II: 
Chapter 16. We are soliciting comment on the proposed use of EPA EIIP 
Volume II: Chapter 16.
8. How did the EPA determine the requirements for compliance through 
design evaluation?
    With the exception of condensers, the proposed standards under 
subpart M require performance testing to demonstrate compliance with 
the applicable standard. However, to provide flexibility, we are 
including requirements for a design evaluation that could apply to non-
flare control devices if it is allowed by the referencing subpart. For 
condensers, we are proposing that you must conduct a design evaluation 
(see discussion for condensers in section V.B.3 of this preamble).
    Subpart M is structured such that general requirements for 
conducting a design evaluation are included under one section (proposed 
40 CFR 65.850). More specific requirements pertaining to information 
that must be included in the design evaluation for each type of device 
are included in the corresponding section for that control device. The 
requirements for determining the components to include in a design 
evaluation are based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which were 
previously developed by the EPA for use in implementing a generic set 
of control standards that could be applied for multiple source 
categories. To ensure that sources can demonstrate compliance with the 
referencing subpart, we are proposing that you must prepare both a 
monitoring description and design evaluation. The monitoring 
description provides documentation that the source is maintaining the 
continuous monitoring equipment such that the control device can meet 
the emission limits specified in the referencing subpart. For the 
monitoring description, you would be required to choose the parameters, 
the operating limit(s), the monitoring frequency and the averaging time 
for each operating parameter, based on site-specific information, 
manufacturer's specifications, engineering judgment or other 
significant information. Your design evaluation would include 
documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves 
the required emission limit of a referencing subpart, taking into 
account the composition of the vent stream entering the control device, 
flow and regulated material concentration. There were no changes made 
to the design evaluation provisions except for the changes to: (1) 
Small boilers and process heaters, (2) oxidizers regarding the minimum 
temperature and residence time and (3) the inclusion of a design 
evaluation for biofilters when allowed by the referencing subpart (see 
previous discussion in section V.B.3 of this preamble).
9. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for this 
proposed standard?
    The notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that we 
are proposing are similar to those required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS. However, we have streamlined the periodic

[[Page 17963]]

compliance reporting with title V semiannual reporting requirements, 
incorporated updates for clarification, left out provisions that are 
redundant or unnecessary and created recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements to address any monitoring requirements included in the 
Uniform Standards. Many of these details are discussed in section 
VI.B.6 of this preamble.
    Averaging Periods. We are proposing records of the daily or 
operating block average (for batch operations) value of each 
continuously monitored parameter or emissions.
    Although some regulations under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 
require 3-hour averaging (e.g., the SOCMI Air Oxidation NSPS, 40 CFR 60 
Subpart III; the SOCMI Distillation Operations NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart 
NNN; and the SOCMI Reactor Processes NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart RRR), many 
of the part 63 regulations require daily averages. Specifically, with 
the exception of the recently proposed polyvinyl chloride and 
copolymers (PVC) rule (40 CFR 63, subpart J for PVC Production; 76 FR 
29528, May 20, 2011), which requires 3-hour averaging, daily averaging 
periods are used in all past part 63 NESHAP affecting the chemical and 
refining sectors. Therefore, the EPA has decided to allow daily 
averaging for all control devices, unless otherwise provided under a 
referencing subpart.
    We also do not consider daily averaging a relaxation of the 
previous NSPS that currently require more frequent averaging. 
Specifically, the 3-hour averages in NSPS and the daily averages in 
part 63 should not be compared only considering the averaging time, but 
one should also consider the meaning of out-of-range results. Under the 
NSPS, an out-of-range 3-hour average does not necessarily mean the 
source is out of compliance. Under the 40 CFR part 60 General 
Provisions, compliance with emission standards is determined by a 
performance test (see 40 CFR 60.11(a)). Under the 40 CFR part 63 
General Provisions, it is clear that deviations from monitoring 
parameter ranges are direct violations (see 40 CFR 63.6(e)).
    Under the proposed Uniform Standards, we have adopted the 
significance of out-of-range results from 40 CFR part 63; therefore, an 
out-of-range parameter on a daily average basis is a violation. We 
would allow the same out-of-range parameter determinations from 40 CFR 
part 63 to be made in all referencing subparts, including regulations 
under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61. Therefore, although facilities 
from 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 61 referenced to the Uniform 
Standards may become subject to daily averages in lieu of 3-hour 
averages, they would also be considered out of compliance if the daily 
average is out of range, provided this change is adopted in the 
rulemaking for the referencing subpart.
    We anticipate that the referencing subpart may ``override'' the 
proposed daily averaging period with a stricter requirement if it is 
determined that such a requirement would be necessary to maintain the 
emission standard for the source category covered by the referencing 
subpart. A good example of such a source category is the proposed PVC 
Production NESHAP. It was determined for proposal that, for this source 
category, 3-hour averages are necessary to meet MACT. We consider the 
development of a referencing subpart at the appropriate time to make 
these source-category specific decisions.
    We are proposing that you must report the daily and operating block 
averages for each continuously monitored parameter as part of the 
semiannual periodic report submitted through the CEDRI (see section 
II.F of this preamble). The EPA relies on the submittal of performance 
test data and emissions and parametric monitoring data to conduct 
effective reviews of CAA sections 111 and 112 standards, as well as 
compliance determinations, emission factor development, residual risk 
assessments and technology reviews. These emissions averages and 
parameter averages could supply up-to-date information regarding the 
capabilities of current industry technology, identify compliance issues 
and supplement emissions test data for establishing emission factors, 
improving regulation and improving the quality of emission inventories. 
Collecting this data on an ongoing basis through CEDRI will greatly 
reduce or eliminate the burden to industry and EPA from ICR efforts.
    Recordkeeping and reporting of batch operations. The recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for batch operations were modeled after the 
MON (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and Pharmaceuticals Production 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG). 40 CFR Part 63, subpart SS, as 
promulgated, contains only provisions for combined continuous and batch 
operations. We have drawn the requirements from 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts GGG and FFFF because these NESHAP contain and clarify 
technical requirements for batch process operations; in particular, the 
MON improves upon some of the technical requirements of the 
Pharmaceutical Production NESHAP and reflects a set of standards that 
both industry and the EPA have experience in implementing. The 
inclusion of requirements for batch operations allows the proposed 
Uniform Standards to accommodate a wider range of source categories. 
The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements reflect our most 
current survey of batch operations under 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG 
and FFFF.
    The proposed subpart M includes a pre-compliance report for batch 
processes, as does the MON and Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. This 
report is a combination of data submittals and reports that require the 
EPA review and approval prior to implementation and is, therefore, due 
before the compliance date (6 months prior to the compliance date for 
existing sources and to be submitted with the application for approval 
of construction or reconstruction for new sources). While we have 
designed the requirements for batch process operations to provide 
flexible options for compliance for owners and operators, we must 
ensure compliance with the MACT, GACT and BSER standards specified in 
the referencing subpart. We contend that the pre-compliance report is a 
valuable tool for the regulatory agency responsible for making 
compliance determinations. The batch pre-compliance requirements 
include providing details on the test conditions, data, calculations 
and other information used to establish operating limits for all batch 
operations, and rationale for why each operating limit indicates the 
control device is meeting the specified emission limit of the 
referencing subpart during each specific emission episode. If you used 
an engineering assessment, as specified in 40 CFR 65.835(b)(2), you 
would also include data or other information supporting a finding that 
the emissions estimation equations in the proposed subpart M are 
inappropriate. These data would include very detailed site-specific 
information and complex rationale for the selection of operating limits 
and emissions calculations. It is important that such data are reviewed 
prior to compliance to provide time to revise the CEMS performance 
evaluation and monitoring plan or the CPMS monitoring plan and conduct 
any necessary onsite preparation for revised monitoring requirements, 
based on the EPA concerns prior to the compliance date. This will 
ensure that there are no periods of noncompliance resulting from 
selection of an unacceptable approach. In the proposed Uniform 
Standards, we are using the term ``batch pre-compliance report'' rather 
than

[[Page 17964]]

``pre-compliance report'' because the report is submitted for only 
batch processes and includes only the batch information listed in this 
paragraph.
    There are several items required in the pre-compliance report for 
the two previous NESHAP that are not proposed in subpart M because they 
are not related to the control devices covered by this proposed rule. 
For example, we are not proposing requirements to determine wastewater 
characteristics, as required by the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, 
because we are not proposing requirements for wastewater facilities at 
this time.
    Several source categories, including the Miscellaneous Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing source category and the Pharmaceuticals 
Production source category, use non-dedicated, multipurpose equipment 
that may be configured in numerous ways to accommodate different batch 
processes. We anticipate that when a NSPS or NESHAP considers 
referencing subpart M for a batch process operation, there could be a 
need to anticipate alternate operating scenarios for the batch process. 
As such, we are proposing these requirements in subpart M in order to 
accommodate these alternate scenarios.
    Fabric filter recordkeeping and reporting. We modeled the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for fabric filters after the 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP and the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing NESHAP. These rulemakings reflect previous EPA 
determinations for fabric filter control. We considered, but are not 
proposing, that pre-compliance information be submitted for these 
control devices. In particular, the Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production NESHAP and MON require an operation and maintenance plan and 
corrective action plan be submitted as part of a pre-compliance report. 
Instead, we are proposing that each bag leak detection system must be 
installed, operated, calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent 
with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations, and 
in accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 
1997. Therefore, we feel it is not necessary to pre-approve the fabric 
filter plans when these requirements are followed. A future referencing 
subpart may require prior approval if it is determined that it is 
appropriate for a given source category and considering the applicable 
statutory requirements for the specific rulemaking (e.g., MACT, GACT 
and/or BSER standards), or we may choose to adopt separate requirements 
for a particular source category in a referencing subpart. We are 
proposing that the operation and maintenance plan and corrective action 
plan for fabric filters be submitted as part of the Notification of 
Compliance Status Report instead of a pre-compliance report. The 
manufacturer's guidance and the EPA guidance document provide adequate 
information for owners and operators to prepare appropriate operation 
and maintenance and corrective action plans. We anticipate that fabric 
filter operation does not vary enough to require site-specific pre-
review of these documents, although a referencing subpart may always 
override these requirements for a given source category.

VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part 65 
Uniform Standards General Provisions--Subpart H

    This section summarizes and provides rationale for the supplemental 
proposal for 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. This subpart was originally 
proposed on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960). This supplemental proposal 
generally adds new language and sections applicable to proposed 
subparts H, I, J and M. There are some changes to the language 
originally proposed, but these are relatively small changes needed to 
incorporate the additional Uniform Standards subparts.
    In section VI of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA 
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators affected by the 
proposed standards. All other entities are referred to by their 
respective names (e.g., reviewing authorities.) Additionally, ``subpart 
H'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H.

A. Summary

    In a previous proposal of the National Uniform Emission Standards 
for Heat Exchangers (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), signed by the EPA 
Administrator on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), we 
proposed general provisions in subpart H that would apply to all 
sources subject to all Uniform Standards. In that proposal, we 
specified that 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, subpart A (i.e., referred to 
in this preamble section VI as ``the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General 
Provisions'') would still apply as the General Provisions for the 
Uniform Standards, with relatively minor additions in subpart H. During 
development of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M, we 
reviewed this approach, in part under Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, (see section II.A of this preamble 
for further discussion of Executive Order 13563) to ensure that this 
would be the best approach.
    Based on this review, we have determined that certain reporting 
provisions in the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions are not 
consistent with each other (e.g., report names), and that these 
differences could hamper efforts to provide compliance methods for all 
sources under one part. Additionally, we have determined that some 40 
CFR part 63 general provisions include more details (e.g., detailed 
instructions for requesting a performance test waiver) that are not 
provided for the same kind of provision in the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 
General Provisions (e.g., allowing a request for a performance test 
waiver without detailed instructions). Applying these more detailed 40 
CFR part 63 general provisions to sources covered under 40 CFR parts 60 
and 61 would result in more clarity and would facilitate the compliance 
process for sources regulated under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 that refer 
to the Uniform Standards.
    As such, we have concluded that the best approach to providing 
general provisions for the 40 CFR part 65 Uniform Standards is to 
consolidate some of the part 60, 61 and 63 general provisions, and to 
include these consolidated general provisions in subpart H. For the 
current proposal, we are issuing a supplemental proposal for subpart H 
in order to include additional provisions applicable to all Uniform 
Standards, as well as provisions applicable to individual Uniform 
Standards in 40 CFR Part 65, Subparts I, J and M.
    For this purpose, we are maintaining five sections of subpart H 
proposed on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960), and adding 12 new sections. Of 
the five previously proposed sections, we are proposing to make changes 
to three sections, as follows: (1) 40 CFR 65.200 will refer to 40 CFR 
65.210, which specifies which general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR 
parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to all Uniform Standards; (2) 40 CFR 65.265 
will include additional methods incorporated by reference for 40 CFR 
part 65, subparts I, J and M; (3) 40 CFR 65.295 will include additional 
definitions of terms used in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M. The 
12 new sections address the following consolidated general provisions 
applicable to all Uniform Standards: (1) General requirements for 
complying with the standards, operation and maintenance requirements, 
recordkeeping and reporting; (2) how to

[[Page 17965]]

request a waiver for testing, recordkeeping and reporting or an 
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, test method or means of emission 
limitation; and (3) authorities not delegated to the states.
    For those 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions that would 
apply to the Uniform Standards and that would not be consolidated into 
subpart H, you are referred to Table 1 of subpart H, which lists the 
sections or paragraphs of the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 general 
provisions that still apply to the Uniform Standards. In general, Table 
1 lists general provisions that are associated with applicability, 
initial notifications and permit application requirements, and 
requirements that are not the typical compliance provisions that a 
source must meet. Examples of the types of 40 CFR part 60, 61 and 63 
general provisions listed in Table 1 include: 40 CFR 60.2, 61.02 and 
63.2 (definitions); 40 CFR 60.3, 61.03 and 63.3 (abbreviations); 40 CFR 
60.12, 61.05, 61.19 and 63.4 (prohibited activities, circumvention and 
fragmentation); and 40 CFR 60.5, 61.06 and 63.5 (determination of 
construction or modification; preconstruction review and notification 
requirements). Regulated sources subject to 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 
would remain subject to the provisions in Table 1, as applicable.

B. Rationale

1. What is the purpose of this subpart?
    40 CFR 65.200 is proposed to be changed from the previously 
proposed 40 CFR 65.200 to specify that you would be required to comply 
with the General Provisions, as specified in 40 CFR 65.210 (refers to 
Table 1), as well as the referencing subpart.
2. Am I subject to the requirements of this subpart?
    40 CFR 65.205 is proposed to be added to subpart H to make it clear 
who would be required to comply with the general provisions in subpart 
H. Subpart H applies to owners and operators who are subject to a 
referencing subpart and have been expressly directed to comply with the 
Uniform Standards by a referencing subpart. This section is needed so 
that you will understand the applicability.
3. When must I comply with this subpart?
    40 CFR 65.206 was added as part of efforts to make consistent the 
organization of the Uniform Standards. The question of when to comply 
is addressed in only subpart H.
4. Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 of this 
part?
    We are proposing to add 40 CFR 65.210 to subpart H to specify that 
only some 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions will apply to 
you. As discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we reviewed the 40 
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions and concluded that the best 
approach to providing general provisions for the 40 CFR part 65 Uniform 
Standards is to consolidate some of the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 
general provisions, and to include these consolidated general 
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H and M. Consolidating these 
provisions will allow us to streamline these general requirements for 
the Uniform Standards, increasing the clarity of the General Provisions 
and facilitating the compliance process for all parties. Consolidation 
will also reduce administrative burden by facilitating our process of 
amending the referencing subparts in the future.
    To consolidate the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions, 
we reviewed each general provision in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. For 
each provision, we determined if the general provision should be: (1) 
Consolidated into one general provision in subpart H that applies to 
sources complying with any Uniform Standard (you would not comply with 
the original, unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 63 requirement); (2) 
consolidated into one general provision in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M 
that applies to sources complying with 40 CFR Part 65, subpart M (you 
would not comply with the original, unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 63 
requirement); (3) referred to in Table 1 to subpart H and required, as 
specified in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63; or (4) excluded from the 
Uniform Standards because the provision does not apply to the types of 
sources that will be regulated using the Uniform Standards (e.g., 
opacity and visible emissions provisions).
5. What are my general requirements for complying with operation and 
maintenance requirements?
    Under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, and as specified in 
subpart A of both parts, compliance is demonstrated with an emission 
limit using the results of a performance test; however, under 40 CFR 
part 63, the General Provisions specify that the Administrator will 
determine compliance based on performance tests, monitoring data, 
records, operation and maintenance procedures, and conformance to the 
procedures. In order to remove undue burden for individual source 
categories and provide consistent requirements for sources complying 
with the Uniform Standards, we have consolidated the general operation 
and maintenance compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 63 in proposed 40 
CFR 65.215. These proposed provisions were developed, based on 40 CFR 
63.6(e), (f) and (g). The proposed provisions are different from 40 CFR 
63.6(e), (f) and (g) in that they include changes in terminology and 
cross-references, as well as removal of SSM provisions. The 
consolidated provisions in 40 CFR 65, subparts H and M would apply to 
all sources subject to referencing subparts.
    We have not included provisions for SSM in these Uniform Standards, 
based on a recent District of Columbia Circuit ruling. The United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir., 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 
(U.S., 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemptions 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of 
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into 
CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 
two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 
periods of SSM.
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the Uniform Standards, as 
proposed, are designed to provide for continuous compliance with the 
emission standards of a referencing subpart. Future rulemakings that 
may reference the Uniform Standards will include a determination on the 
need for separate standards for startup and shutdown for the specific 
source category. Rationale for those provisions will be supplied at the 
time of proposal, thus, providing an opportunity for public comment. 
The final rulemakings for such referencing subparts would determine 
whether separate standards for startup and shutdown would apply in lieu 
of the otherwise continuously applicable referenced Uniform Standards.
6. What are my general recordkeeping requirements?
    We are proposing to add 40 CFR 65.220 to require that you maintain 
records for a period of 5 years, as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A.

[[Page 17966]]

These records would be required to be maintained in such a manner that 
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection within 2-
hours time. This proposed record retention policy does not specify 
onsite or offsite retention periods because we assume that sources 
primarily use electronic archival systems that can be easily accessed 
from on site, whether the archive exists on or off site. This will 
provide more flexibility for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63 
while maintaining enforceability of the rule. This would allow the use 
of hard copy or electronic storage technologies that enable offsite 
data to be quickly retrieved by the site for independent review. For 
sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, this 
proposed recordkeeping provision could represent a longer total record 
retention period of 5 years rather than 2 years, but would allow 
shorter onsite record retention. For many sources regulated under 40 
CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, this proposed record retention 
requirement represents a burden reduction compared to the title V 
program, which requires onsite record retention for 5 years.
7. What are my general reporting requirements?
    We propose adding 40 CFR 65.225 to subpart H to consolidate and 
make consistent the reporting provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. 
We considered the level of reporting that would be required for sources 
regulated under the Uniform Standards according to the periodic 
reporting requirements of the existing rules and the title V program. 
Many sources are subject to numerous periodic reports under various 40 
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 subparts, as well as under the title V program. 
Petroleum refineries, for example, are required to prepare periodic 
reports under multiple regulations. For example, petroleum refineries 
can be subject to regulations, such as subparts G, R, CC, UU and UUU of 
40 CFR part 63, subparts Kb, R, VV, XX, GGG and QQQ of 40 CFR part 60 
and subparts V, Y, BB and FF of 40 CFR part 61, in addition to title V 
reporting requirements. All of these regulations have requirements for 
periodic reporting, most commonly, semiannual reporting. The NESHAP for 
petroleum refineries, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, includes provisions 
for emission units that are subject to more than one regulation and the 
rule provides direction regarding which rule the source should follow 
to address the overlapping requirements. However, this guidance only 
applies when more than one rule applies to a given emission unit; the 
guidance does not address situations when several rules apply to the 
source, but there is no overlap of requirements for a given emission 
unit. For example, there is no guidance provided for situations, such 
as a source with a storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, 
another tank subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and third tank 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. For this example, the source is 
required to know the details of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for all three rules and submit periodic reports according 
to the requirements of each rule.
    As discussed in section II.D of this preamble, having the Uniform 
Standards with different subparts referencing its use provides for a 
significant burden reduction due to the consolidation of requirements. 
Although the report content would be the same for a given emission 
point type, the reporting schedule is dictated by the referencing 
subpart; therefore, a source subject to the Uniform Standard under 
multiple referencing subparts applicable to different emission points 
could still be subject to multiple periodic reports on different 
reporting schedules. However, we have included in proposed subpart H, 
provisions modeled from the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, allowing 
adjustments to reporting schedules to arrange the reports on a 
consistent schedule, including 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 
operating permit semiannual reports.
    Types of reports. To consolidate and make consistent the reporting 
requirements under the Uniform Standards, proposed 40 CFR 65.225 groups 
notifications and reports into four categories: (1) Notification of 
Compliance Status, (2) semiannual periodic reports, (3) annual periodic 
reports and (4) other notifications and reports. Consolidating the 
reporting requirements as described in this section will make it easier 
for you to comply with the rule and for the EPA to enforce and review 
these provisions in the future.
    In an effort to streamline the reporting requirements and reduce 
burden, we are proposing semiannual and annual periodic reports, based 
on whether the reporting elements are deviations or non-deviations. We 
considered whether it would be appropriate to eliminate periodic 
reports under the Uniform Standards because sources are required to 
document all deviations in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating 
permit semiannual reports, which must also be documented in reports for 
the underlying rules. However, some reporting elements in the periodic 
reports required under existing rules are not reporting deviations. For 
example, periodic reports include, as applicable, reports on LDAR 
monitoring (such as number of equipment tested and number of leaking 
equipment found), new operating scenarios developed for batch 
operations and the associated parameter monitoring and reports on 
process changes. In order to address the differences between non-
deviation reporting elements and to assure the appropriate level of 
detail for deviations, we have segregated the reporting elements into 
deviation and non-deviations. For non-deviation reporting elements, we 
are proposing that they be submitted annually in hardcopy. We have 
determined that annual reporting of non-deviation elements is 
sufficient to ensure compliance under the Uniform Standards, and 
anticipate that requiring these reporting elements annually, as opposed 
to semiannually, will create a burden reduction for industry (see 
section VII.D of this preamble).
    Although we have maintained semiannual reporting for the deviation 
reporting elements in the Uniform Standards, we are proposing that they 
be electronically entered in the CEDRI (rather than submitted by other 
means). The electronic reporting system will allow owners and operators 
to create copies of any deviation reports they would need to submit in 
a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating permit semiannual report 
to the permit authority. This would provide an additional burden 
reduction for industry, as discussed in section VII.D of this preamble.
    We are proposing that the Notification of Compliance Status Reports 
for 40 CFR part 65, subparts I and J be submitted electronically; the 
Notification of Compliance Status Reports for 40 CFR part 65, subpart M 
would be submitted in hard copy. We are not requiring electronic 
submittal of the Notification of Compliance Status Report for subpart M 
because it contains reporting elements that contain a high level of 
detail and description. As discussed in section II.F of this preamble, 
we have determined that these reporting elements would not be easily 
incorporated into the electronic reporting system at this time.
    The category of ``other'' notifications and reports was created to 
group together reports that are not part of the Notification of 
Compliance Status or periodic compliance reports. This group includes 
notifications and reports: (1) Submitted initially prior to the initial 
compliance demonstration; (2) that must be submitted only if you 
request to use alternative methods or procedures from

[[Page 17967]]

those specified in the proposed rule (e.g., request to use alternative 
test method); and (3) that are needed to be submitted for certain 
situations (e.g., notification of performance test; changes in 
continuous monitoring system (CMS), processes or controls; new 
operating scenarios for batch operations). Except for performance test 
and CEMS performance evaluation reports, ``other'' reports would be 
submitted in hard copy.
    We have included provisions that would require you to report any 
changes in CMS, processes or controls, or new operating scenarios for 
batch operations that differ from what has been previously reported 
(either in the Notification of Compliance Status or a subsequent 
report) within 30 days of making the change. We must be notified of 
these changes because they could be germane to the determination of a 
deviation, such as a deviation of an operating parameter under a new 
operating scenario, which was employed following the last report. In 
this instance, the agency would need to know the parameters against 
which to evaluate the deviation, as established under the updated 
operating scenario.
    Schedule. Proposed 40 CFR 65.225 also establishes a schedule for 
submitting the initial Notification of Compliance Status and semiannual 
and annual periodic reports. The Notification of Compliance Status for 
each regulated source would be required to be reported within 240 days 
after the applicable compliance date specified in the referencing 
subparts, or within 60 days after the completion of the initial 
performance test or initial compliance determination, whichever is 
earlier. We are requiring an annual periodic report containing non-
deviation reporting elements. Reporting of deviations required by the 
Uniform Standards would be reported electronically with the semiannual 
periodic report.
    Report nomenclature. Currently, the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 
General Provisions refer to the same report using different 
nomenclature, and these differences would hamper our efforts to 
specify, in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I through M, requirements related 
to this report. For example, the initial compliance report is referred 
to in the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions as a ``summary 
report'' (40 CFR 60.7(d)), ``compliance status information'' (40 CFR 
part 61, appendix A) and a ``Notification of Compliance Status'' (40 
CFR 63.9(h)), respectively. In proposed 40 CFR 65.225, this initial 
report is renamed for all sources complying with the Uniform Standards, 
and is referred to as the ``Notification of Compliance Status.'' Using 
one name for this report for sources regulated under all three parts of 
title 40 will facilitate efforts to specify requirements related to 
this report in the proposed Uniform Standards in 40 CFR part 65, 
subparts I through M.
    This same approach to standardizing report names has been applied 
to periodic compliance reports and certain other reports. The proposed 
Uniform Standards refer to the periodic compliance report as the 
``annual periodic report'' or ``semiannual periodic report,'' which 
standardizes the name for the ``excess emission and continuous 
monitoring system performance report'' and ``summary report'' in 40 CFR 
part 63, the ``excess emissions and monitoring systems performance 
report'' and ``summary report form'' in 40 CFR part 60 and the 
``compliance status information'' form in 40 CFR part 61, appendix A.
    Likewise, we propose making consistent, where appropriate, the 
content of these similar reports in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 for the 
semiannual and annual periodic reports and other notifications and 
reports under the Uniform Standards. For example, the 40 CFR parts 60, 
61 and 63 general provisions for periodic compliance reporting include 
reporting provisions that are similar in intent, but slightly different 
in content, and this discrepancy between the General Provisions 
complicates our efforts to specify reporting requirements in 40 CFR 
part 65, subparts I, J and M. The proposed ``semiannual periodic 
report'' and ``annual periodic report'' incorporate elements of the 
``excess emission and continuous monitoring system performance report'' 
and ``summary report'' in 40 CFR part 63, the ``excess emissions and 
monitoring systems performance report'' and ``summary report form'' in 
40 CFR part 60 and the ``compliance status information'' form in 40 CFR 
part 61, appendix A. We are also updating the contents of the 
semiannual and annual periodic reports by adding provisions for closed 
vent systems, batch operations and process changes. Refer to section 
V.B of this preamble for further discussion on this topic.
    Other report consolidation. We are proposing to consolidate certain 
40 CFR part 60, 61 and 63 general provisions that specify the technical 
contents of reports (e.g., submittal of test plan and performance 
evaluation test plan), and we have determined that these provisions 
would best be aggregated with the monitoring, performance testing and/
or reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, instead of in 
subpart H. It will be easier for sources to locate and understand these 
requirements if they are included in subpart M with related testing and 
monitoring requirements. Combining similar requirements together would 
benefit both the public and private sector by simplifying compliance 
and enforcement. Refer to section V.B of this preamble for further 
discussion of this topic.
    We have consolidated the reporting requirement to submit a request 
for alternative monitoring. The general provisions for 40 CFR parts 60, 
61 and 63 all allow alternative monitoring, but 40 CFR part 60 and 40 
CFR part 61 do not provide a procedure for submitting such a request. 
We proposed to apply the procedure specified in the 40 CFR part 63 
General Provisions to all sources subject to the Uniform Standards. 
This proposed revision is discussed further in section VI.B.7 of this 
preamble. Consolidating these provisions in subpart H would provide a 
consistent method for requesting monitoring alternatives for all 
referencing subparts, adding flexibility and simplifying compliance for 
sources regulated under the Uniform Standards.
    Where we have determined that certain reporting requirements in the 
40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions do not apply to the 
Uniform Standards, we have excluded these provisions from 40 CFR part 
65, subparts H through M. For example, the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 
general provisions applicable to opacity and visible emissions are not 
included in proposed 40 CFR 65.225 because the Uniform Standards do not 
address opacity and visible emissions standards. We have also not 
included provisions from 40 CFR part 63 related to the SSM plan and 
associated recordkeeping and reporting, based on the Court decision 
that emissions limitations under CAA section 112 must apply at all 
times, even during periods of SSM (see section VI.B.5 of this 
preamble). Although the SSM plan and recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements were not specifically vacated by the Court, they no longer 
serve the original purpose of making sure the source follows good 
pollution control measures during periods of SSM in return for not 
being in violation.
    We have removed provisions that required recordkeeping and 
reporting for actions taken during periods when a deviation occurs. 
These measures, which were previously included in periodic reports 
existing under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63, required that sources 
document and report the corrective actions taken when a

[[Page 17968]]

deviation occurs, the measures adopted to correct the deviation, the 
nature of the repairs or adjustments to the CMS and a description of 
the cause of the deviation. Additionally, these provisions required 
more detailed reporting, such as the identification of the cause (e.g., 
the monitoring equipment malfunction process upset, control device 
upset, etc.) of each period of excess emissions and parameter 
monitoring exceedances. The reporting elements required by these 
provisions are elements that were previously established as part of SSM 
requirements. Although we are not requiring recording or reporting of 
these elements as part of the semiannual periodic report, sources may 
wish to collect and maintain this information for EPA and corporate 
review in the case of an exceedance of an emission standard. Further 
requirements for periods of deviation will be addressed by the 
referencing subpart in the manner appropriate for each source category; 
these requirements will be established during the development of the 
referencing subpart.
    Reporting impacts. The consolidation of reporting requirements, as 
discussed in this section, will create a simplified, consistent method 
for reporting that may be applied to multiple source categories. We 
anticipate that these revised requirements will improve understanding, 
facilitate compliance and reduce the burden associated with reporting 
for multiple regulations. We have estimated that reducing the reporting 
frequency for some reporting elements to annual; allowing semiannual 
periodic reports to be submitted on a consistent schedule; and 
converting to electronic reporting for certain reporting elements would 
provide a reporting burden reduction of 42 to 59 percent to typical 
chemical plants and refineries (see sections VI.B.6 and VII.D of this 
preamble for more information).
8. How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?
    We are proposing that 40 CFR 65.235 be added to subpart H to 
provide a procedure for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 
CFR part 61 (as well as 40 CFR part 63) to apply for and obtain 
approval for a recordkeeping or reporting waiver request. This proposed 
procedure for requesting a waiver is currently provided in the General 
Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, but is not provided in the 
General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 61. 40 CFR 61.11 
does provide provisions for a waiver of compliance, but does not 
specifically address a waiver of recordkeeping and reporting. We 
propose that sources regulated under 40 CFR part 61 submit the proposed 
application for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting with the 
application requesting a waiver of compliance under 40 CFR 61.11. 
Applying this 40 CFR part 63, subpart A procedure to all sources 
referred to the Uniform Standards would add flexibility and simplify 
compliance and enforcement for sources regulated under the Uniform 
Standards.
9. How do I request alternative monitoring methods?
    We propose that 40 CFR 65.240 be added to subpart H to provide a 
procedure for requesting alternative monitoring methods, including 
major, minor and intermediate changes to monitoring methods. The 
allowance to request alternative monitoring is currently provided in 
the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions, but the 40 CFR part 
60 and 40 CFR part 61 General Provisions (i.e., see 40 CFR 
60.13(h)(3)(i) and 61.14(g)(1)) do not provide a procedure for 
application and approval of such requests. Applying the 40 CFR part 63 
general provisions procedure (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)(4)(ii)), with minor 
clarifying revisions to all sources referred to the Uniform Standards 
would provide a consistent method for requesting monitoring 
modifications and alternatives for all referencing subparts, adding 
flexibility and simplifying compliance for sources regulated under the 
Uniform Standards.
10. How do I request a waiver for performance testing requirements?
    40 CFR 65.245 is proposed to be added to subpart H to provide a 
procedure for requesting a performance test waiver. This procedure is 
currently provided in the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, but is not 
provided in the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions. The 40 CFR part 61 
General Provisions (i.e., 40 CFR 60.8(b)) do allow a waiver for 
performance tests, but do not provide a procedure for application and 
approval.
    Applying this 40 CFR part 63 general provisions procedure to all 
sources referred to the Uniform Standards would update these provisions 
for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 and 
benefit both the public and industry by simplifying compliance for and 
enforcement of sources regulated under the Uniform Standards.
11. How do I request to use an alternative test method?
    We propose that 40 CFR 65.250 be added to subpart H to provide a 
procedure for requesting a different test method than specified in the 
Uniform Standards, including standard methods not specified, 
alternative test methods or changes to test methods. The allowance to 
request alternative test methods is provided in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 
63, subpart A, but 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, subpart A do not 
provide a procedure for application and approval of such requests. 
Applying this 40 CFR part 63, subpart A procedure to all sources 
referred to the Uniform Standards would provide sources regulated under 
40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 with more detailed instructions, 
simplifying compliance and enforcement of sources regulated under the 
Uniform Standards.
12. What are the procedures for approval of alternative means of 
emission limitation?
    40 CFR 65.260 is proposed to be added to subpart H to specify a 
procedure for requesting an alternative means of emission limitation. 
The 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions currently 
include such provisions. The 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions do not 
include such provisions; however, such provisions are included in the 
underlying rules of 40 CFR part 60. We are proposing to consolidate the 
provisions for 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 into proposed subpart 
H for sources directed to the Uniform Standards and regulated under 40 
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. The consolidated language in proposed subpart 
H contains the same provisions as the other general provisions 
requiring the source to submit a request containing information showing 
that the alternative means of emission limitations achieves equivalent 
emission reductions to the method specified in the Uniform Standards.
13. How do you determine what regulated sources are in regulated 
material service?
    The previously proposed 40 CFR 65.275 describes procedures for 
determining whether a source is ``in regulated material service,'' in 
the event that a referencing subpart does not provide an explanation of 
how to determine whether a source is ``in regulated material service.'' 
These previously proposed requirements are based on the procedures in 
40 CFR 63.180(d), which require that you determine the percent organic 
HAP

[[Page 17969]]

content using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6. We are 
considering, but not proposing, applying the same concepts we used in 
selecting the test methods allowable for performance test methods for 
determining whether the source is ``in regulated materials service.'' 
As discussed in section V.B.6 of this preamble, we are not allowing EPA 
Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 and EPA Method 320 as performance test methods 
for total regulated material because these methods only work for 
determining the quantity of known pollutants; therefore, you could fail 
to identify the ``total'' regulated material. We are requesting comment 
on whether it is reasonable to consider allowing Method 320 at 40 CFR 
part 63, appendix A in lieu of EPA Method 18 for determining whether 
your regulated source is in regulated materials service when the 
specific organic regulated material is known, and not allowing EPA 
Method 18 or EPA Method 320 when there are unknown HAP present. 
Instead, we would specify that Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7 should be used to determine if the source is ``in regulated 
materials service.'' This proposed 40 CFR 65.275 is identical to the 
previously proposed 40 CFR 65.275.
14. What authorities are not delegated to the states?
    We delegate implementation and enforcement authority to a state 
under sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the CAA. For the Uniform Standards, 
the delegation of these authorities would be through the referencing 
subparts because the proposed Uniform Standards are a set of 
foundational requirements that may be used to demonstrate compliance 
with the emissions standards specified in the referencing subpart. 
However, because there are certain requirements that the EPA does not 
delegate to the states, and some of those requirements are located in 
the Uniform Standards, it is important to specify their location in the 
Uniform Standards. 40 CFR 65.275 is proposed to be added to subpart H 
to specify which authorities located in the Uniform Standards would be 
retained by the EPA and not delegated to a state. The proposed Uniform 
Standards in subpart H specify that the EPA retain authority to review 
and approve the following: alternative means of emission limitation; 
recordkeeping and reporting waivers; major changes to monitoring 
requirements; major changes to test methods; and using standard EPA 
test methods other than those listed in the Uniform Standards. This 
proposed list of authorities is consistent with the list of retained 
authorities specified 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63.
15. How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
    The proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat 
Exchangers (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), signed by the EPA Administrator 
on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), included guidance on 
the timing of periodic requirements, including a minimum amount of time 
that must pass between consecutive instances, or ``reasonable 
intervals.'' We provided reasonable intervals for weekly, monthly, 
quarterly, semiannual and annual requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 
65, subpart L, and those intervals have not changed. In the process of 
developing the Uniform Standards, we have added periodic requirements 
using additional time frames. Therefore, we are proposing to add 
additional reasonable intervals for requirements that occur bimonthly, 
three times per year and biennially (i.e., every 2 calendar years). We 
are proposing that the reasonable interval for bimonthly requirements 
would be 20 days, which is roughly halfway between the reasonable 
intervals for monthly and quarterly requirements. Requirements that 
must be completed ``three times per year'' are less defined in terms of 
a calendar period, but if the three events were evenly spaced 
throughout a year, they would occur about 120 days apart. We are 
proposing that the reasonable interval for ``three times per year'' 
would be 40 days, which is consistent with the reasonable intervals of 
about one-third of the calendar period that we proposed previously for 
requirements that occur quarterly or less frequently. Finally, we are 
proposing that for provisions that you are required to complete 
biennially, you would repeat those events every other calendar year. 
(For example, if you are required to monitor valves subject to 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart J biennially, and you complete the first monitoring 
event in January of 2014, you would be required to complete the next 
monitoring event on or after January 1, 2016, and on or before December 
31, 2016.) This provision has the effect of requiring you to schedule 
each event between about 1 to 3 calendar years after the previous 
event. We request comment on these reasonable intervals.
16. What definitions apply to this subpart?
    We are proposing definitions in subpart H for certain types of 
units that appear in multiple Uniform Standards, so that those terms 
are defined consistently. Some definitions modeled from subpart SS, UU 
and WW of part 63 have been revised in the proposed subpart H for 
clarification or applicability purposes. Refer to sections III through 
V of this preamble for discussions about issues related to the proposed 
definitions.

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule

    The Uniform Standards provide only operational, compliance 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would not 
apply to any specific source category unless and until made applicable 
in a subsequent rulemaking for that source category referencing the 
Uniform Standards; therefore, it is most appropriate to present 
nationwide impacts for a referencing subpart during proposal or 
promulgation of that subpart when the emission standards are 
established for a given source category and when the decision of 
whether to refer to the Uniform Standards (and with what modifications) 
is made. The referencing subpart will provide the specific 
applicability of the Uniform Standards and an estimate of the number of 
sources and emission units for the given source category. Using the 
estimated numbers of regulated units, the nationwide impacts can be 
clearly calculated and presented.
    In order to provide sufficient information on the proposed Uniform 
Standards for comment review, we are presenting costs on a unit basis 
for the proposed monitoring requirements that have not been included in 
previous rules. Many of the requirements in the Uniform Standards are 
the same or are similar to previous rules and do not represent changes 
that will translate into a cost increase from current rules applicable 
to the chemical industry. Although the Uniform Standards are intended 
to reduce the overall burden for facilities, some of the proposed 
changes could cause an increase in costs. This section provides a 
discussion of these costs and any cost increases that could be 
associated with the compliance requirements of the Uniform Standards 
when they are applied through a referencing subpart.

A. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 
40 CFR part 65, subpart I?

    Generally, costs will be the same or lower for the 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart I standards. The proposed requirement to control emissions from 
degassing certain storage vessels will increase costs, as described in 
section III of this preamble. The proposed requirement to install 
monitoring devices and alarms to

[[Page 17970]]

alert operators of impending floating roof landing and overfill will 
add costs for facilities that do not already have such devices. The EPA 
Method 21/optical gas imaging instrument monitoring of fixed roofs will 
be more costly than visual inspections.

B. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 
40 CFR part 65, subpart J?

    There are two new provisions in the Uniform Standards for Equipment 
Leaks that are expected to increase costs compared to current rules. As 
described in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, the first of these is 
annual instrument monitoring for open-ended valves and lines to ensure 
compliance with the requirement that the cap, blind flange, plug or a 
second valve properly seals the open-ended valve or line. The costs for 
the model plants ranged from a capital cost of $810 and an annualized 
cost of $180 for the simple chemical manufacturing model to a capital 
cost of $23,000 and an annualized cost of $5,400 for the complex 
refinery model.
    The other provision that is expected to increase costs compared to 
current rules is the requirement to install electronic indicators on 
each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and 
duration of each pressure release. These costs range from a capital 
cost of $11,000 and an annualized capital cost of $1,600 for the simple 
chemical manufacturing model to a capital cost of $130,000 and an 
annualized capital cost of $19,000 for the complex refinery model. 
Additional details on the calculation of these costs are provided in 
the technical memorandum entitled Analysis of Emission Reduction 
Techniques for Equipment Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.

C. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 
40 CFR part 65, subpart M?

    We are providing a summary of the cost impacts of the proposed 40 
CFR part 65, subpart M monitoring requirements in which the expected 
impacts will change from the typical monitoring requirements in past 
rules, including adsorbers, biofilters, bypasses and reporting 
requirements. We do not anticipate other cost impacts that would differ 
from those established in current regulations. We provide a summary of 
the costs for the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements in 
sections VII.C.1 through VII.C.3 of this preamble. Additional 
information regarding monitoring costs for closed vent system and 
control devices, including small boilers and process heaters, 
oxidizers, absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, biofilters, sorbent 
injection and fabric filters can be located in the technical 
memorandum, Development of Monitoring Cost Estimates for the Proposed 
Part 65 Uniform Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M, in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.
1. What are the cost increases associated with adsorber requirements 
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
    The proposed monitoring for adsorbers, both regenerative and non-
regenerative, includes some requirements that are new to the typical 
chemical sector regulation. Table 16 of this preamble provides a list 
of the proposed monitoring provisions for adsorbers that have not been 
typically included in previous chemical sector regulations.

 Table 16--Capital and Annualized Costs for Proposed Adsorber Monitoring Requirements in 40 CFR Part 65, Subpart
                                                        M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total        Total
                    Control                                   Monitoring                  capital     annualized
                                                                                         costs ($)    costs ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regenerative Adsorbers........................  Frequency monitor.....................  ...........        5,950
                                                Verification monitoring...............  ...........        5,950
                                                Weekly checks on outlet concentration.        9,200        3,700
                                                Corrective action plan................  ...........        3,400
Non-regenerative Adsorbers....................  Checks on outlet concentration (costs         9,200        3,700
                                                 assume an average of weekly
                                                 monitoring).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously in section V.B.3 of this preamble, these 
monitoring requirements are important to assess whether the adsorbers 
are operating properly. It is difficult to estimate emissions 
reductions that can be attributed to these additional costs. Other than 
the weekly outlet concentration tests, the additional monitoring checks 
are designed to check for a situation that can occur, but may not for a 
given adsorber. If, for example, the valve sequencing of a regenerative 
adsorber is sluggish and the timing is not correct, the emissions 
reduced by the adsorber could degrade significantly. The weekly checks 
on the outlet concentration and associated corrective action plan for 
regenerative adsorbers ensure that degradation of the adsorbent, 
fouling or channeling is detected in a timely manner. A period of time 
with inadequate adsorbent would significantly reduce the emissions 
reductions of the adsorber. Although the degradation of the adsorbent 
is an anticipated event, the adsorbent life can vary with actual use; 
therefore, a schedule to check the outlet concentration is important to 
make sure that the adsorber does not operate with degraded adsorbent 
and can control emissions to meet the requirements of the referencing 
subpart.
    Few past rules have included provisions for adsorbers regenerated 
offsite; therefore, any monitoring for non-regenerative adsorbers is 
additional monitoring or new for chemical sector rules. The proposed 
monitoring for this type of control, outlet concentration measurement, 
is low cost, especially considering that this is the only monitoring 
that is necessary for this control.
2. What are the cost increases associated with biofilter requirements 
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
    Although the MON requires monitoring the temperature of the 
biofilter bed, we are proposing additional monitoring for moisture and 
pressure drop. The estimated additional costs for monitoring these 
parameters are included in Table 17 of this preamble.

[[Page 17971]]



       Table 17--Capital and Annualized Costs for Proposed Biofilter Monitoring Requirements in Subpart M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total        Total
                    Control                                   Monitoring                  capital     annualized
                                                                                         costs ($)    costs ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biofilters....................................  Moisture content......................        5,400        7,100
                                                Pressure drop.........................        6,400        7,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the MON only allows the biofilter as a control option for 
batch operations, we are proposing to allow the control option for 
emissions from either a batch or continuous operation. To meet the 
additional emissions reductions usually associated with continuous 
operations, we have added monitoring for moisture and pressure drop to 
ensure good performance of the biofilter. The costs for the additional 
monitoring are reasonable given the added assurance of good performance 
achieved by including this monitoring.
3. What are the cost increases associated with bypass monitoring 
requirements proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
    Bypass monitoring has been a requirement of closed vent system 
provisions in many past regulations. However, PRD needed for safety 
purposes, low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-
ended valves or lines were previously not subject to the bypass line 
requirements to have a flow monitor or a car seal on each bypass line 
that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. Given the recent 
Sierra Club v. EPA decision vacating the 40 CFR part 63 General 
Provisions' exemption from emission standards during periods of SSM 
(see section VI.B.5 of this preamble), these equipment would be subject 
to this monitoring when directed to the Uniform Standards from a 
referencing subpart. See the discussion under section VII.B of this 
preamble.

D. What are the cost impacts associated with the proposed reporting 
requirements for the Uniform Standards?

    In our survey of existing regulations for the development of the 
Uniform Standards, we determined that many petroleum refineries and 
chemical plants are subject to numerous and duplicative recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements under various 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 
subparts, as well as under the title V program. We have estimated a 
total recordkeeping and reporting burden for a typical refinery subject 
to current rules of about $106,000, with a burden of approximately 
$52,800 for the required reporting. For an example chemical plant, we 
have estimated a total recordkeeping and reporting burden of 
approximately $66,900 for the current rules, with a burden of about 
$16,000 for the current required reporting. In order to reduce burden 
to industry, while retaining the reporting requirements needed to 
monitor compliance, we are proposing annual periodic reporting for some 
reporting elements and we are proposing to accept semiannual reporting 
data elements electronically, as discussed in sections II.F and VI.B.7 
of this preamble. We anticipate that the proposed reporting 
requirements will reduce the burden of reporting for a typical refinery 
by 59 percent. This would represent a burden reduction of about $31,400 
for reporting burden, and a total burden reduction of 30 percent for a 
typical refinery. For a typical chemical plant, we anticipate that the 
proposed requirements will reduce the burden of reporting by 42 
percent. This would represent a burden reduction of $6,780 per year for 
reporting, and would represent a total burden reduction of 10 percent 
for a typical chemical plant. However, there will be some burden for a 
source to initially set up their facility in the electronic reporting 
system. We estimated set up costs for the example refinery and chemical 
plant as $5,300 and $2,700, respectively. See technical memorandum, 
Comparison of Reporting Burden between Hardcopy Reports Submitted under 
Existing Rules and Electronic Reports Submitted for Uniform Standards, 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868 for additional information. These 
burden reductions are estimates based on two model sources; we will be 
refining these estimates and developing estimates associated with all 
electronic reporting users. These estimates will be presented in the 
preamble for the electronic reporting rule proposal. For a discussion 
of the electronic reporting, see section II.F of this preamble.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Executive Order 12866 and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
    Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 15859, March 22, 2011) directs each 
federal agency to ``periodically review its existing significant 
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be 
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's 
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 
regulatory objectives.'' Through this proposal, the EPA is responding 
to Executive Order 13563 by presenting steps to increase the ease and 
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
    Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of 
facilities affected by this proposal electronically submit certain 
specified compliance reports to the EPA. Electronic data reporting 
informs a number of our programs and offers several advantages over 
traditional paper reporting. First, electronic reporting provides the 
agency easy and routine access to the data needed to review and 
evaluate our regulations. This results in fewer future ICR, thereby 
saving both industry and the agency time and resources. In addition, 
electronic reporting of emissions data will allow the agency to develop 
and update emissions factors on a timelier basis. Finally, electronic 
reporting informs our compliance program and allows easier 
identification of compliance issues.
    Executive Order 13563 requires the EPA to evaluate current 
regulatory decisions to help generate a more transparent review 
process. We believe that, through this proposal, electronic reporting 
and data collection will provide a more effective and less burdensome 
approach to recordkeeping

[[Page 17972]]

and reporting and is consistent with Executive Order 13563. The EPA 
prepared an additional analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action. This analysis is contained in section VII 
of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The proposed Uniform Standards 
only provide thresholds, emissions reductions requirements, control 
options, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
that would become applicable to a particular source category only if, 
and when, a future rulemaking for that source category references the 
Uniform Standards. The information collection burden of the Uniform 
Standards on a given source category cannot be determined until the 
Uniform Standards are referenced in a future rulemaking. Upon proposal 
of a rule that references the Uniform Standards, a determination of the 
burden estimate and an assessment for costs, economic impacts and other 
impacts, as appropriate, would be conducted.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as 
defined by the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule will not directly impose any requirements on any 
entities, including small entities. There are no entities subject to 
this proposed rule unless and until the Uniform Standards are 
referenced in future rulemakings for particular source categories. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The Uniform Standards will not apply to any source category until 
future rulemakings under 40 CFR part 60, 61 or 63 reference their use. 
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 
205 of UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Upon proposal of a 
rule that references the Uniform Standards, consideration will be made 
whether that rule exceeds $100 million or more for state, local and 
tribal governments or presents a significant impact on small government 
entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The Uniform Standards will not 
apply to any source category until a future rulemaking under 40 CFR 
part 60, 61 or 63 references their use; therefore, the proposed Uniform 
Standards do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or 
local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
proposed rule. Upon proposal of a rule that references the Uniform 
Standards, consideration will be made whether that rule has federalism 
implications. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and 
local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed rule from state and local officials.

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

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The proposed Uniform Standards do not directly impose requirements on 
owners and operators of specified sources or tribal governments, but 
will be referred to in future rulemakings, as discussed in section II 
of this preamble. If any industries that are owned or operated by 
tribal governments may be referenced to the Uniform Standards by 
another subpart in the future, the effect of this proposed rule on 
communities of tribal governments would not be unique or 
disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an 
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy. The proposed Uniform Standards provide testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements only and do not 
specify applicability thresholds or emissions reduction performance 
requirements

[[Page 17973]]

that would have significant adverse energy impacts. The energy impacts 
of the proposed Uniform Standards would be determined when the 
standards are referenced in a future rulemaking. Therefore, we conclude 
that the proposed rule, when implemented, is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of 
energy.

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, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the 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. NTTAA directs 
the EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and 
Budget, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. 
The EPA cites the following standards: Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25A, 26, 26A, 27, 29, 201A, 
202, 301 and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the 
NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these 
EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 
2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 27, 201A or 202. The search and review results are 
in the docket for this rule. The search identified six VCS as 
acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purpose of this 
rule. The method, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
(incorporated by reference-see proposed 40 CFR 65.265), is cited in 
this rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon 
dioxide and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of 
ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 
3B for the manual procedures only, and not the instrumental procedures. 
The VCS, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), Standard Test Method for Determination 
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry (incorporated by reference-see proposed 40 CFR 
65.265), was designated an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18. 
Likewise, the VCS, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH) Method 2010 ``Amines, Aliphatic, is acceptable as an 
alternative for EPA Method 18 only for trimethylamine (CAS 121-44-8) at 
iron foundries.
    The VCS, ASTM D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of 
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Source 
Impinger Method, is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Methods 26 and 
26A. The VCS, ASTM D6784-2, Standard Test Method for Elemental, 
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), is acceptable as an 
alternative to EPA Method 29 for mercury only. The VCS, ASTM D6348-03 
(2010), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, is acceptable as an 
alternative to EPA Method 320, in accordance with the conditions 
outlined in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
National Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations 
(40 CFR 65 Subpart I), National Uniform Emission Standards for 
Equipment Leaks (40 CFR 65 Subpart J), and National Uniform Emission 
Standards for Control Devices (40 CFR Subpart M) (see Docket ID. No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868).
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 23 other 
VCS that were potentially applicable for the Uniform Standards in lieu 
of EPA reference methods. The EPA determined that these 23 standards 
identified for measuring emissions of the regulated pollutants or their 
surrogates subject to emission standards in this proposed rule were 
impractical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data 
and other important technical and policy considerations. Therefore, the 
EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The 
reasons for the determinations for the 23 methods are in the docket for 
this proposed rule. For the methods required or referenced by the 
proposed rules, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or 
procedures, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine 
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health 
or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from 
this proposed rule. The proposed Uniform Standards only provide 
thresholds, emissions reduction requirements and operational, testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and are not 
applicable until referenced by a future rulemaking for a particular 
source category. The impact of the proposed rule on minority and/or 
low-income populations would be determined during proposal in future 
rulemakings that reference the Uniform Standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 65

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Replace subpart H to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

What This Subpart Covers

65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.205 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.206 When must I comply with this subpart?

General Requirements

65.210 Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 
of this part?
65.215 What are my general requirements for complying with operation 
and maintenance requirements?
65.220 What are my general recordkeeping requirements?

[[Page 17974]]

65.225 What are my general reporting requirements?
65.235 How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?
65.240 How do I request an alternative monitoring method?
65.245 How do I request a waiver for performance testing 
requirements?
65.250 How do I request to use an alternative test method?
65.260 What are the procedures for approval of alternative means of 
emission limitation?
65.265 What methods are incorporated by reference for the Uniform 
Standards?
65.270 How do I determine what regulated sources are in regulated 
material service?

Other Requirements and Information

65.275 What authorities are not delegated to the states?
65.280 How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
65.295 What definitions apply to the Uniform Standards?

Table to Subpart H of Part 65

Table 1 to Subpart H of Part 65--Applicable 40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 
63 General Provisions

Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  65.200  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide general provisions for 
the Uniform Standards of this part. These general provisions apply to 
you if a subpart of part 60, 61 or 63 of this chapter references the 
use of this subpart. The general provisions applicable to the 
referencing subpart (subpart A of part 60, 61 or 63) apply to this 
subpart, as specified in Sec.  65.210. Section 65.295 contains 
definitions of ``uniform standards'' and ``referencing subpart,'' as 
well as other terms used in these Uniform Standards. The General 
Provisions for the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (subpart A of this 
part) do not apply to the Uniform Standards.


Sec.  65.205  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who 
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly 
directed to comply with the uniform standards by a referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.206  When must I comply with this subpart?

    You must comply with this subpart by the date specified in the 
referencing subpart that directed you to comply with this subpart.

General Requirements


Sec.  65.210  Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or 
63 of this part?

    You must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 
40 CFR part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as 
applicable, that are specified in Table 1 to this subpart. Table 1 to 
this subpart specifies the provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 40 
CFR part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that continue to 
apply to owners or operators of regulated sources expressly referenced 
to the Uniform Standards. You must comply with the provisions in Table 
1 to this subpart that correspond to the referencing part. All 
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 40 CFR part 61, subpart A; and 
40 CFR part 63, subpart A that are not expressly referenced in Table 1 
to this subpart do not apply, and the provisions of the Uniform 
Standards apply instead, except that provisions that were required to 
be met prior to implementation of the Uniform Standards still apply.


Sec.  65.215  What are my general requirements for complying with 
operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) Operation and maintenance requirements. You are subject to the 
operation and maintenance provisions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) At all times, you must operate and maintain any regulated 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
    (2) The emission standards and established parameter ranges of the 
referencing subpart and of the Uniform Standards apply at all times, 
except during periods of non-operation of the regulated source (or 
specific portion thereof), as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 
(ii) of this section. However, if a period of non-operation of one 
portion of a regulated source does not affect the ability of a 
particular emission point to comply with the specific provisions to 
which it is subject, then that emission point must comply with the 
applicable provisions of the Uniform Standards during the period of 
non-operation. For example, the degassing of a storage vessel would not 
affect the ability of a process vent to meet the requirements of 
subpart M of this part.
    (i) For all Uniform Standards except subpart J of this part, 
periods of non-operation of the regulated source (or specific portion 
thereof) are those periods resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which the Uniform Standards apply.
    (ii) For subpart J of this part, periods of non-operation of the 
regulated source (or specific portion thereof) are those periods in 
which the lines are drained and depressurized, resulting in cessation 
of the emissions to which subpart J of this part applies.
    (3) Operation and maintenance requirements are enforceable 
independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant 
standards.
    (b) Compliance determination procedures. The Administrator will 
follow the compliance determination procedures specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Compliance with operating conditions. For emission points that 
are required to perform continuous parameter monitoring, the 
Administrator will determine compliance with the required operating 
conditions for the monitored control devices by using operating 
parameter monitoring data.
    (2) Compliance with the requirement to maintain any regulated 
source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The Administrator will 
determine compliance with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section by evaluation of your use of acceptable operation and 
maintenance procedures. This determination will be based on information 
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, 
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, inspection of the 
regulated source and alternatives approved as specified in Sec.  
65.240.
    (3) Compliance with emissions standards. Paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and 
(ii) of this section govern the use of data, tests and requirements to 
determine compliance with emissions standards.
    (i) Performance test. The Administrator will determine compliance 
with emission standards of the referencing subpart and the Uniform 
Standards, based on the results of performance tests conducted 
according to the procedures specified in subpart M of this part, as 
applicable, unless otherwise specified in the Uniform Standards.
    (ii) Operation and maintenance requirements. The Administrator will 
determine compliance with emission standards of the Uniform Standards 
by evaluation of your conformance with operation and maintenance 
requirements, including the evaluation

[[Page 17975]]

of monitoring data, as specified in the Uniform Standards.
    (4) Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards. The 
Administrator will determine compliance with design, equipment, work 
practice or operational standards by the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Review of records, inspection of the regulated source and other 
procedures specified in the Uniform Standards.
    (ii) Evaluation of your conformance with operation and maintenance 
requirements, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section and in the 
Uniform Standards.
    (c) Finding of compliance. The Administrator will make a finding 
concerning a regulated source's compliance with an emission standard, 
design standard, work practice, operational standard or general duty 
requirement to maintain any regulated source in a manner consistent 
with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, upon 
obtaining all the compliance information required by the relevant 
standard (including the reports of performance test results, monitoring 
results and other information, if applicable), and information 
available to the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section.


Sec.  65.220  What are my general recordkeeping requirements?

    (a) Maintaining notifications, records and reports. You must keep 
copies of notifications, reports and records required by this part for 
at least 5 years, except for records that reflect current operating 
conditions. These records and reports must be kept for 5 years after 
they no longer reflect current operating conditions. Examples of these 
records and reports include the regenerative adsorber corrective action 
plan required by Sec.  65.742(e) or storage vessel capacity required by 
Sec.  65.380(a).
    (b) Availability of records. You must maintain all applicable 
records in such a manner that they can be readily accessed and are 
suitable for inspection within 2 hours after a request. Records may be 
maintained in hard copy or computer-readable form, including, but not 
limited to, on paper, computer disk, CD/DVD or magnetic tape.


Sec.  65.225  What are my general reporting requirements?

    (a) Required notifications and reports. You must submit the 
notifications and reports specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of 
this section, as applicable. The notifications and reports specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (g) through (j) of this section.
    (1) A Notification of Compliance Status described in paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (2) Semiannual periodic reports, as described in paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (3) Annual periodic reports, as described in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (4) Other notifications and reports, as described in paragraph (f) 
of this section.
    (b) Responsible official. For Notification of Compliance Status 
Reports, semi-annual reports, annual periodic reports, performance test 
reports and continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) performance 
evaluation data, you must include the name, title and signature of the 
responsible official who is certifying the accuracy of the report and 
attesting to whether the source has complied with the relevant 
standard.
    (c) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit your 
Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section. The Notification of Compliance Status for 
subparts I and J of this part must be submitted electronically, as 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section and the Notification of 
Compliance Status for subpart M of this part must be submitted, as 
specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (1) Contents. You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status 
for each regulated source subject to the Uniform Standards, containing 
the information specified in the applicable subparts of the Uniform 
Standards.
    (2) Due date. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
for each regulated source within 240 days after the applicable 
compliance date specified in the referencing subpart, or within 60 days 
after the completion of the initial performance test, whichever is 
earlier.
    (d) Semiannual periodic reports. You must submit your periodic 
reports, as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. 
Semiannual reports must be submitted electronically as specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section.
    (1) Contents. Semiannual periodic reports must include information 
of all deviations. A deviation includes any failure to meet a 
requirement or obligation under the Uniform Standards and those 
reporting elements specified, to be submitted in the semiannual 
periodic reports in the Uniform Standards.
    (2) Due date. Semiannual periodic reports must be submitted 
semiannually, no later than 60 calendar days after the end of each 6-
month period. The first report must be submitted, as specified in 
either paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) The first report must be submitted no later than the last day 
of the month that includes the date 8 months after the date the source 
became subject to this part or 6 months after the date since the last 
part 60, 61 or 63 periodic report was submitted for the applicable 
requirement, whichever is earlier.
    (ii) For sources complying with the Uniform Standards at initial 
startup, the first report must cover the 6 months after the 
Notification of Compliance Status is due. The first report must be 
submitted no later than the last day of the month that includes the 
date 8 months after the Notification of Compliance Status is due.
    (e) Annual periodic report. You must submit your annual periodic 
reports, as specified in paragraphs (e)(1), (2) and (i) of this 
section.
    (1) Contents. Annual periodic reports must include all information 
specified for annual periodic reports in the Uniform Standards.
    (2) Due date. Annual periodic reports must be submitted annually, 
no later than 60 calendar days after the end of each 12-month period. 
The first report must be submitted, as specified in either paragraph 
(e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) The first report must be submitted no later than the last day 
of the month that includes the date 14 months after the date the source 
became subject to this part or 12 months after the date since the last 
part 60, 61 or 63 periodic report was submitted for the applicable 
requirement, whichever is earlier.
    (ii) For sources complying with the Uniform Standards at initial 
startup, the first report must cover the 12 months after the 
Notification of Compliance Status is due. The first report must be 
submitted no later than the last day of the month that includes the 
date 14 months after the Notification of Compliance Status is due.
    (f) Other notifications and reports. You must submit the reports 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3), and (i) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (1) Other reports required in this subpart. You must submit the 
reports specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.

[[Page 17976]]

    (i) Any request for a waiver for recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements, as specified in Sec.  65.235.
    (ii) Any request for an alternative or change in monitoring or an 
alternative recordkeeping method, as specified in Sec.  65.240.
    (iii) Any request for a waiver for a performance testing 
requirement, as specified in Sec.  65.245.
    (iv) Any request to use a different method than one specified in 
the Uniform Standards, as specified in Sec.  65.250.
    (2) Other reports required in subpart I of this part. You must 
submit the reports specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Notification of inspection (Sec.  65.388(a)).
    (ii) Requests for alternate devices (Sec.  65.388(b)).
    (3) Other reports required in subpart M of this part. You must 
submit the reports specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (xi) of 
this section.
    (i) Notification of performance test (Sec.  65.884(a)).
    (ii) Performance test reports (Sec.  65.884(b)) submitted, as 
specified in paragraph (k) of this section.
    (iii) Notification of CEMS performance evaluation (Sec.  
65.884(c)).
    (iv) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan (Sec.  
65.884(c)).
    (v) CEMS performance evaluations (Sec.  65.884(d)) submitted, as 
specified in paragraph (k) of this section.
    (vi) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) monitoring plan 
(Sec.  65.884(e)).
    (vii) Application to substitute a prior performance test (Sec.  
65.884(f)).
    (viii) A batch precompliance report (Sec.  65.884(g)).
    (ix) Request for approval of an alternative monitoring parameter or 
use of a control device other than those listed in subpart M of this 
part (Sec.  65.884(h)).
    (x) Changes in continuous monitoring system, processes or controls 
(Sec.  65.884(i)).
    (xi) New operating scenarios for batch operations (Sec.  
65.884(j)).
    (g) General report content. All notifications and reports 
submitted, pursuant to the Uniform Standards, including reports that 
combine information from the Uniform Standards and a referencing 
subpart, must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name, address and telephone number (fax number may also 
be provided).
    (2) The name, address and telephone number of the person to whom 
inquiries should be addressed, if different than the owner or operator.
    (3) The address (physical location) of the reporting facility.
    (4) Identification of each regulated source covered in the 
submission.
    (5) Identification of which referencing subpart is applicable to 
each regulated source.
    (6) Identification of which Uniform Standards are applicable to 
that regulated source.
    (7) Summaries and groupings of the information specified in 
paragraphs (g)(4) through (6) of this section are permitted.
    (8) The date of the report.
    (h) Electronic report submittals. You must electronically submit 
all semiannual periodic reports and the 40 CFR part 65, subpart I and 
40 CFR part 65, subpart J portions of the Notification of Compliance 
Status to the Administrator using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on or before the applicable due date.
    (i) Non-CEDRI submitted reports. You must submit notifications and 
reports not required to be submitted electronically according to the 
procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Notifications and reports not required to be submitted 
electronically under this part must be sent to the Administrator at the 
appropriate EPA Regional Office, and to the delegated State authority; 
except if you request permission to use an alternative means of 
emission limitation, as provided for in Sec.  65.260, you must submit 
the request to the Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (C404-04), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The EPA Regional Office may waive 
the requirement to receive a copy of any notification or report at its 
discretion.
    (2) If any State requires a notice that contains all the 
information required in a notification or report listed in this part, 
you may send the appropriate EPA Regional Office a copy of the 
notification or report that you sent to the state to satisfy the 
requirements of this part for that notification or report.
    (3) Wherever this subpart specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals 
may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (for example, by email, 
fax or courier) upon mutual agreement with the Administrator. 
Submittals must be sent on or before the specified date.
    (4) If acceptable to both the Administrator and you, notifications 
and reports may be submitted on electronic media.
    (j) Adjustment to timing of submittals. Adjustment to timing of 
submittals may be made according to the provisions specified in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Alignment with title V submission. You may submit semiannual 
periodic reports required by this part, on the same schedule as the 
title V periodic report for the facility. If you use this option, you 
need not obtain prior approval, but must assure no reporting gaps from 
the last semiannual periodic report for the relevant standards. You 
must clearly identify the change in reporting schedule in the first 
report after the change is made, filed under paragraph (d) of this 
section. The requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are not 
waived when implementing this change.
    (2) Request for adjustment. You may arrange, by mutual agreement 
(which may be a standing agreement) with the Administrator, a common 
schedule on which reports required by this part must be submitted 
throughout the year, as long as the reporting period is not extended. 
If you wish to request a change in a time period or due date for a 
particular requirement, you must request the adjustment as soon as 
practical before the subject activity is required to take place. You 
must include in the request the information you consider to be useful 
to convince the Administrator that an adjustment is warranted. A 
request for a change to the semiannual or annual periodic reporting 
schedules need only be made once for every schedule change and not once 
for every semiannual or annual report submitted. Until an adjustment of 
a due date has been approved by the Administrator, you remain subject 
to the requirements of the Uniform Standards. For periodic reports 
submitted for each relevant standard, the allowance for a consolidated 
schedule applies beginning 1 year after the regulated source's 
compliance date for that standard.
    (3) Approval of request for adjustment. If, in the Administrator's 
judgment, your request for an adjustment to a particular due date is 
warranted, the Administrator will approve the adjustment. The 
Administrator will notify you of approval or disapproval of the request 
for an adjustment within 15 calendar days of receiving sufficient 
information to evaluate the request.
    (4) Notification of delay. If the Administrator is unable to meet a 
specified deadline, you will be notified of any significant delay and 
informed of the amended schedule.
    (k) Electronic submittal of performance test and CEMS performance 
evaluation data. You must

[[Page 17977]]

submit performance test and CEMS performance evaluation data using 
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test required by Uniform Standards, you must submit performance test 
data electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 
ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data 
collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 
requirement, to be submitted electronically to EPA's CDX. If a non-
supported test method is used, you must submit the performance test 
report within 60 days, as specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) If you claim that some of the information being submitted for 
performance tests is confidential business information (CBI), you must 
omit such CBI data from the electronic submissions and submit a 
complete ERT file, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media 
(including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA by the due date 
specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section. The electronic media 
must be clearly marked as CBI, with the company name, facility 
location, contact name and phone number, and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
    (3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test required by Sec.  65.711(c), you must 
submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically into EPA's 
CDX by using the ERT, as described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section.
    (4) The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a 
report in any form suitable for the specific information, (e.g., by 
commonly used electronic media, such as spreadsheet, on CD or hard 
copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of 
reports in paper format.


Sec.  65.235  How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?

    You may request a waiver from recordkeeping or reporting according 
to the procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The 
Administrator will process the waiver according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section. You remain subject to the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Uniform Standards until 
a waiver has been granted by the Administrator.
    (a) Waiver application. You may apply for a waiver from 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements if your regulated source is 
achieving the relevant standard(s), or your source is operating under 
an extension of compliance under Sec.  63.6(i) of this chapter, or a 
waiver of compliance under Sec.  61.11 of this chapter, or you have 
requested an extension or waiver of compliance and the Administrator is 
still considering that request.
    (b) Extension of compliance request. If an application for a waiver 
of recordkeeping or reporting is made, the application must accompany 
the request for an extension of compliance under Sec.  63.6(i) of this 
chapter or the request for a waiver of compliance under Sec.  61.10(b) 
of this chapter, any required compliance progress report or compliance 
status report required in the source's title V permit application, or a 
permit modification application or a periodic report required under 
this part, whichever is applicable. The application must include 
whatever information you consider useful to convince the Administrator 
that a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting is warranted.
    (c) Approval or denial of waiver. The Administrator will approve or 
deny a request for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
when performing one of the following actions:
    (1) Approves or denies an extension of compliance under Sec.  
63.6(i) of this chapter or a waiver of compliance under Sec.  61.10(b) 
of this chapter.
    (2) Makes a determination of compliance following the submission of 
a required semiannual periodic report.
    (3) Makes a determination of suitable progress toward compliance 
following the submission of a compliance progress report, whichever is 
applicable.
    (d) Waiver conditions. A waiver of any recordkeeping or reporting 
requirement granted under this section may be conditioned on other 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements deemed necessary by the 
Administrator.
    (e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of any waiver granted under this 
section does not abrogate the Administrator's authority under the Clean 
Air Act or in any way prohibit the Administrator from later canceling 
the waiver. The cancellation will be made only after notice is given to 
you.


Sec.  65.240  How do I request an alternative monitoring method?

    You may submit a request for approval to use alternatives (major, 
intermediate or minor changes to monitoring methods) to the monitoring 
provisions of the Uniform Standards, as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (d) of this section.
    (a) Contents. An application for alternative monitoring must 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Information justifying your request for an alternative 
monitoring method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or 
the impracticality of the regulated source using the required method.
    (2) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring system 
that addresses the four elements contained in the definition of 
monitoring in Sec.  65.295.
    (3) A CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan, as specified 
in Sec.  65.711(c) or a CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in Sec.  
65.712(c), as applicable.
    (b) Request due date. You must submit the application for an 
alternative monitoring method, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You may submit the application at any time, provided that it is 
submitted with enough time prior to the compliance date specified in 
the referencing subpart to ensure a timely review by the Administrator 
in order to conduct the alternative monitoring method after the 
compliance date.
    (2) If the alternative monitoring procedure will serve as the 
performance test method that is to be used to demonstrate compliance 
with a referencing subpart, the application must be submitted at least 
60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin and must meet 
the requirements for an alternative test method under Sec.  65.250.
    (3) For a request to make a minor change to monitoring, you must 
submit your request with your CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan required in Sec.  65.711(c) or your CPMS monitoring 
plan required in Sec.  65.712(c), as applicable. Approval of the plan 
will constitute approval of the minor change.
    (c) Approval or denial of request to use alternative monitoring. 
The Administrator will notify you of approval or intention to deny 
approval of the request to use an alternative monitoring method within 
30 calendar days after receipt of the original request and within 30 
calendar days after receipt of any supplementary information that is 
submitted. Before disapproving any request to use an alternative 
method, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the 
Administrator's intention to disapprove

[[Page 17978]]

the request together with the information specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Notice of the information, and findings on which the intended 
disapproval is based.
    (2) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional information 
to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time 
the Administrator notifies you of the intention to disapprove the 
request, the Administrator will specify how much time you will have 
after being notified of the intended disapproval to submit the 
additional information.
    (d) Use of an alternative monitoring method. Procedures applicable 
to sources that have requested an alternative monitoring method are 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You are subject to the monitoring requirements of the Uniform 
Standards, unless permission to use an alternative monitoring method 
has been granted by the Administrator. Once an alternative is approved, 
you must use the alternative for the emission points or regulated 
sources cited in the approval, and must meet the monitoring 
requirements of the Uniform Standards for all other emission points or 
regulated sources.
    (2) If the Administrator approves the use of an alternative 
monitoring method for a regulated source, you must continue to use the 
alternative monitoring or method unless you receive approval from the 
Administrator to use another method.
    (3) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the 
results obtained by an alternative monitoring method, requirement or 
procedure, the Administrator may require the use of a method, 
requirement or procedure specified in the Uniform Standards. If the 
results of the specified and alternative methods, requirements or 
procedures do not agree, the results obtained by the method, 
requirement or procedure specified in the Uniform Standards will 
prevail.


Sec.  65.245  How do I request a waiver for performance testing 
requirements?

    You may request a waiver from the requirements to conduct a 
performance test by following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (e) of this section. Unless and until a waiver of a 
performance testing requirement has been granted by the Administrator 
under this paragraph, you remain subject to the performance testing 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (a) Conditions of request. You may apply for a waiver from the 
performance testing requirements specified if one or more of the 
conditions in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) apply.
    (1) You are meeting the Uniform Standards on a continuous basis.
    (2) You are operating under an extension of compliance, as 
specified in Sec.  63.6(i) of this chapter.
    (3) You have requested an extension of compliance, as specified in 
Sec.  61.11 and the Administrator is still considering that request.
    (b) Contents of request. The request must include information 
justifying your request for a waiver, such as the technical or economic 
infeasibility, or the impracticality of the regulated source performing 
the required test.
    (c) Timing of request. The waiver application must be submitted, as 
specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you request an extension of compliance under Sec.  63.6(i) 
of this chapter, the application for a waiver of an initial performance 
test must accompany the information required for the request for an 
extension of compliance, and must be submitted on the schedule in Sec.  
63.6(i) of this chapter.
    (2) If you have not requested an extension of compliance or if you 
have requested an extension of compliance and the Administrator is 
still considering that request, the application for a waiver of a 
performance test must be submitted at least 60 days before performance 
testing would be required. The application may accompany a Notification 
of Compliance Status Report or semiannual periodic report, as specified 
in Sec.  65.225(c) or (d).
    (d) Approval of request to waive performance test. The 
Administrator will approve or deny a request for a waiver of a 
performance test made under paragraph (a) of this section by completing 
any one of the actions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Approves or denies an extension of compliance under Sec.  
63.6(i)(8) or under Sec.  63.11.
    (2) Approves or disapproves a performance test plan under Sec.  
65.820(c).
    (3) Makes a determination of compliance following the submission of 
a required compliance status report or periodic report.
    (4) Makes a determination of suitable progress towards compliance 
following the submission of a compliance progress report.
    (e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of any waiver granted under this 
section does not abrogate the Administrator's authority under the Clean 
Air Act or in any way prohibit the Administrator from later canceling 
the waiver. The cancellation will be made only after notice is given to 
you.


Sec.  65.250  How do I request to use an alternative test method?

    You may submit a request for approval to use an alternative test 
method (i.e., major, intermediate or minor change to a test method, or 
an EPA test method other than one in the Uniform Standards), as 
described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Contents of request. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section, you must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the request for approval to use an 
alternative test method.
    (1) A justification for using the proposed alternative method 
instead of using the method specified in the Uniform Standards.
    (2) Results of applying Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A of 
this part to validate the alternative test method. This may include the 
use of only specific procedures of EPA Method 301, if use of such 
procedures are sufficient to validate the alternative test method.
    (3) For minor changes to a test method and for EPA test methods 
other than those specified in the Uniform Standards, Method 301 at 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A of this part is not required to validate the 
test method.
    (b) Timing of request. You must submit the request to use an 
alternative test method at least 60 days before the performance test is 
scheduled to begin. However, you may submit the request well in advance 
of the date 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin 
to ensure a timely review by the Administrator in order for you to meet 
the performance test date specified in the referencing subpart. This 
request may be submitted as part of the performance test plan required 
by Sec.  65.820.
    (c) Review of alternative test methods. The Administrator will 
determine whether your validation of the proposed alternative test 
method is adequate and issue an approval or disapproval. If the request 
for approval of an alternative test method is submitted with the 
performance test plan, approval of the performance test plan will 
indicate approval of the alternative test method. The procedure for 
test plan approval is specified in Sec.  65.820.
    (d) Use of alternative test method. You must follow the provisions 
of paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) regarding the use of alternative test 
methods.

[[Page 17979]]

    (1) If you have not received notification of approval/disapproval 
within 45 days after submission of the request to use an alternative 
method and the request satisfies the requirements in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section, you may conduct the performance test using the 
alternative method.
    (2) If you use an alternative test method for a regulated source 
during a required performance test, you must continue to use the 
alternative test method for subsequent performance tests at that 
regulated source until you receive approval from the Administrator to 
use another test method, as allowed under this section.
    (3) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the 
results obtained by an alternative test method for the purposes of 
demonstrating compliance with a relevant standard, the Administrator 
may require the use of a test method specified in the Uniform 
Standards.
    (4) Neither the validation and approval process nor the failure to 
validate an alternative test method abrogates your responsibility to 
comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards.


Sec.  65.260  What are the procedures for approval of alternative means 
of emission limitation?

    (a) General procedures. You may request a determination of 
equivalence for an alternative means of emission limitation to the 
requirements of design, equipment, work practice or operational 
standards of the Uniform Standards. If, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, an alternative means of emission limitation will achieve 
a reduction in regulated material emissions at least equivalent to the 
reduction in emissions from that source achieved under any design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standards (but not performance 
standards) in the Uniform Standards, the Administrator will publish in 
the Federal Register, a notice permitting the use of the alternative 
means for purposes of compliance with that requirement. Such notice 
will restrict the permission to the stationary source(s) or 
category(ies) of sources from which the alternative emission standard 
will achieve equivalent emission reductions.
    (1) The notice may provide permission on the condition that the 
alternative means of emission limitation must include requirements to 
assure the proper operation and maintenance of equipment and practices 
that would be required for compliance with the alternative emission 
standard, including appropriate quality assurance and quality control 
requirements that are deemed necessary.
    (2) Any such notice will be published only after public notice and 
an opportunity for a hearing.
    (3) A manufacturer of control devices or monitoring equipment may 
request an alternative means of emission limitation approval for their 
product.
    (b) Contents of submittal. You must include the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section in your 
request for alternative means of emission limitation, as applicable.
    (1) In order to obtain approval, any person seeking permission to 
use an alternative means of emission limitation under this section must 
collect, verify and submit to the Administrator information showing 
that the alternative means achieves equivalent emission reductions. If 
you seek permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation 
and you have not previously performed testing, you must also submit the 
proposed performance test plan required in Sec.  65.820(b). If you seek 
permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation, based on 
previously performed testing, you must submit the results of that 
testing, a description of the procedures followed in testing or 
monitoring and a description of pertinent conditions during testing or 
monitoring.
    (2) If you request an alternative means of emission limitation, you 
must submit a description of the proposed testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting that you will use and the proposed basis 
for demonstrating compliance.
    (3) Any testing or monitoring conducted to request permission to 
use an alternative emission standard must be appropriately quality 
assured and quality controlled, as specified in Sec.  65.820(b), as 
applicable.
    (4) If you request the use of an alternate device for a fitting on 
a floating roof, as described in Sec.  65.315(e), you must submit an 
application, including emissions test results and an analysis 
demonstrating that the alternate device has an emission factor that is 
less than or equal to the emission factor for the device specified in 
Sec.  65.315(a). The test results must include all documentation 
required by the applicable test methods and documentation of monitoring 
during the performance test of any operating parameters on which you 
establish limits. The tests must be conducted using full-size or scale-
model storage vessels that accurately collect and measure all regulated 
material emissions using a given control technique, and that accurately 
simulate wind and account for other emission variables, such as 
temperature and barometric pressure, or an engineering analysis that 
the Administrator determines is an accurate method of determining 
equivalence.
    (c) Compliance. If the Administrator makes a determination that a 
means of emission limitation is a permissible alternative to the 
requirements of design, equipment, work practice or operational 
standards of the Uniform Standards, you must either comply with the 
alternative or comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards, 
as applicable.


Sec.  65.265  What methods are incorporated by reference for the 
Uniform Standards?

    The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference 
in the corresponding sections of the Uniform Standards. These 
incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the 
approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published 
in the Federal Register. The materials are available for purchase at 
the corresponding addresses noted in this section, and all are 
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA), at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, U.S. EPA, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC, and at the EPA Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Room C261, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (a) The following materials are available for purchase from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605-6000 or (800) 553-6847; or for 
purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
    (1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 
(EPA-454/R-98-015).
    (2) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, 
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing 
Facilities, August 2007, Final, (EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16) http:/
/www.epa.gov/

[[Page 17980]]

ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.html.
    (3) Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Reactive Organic Compounds in 
Heavy Crude Oil Using Gas Chromatography, http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/R9Testmethod.nsf.
    (b) The following materials are available for purchase from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585, http://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM D6420-99(2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry.
    (2) ASTM D1946-90(2006), Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed 
Gas by Gas Chromatography.
    (3) ASTM D4809-09a, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of 
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method).
    (4) ASTM D2879-95(2011), Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types 
in Low Olefinic Gasoline by Mass Spectrometry.
    (c) The following materials are available for purchase from ASME, 
Information Central Orders/Inquiries, P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, New 
Jersey 07007-2300, (800) 843-2763, http://www.asme.org.
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus].
    (2) ASME B31.3-2010, Process Piping.
    (d) The following materials are available for purchase from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Alexandria, Virginia 
22312, (800) 553-6847, http://www.ntis.gov.
    (1) Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors, 
Zabetakis, M.G., U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 627, 1965.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (e) The following materials are available for purchase from the 
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1220 L Street NW., Washington, DC 
20005-4070, (202) 682-8000, http://www.api.org.
    (1) Evaporative Loss From External Floating Roof Tanks, API MPMS 
Chapter 19.2, September 1, 2003.
    (2) [Reserved].


Sec.  65.270  How do I determine what regulated sources are in 
regulated material service?

    If you are subject to a uniform standard that includes requirements 
for regulated sources ``in regulated material service,'' you must 
determine if regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material 
service using either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (a) If the referencing subpart includes a procedure or definition 
of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the procedure or 
definition of ``in regulated material service'' in the referencing 
subpart.
    (b) If the referencing subpart does not include a procedure or 
definition of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Regulated sources or equipment that can reasonably be expected 
to be in regulated material service are presumed to be in regulated 
material service unless you demonstrate that the regulated sources or 
equipment are not in regulated material service.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1) and (3) of this section, 
you must use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 and either of 
the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section 
to demonstrate that regulated sources or equipment are not in regulated 
material service.
    (i) Determine the weight percent regulated material content of the 
process fluid that is contained in or contacts the regulated source as 
the arithmetic sum of the weight percent concentration of each compound 
defined as regulated material. Demonstrate that the regulated material 
concentration is less than 5 weight percent on an annual average basis.
    (ii) Demonstrate that the non-regulated material content exceeds 95 
percent by weight on an annual average basis.
    (3) You may use good engineering judgment rather than the 
procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section to determine if 
regulated sources or equipment are not in regulated material service. 
However, when you and the Administrator do not agree on whether the 
regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material service, you 
must use the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to resolve 
the disagreement.


Sec.  65.275  What authorities are not delegated to the states?

    In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a state 
under sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, the following 
authorities are retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a 
state:
    (a) In Sec.  65.235, request for recordkeeping and reporting 
waiver.
    (b) In Sec.  65.240, major changes to monitoring methods.
    (c) In Sec.  65.250, major changes to test methods or a different 
EPA method than one specified in the Uniform Standards.
    (d) In 65.260, alternative means of emissions limitation.


Sec.  65.280  How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?

    Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, if you are 
subject to a requirement in the Uniform Standards to complete a 
particular task on a periodic basis, you must comply, as described in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) Periods of time. All terms in the Uniform Standards that define 
a period of time for completion of required tasks (e.g., daily, weekly, 
monthly, quarterly, annually), refer to the standard calendar periods.
    (b) Reasonable intervals. You may comply with such periodic 
requirements by completing the required task any time within the 
standard calendar period, provided there is a reasonable interval 
between completion of two instances of the same task. Reasonable 
intervals are described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this 
section.
    (1) Tasks that you are required to complete weekly must be 
separated by at least 3 calendar days.
    (2) Tasks that you are required to complete monthly must be 
separated by at least 14 calendar days.
    (3) Tasks that you are required to complete bimonthly (i.e., every 
2 calendar months) must be separated by at least 20 calendar days.
    (4) Tasks that you are required to complete quarterly must be 
separated by at least 30 calendar days.
    (5) Tasks that you are required to complete three times per year 
must be separated by at least 40 calendar days.
    (6) Tasks that you are required to complete semiannually (i.e., 
once every 2 quarters or twice per year) must be separated by at least 
60 calendar days.
    (7) Tasks that you are required to complete annually must be 
separated by at least 120 calendar days.
    (8) Tasks that you are required to complete biennially (i.e., once 
every 2 calendar years) must be completed every other calendar year.
    (c) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not 
apply to reports that you are required to submit under the General 
Provisions applicable to the referencing subpart (e.g., subpart A parts 
60, 61 or 63).
    (2) If the paragraph in the Uniform Standards that imposes a 
periodic requirement specifies a different schedule for complying with 
that requirement, you must follow that

[[Page 17981]]

schedule instead of the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section.
    (3) Time periods may be changed by mutual agreement between you and 
the Administrator, as specified in Sec.  65.225(j). For example, a 
period could begin on the compliance date or another date, rather than 
on the first day of the standard calendar period. For each time period 
that is changed by agreement, the revised period applies until it is 
changed. A new request is not necessary for each recurring period.
    (4) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be 
construed as prohibiting you from conducting a periodic task at a more 
frequent interval than required.


Sec.  65.295  What definitions apply to the Uniform Standards?

    All terms used in the Uniform Standards have the meaning given them 
in the Clean Air Act, the referencing subpart and in this section. The 
definition in the referencing subpart takes precedence.
    Alternative test method means any method of sampling and analyzing 
for an air pollutant other than a test method specified in the Uniform 
Standards. An alternative test method can include other EPA test 
methods that are not specified by the Uniform Standards; methods other 
than EPA test methods; or changes to test methods (i.e., minor, 
intermediate or major changes to test methods). For methods other than 
EPA standard test methods and changes other than minor changes to test 
methods, you must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction using 
Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, that an alternative test 
method produces results adequate for use in place of a test method 
specified in the Uniform Standards.
    Atmospheric storage vessel means any storage vessel that is not a 
pressure vessel.
    Automatic bleeder vent (or vacuum breaker vent) means a device used 
to equalize the pressure of the vapor space across the deck as the 
floating roof is either being landed on or floated off of its legs or 
other support devices. Typically, the device consists of a well in the 
deck with a cover. A guided leg is attached to the underside of the 
cover which comes in contact with the floor when the storage vessel is 
being emptied, just prior to the point that the floating roof lands on 
its supports. When in contact with the bottom of the storage vessel, 
the guided leg mechanically lifts the cover off the well. 
Alternatively, the device may be activated by increased pressure (or 
vacuum) in the vapor space below the landed floated roof that is 
created by changes in the liquid level while the floating roof is 
landed.
    Barge means any vessel that transports regulated material liquids 
in bulk on inland waterways or at sea.
    Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that may be 
associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more 
than one batch emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor 
resulting from the charging of a vessel with regulated material will 
result in a discrete emission episode that will last through the 
duration of the charge and will have an average flow rate equal to the 
rate of the charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will also be 
another discrete emission episode resulting from the expulsion of 
expanded vapor. Both emission episodes may occur in the same vessel or 
unit operation. There are possibly other emission episodes that may 
occur from the vessel or other process equipment, depending on process 
operations.
    Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving 
intermittent or discontinuous feed into process vessels and, in 
general, involves the emptying of the process vessels after the 
operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of 
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 
batch operation.
    Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful 
energy in the form of steam and is not an incinerator or a process 
heater.
    Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous 
distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further 
downstream processing. A rundown tank is an example of a bottoms 
receiver.
    Breakthrough means the time when the level of regulated material 
detected is at the highest concentration allowed to be discharged from 
an adsorber system, as determined by the referencing subpart.
    By compound means by individual stream components, not carbon 
equivalents.
    Cargo tank means a liquid-carrying tank permanently attached and 
forming an integral part of a motor vehicle or truck trailer. This term 
also refers to the entire cargo tank motor vehicle or trailer. Vacuum 
trucks used exclusively for maintenance or spill response are not 
considered cargo tanks.
    Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to 
change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a 
way that the position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking 
the seal.
    Catalytic oxidizer means a thermal oxidizer where the gas stream, 
after passing through the enclosed combustion chamber, also passes 
through a catalyst bed. The catalyst has the effect of increasing the 
oxidation reaction rate, enabling conversion at lower reaction 
temperatures than in thermal oxidizers.
    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 for purged 
liquids must be covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
    Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections and, if 
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an 
emission point to a control device.
    Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as an 
incinerator, process heater or boiler, used for the combustion of 
organic emissions.
    Connector means flanged, screwed or other joined fittings used to 
connect pipelines, a pipeline and a process vessel, or a pipeline and a 
piece of equipment, or that close an opening in a pipe that could be 
connected to another pipe. A common connector is a flange. Joined 
fittings welded completely around the circumference of the interface 
are not considered connectors.
    Container means a portable unit in which a regulated material is 
stored, transported, treated or otherwise handled. Examples of 
containers include, but are not limited to, drums, dumpsters, roll-off 
boxes and portable cargo containers known as ``portable tanks'' or 
``totes.'' Transport vehicles and barges are not containers.
    Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) means the total 
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and 
availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition 
(if applicable), analyze and provide a record of emissions.
    Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch 
operation.
    Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total 
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and 
availability requirements of the Uniform Standards, used to sample, 
condition (if

[[Page 17982]]

applicable), analyze and provide a record of process or control system 
parameters.
    Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or 
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 15 
minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    Control device means, with the exceptions noted below, a combustion 
device, recovery device, recapture device or any combination of these 
devices used to comply with this subpart or a referencing subpart. 
Process condensers or fuel gas systems are not considered to be control 
devices.
    Control system means the combination of the closed vent system and 
the control devices used to collect and control vapors or gases from a 
regulated source.
    Corrective action analysis and/or Corrective action plan means a 
description of all reasonable interim and long-term measures, if any, 
that are available, and an explanation of why the selected corrective 
action is the best alternative, including, but not limited to, any 
consideration of cost effectiveness.
    Day means a calendar day.
    Deck cover means a device that covers an opening in a floating roof 
deck. Some deck covers move horizontally relative to the deck (i.e., a 
sliding cover).
    Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in 
series with a bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the 
two block valves.
    Ductwork means a conveyance system such as those commonly used for 
heating and ventilation systems. It is often made of sheet metal and 
often has sections connected by screws or crimping. Hard-piping is not 
ductwork.
    Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of stored 
liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that contain liquid only 
as wall or bottom clingage, or in pools due to bottom irregularities, 
are considered completely empty.
    Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief 
device (PRD), sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, 
valve, connector and instrumentation system that contains or contacts 
regulated material; and any control devices or systems used to comply 
with subpart J of this part. Equipment does not include process 
equipment, monitoring equipment, vapor collection equipment or testing 
equipment.
    External floating roof or EFR means a floating roof located in a 
storage vessel without a fixed roof.
    Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a storage 
vessel or container, but not necessarily to capacity.
    First attempt at repair means to take action for the purpose of 
stopping or reducing leakage of regulated material to the atmosphere. A 
first attempt at repair includes monitoring, as specified in Sec.  
65.431(a) and (b) to verify that the leak is repaired, unless you 
determine by other means that the leak is not repaired.
    Fittings means any cover or other device to close an opening 
through a fixed roof or through the deck of a floating roof for 
automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents), rim space vents, leg 
sleeves, deck drains, access hatches, gauge float wells, sample wells, 
columns, guidepoles, ladders, conservation vents, PRD or any other 
opening on the fixed roof or floating roof deck.
    Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is mounted 
(i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move 
with fluctuations in stored liquid level. All horizontal tanks are 
classified as fixed roof storage vessels.
    Flexible enclosure device means a seal made of an elastomeric 
fabric (or other material) which completely encloses a slotted 
guidepole or ladder and eliminates the vapor emission pathway from 
inside the storage vessel through the guidepole slots or ladder slots 
to the outside air.
    Flexible fabric sleeve seal means a seal made of an elastomeric 
fabric (or other material) which covers an opening in a floating roof 
deck, and which allows the penetration of a fixed roof support column. 
The seal is attached to the rim of the deck opening and extends to the 
outer surface of the column. The seal is draped (but does not contact 
the stored liquid) to allow the horizontal movement of the deck 
relative to the column.
    Floating roof means a roof that floats on the surface of the liquid 
in a storage vessel. A floating roof substantially covers the stored 
liquid surface (but is not necessarily in contact with the entire 
surface), and is comprised of a deck, a rim seal and miscellaneous deck 
fittings.
    Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is or 
whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be present in a 
line.
    Fuel gas means gases that are combusted to derive useful work or 
heat.
    Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and flow and 
pressure control system that gathers gaseous streams generated by 
onsite operations, may blend them with other sources of gas and 
transports the gaseous streams for use as fuel gas in combustion 
devices or in-process combustion equipment, such as furnaces and gas 
turbines, either singly or in combination. Piping that routes emissions 
to boilers or process heaters as the primary fuel or introduced with 
the primary fuel are considered fuel gas systems.
    Halogenated vent stream or halogenated stream means a stream 
determined to have a mass rate of halogen atoms of 0.45 kilograms per 
hour or greater, determined by the procedures presented in Sec.  
65.702(c).
    Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly 
installed using good engineering judgment and standards, such as ASME 
B31.3-2010, Process Piping (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
65.265).
    In gas and vapor service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service contains a gas or vapor at operating 
conditions.
    In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service is not in gas and vapor service or in light 
liquid service.
    In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service contains a liquid that meets the following 
conditions: (1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic 
compounds is greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees Celsius; (2) 
The total concentration of the pure organic compounds constituents 
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees 
Celsius is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total 
process stream; (3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. 
(Note to definition of ``in light liquid service'': Vapor pressures may 
be determined by standard reference texts or ASTM D-2879(2011), 
Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Low Olefinic Gasoline by 
Mass Spectrometry (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265).
    In liquid service means that a piece of equipment in regulated 
material service is not in gas and vapor service.
    In regulated material service means, unless specified otherwise in 
the referencing subpart, a regulated source or portion of a regulated 
source (e.g., a piece of equipment) that either contains or contacts a 
fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight of regulated 
material (as defined in the referencing subpart), as determined 
according to the provisions of Sec.  65.270. The provisions of Sec.  
65.270 also specify how to determine that a regulated source or portion 
of a

[[Page 17983]]

regulated source is not in regulated material service.
    In vacuum service means that equipment, a closed vent system, fuel 
gas system or storage vessel is operating at an internal pressure that 
is at least 0.7 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) below ambient 
pressure.
    Initial fill means the first introduction of liquid into a storage 
vessel that is either newly constructed or has not contained any 
regulated material for a year or longer.
    Initial startup means, for new sources, the first time the source 
begins production. For additions or changes not defined as a new source 
by the referencing subpart, initial startup means the first time 
additional or changed equipment is put into operation. Initial startup 
does not include operation solely for testing of equipment. Initial 
startup does not include subsequent startup of process units following 
malfunction or process unit shutdowns. Except for equipment leaks, 
initial startup also does not include subsequent startups (of process 
units following changes in product for flexible operation units or 
following recharging of equipment in batch operations).
    In-situ sampling systems means non-extractive samplers or in-line 
samplers.
    Instrumentation system means a group of equipment used to condition 
and convey a sample of the process fluid to analyzers and instruments 
for the purpose of determining process operating conditions (e.g., 
composition, pressure, flow, etc.). Valves and connectors are the 
predominant type of equipment used in instrumentation systems; however, 
other types of equipment may also be included in these systems. Only 
valves nominally 0.5 inches and smaller, and connectors nominally 0.75 
inches and smaller in diameter are considered instrumentation systems. 
Valves greater than nominally 0.5 inches and connectors greater than 
nominally 0.75 inches associated with instrumentation systems are not 
considered part of instrumentation systems and must be monitored 
individually.
    Intermediate change to monitoring means a modification to federally 
required monitoring involving ``proven technology'' (generally accepted 
by the scientific community as equivalent or better) that is applied on 
a site-specific basis and that may have the potential to decrease the 
stringency of the associated emission limitation or standard. Though 
site-specific, an intermediate change may set a national precedent for 
a source category and may ultimately result in a revision to the 
federally required monitoring. Examples of intermediate changes to 
monitoring include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Use of a CEMS in lieu of a parameter monitoring approach;
    (2) Decreased frequency for non-continuous parameter monitoring or 
physical inspections;
    (3) Changes to quality control requirements for parameter 
monitoring; and
    (4) Use of an electronic data reduction system in lieu of manual 
data reduction.
    Intermediate change to test method means a within-method 
modification to a federally enforceable test method involving ``proven 
technology'' (generally accepted by the scientific community as 
equivalent or better) that is applied on a site-specific basis and that 
may have the potential to decrease the stringency of the associated 
emission limitation or standard. Though site-specific, an intermediate 
change may set a national precedent for a source category and may 
ultimately result in a revision to the federally enforceable test 
method. In order to be approved, an intermediate change must be 
validated according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to 
demonstrate that it provides equal or improved accuracy and precision. 
Examples of intermediate changes to a test method include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Modifications to a test method's sampling procedure, including 
substitution of sampling equipment that has been demonstrated for a 
particular sample matrix and use of a different impinger absorbing 
solution;
    (2) Changes in sample recovery procedures and analytical 
techniques, such as changes to sample holding times and use of a 
different analytical finish with proven capability for the analyte of 
interest; and
    (3) ``Combining'' a federally required method with another proven 
method for application to processes emitting multiple pollutants.
    Internal floating roof or IFR means a floating roof located in a 
storage vessel with a fixed roof. An EFR located in a storage vessel to 
which a fixed roof has been added is considered to be an internal 
floating roof.
    Internal guidepole sleeve means a cylindrical device that fits on 
the inside of a slotted guidepole and blocks the vapor emission pathway 
from the interior of the guidepole through the guidepole slots to the 
outside air.
    Liquid-mounted seal means a resilient or liquid-filled rim seal 
designed to contact the stored liquid.
    Liquids dripping means any visible leakage from the seal including 
dripping, spraying, misting, clouding and ice formation. Indications of 
liquids dripping include puddling or new stains that are indicative of 
an existing evaporated drip.
    Major change to monitoring means a modification to federally 
required monitoring that uses ``unproven technology or procedures'' 
(not generally accepted by the scientific community) or is an entirely 
new method (sometimes necessary when the required monitoring is 
unsuitable). A major change to monitoring may be site-specific or may 
apply to one or more source categories and will almost always set a 
national precedent. Examples of major changes to monitoring include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Use of a new monitoring approach developed to apply to a 
control technology not contemplated in the applicable regulation;
    (2) Use of a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) in place 
of a required CEMS;
    (3) Use of alternative calibration procedures that do not involve 
calibration gases or test cells;
    (4) Use of an analytical technology that differs from that 
specified by a performance specification;
    (5) Decreased monitoring frequency for a CEMS, continuous opacity 
monitoring system, PEMS or CPMS;
    (6) Decreased monitoring frequency for a leak detection and repair 
program; and
    (7) Use of alternative averaging times for reporting purposes.
    Major change to test method means a modification to a federally 
enforceable test method that uses ``unproven technology or procedures'' 
(not generally accepted by the scientific community) or is an entirely 
new method (sometimes necessary when the required test method is 
unsuitable). A major change to a test method may be site-specific or 
may apply to one or more sources or source categories, and will almost 
always set a national precedent. In order to be approved, a major 
change must be validated according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A). Examples of major changes to a test method include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Use of an unproven analytical finish;
    (2) Use of a method developed to fill a test method gap;
    (3) Use of a new test method developed to apply to a control 
technology not contemplated in the applicable regulation; and
    (4) Combining two or more sampling/analytical methods (at least one

[[Page 17984]]

unproven) into one for application to processes emitting multiple 
pollutants.
    Maximum representative operating conditions means process operating 
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the 
control device. The most challenging condition for the control device 
may include, but is not limited to, the highest hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) mass loading rate to the control device or the highest HAP mass 
loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for 
scrubbing media.
    Maximum true vapor pressure or MTVP means the equilibrium partial 
pressure exerted by the total regulated material in the stored or 
transferred liquid at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-
month average of the liquid storage or transfer temperature for liquids 
stored or transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the 
local maximum monthly average temperature, as reported by the National 
Weather Service, for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient 
temperature, as determined using methods specified in Sec.  65.306.
    Mechanical shoe seal or metallic shoe seal means a rim seal 
consisting of a band of metal (or other suitable material) as the 
sliding contact with the wall of the storage vessel, and a fabric seal 
to close the annular space between the band and the rim of the floating 
roof deck. The band is typically formed as a series of sheets (shoes) 
that are overlapped or joined together to form a ring. The sheets are 
held vertically against the wall of the storage vessel by springs, 
weighted levers or other mechanisms and are connected to the floating 
roof by braces or other means. The lower end of the band extends into 
the stored liquid.
    Minor change to monitoring means:
    (1) A modification to federally required monitoring that:
    (i) Does not decrease the stringency of the compliance and 
enforcement measures for the relevant standard;
    (ii) Has no national significance (e.g., does not affect 
implementation of the applicable regulation for other regulated 
sources, does not set a national precedent and individually does not 
result in a revision to the monitoring requirements); and
    (iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or accommodate the 
operational characteristics, physical constraints or safety concerns of 
a regulated source.
    (2) Examples of minor changes to monitoring include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Modifications to a sampling procedure, such as use of an 
improved sample conditioning system to reduce maintenance requirements;
    (ii) Increased monitoring frequency; and
    (iii) Modification of the environmental shelter to moderate 
temperature fluctuation and, thus, protect the analytical 
instrumentation.
    Minor change to test method means:
    (1) A modification to a federally enforceable test method that:
    (i) Does not decrease the stringency of the emission limitation or 
standard;
    (ii) Has no national significance (e.g., does not affect 
implementation of the applicable regulation for other regulated 
sources, does not set a national precedent and individually does not 
result in a revision to the test method); and
    (iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or accommodate the 
operational characteristics, physical constraints or safety concerns of 
a regulated source.
    (2) Examples of minor changes to a test method include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Field adjustments in a test method's sampling procedure, such 
as a modified sampling traverse, or location to avoid interference from 
an obstruction in the stack, increasing the sampling time or volume, 
use of additional impingers for a high moisture situation, accepting 
particulate emission results for a test run that was conducted with a 
lower-than-specified temperature, substitution of a material in the 
sampling train that has been demonstrated to be more inert for the 
sample matrix; and
    (ii) Changes in recovery and analytical techniques, such as a 
change in quality control/quality assurance requirements needed to 
adjust for analysis of a certain sample matrix.
    Monitoring means the collection and use of measurement data or 
other information to control the operation of a process or pollution 
control device or to verify a work practice standard relative to 
assuring compliance with applicable requirements. Monitoring is 
composed of four elements:
    (1) Indicator(s) of performance--the parameter or parameters you 
measure or observe for demonstrating proper operation of the pollution 
control measures or compliance with the applicable emissions limitation 
or standard. Indicators of performance may include direct or predicted 
emissions measurements (including opacity), operational parametric 
values that correspond to process or control device (and capture 
system) efficiencies or emissions rates and recorded findings of 
inspection of work practice activities, materials tracking or design 
characteristics. Indicators may be expressed as a single maximum or 
minimum value, a function of process variables (for example, within a 
range of pressure drops), a particular operational or work practice 
status (for example, a damper position, completion of a waste recovery 
task, materials tracking) or an interdependency between two or among 
more than two variables.
    (2) Measurement techniques--the means by which you gather and 
record information of or about the indicators of performance. The 
components of the measurement technique include the detector type, 
location and installation specifications, inspection procedures, and 
quality assurance and quality control measures. Examples of measurement 
techniques include CEMS, continuous opacity monitoring systems, CPMS, 
and manual inspections that include making records of process 
conditions or work practices.
    (3) Monitoring frequency--the number of times you obtain and record 
monitoring data over a specified time interval. Examples of monitoring 
frequencies include at least four points equally paced for each hour 
for continuous emissions or parametric monitoring systems, at least 
every 10 seconds for continuous opacity monitoring systems and at least 
once per operating day (or week, month, etc.) for work practice or 
design inspections.
    (4) Averaging time--the period over which you average and use data 
to verify proper operation of the pollution control approach or 
compliance with the emissions limitation or standard. Examples of 
averaging time include a 3-hour average in units of the emissions 
limitation, a 30-day rolling average emissions value, a daily average 
of a control device operational parametric range and an instantaneous 
alarm.
    Non-repairable means that it is technically infeasible to repair a 
piece of equipment from which a leak has been detected without a 
process unit shutdown.
    Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of 
the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing 
operating scenario, but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For 
example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or 
processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to 
produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions 
described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary, 
as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
    Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except relief valves, 
having one

[[Page 17985]]

side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid and one side open 
to atmosphere, either directly or through any length of open piping. An 
open-ended valve or line with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 
on the side that would be otherwise open to the atmosphere is still 
considered an open-ended valve or line.
    Operating block means a period of time that is equal to the time 
from the beginning to end of batch process operations within a process.
    Optical gas imaging instrument means an instrument capable of 
producing an image that makes visible emissions that otherwise may be 
invisible to the naked eye.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls or supervises a regulated source or a stationary source of 
which a regulated source is a part.
    Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the 
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to 
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission limit, as specified in 
the performance test section of 40 CFR part 65, subpart M or in the 
referencing subpart.
    Pole float means a float located inside a guidepole that floats on 
the surface of the stored liquid. The rim of the float has a wiper or 
seal that extends to the inner surface of the pole.
    Pole sleeve means a device that extends from either the cover or 
the rim of an opening in a floating roof deck to the outer surface of a 
pole that passes through the opening. The sleeve extends into the 
stored liquid.
    Pole wiper means a seal that extends from either the cover or the 
rim of an opening in a floating roof deck to the outer surface of a 
pole that passes through the opening.
    Polymerizing monomer means a compound that may form polymer buildup 
in pump mechanical seals resulting in rapid mechanical seal failure.
    Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the 
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the PRD. This 
release may be one release or a series of releases over a short time 
period.
    Pressure relief device (PRD) means a safety device used to prevent 
operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working 
pressure of the process component. Examples of pressure relief devices 
are a spring-loaded pressure relief valve and a rupture disk. Except 
for devices used to comply with the vapor balancing requirements in 
Sec.  65.320(c), devices that are actuated either by a pressure of less 
than or equal to 2.5 psig or by a vacuum are not pressure relief 
devices.
    Pressure vessel means a storage vessel that is used to store 
liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a 
result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel 
during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.
    Primary fuel means the fuel that provides the principal heat input 
to a combustion device. To be considered primary, the fuel must be able 
to sustain operation without the addition of other fuels.
    Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to 
recover material as an integral part of a regulated batch process. All 
condensers recovering condensate from a regulated batch process at or 
above the boiling point or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum 
source, are considered process condensers. Typically, a primary 
condenser or condensers in series, are considered to be integral to the 
batch regulated process if they are capable of and normally used for 
the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive 
heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. 
This definition does not apply to a condenser that is used to remove 
materials that would hinder performance of a downstream recovery device 
as follows:
    (1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream 
condenser.
    (2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the 
adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber.
    (3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other 
organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration 
of a downstream carbon adsorber.
    Process heater means an enclosed combustion device that transfers 
heat liberated by burning fuel directly to process streams or to heat 
transfer liquids other than water. A process heater may, as a secondary 
function, heat water in unfired heat recovery sections.
    Process tank means a tank or other vessel that is used within a 
process to collect material discharged from a feedstock storage vessel 
or component within the process before the material is transferred to 
other components within the process or a product storage vessel. 
Examples of process tanks include surge control vessels, bottoms 
receivers and weigh tanks. In addition, all vessels in which a unit 
operation is conducted, including, but not limited to reaction, mixing 
and separation are process tanks.
    Process unit means, unless specified otherwise in the applicable 
referencing subpart, the components assembled to produce an intended 
intermediate or final product. A process unit can operate independently 
if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient 
storage facilities for the product. All components located within the 
fence line of the plant site are included in the process unit. 
Components located offsite are not included within any process unit.
    Process unit shutdown means a work practice or operational 
procedure that stops production from a process unit, or part of a 
process unit during which it is technically feasible to clear process 
material from a process unit, or part of a process unit, consistent 
with safety constraints and during which, repairs can be affected. The 
following are not considered process unit shutdowns:
    (1) An unscheduled work practice or operations procedure that stops 
production from a process unit, or part of a process unit, for less 
than 24 hours.
    (2) An unscheduled work practice or operations procedure that would 
stop production from a process unit, or part of a process unit, for a 
shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process 
unit, or part of the process unit of materials and start up the unit, 
and would result in greater emissions than delay of repair of leaking 
components, until the next scheduled process unit shutdown.
    (3) The use of spare equipment and technically feasible bypassing 
of equipment without stopping production.
    Referencing subpart means the subpart that directs you to comply 
with one or more applicable Uniform Standards (subparts I through M of 
this part). A referencing subpart for one Uniform Standard may also be 
a referencing subpart for another Uniform Standard.
    Regulated material means chemicals or groups of chemicals (such as 
volatile organic compounds or HAP) that are regulated by the 
referencing subpart.
    Regulated source means the stationary source, the group of 
stationary sources or the portion of a stationary source that is 
regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement established, 
pursuant to a referencing subpart.
    Repair means that:
    (1) If indications of a potential leak or liquids dripping are 
observed during sensory monitoring or a visual inspection, then the 
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted, or 
otherwise altered, to eliminate the indications of a potential leak or 
liquids dripping.

[[Page 17986]]

    (2) If a leak is detected by instrument monitoring, then the 
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted or 
otherwise altered to eliminate a leak, as defined in the applicable 
sections of subparts I through M of this part and the emissions source 
is monitored, as specified in Sec.  65.431(a) and (b) to verify that 
emissions are below the applicable instrument reading that defines a 
leak.
    (3) If a leak is detected by a sensor or by failure of one or more 
design or inspection criteria, then the equipment, seal, fitting or 
other emissions source is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to return the 
emissions source to conditions such that the sensor no longer indicates 
a leak or that the emissions source is meeting the design or inspection 
criteria, as applicable.
    (4) If a leak is detected by optical gas imaging, then the 
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted, or 
otherwise altered, to eliminate the leak and the emissions source is 
monitored, as specified in Sec.  65.450(b)(2) to verify that the leak 
can no longer be imaged by the optical gas imaging instrument.
    (5) Repair does not mean repairs to CEMS or CPMS.
    Rim seal means a device attached to the rim of a floating roof deck 
that spans the annular space between the deck and the wall of the 
storage vessel. When a floating roof has only one such device, it is a 
primary seal; when there are two seals (one mounted above the other), 
the lower seal is the primary seal and the upper seal is the secondary 
seal.
    Run means one of a series of emission or other measurements needed 
to determine emissions for a representative operating period or cycle, 
as specified in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M or in the referencing 
subpart. Unless otherwise specified, a run may be either intermittent 
or continuous within the limits of good engineering practice.
    Run down tank means a tank in which the product from a still, 
agitator or other processing equipment is received, and from which, the 
product is pumped to a storage vessel.
    Rupture disk means a PRD that consists of a diaphragm held between 
flanges. The diaphragm splits when the pressure on the process side 
exceeds the design set pressure.
    Sampling connection system means an assembly of piping and 
equipment within a process unit used during periods of representative 
operation to take samples of the process fluid. Lines that convey 
samples to analyzers and analyzer bypass lines are part of sampling 
connection systems. A device or apparatus used to take non-routine grab 
samples is not considered a sampling connection system.
    Secondary fuel means a fuel fired through a burner other than the 
primary fuel burner that provides supplementary heat, in addition to 
the heat provided by the primary fuel.
    Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the 
change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow 
rate, pH or liquid level.
    Sensory monitoring means visual, audible, olfactory or any other 
detection method used to determine a potential leak to the atmosphere.
    Set pressure means the pressure at which a properly operating PRD 
begins to open to relieve atypical process system operating pressure.
    Slotted guidepole means a guidepole or gaugepole that has slots or 
holes through the wall of the pole. The slots or holes allow the stored 
liquid to flow into the pole at liquid levels above the lowest 
operating level.
    Small boiler or process heater means a boiler or process heater 
that has a design capacity less than 44 megawatts, and in which the 
vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary 
fuel.
    Startup means the setting into operation of a process unit, a piece 
of equipment or a control device that is subject to the Uniform 
Standards.
    Storage capacity means the internal volume of a storage vessel from 
the floor to the top of the shell. For example, for a flat-bottomed 
storage vessel, the storage capacity is determined by multiplying the 
internal cross-sectional area of the storage vessel by the height of 
the shell. The calculation must be modified, as necessary, to account 
for floors that are not flat (e.g., slope-bottomed, cone-up or cone-
down).
    Storage vessel means a stationary unit that is constructed of non-
earthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass or 
plastic), which provides structural support and is designed to hold an 
accumulation of liquids or other materials. The following are not 
considered storage vessels:
    (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicle, such as trucks, 
railcars, barges or ships;
    (2) Vessels storing liquid that contains regulated material only as 
an impurity;
    (3) Wastewater tanks; and
    (4) Process tanks.
    Submerged loading means the filling of a transport vehicle through 
a submerged fill pipe whose discharge is no more than 6 inches from the 
bottom of the tank. Bottom loading of transport vehicles is included in 
this definition.
    Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to a vent 
stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. Air that is 
part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of the unit operation 
is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to operate 
combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental combustion 
air. Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic 
oxidizers, to include the intermittent addition of air upstream of the 
catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the 
catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is 
not considered to be supplemental combustion air.
    Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums and 
intermediate vessels as part of any continuous operation. Surge control 
vessels are used within a process unit when in-process storage, mixing 
or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to introduce material 
into continuous operations.
    Tank car means an unpowered type of rolling stock (or vehicle) with 
a permanently attached vessel that is designed to carry liquid freight 
by rail.
    Thermal oxidizer means a combustion device with an enclosed 
combustion chamber (i.e., an enclosed fire box) that is used for 
destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste 
gas to combustion temperatures.
    Transfer operations means the loading into a transport vehicle or 
container of organic liquids from a transfer rack.
    Transfer rack means a single system used to load organic liquids 
into transport vehicles or containers. It includes all loading and 
unloading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves and other 
piping and equipment necessary for the transfer operation. Transfer 
equipment and operations that are physically separate (i.e., do not 
share common piping, valves and other equipment) are considered to be 
separate transfer racks.
    Transport vehicle means a cargo tank or tank car.
    Uniform Standard(s) mean(s) any one or all of subparts I, J, K, L 
and M of this part.
    Unslotted guidepole or solid guidepole means a guidepole or 
gaugepole that does not have slots or holes through the wall of the 
pole at or above the level of the floating roof when it is at its 
lowest operating level.
    Vapor-mounted seal means a rim seal designed not to be in contact 
with the stored liquid. Vapor-mounted seals may include, but are not 
limited to, resilient seals and flexible wiper seals.

[[Page 17987]]

    Wastewater stream means the wastewater generated by a particular 
process unit, tank or treatment process.
    Wastewater tank means a stationary structure that is designed to 
contain an accumulation of wastewater or any liquid or solid material 
containing volatile organics that is removed from a wastewater stream 
and is constructed of non-earthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete, 
steel, plastic) that provides structural support.
    You means an owner or operator of a regulated source under the 
Uniform Standards.

 Table 1 to Subpart H of Part 65--Applicable 40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 63
                           General Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    General provisions from 40 CFR parts
                                    60, 61 and 63 that continue to apply
          Part of 40 CFR            to owners and operators of regulated
                                       sources subject to the uniform
                                           standards of this part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 40 CFR part 60, subpart A       Sec.   60.1
 provisions for referencing
 subparts from part 60.
                                   Sec.  Sec.   60.2, 60.3, 60.4 \1\
                                   Sec.   60.5
                                   Sec.   60.6
                                   Sec.   60.7(a)(1) and (a)(3)
                                   Sec.   60.8(a)
                                   Sec.  Sec.   60.9, 60.10, 60.12
                                   Sec.   60.14
                                   Sec.   60.15
                                   Sec.   60.16
                                   Sec.   60.17
B. 40 CFR part 61, subpart A       Sec.  Sec.   61.01 through 61.03,
 provisions for referencing         61.04,\1\ 61.05 through 61.09
 subparts from part 61.
                                   Sec.   61.10(b)
                                   Sec.   61.11
                                   Sec.   61.13(a)
                                   Sec.  Sec.   61.15 through 61.19
C. 40 CFR part 63, subpart A       Sec.   63.1 \2\
 provisions for referencing
 subparts from part 63.
                                   Sec.  Sec.   63.2, 63.3, 63.4
                                   Sec.   63.5
                                   Sec.   63.6(a) through (d), (i) and
                                    (j)
                                   Sec.   63.7(a) \3\
                                   Sec.   63.9(b), (c), (d), (h)(5)
                                   Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv), (d)(4)
                                   Sec.   63.11(a), (c), (d), (e)
                                   Sec.  Sec.   63.12, 63.13, 63.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except that the requirements associated with where to submit reports
  does not apply; electronic submittal is required, as specified in Sec.
    65.225.
\2\ Except for Sec.   63.1(a)(10) through (12).
\3\ Except that a waiver of performance testing is specified in Sec.
  65.245, and the conditions of Sec.   63.7(c)(3)(ii)(B) do not apply to
  this paragraph.

    3. Add subpart I to read as follows:

Subpart I--National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessels 
and Transfer Operations

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

65.300 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.301 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.302 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.303 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

General Requirements

65.305 What requirements in this subpart apply to me?
65.306 How must I determine the MTVP of stored material?

Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels

65.310 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage 
vessel equipped with a fixed roof?
65.315 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage 
vessel with a floating roof?
65.320 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessel if I use vapor balance?
65.325 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessel if I route emissions through a closed vent system to 
a control device?
65.330 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessel if I route emissions to a fuel gas system?
65.340 What requirements must I meet for a pressure vessel?

Standards and Compliance Requirements for Transfer Operations

65.360 What requirements must I meet for control of transport 
vehicles and transfer operations to load transport vehicles?
65.370 What requirements must I meet for control of transfer 
operations to load containers?

Recordkeeping and Reporting

65.380 What records must I keep?
65.382 What information must I submit in my Notification of 
Compliance Status?
65.384 What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic 
report?
65.386 What information must I submit in my annual periodic report?
65.388 What other reports must I submit and when?

Other Requirements and Information

65.390 What definitions apply to this subpart?

[[Page 17988]]

List of Tables in Subpart I of Part 65

Table 1 to Subpart I of Part 65--Standards and Compliance 
Requirements for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations
Table 2 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring 
Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped With an IFR
Table 3 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring 
Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped With an EFR

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  65.300  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards 
of a referencing subpart for storage vessels and transfer operations.


Sec.  65.301  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who 
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly 
directed to comply with the Uniform Standards of this subpart by a 
referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.302  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    This subpart applies to storage vessels and transfer operations 
that contain or contact regulated material and are subject to a 
referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.303  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.

General Requirements


Sec.  65.305  What requirements in this subpart apply to me?

    The provisions of this subpart apply to storage vessels and 
transfer operations that contain or contact regulated material, as 
specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) For each atmospheric storage vessel that meets the requirements 
in item 1 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with Sec.  
65.310. Alternatively, you may elect to comply with either paragraph 
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Comply with Sec.  65.310 if you install an internal floating 
roof, vapor balance or connect the storage vessel to a closed vent 
system and control device, but you are not required to comply with 
Sec.  65.315, Sec.  65.320 or Sec.  65.325.
    (2) Comply with any of the options in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section.
    (b) For each atmospheric storage vessel that meets the size and 
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) thresholds in item 2 or item 3 of 
Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with either paragraph (b)(1), 
(2), (3) or (4) of this section.
    (1) Use an external floating roof or a fixed roof with an internal 
floating roof, in accordance with Sec.  65.315. This option may be used 
only if the MTVP of the stored liquid is less than 76.6 kilopascals 
(kPa).
    (2) Vapor balance in accordance with Sec.  65.320.
    (3) Maintain a fixed roof and route emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device, in accordance with Sec.  65.325.
    (4) Route emissions to a fuel gas system in accordance with Sec.  
65.330. This option may not be used when the displaced vapors from the 
storage vessel include halogenated compounds.
    (c) For each pressure vessel, you must comply with Sec.  65.340.
    (d) For transfer operations that involve loading of transport 
vehicles, you must comply with Sec.  65.360.
    (e) For transfer operations that involve loading of containers, you 
must comply with Sec.  65.370.


Sec.  65.306  How must I determine the MTVP of stored material?

    (a) Determine the MTVP at the times specified in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section and keep records, as specified in paragraph 
(e) of this section. For a single-component stock, use any one of the 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3) or (5) of this 
section. For a mixture of compounds (such as petroleum liquids), use 
any one of the methods specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) As obtained from standard reference texts.
    (2) In accordance with methods described in chapter 19.2 of the API 
Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, ``Evaporative Loss from 
Floating Roof Tanks'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265). If 
you need the total vapor pressure of a petroleum liquid mixture (e.g., 
crude oil or gasoline), you must test for Reid vapor pressure and 
distillation slope, as applicable, to determine the constants A and B 
for the vapor pressure equation. If only part of a mixture is regulated 
material, you must test to determine the composition of the stored 
liquid. Testing is not required if you determine, based on engineering 
judgment, that the mixture contains less than 1-percent regulated 
material by weight.
    (3) As determined by the ``American Society for Testing and 
Materials Method D2879-83'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
65.265).
    (4) As determined using ``Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy Crude Oil Using Gas 
Chromatography'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265).
    (5) Any other method approved by the Administrator in accordance 
with Sec.  65.250.
    (b) Determine the MTVP for each storage vessel that contains a 
regulated material either prior to the required submittal date of your 
Notification of Compliance Status or prior to the initial fill with 
regulated material, whichever is later.
    (c) Determine the MTVP each time the storage vessel is filled with 
a different type of material.
    (d) Determine the MTVP at least annually if the storage vessel 
stores a mixture and it was determined to be subject to Sec.  65.305(a) 
the last time the MTVP was determined.
    (e) Keep records of each MTVP determination, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(b)(2).

Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels


Sec.  65.310  What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage 
vessel equipped with a fixed roof?

    You must equip the storage vessel with a fixed roof and operate in 
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Closure requirements. Each opening in the fixed roof must be 
equipped with a cover or other type of closure device.
    (b) Operating requirements. (1) Except as specified in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, the fixed roof must be installed with each 
closure device secured in the closed position when the storage vessel 
contains regulated material.
    (2) You may open closure devices or remove the fixed roof under the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) A closure device may be opened or the roof may be removed when 
needed to provide access for manual operations such as maintenance, 
inspection, sampling and cleaning.
    (ii) Opening of a spring-loaded conservation vent or similar type 
of device that vents to the atmosphere (or allows air to enter the 
storage vessel) is allowed to maintain the tank internal operating 
pressure within tank design specifications when loading operations or 
diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations cause the pressure inside the 
storage vessel to migrate beyond the operating pressure range for the 
storage vessel.
    (c) Monitoring requirements. (1) Except as specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)

[[Page 17989]]

or (3) of this section, monitor each potential source of vapor leakage 
from the fixed roof and its closure devices for leaks in accordance 
with either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. Conduct 
monitoring while the storage vessel contains regulated material.
    (i) Monitor using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.431(a) and (b). A leak is detected if you 
obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by 
volume. Conduct monitoring within 90 days after the initial fill and at 
least annually.
    (ii) Monitor in accordance with the protocol for optical gas 
imaging, as specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this 
monitoring option only if at least one compound in the emissions can be 
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument. A leak is detected if 
you observe an image of emissions when using the optical gas imaging 
instrument. Conduct monitoring within 90 days after the initial fill 
and at least semiannually.
    (2) If you determine parts of the roof are unsafe to monitor using 
Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7, because operating personnel would 
be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as a consequence of 
complying with such monitoring, then the inspection requirements 
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section do not apply and you 
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must prepare and maintain at the plant site written 
documentation that identifies all parts of the fixed roof and any 
closure devices that are unsafe to monitor and explains why such parts 
are unsafe to monitor.
    (ii) You must develop and implement a written plan and schedule to 
conduct inspections during times when it is safe to do so. The required 
inspections must be performed as frequently as practicable, but do not 
need to be performed more than annually. Keep a copy of the written 
plan and schedule at the plant site, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(c)(4).
    (iii) As an alternative to paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, you may monitor the parts of the roof identified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section by using optical gas imaging, as specified in 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, if the criteria in paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii) of this section and 40 CFR part 60, appendix K, are met.
    (3) No monitoring is required during a calendar year when either of 
the conditions in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section are met.
    (i) The storage vessel stores no regulated material at any time 
during the calendar year.
    (ii) The storage vessel is emptied less than 120 days since the 
last inspection and no regulated material is stored in the storage 
vessel for the remainder of the year.
    (4) Keep records of the date of each inspection, as specified in 
Sec.  65.380(c)(1), and keep records of each leak, as specified in 
Sec.  65.380(c)(2). Provide notification of each inspection, as 
specified in Sec.  65.388(a)(1).
    (d) Repair requirements. When a leak is identified during 
monitoring required under paragraph (c) of this section, you must 
either complete repairs or completely empty the storage vessel within 
45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the vessel cannot be 
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of 
up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each decision 
to use an extension, as specified in Sec.  65.380(c)(3). Not repairing 
or emptying the storage vessel within the time frame specified in this 
paragraph (d) is a deviation and must be reported in your semiannual 
periodic report, as specified in Sec.  65.384(a).


Sec.  65.315  What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage 
vessel with a floating roof?

    You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) 
of this section.
    (a) Design requirements. (1) Fixed roof in combination with 
internal floating roof. An internal floating roof (IFR) must be 
equipped with one of the seal configurations listed in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section.
    (i) A liquid-mounted seal.
    (ii) A mechanical shoe seal.
    (iii) Two seals mounted one above the other. The lower seal may be 
vapor-mounted.
    (2) External floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) must be 
equipped with one of the seal configurations listed in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) A liquid-mounted seal and a secondary seal.
    (ii) A mechanical shoe seal and a secondary seal. The upper end of 
the shoe(s) must extend a minimum of 24 inches above the stored liquid 
surface.
    (3) Deck fittings. Openings through the deck of the floating roof 
must be equipped, as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (x) of 
this section.
    (i) Each opening, except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum 
breaker vents) and rim space vents, must have its lower edge below the 
surface of the stored liquid.
    (ii) Each opening, except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum 
breaker vents), rim space vents, leg sleeves and deck drains, must be 
equipped with a deck cover. The deck cover must be equipped with a 
gasket between the cover and the deck.
    (iii) Each automatic bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent) and rim 
space vent must be equipped with a gasketed lid, pallet, flapper or 
other closure device.
    (iv) Each opening for a fixed roof support column may be equipped 
with a flexible fabric sleeve seal instead of a deck cover.
    (v) Each opening in an internal floating roof for a sample well may 
be equipped with a slit fabric seal or similar device that covers at 
least 90 percent of the opening instead of a deck cover.
    (vi) Each opening for a deck drain that empties into the stored 
liquid must be equipped with a slit fabric seal or similar device that 
covers at least 90 percent of the opening.
    (vii) Each cover on access hatches and gauge float wells must be 
designed to be bolted or fastened when closed.
    (viii) Each opening for an unslotted guidepole must be equipped 
with a pole wiper, and each unslotted guidepole must be equipped with 
either a gasketed or welded cap on the top of the guidepole.
    (ix) Each opening for a slotted guidepole must be equipped with one 
of the control device configurations specified in paragraph 
(a)(3)(ix)(A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section.
    (A) A pole wiper and a pole float. The wiper or seal of the pole 
float must be at or above the height of the pole wiper.
    (B) A pole wiper and a pole sleeve.
    (C) A flexible enclosure device and either a gasketed or welded cap 
on the top of the guidepole.
    (D) An internal guidepole sleeve, a pole wiper and either a 
gasketed or welded cap on the top of the guidepole.
    (x) Each opening for a ladder that has at least one slotted leg 
must be equipped with one of the control device configurations 
specified in paragraph (a)(3)(x)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
    (A) A pole float in the slotted leg and pole wipers for both legs. 
The wiper or seal of the pole float must be at or above the height of 
the pole wiper.
    (B) A ladder sleeve and pole wipers for both legs of the ladder.
    (C) A flexible enclosure device and either a gasketed or welded cap 
on the top of the slotted leg.
    (b) Operational requirements. (1) The floating roof must be 
floating on the liquid surface at all times, except that it may be 
supported by the leg supports or

[[Page 17990]]

other support devices (e.g., hangers from the fixed roof) under the 
circumstances specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section. Any other floating roof landing event is a deviation and must 
be recorded, as specified in Sec.  65.380(d)(1), and reported in your 
semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec.  65.384(b).
    (i) During the initial fill.
    (ii) When necessary for maintenance or inspection, including 
refill, provided you also comply with either paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or 
(B) of this section.
    (A) If the storage vessel does not need to be completely empty in 
order to perform the maintenance or inspection, then refill must begin 
no later than 24 hours after the roof is landed. Refill must be 
performed in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (B) If the storage vessel must be completely empty in order to 
perform the maintenance or inspection, then actions to completely empty 
the storage vessel must begin no later than 24 hours after the roof is 
landed. Refill may occur at any time after the storage vessel is 
completely empty.
    (iii) When necessary to support a change in service to an 
incompatible liquid, including refill. Actions to completely empty the 
storage vessel must begin no later than 24 hours after the roof is 
landed. Refill may occur at any time after the storage vessel is 
completely empty.
    (iv) When necessary to take the storage vessel out of service. 
Actions to completely empty the storage vessel must begin no later than 
24 hours after the roof is landed.
    (v) When the vapors are routed through a closed vent system to a 
non-flare control device that reduces regulated material emissions by 
at least 90 percent by weight from the time the floating roof is landed 
until the floating roof is within 10 percent by volume of being 
refloated. You must comply with the requirements in subpart M of this 
part for the closed vent system and the applicable non-flare control 
device(s). To demonstrate initial compliance with the 90-percent 
reduction requirement, you must conduct either a design evaluation, as 
specified in Sec.  65.850, or a performance test, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (vi) When non-halogenated vapors are routed through a closed vent 
system to a flare that reduces regulated material emissions from the 
time the floating roof is landed until the floating roof is within 10 
percent by volume of being refloated. You must comply with the 
requirements in subpart M of this part for the closed vent system and 
the requirements of Sec.  63.11(b) of this chapter for the flare.
    (2) Once you start filling or refilling a storage vessel that has a 
landed floating roof, you may not suspend filling or refilling until 
the roof is floating (except when the quantity of liquid produced in 
one batch is insufficient to float the roof, and the output from 
additional batches will be added before any material is withdrawn from 
the storage vessel), and you may not withdraw liquid from the storage 
vessel while simultaneously filling or refilling.
    (3) Each cover over an opening in the floating roof, except for 
automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and rim space vents, 
must be closed at all times, except when the cover must be open for 
access.
    (4) Each automatic bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent) and rim space 
vent must be closed at all times, except when required to be open to 
relieve excess pressure or vacuum, in accordance with the 
manufacturer's design, and during periods when the floating roof is 
allowed to be supported by its legs or other support devices.
    (5) Each guidepole cap and slotted ladder leg cap must be closed at 
all times except when gauging the liquid level or taking liquid 
samples.
    (c) Inspection requirements. Inspect internal floating roofs in 
accordance with Table 2 to this subpart, and inspect external floating 
roofs in accordance with Table 3 to this subpart. You must also comply 
with paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, as specified in 
Table 2 to this subpart, or Table 3 to this subpart, as applicable. If 
a floating roof fails an inspection, comply with the repair 
requirements specified in paragraph (d) of this section. Keep records 
of the inspections, as specified in Sec.  65.380(d)(2), and report 
inspection failures in your annual periodic report, as specified in 
Sec.  65.386(a).
    (1) Visually inspect for any of the conditions specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section at the frequency 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, as 
applicable. Observing any of these conditions constitutes an inspection 
failure. These inspections may be performed entirely from the top side 
of the floating roof, as long as there is visual access to all deck 
fittings and the top rim seal specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (i) Stored liquid on the floating roof.
    (ii) Holes or tears in the primary or secondary seal (if one is 
present).
    (iii) Floating roof deck, deck fittings or rim seals that are not 
functioning as designed (as specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section).
    (iv) Failure to comply with the operational requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) If you comply with Option 1 or Option 3 in Table 2 to this 
subpart or Option 1 in Table 3 to this subpart, inspect each deck 
fitting in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. If you 
comply with Option 2 in Table 2 to this subpart or Option 3 in Table 3 
to this subpart, monitor each deck fitting in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii) of this section. If you comply with Option 2 in Table 3 to 
this subpart, monitor each deck fitting in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Measure the gap between each deck fitting gasket or wiper 
(required by paragraph (a) of this section) and any surface that it is 
intended to seal. The inspector must attempt to slide a \1/8\ inch 
diameter probe between the gasket or wiper and the surface against 
which it is intended to seal. Each location where the probe passes 
freely (without forcing or binding) between the two surfaces 
constitutes a gap and an inspection failure.
    (ii) Use Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance 
with Sec.  65.431(a) and (b) to monitor all sources of potential vapor 
leakage around each fitting. Conduct monitoring only when the roof is 
floating on the stored liquid. An instrument reading greater than 500 
ppmv constitutes an inspection failure. This option may be used only 
for an EFR.
    (iii) Monitor the deck fittings using an optical gas imaging 
instrument in accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging, as 
specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this monitoring 
option only if at least one compound in the emissions can be detected 
by the optical gas imaging instrument. Conduct monitoring only when the 
roof is floating on the stored liquid. Any imaged emissions constitutes 
an inspection failure.
    (3) If you comply with Option 1 in Table 3 to this subpart, conduct 
seal gap inspections for an EFR by determining the presence and size of 
gaps between the rim seals and the wall of the storage vessel in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) through 
(iv) of this section. Any exceedance of the gap requirements specified 
in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section constitutes 
inspection failure.
    (i) Rim seals must be measured for gaps at one or more levels while 
the EFR is floating, as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through 
(F) of this section.

[[Page 17991]]

    (A) The inspector must hold a \1/8\ inch diameter probe vertically 
against the inside of the storage vessel wall, just above the rim seal, 
and attempt to slide the probe down between the seal and the vessel 
wall. Each location where the probe passes freely (without forcing or 
binding against the seal) between the seal and the vessel wall 
constitutes a gap.
    (B) Determine the length of each gap by inserting the probe into 
the gap (vertically) and sliding the probe along the vessel wall in 
each direction as far as it will travel freely without binding between 
the seal and the vessel wall. The circumferential length along which 
the probe can move freely is the gap length.
    (C) Determine the maximum width of each gap by inserting probes of 
various diameters between the seal and the vessel wall. The smallest 
probe diameter should be \1/8\ inch, and larger probes should have 
diameters in increments of \1/8\ inch. The diameter of the largest 
probe that can be inserted freely anywhere along the length of the gap 
is the maximum gap width.
    (D) Determine the average width of each gap by averaging the 
minimum gap width (\1/8\ inch) and the maximum gap width.
    (E) The area of a gap is the product of the gap length and average 
gap width.
    (F) Determine the ratio of accumulated area of rim seal gaps to 
storage vessel diameter by adding the area of each gap, and dividing 
the sum by the nominal diameter of the storage vessel. Determine this 
ratio separately for primary and secondary rim seals.
    (ii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel diameter for the primary 
seal must not exceed 10 square inches per foot of vessel diameter, and 
the maximum gap width must not exceed 1.5 inches.
    (iii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel diameter for the 
secondary seal must not exceed 1 square inch per foot, and the maximum 
gap width must not exceed 0.5 inches, except when you must pull back or 
remove the secondary seal to inspect the primary seal.
    (iv) If you determine that it is unsafe to perform an EFR 
inspection as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, comply 
with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A) or (B) of this 
section.
    (A) Perform the inspection no later than 30 days after the 
determination that the floating roof is unsafe.
    (B) Completely empty the storage vessel no later than 45 days after 
determining the floating roof is unsafe. If the vessel cannot be 
completely emptied within 45 days, you may utilize up to two extensions 
of up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each 
decision to use an extension, as specified in Sec.  65.380(d)(3).
    (4) If you comply with Option 3 in Table 3 to this subpart, monitor 
the circumference of the floating roof when the roof is floating on 
stored liquid using an optical gas imaging instrument in accordance 
with the procedures specified in the protocol for optical gas imaging 
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. This monitoring option may be used only 
if at least one compound emitted from the storage vessel can be 
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument. Any imaged emissions 
constitutes an inspection failure.
    (5) If you comply with Option 2 in Table 3 to this subpart, monitor 
the interface between the rim seal and the tank shell and any gaps in 
the secondary seal using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.431(a) and (b). Conduct monitoring when the 
roof is floating on stored liquid. An instrument reading greater than 
500 ppmv constitutes an inspection failure.
    (6) If you comply with Option 2 in Table 2 to this subpart, monitor 
the circumference of the IFR using an optical gas imaging instrument in 
accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging, as specified in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this monitoring option only if 
at least one compound in the emissions can be detected by the optical 
gas imaging instrument. Conduct monitoring when the roof is floating on 
stored liquid. Any imaged emissions constitutes an inspection failure.
    (d) Repair requirements. Any condition causing an inspection 
failure under paragraph (c) of this section that is observed during an 
inspection required by paragraph (c) of this section or that you 
observe while conducting other activities on the storage vessel (e.g., 
maintenance or sampling) must be repaired, as specified in paragraph 
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If the inspection is performed while the storage vessel is 
completely empty, you must complete repairs before refilling the 
storage vessel with regulated material.
    (2) If the inspection is performed while the storage vessel is not 
completely empty, you must complete repairs or completely empty the 
storage vessel within 45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the 
vessel cannot be completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to 
two extensions of up to 30 additional days each. Keep records 
documenting each decision to use an extension, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(d)(3). Not repairing or emptying the storage vessel within the 
time frame specified in this paragraph (d) is a deviation and must be 
reported in your semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec.  
65.384(a).
    (e) Alternative means of emission limitation. (1) An alternate 
device may be substituted for a device specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section if the alternate device has an emission factor less than 
or equal to the emission factor for the device specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section. Requests for the use of alternate devices must be 
submitted, as specified in Sec.  65.388(b).
    (2) Tests to determine emission factors for an alternate device 
must accurately simulate representative conditions under which the 
device and storage vessel will operate, such as wind speed, ambient and 
liquid temperatures, pressure or vacuum, and filling and withdrawal 
rates, but without creating an unsafe condition. You must include a 
copy of the proposed testing protocol in your request.
    (f) Floating roof landing monitoring requirements. (1) Each storage 
vessel must be equipped with a system that provides a visual or audible 
signal when the floating roof (IFR or EFR) is about to be landed on its 
legs or other support devices (e.g., hangers from the fixed roof).
    (2) Each time a floating roof is landed, even if the alarm did not 
activate, estimate the amount of regulated material emitted to the 
atmosphere during the time the floating roof is landed. Keep records of 
this emissions estimate, as specified in Sec.  65.380(d)(1). Report the 
estimated emissions in your annual periodic report, as specified in 
Sec.  65.386(b).
    (g) Overfill monitoring requirements. (1) Each storage vessel must 
be equipped with monitoring equipment that provides a visual or audible 
signal when the storage vessel is about to be overfilled.
    (2) Each time the storage vessel is overfilled, estimate the amount 
of regulated material spilled and the amount emitted to the atmosphere. 
Keep records of this emissions estimate, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(i). Report the estimated emissions in your annual periodic 
report, as specified in Sec.  65.386(c).


Sec.  65.320  What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessel if I use vapor balance?

    If you elect to use vapor balancing to control emissions from a 
fixed roof storage vessel, you must comply with the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

[[Page 17992]]

    (a) Fixed roof requirements. Operate and maintain the fixed roof, 
as specified in Sec.  65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec.  
65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of this section; 
monitor the fixed roof, as specified in Sec.  65.310(c); and repair 
leaks, as specified in Sec.  65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and 
repair, as specified in Sec.  65.380(e)(1), and report deviations in 
your semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.310(d) 
and 65.384(a).
    (b) Vapor balance requirements. (1) Design requirements. (i) The 
vapor balancing system must be designed and operated to route vapors 
displaced from loading of the storage vessel to the transport vehicle 
or barge from which the storage vessel is filled.
    (ii) All vapor connections and lines on the storage vessel must be 
equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect.
    (2) Testing requirements. (i) Transport vehicles must have a 
current certification in accordance with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for 
cargo tanks and 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. Keep records of these 
certifications, as specified in Sec.  65.380(e)(2).
    (ii) Barges must have been pressure tested for vapor tightness 
within the 365-day period prior to being used in a vapor balancing 
system to comply with the control requirements in this section. 
Pressure testing must be conducted in accordance with paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section, and you must maintain copies 
of documentation showing the required testing was conducted, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(e)(3). You must either conduct the test at 
your facility or obtain documentation of the test from the barge owner 
or operator.
    (A) Each barge must be pressurized with dry air or inert gas to no 
more than the pressure of the lowest-pressure relief valve setting.
    (B) Once the pressure is obtained, the dry air or inert gas source 
must be shut off.
    (C) At the end of \1/2\ hour, the pressure in the barge and piping 
must be measured. The change in pressure must be calculated using 
Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.131


Where:

P = Change in pressure, inches of water.
Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is shut off, 
inches of water.
Pf = Pressure in barge at the end of \1/2\ hour after 
air/gas is shut off, inches of water.

    (D) The change in pressure, P, must be compared to the pressure 
drop calculated using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.132


Where:

PM = Maximum allowable pressure change, inches of water.
Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is shut off, 
pounds per square inch absolute (psia).
L = Maximum permitted loading rate of the barge, barrels per hour
V = Total volume of barge, barrels.

    (E) If P is less than or equal to PM, the vessel is vapor tight.
    (F) If P is greater than PM, the vessel is not vapor tight and the 
source of the leak must be identified and repaired before retesting.
    (3) Monitoring requirements. For pieces of equipment in the vapor 
balancing system, comply with Sec.  65.325(b) and (d), except as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. Keep 
records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(e)(5).
    (i) When Sec.  65.325(b) refers to a ``closed vent system,'' it 
means a ``vapor balancing system'' for the purposes of this section.
    (ii) When subpart M of this part, which is referenced from Sec.  
65.325(b), refers to ``bypass lines that divert a vent stream away from 
a control device and to the atmosphere,'' it means ``bypass lines that 
divert displaced storage vessel emissions to the atmosphere and away 
from the transport vehicle or barge from which the storage vessel is 
being filled'' for the purposes of this section.
    (iii) As an alternative to the otherwise applicable monitoring 
requirements specified in subpart J of this part, you may elect to 
comply with the alternative monitoring frequencies in Sec.  65.440 for 
equipment in a vapor balancing system that convey emissions from a 
storage vessel for the purposes of this subpart.
    (c) Operating requirements. (1) Liquid must be unloaded only when 
the transport vehicle's vapor collection equipment or barge's vapor 
collection equipment is connected to the storage vessel's vapor 
balancing system.
    (2) Each pressure relief device on the storage vessel or on the 
transport vehicle or barge must remain closed while the storage vessel 
is being filled.
    (3) Pressure relief devices on storage vessels must be set to no 
less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) at all times to 
prevent breathing losses, unless you provide rationale in the 
Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec.  65.382(c) 
explaining why a lower value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses 
at all times or control breathing losses by another method. Keep 
records of the vent settings, as specified in Sec.  65.380(e)(4).
    (d) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring 
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.315(g).


Sec.  65.325  What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessel if I route emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device?

    If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof atmospheric 
storage vessel by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a 
control device, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) 
through (e) of this section.
    (a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as specified in paragraph (e) 
of this section, operate and maintain the fixed roof, as specified in 
Sec.  65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec.  65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not 
apply for the purposes of this section; monitor the fixed roof, as 
specified in Sec.  65.310(c); and repair leaks, as specified in Sec.  
65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and repair, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(f)(1), and report deviations in your semiannual periodic report, 
as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.310(d) and 65.384(a).
    (b) Closed vent system requirements. Except as specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section, for the closed vent system, comply with 
the requirements specified in Sec.  65.720(b) through (d) and 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Equipment in the closed vent system is in regulated material 
service when it conveys emissions from the storage vessel. For such 
equipment, comply with Sec.  65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections 
referenced therein, except that Sec.  65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart. When Sec.  65.410(c) refers to ``your 
referencing subpart,'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart 
I.'' You must conduct the monitoring while the equipment is in 
regulated material service.
    (2) Comply with Sec.  65.430 for each potential source of emissions 
in the closed vent system that is not defined as

[[Page 17993]]

a piece of equipment. Keep identification records, as specified in 
Sec.  65.380(f)(5).
    (3) Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(f)(2).
    (c) Control device requirements. Comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, as 
applicable. Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(f)(3).
    (1) A non-flare control device must meet the requirements for the 
applicable control device in subpart M of this part; and reduce organic 
regulated material emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an 
outlet concentration of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If the 
regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP)), you may demonstrate compliance by reducing 
emissions to an outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv as total organic 
compounds (TOC). You must reduce the hydrogen halide and halogen 
emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec.  
65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an outlet concentration 
less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream determination must be 
based on the emission rate at the maximum expected fill rate of the 
storage vessel.
    (2) A flare must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.11(b) of this 
chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams, 
as defined in Sec.  65.295.
    (3) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit(s) 
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you must conduct either 
a design evaluation, as specified in Sec.  65.850, or a performance 
test, as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (4) During periods of planned routine maintenance of a control 
device, operate the storage vessel in accordance with paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. Keep records, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(f)(4).
    (i) Do not add material to the storage vessel during periods of 
planned routine maintenance.
    (ii) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control 
device to no more than 360 hours per year (hr/yr).
    (d) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring 
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.315(g).
    (e) Alternative requirements. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section do not apply if the fixed roof and closed vent system are 
maintained in vacuum service, provided you comply with Sec.  
65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on the fixed roof and equipment 
in the closed vent system and you keep records, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(f)(2).


Sec.  65.330  What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof 
atmospheric storage vessel if I route emissions to a fuel gas system?

    If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel 
by routing emissions to a fuel gas system, you must comply with 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as specified in paragraph (d) 
of this section, operate and maintain the fixed roof, as specified in 
Sec.  65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec.  65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not 
apply for the purposes of this section; monitor the fixed roof, as 
specified in Sec.  65.310(c); and repair leaks, as specified in Sec.  
65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and repair, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(g)(1), and report deviations in your semiannual periodic report, 
as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.310(d) and 65.384(a).
    (b) Fuel gas system requirements. Except as specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section, comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Comply with the requirements for fuel gas systems as specified 
in Sec.  65.732(a), (c), and (d).
    (2) Comply with the requirements for equipment leaks, as specified 
in subpart J of this part and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Equipment in the fuel gas system is in regulated material 
service when it conveys emissions from the storage vessel. For such 
equipment, comply with Sec.  65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections 
referenced therein, except that Sec.  65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart. When Sec.  65.410(c) refers to ``your 
referencing subpart,'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart 
I.'' You must conduct the monitoring while the equipment is in 
regulated material service.
    (ii) Comply with Sec.  65.430 for each potential source of 
emissions from the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of 
equipment (e.g., an access hatch). Keep identification records, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(g)(3).
    (3) Keep records of the fuel gas system, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(g)(2).
    (c) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring 
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.315(g).
    (d) Alternative requirements. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section do not apply if the fixed roof and fuel gas system are 
maintained in vacuum service, provided you comply with Sec.  
65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on the fixed roof and equipment 
in the fuel gas system and you keep records, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(g)(2).


Sec.  65.340  What requirements must I meet for a pressure vessel?

    If you have a pressure vessel that contains any regulated material, 
you must operate and maintain the pressure vessel, as specified in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) The pressure vessel must be designed to operate with no 
detectable emissions at all times.
    (b) All openings in the pressure vessel must be equipped with 
closure devices.
    (c) Conduct initial and annual performance tests by monitoring in 
accordance with either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section to 
demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) Monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which 
regulated material could potentially be emitted using Method 21 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance with the procedures specified 
in Sec.  65.431(a) and (b) and paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) When Sec.  65.431(a)(5) refers to ``monitoring when the 
equipment in regulated material service or in use with any other 
detectable material,'' it means ``monitoring when the pressure vessel 
contains a regulated material with a concentration representative of 
the range of concentrations for the materials expected to be stored in 
the pressure vessel'' for the purposes of this section.
    (ii) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not apply for the purposes of this 
section.
    (iii) Each instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv is a deviation. 
Comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section each 
time you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv.
    (A) Estimate the flow rate and total regulated material emissions 
from the defect. Assume the pressure vessel has been emitting for half 
of the time since the last performance test, unless other information 
supports a different assumption.
    (B) Keep records of the performance test and emission estimates, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(h)(1).
    (C) Submit information in your semiannual periodic report, as 
specified in Sec.  65.384(c).
    (2) Monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which 
regulated material potentially could be emitted using an optical gas 
imaging instrument, as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Operate and maintain the optical gas imaging instrument in 
accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging

[[Page 17994]]

in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. The optical gas imaging instrument must 
be able to detect at least one compound emitted from the storage 
vessel.
    (ii) Each image of emissions is a deviation. Comply with paragraphs 
(c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section each time you detect an image 
when using an optical gas imaging instrument.
    (A) Estimate emissions, as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of 
this section.
    (B) Keep records and report information, as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section.
    (d) Whenever material regulated by a referencing subpart is in the 
pressure vessel, operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that 
does not vent to the atmosphere except at those times when purging of 
inerts or noncondensables from the pressure vessel is required and the 
purge stream is routed through a closed vent system to a control device 
in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, as 
applicable. Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(h)(2), and 
report deviations in your semiannual periodic report, as specified in 
Sec.  65.384(c).
    (1) For the closed vent system, comply with Sec.  65.325(b).
    (2) For a non-flare control device, comply with requirements for 
the applicable control device in subpart M of this part, and comply 
with paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) A non-flare control device must reduce organic regulated 
material emissions by at least 98 percent by weight or to an outlet 
concentration of total regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If the 
regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., HAP), you 
may demonstrate compliance by reducing emissions to an outlet 
concentration less than 20 ppmv as TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen 
halide and halogen emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams, 
as defined in Sec.  65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an 
outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream 
determination must be based on the emission rate at the maximum 
expected fill rate of the pressure vessel.
    (ii) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit(s) 
specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, you must conduct 
either a design evaluation, as specified in Sec.  65.850, or a 
performance test, as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (3) For a flare, comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.11(b) of 
this chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent 
streams, as defined in Sec.  65.295.

Standards and Compliance Requirements for Transfer Operations


Sec.  65.360  What requirements must I meet for control of transport 
vehicles and transfer operations to load transport vehicles?

    For each transfer rack that is used to load transport vehicles with 
regulated material, you must comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. You must also comply with paragraph (c) of this section for 
transport vehicles that are loaded with regulated material.
    (a) Transfer method. Transfer regulated liquids to transport 
vehicles using submerged loading or bottom loading.
    (b) Displaced emissions control. For each loading arm that 
transfers regulated material at a facility that transfers through all 
transfer racks a total of more than 35 million gallons per year (gal/
yr) of liquids with a weighted average MTVP equal to or greater than 4 
psia, comply with either paragraph (b)(1), (2) or (3) of this section.
    (1) Route displaced emissions from the transport vehicle through a 
closed vent system to a control device and comply with paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Keep records, as specified in 
Sec.  65.380(j)(2).
    (i) For the closed vent system, comply with the requirements 
specified in Sec.  65.720(b) through (d) and paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) 
through (C) of this section.
    (A) Determine if a piece of equipment in the closed vent system is 
in regulated material service, based on the MTVP of each transferred 
material that generates vapor that contacts the equipment. If any such 
vapor meets the definition of ``in regulated material service,'' comply 
with Sec.  65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections referenced therein, 
except that Sec.  65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of 
this subpart. When Sec.  65.410(c) refers to ``your referencing 
subpart'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart I.'' If 
equipment in the closed vent system contacts regulated material from 
transfers, but is not in regulated material service, comply with 
requirements in Sec.  65.430, unless you are required to comply with 
Sec.  65.429 for other emissions conveyed by the closed vent system.
    (B) If equipment in the closed vent system is determined to be in 
regulated material service, conduct monitoring and inspections when the 
closed vent system is conveying vapor that causes the equipment in the 
closed vent system to be in regulated material service (e.g., when 
transferring material that generates vapor that meets the threshold for 
``in regulated material service''). If equipment in the closed vent 
system contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated material 
service, conduct inspections when regulated material vapors are flowing 
through the closed vent system (e.g., when filling any transport 
vehicle that generates vapor that contains regulated material). No 
monitoring or inspection is required during monitoring periods when the 
closed vent system conveys no regulated material.
    (C) Comply with Sec.  65.430 for each potential source of vapor 
leakage in the closed vent system that is not defined as a piece of 
equipment. Keep identification records, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(j)(3).
    (ii) For a non-flare control device, comply with the applicable 
requirements in subpart M of this part, and comply with paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) A non-flare control device must reduce organic regulated 
material emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet 
concentration of total organic regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If 
the regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., HAP), 
you may demonstrate compliance by reducing emissions to an outlet 
concentration less than 20 ppmv as TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen 
halide and halogen emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams, 
as defined in Sec.  65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an 
outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream 
determination must be based on the emission rate at the maximum 
expected fill rate of the pressure vessel.
    (B) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit 
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, you must conduct 
either a design evaluation, as specified in Sec.  65.850, or a 
performance test, as specified in Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (iii) For flares, comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.11(b) of 
this chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent 
streams, as defined in Sec.  65.295.
    (2) Route displaced emissions from the transport vehicle to a fuel 
gas system and comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Comply with the requirements for fuel gas systems, as specified 
in Sec.  65.732(a), (c) and (d).
    (ii) For equipment in the fuel gas system, comply with the 
requirements for equipment leaks, as specified in subpart J of this 
part, and paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Determine if a piece of equipment in the fuel gas system is in 
regulated

[[Page 17995]]

material service, based on the MTVP of each transferred material that 
generates vapor that contacts the equipment. If any such vapor meets 
the definition of ``in regulated material service,'' comply with Sec.  
65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections referenced therein, except 
that Sec.  65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of this 
subpart. When Sec.  65.410(c) refers to ``your referencing subpart,'' 
it means ``the subpart that references subpart I.'' If equipment in the 
fuel gas system contacts regulated material from transfers, but is not 
in regulated material service, comply with requirements specified in 
Sec.  65.430, unless you are required to comply with Sec.  65.427 for 
other emissions conveyed by the fuel gas system (e.g., process vent 
emissions).
    (B) For equipment in the fuel gas system that is determined to be 
in regulated material service, conduct monitoring and inspections, 
while transferring any material that generates vapor that causes the 
equipment in the fuel gas system to be in regulated material service. 
Alternatively, you may conduct monitoring and inspections when the fuel 
gas system is conveying vapors from other emission points that cause 
the equipment to be in regulated material service. If equipment in the 
fuel gas system contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated 
material service, conduct inspections when regulated material vapors 
are flowing through the fuel gas system (e.g., when filling any 
transport vehicle with liquid that contains regulated material).
    (C) Comply with Sec.  65.430 for each potential source of emissions 
in the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of equipment. 
Keep identification records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(3).
    (iii) Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(7).
    (3) Design and operate a vapor balancing system, as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section. This option may not 
be used if the applicable storage vessel is controlled using a floating 
roof. Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(5).
    (i) The vapor balancing system must be designed to route vapors 
displaced from the loading of regulated liquids into transport vehicles 
back to the storage vessel from which the liquid being loaded 
originated or to another storage vessel connected to a common header.
    (ii) The vapor balancing system must be designed to prevent any 
regulated material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing 
to another transfer rack.
    (iii) All vapor connections and lines in the vapor collection 
equipment and vapor balancing system must be equipped with closures 
that seal upon disconnect.
    (iv) Each pressure relief device on the transport vehicle and 
storage vessel must remain closed while the transport vehicle is being 
filled with regulated material.
    (v) For pieces of equipment in the vapor balancing system, comply 
with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that when paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section refers to a ``closed vent system,'' it means 
a ``vapor balancing system'' for the purposes of this section.
    (c) Transport vehicles. (1) Except when loading transport vehicles 
that meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you 
must ensure that regulated material liquids are loaded only into 
transport vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with 
the DOT pressure test requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for cargo tanks 
or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. Keep records of these certifications, 
as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(6).
    (2) Each transport vehicle that is loaded with regulated material 
that has a MTVP greater than 4 psia at a transfer rack that is subject 
to this section must pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted 
using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. Either you or the 
owner of the transport vehicle may conduct the test. Conduct the test 
using a time period (t) for the pressure and vacuum tests of 5 minutes. 
The initial pressure (Pi) for the pressure test must be 460 
millimeters (mm) of water, gauge. The initial vacuum (Vi) 
for the vacuum test must be 150 mm of water, gauge. The maximum 
allowable pressure and vacuum changes ([Delta]p, [Delta]v) for 
transport vehicles is 25 mm of water, or less, in 5 minutes. Keep 
records of each test, as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(1).
    (3) You must act to assure that your vapor balancing system, closed 
vent system or fuel gas system is connected to the transport vehicle's 
vapor collection equipment during each loading of a transport vehicle 
at the regulated source. Examples of actions to accomplish this include 
training drivers in the hookup procedures and posting visible reminder 
signs at the transfer racks that load regulated material.


Sec.  65.370  What requirements must I meet for control of transfer 
operations to load containers?

    For each transfer rack that is used to load containers, you must 
comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, as applicable.
    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 
transfer regulated material into containers using either submerged fill 
or a fitted opening in the top of the container through which the 
regulated material is filled, with subsequent purging of the transfer 
line before removing it from the container opening.
    (b) Whenever a container that is subject to this paragraph contains 
a regulated material, you must install all covers and closure devices 
for the container, and secure and maintain each closure device in the 
closed position, except when access to the container is necessary, such 
as for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning. If the 
container is 55 gallons (gal) or larger, the transferred liquid has a 
MTVP greater than 4 psia, and the container is used for onsite storage, 
comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Demonstrate initially and at least annually that the container 
is vapor tight by testing in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-8. Conduct the test using a time period (t) for the 
pressure and vacuum tests of 5 minutes. The initial pressure 
(Pi) for the pressure test must be 460 mm of water, gauge. 
The initial vacuum (Vi) for the vacuum test must be 150 mm 
of water, gauge. The maximum allowable pressure and vacuum changes 
([Delta]p, [Delta]v) for all tested containers is 76 mm of water, or 
less, in 5 minutes. Keep records of each test, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(j)(1).
    (2) Monitor annually each potential leak interface on the container 
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance with 
Sec.  65.431(a) and (b), and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not apply for the purposes of this 
section.
    (ii) When Sec.  65.431(a) and (b) refers to ``equipment,'' it means 
``each potential leak interface on the container'' for the purposes of 
this section.
    (iii) A leak is identified when you obtain an instrument reading 
greater than 500 ppmv.
    (iv) For each leak, either repair the leak or empty the container 
within 15 days after detecting the leak.
    (c) As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of this 
section, you may elect to control displaced vapors generated when 
filling the container in accordance with paragraph (c)(1), (2) or (3) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (1) Design and operate a vapor balancing system to route vapors 
displaced from the loading of regulated material into containers 
directly (e.g., no intervening tank or containment area, such as a 
room) to the storage vessel from which the liquid being loaded

[[Page 17996]]

originated or to another storage vessel connected to a common header. 
For equipment in the vapor balancing system, comply with Sec.  
65.360(b)(3), except when Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(i), which is referenced 
from Sec.  65.360(b)(3), refers to a ``transport vehicle,'' it means a 
``container'' for the purposes of this section. Keep records, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(5).
    (2) Vent displaced emissions directly through a closed vent system 
to a control device in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Comply with Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(i) for the closed vent system, 
except that when Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(i) refers to a ``transport 
vehicle,'' it means a ``container'' for the purposes of this section.
    (ii) Comply with Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) for the applicable 
control device.
    (iii) Keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.380(j)(2).
    (3) When filling, locate the containers in an enclosure that is 
exhausted through a closed vent system to a control device, as 
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Design and operate the enclosure in accordance with the 
criteria for a permanent total enclosure, as specified in ``Procedure 
T--Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total 
Enclosure'' under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B. The enclosure may have 
permanent or temporary openings to allow worker access; passage of 
containers through the enclosure by conveyor or other mechanical means; 
entry of permanent mechanical or electrical devices; or to direct 
airflow into the enclosure. Perform the verification procedure for the 
enclosure, as specified in Section 5.0 to ``Procedure T--Criteria for 
and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure'' 
initially when the enclosure is first installed and, thereafter, 
annually. Keep records of these verifications, as specified in Sec.  
65.380(j)(4).
    (ii) Comply with Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(i) for the closed vent system 
and comply with Sec.  65.360(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) for the applicable 
control device.

Recordkeeping and Reporting


Sec.  65.380  What records must I keep?

    (a) Vessel dimensions and storage capacity. For each storage vessel 
that is subject to the referencing subpart, keep a record of the 
dimensions of the storage vessel and an analysis of the storage 
capacity of the storage vessel.
    (b) Liquid stored and MTVP. (1) Keep a list of all the types of 
liquids stored.
    (2) Keep a record of each MTVP determination and the supporting 
information used in the determination.
    (c) Monitoring and repair records for fixed roofs complying with 
Sec.  65.310, Sec.  65.320, Sec.  65.325 or Sec.  65.330. (1) Record 
the date of each monitoring required by Sec.  65.310(c).
    (2) For each leak detected during monitoring required by Sec.  
65.310(c), record the location of the leak, a description of the leak, 
the date of detection, a description of actions taken to repair the 
defect and the date repair was completed. When using Method 21 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, keep a record of the instrument reading. 
When using optical gas imaging, keep a record of the video image.
    (3) If you elect to use an extension in accordance with Sec.  
65.310(d), keep records, as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Records for a first extension must include a description of the 
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable 
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions 
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the 
storage vessel during the extension period.
    (ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records 
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during 
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to 
ensure that the control device was repaired or the vessel was 
completely emptied by the end of the second extension period.
    (iii) Record the date on which the storage vessel was completely 
emptied, if applicable.
    (4) If applicable, maintain a copy of the written plan required by 
Sec.  65.310(c)(2)(ii) for parts of fixed roofs that are unsafe to 
monitor.
    (d) Records for floating roofs complying with Sec.  65.315. (1) 
Floating roof landings. For each floating roof landing, keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, 
as required by Sec.  65.315(f)(2).
    (i) The date when a floating roof is set on its legs or other 
support devices.
    (ii) The date when the roof was refloated.
    (iii) Whether the process of refloating was continuous (i.e., once 
started, filling or refilling was not suspended until the roof was 
refloated, except for filling from batch production, as specified in 
Sec.  65.315(b)(2)).
    (iv) Estimated emissions from the landing event.
    (2) Inspection results. Keep records of floating roof inspection 
results, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, 
as required by Sec.  65.315(c).
    (i) If the floating roof passes inspection, keep a record that 
includes the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) and (B) 
of this section. If the floating roof fails inspection, keep a record 
that includes the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) 
through (E) of this section.
    (A) Identification of the storage vessel that was inspected.
    (B) The date of the inspection.
    (C) A description of all inspection failures.
    (D) A description of all repairs and the dates they were made.
    (E) The date the storage vessel was completely emptied, if 
applicable.
    (ii) Keep records of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) 
through (C) of this section, as applicable for EFR inspections and 
monitoring.
    (A) EFR seal gap measurements, including the raw data obtained and 
any calculations performed, as required by Sec.  65.315(c)(3).
    (B) Instrument readings when monitoring is conducted using Method 
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (C) A record of the video image when monitoring is conducted using 
optical gas imaging.
    (3) Documentation of inspection and repair extensions. If you elect 
to use an extension in accordance with Sec.  65.315(c)(3)(iv)(B) or 
(d)(2), keep records, as specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Records for a first extension must include an explanation of 
why it was unsafe to perform the inspection, documentation that 
alternative storage capacity was unavailable during the 45-day period 
after determining the floating roof is unsafe to inspect and a schedule 
of actions that you took in an effort to completely empty the storage 
vessel during the extension period.
    (ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records 
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during 
the first extension period and a schedule of actions that you took to 
ensure that the vessel was completely emptied by the end of the second 
extension period.
    (iii) Record the date on which the storage vessel was completely 
emptied, if applicable.
    (e) Records for fixed roof storage vessels that vapor balance to 
comply with Sec.  65.320. (1) Keep records of fixed roof monitoring and 
repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) For transport vehicles, keep records of DOT certification(s) 
required by Sec.  65.320(b)(2)(i).
    (3) For barges, keep records of vapor tightness pressure test 
documentation

[[Page 17997]]

required by Sec.  65.320(b)(2)(ii). The documentation must include the 
information in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (ix) of this section.
    (i) Test title: Barge Pressure Test.
    (ii) Barge owner and address.
    (iii) Barge identification number.
    (iv) Testing location.
    (v) Test date.
    (vi) Tester name and signature.
    (vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: Name, signature and 
affiliation.
    (viii) Initial and final test pressures and the time at the 
beginning and end of the test.
    (ix) Test results: Actual pressure change in 30 minutes, mm of 
water.
    (4) Keep records of the pressure relief vent setting that prevents 
breathing losses from the storage vessel required by Sec.  
65.320(c)(3).
    (5) For equipment in the vapor balancing system, keep records, as 
required by subpart J of this part.
    (f) Records for fixed roof storage vessels vented to a control 
device complying with Sec.  65.325. (1) Keep records of fixed roof 
monitoring and repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) For the closed vent system, keep records, as specified in 
subpart J of this part and subpart M of this part.
    (3) For a non-flare control device, keep the applicable records 
specified in subpart M of this part. For flares, keep records of all 
visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot flame is out, and any 
periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
    (4) Record the day and time at which planned routine maintenance 
periods begin and end, and the type of maintenance performed on the 
control device. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, keep a record that 
explains why additional time up to 360 hr/yr was needed and describes 
how you minimized the amount of additional time needed.
    (5) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor 
leakage in the closed vent system that is not defined as a piece of 
equipment, as required by Sec.  65.325(b)(2).
    (g) Records for fixed roof storage vessels vented to a fuel gas 
system complying with Sec.  65.330. (1) Keep records of fixed roof 
monitoring and repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) For the fuel gas system, keep records, as specified in subpart 
J of this part and subpart M of this part.
    (3) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor 
leakage in the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of 
equipment, as required by Sec.  65.330(b)(2).
    (h) Records for pressure vessels complying with Sec.  65.340. (1) 
For each performance test required by Sec.  65.340(c), keep records of 
the information in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii).
    (i) The date of the test.
    (ii) The instrument reading (and background level, if you adjust 
for background, as described in Sec.  65.431(a)(7)), if you test using 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (iii) The video image, if you test using optical gas imaging.
    (2) Keep records of the information in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through 
(iv) of this section when the performance test required by Sec.  
65.340(c) detects a defect.
    (i) Date each defect was detected.
    (ii) Date of the next performance test that shows either the 
instrument reading is less than 500 ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, or no image is detected when using an optical 
gas imaging instrument.
    (iii) Start and end dates of each period after the date in 
paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section when the pressure vessel was 
completely empty.
    (iv) Estimated emissions from each defect.
    (3) When complying with Sec.  65.340(d), keep records for the 
closed vent system, as specified in subpart J of this part and subpart 
M of this part, and for a non-flare control device, keep the applicable 
records specified in subpart M of this part. For flares, keep records 
of all visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot flame is out, 
and any periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
    (i) Records of overfilling. For each storage vessel that is subject 
to Sec.  65.305(b), keep records of each date when the storage vessel 
is overfilled and estimates of the amount of regulated material spilled 
and emitted to the atmosphere, as required by Sec.  65.315(g), Sec.  
65.320(d), Sec.  65.325(d), or Sec.  65.330(c).
    (j) Records for transfer operations. (1) Keep records of the 
information listed in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section 
for each transport vehicle and container for which testing using Method 
27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 is required by Sec.  65.360(c)(2) or 
Sec.  65.370(b)(1). You must update the documentation file for each 
subject transport vehicle and container at least once per year to 
reflect current test results, as determined by Method 27 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-8.
    (i) Test title: Transport Vehicle or Container Pressure Test--EPA 
Reference Method 27.
    (ii) Transport vehicle or container owner and address.
    (iii) Transport vehicle or container identification number.
    (iv) Testing location.
    (v) Date of test.
    (vi) Tester name and signature.
    (vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: Name, signature and 
affiliation.
    (viii) Initial and final test pressures, initial and final test 
vacuums and the time at the beginning and end of the test.
    (ix) Test results: Actual pressure and vacuum changes in 5 minutes, 
mm of water (average for 2 runs, as required by Method 27 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-8).
    (2) If you use a closed vent system and control device, as 
specified in Sec.  65.360(b)(1) or Sec.  65.370(c)(2)(ii), keep records 
for the closed vent system, as specified in subpart J of this part and 
subpart M of this part, and for a non-flare control device, keep the 
applicable records specified in subpart M of this part. For flares, 
keep records of all visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot 
flame is out, and any periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
    (3) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor 
leakage in the closed vent system or fuel gas system that is not 
defined as a piece of equipment, as required by Sec.  
65.360(b)(1)(i)(C) or (2)(ii)(C).
    (4) For containers filled inside an enclosure, as specified in 
Sec.  65.370(c)(3)(i), keep records of the most recent set of 
calculations and measurements performed to verify that the enclosure 
meets the criteria of a permanent total enclosure, as specified in 
``Procedure T--Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or 
Temporary Total Enclosure'' under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.
    (5) If you use a vapor balancing system, as specified in Sec.  
65.360(b)(3) or Sec.  65.370(c)(1), keep records of the date of each 
sensory inspection or instrument monitoring, the number of potential 
leaks to the atmosphere that you identified and the records required by 
subpart J of this part for monitoring conducted in accordance with 
Sec.  65.430(b)(2) and the requirements referenced therein.
    (6) For transport vehicles, keep records of DOT certification(s) 
required by Sec.  65.360(c)(1).
    (7) If you route emissions from transport vehicles to a fuel gas 
system, as specified in Sec.  65.360(b)(2), keep records as specified 
in subpart M of this part.
    (k) Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) Records for 
closed vent systems in vacuum service. Keep records of the inspections, 
checks and

[[Page 17998]]

performance evaluations required by subpart J of this part for your 
CPMS.


Sec.  65.382  What information must I submit in my Notification of 
Compliance Status?

    You must include the information listed in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section, as applicable, in the Notification of Compliance 
Status that you submit according to the procedures in Sec.  65.225.
    (a) The identification of each storage vessel in the regulated 
source under the referencing subpart, its storage capacity and the 
liquid stored in the storage vessel.
    (b) The identification of each transfer rack in the regulated 
source under the referencing subpart.
    (c) If applicable, you must include rationale, pursuant to Sec.  
65.320(c)(3), explaining why pressure lower than 2.5 psig is sufficient 
to prevent breathing losses from pressure relief devices on storage 
vessels.


Sec.  65.384  What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic 
report?

    Submit the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of 
this section, as applicable, in semiannual periodic reports that you 
submit, as specified in Sec.  65.225.
    (a) If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the 
second extension period, as required by Sec.  65.310(d) or Sec.  
65.315(d)(2), report the date when the storage vessel was emptied or 
repaired.
    (b) Report the storage vessel identification and the start and end 
dates of each floating roof landing that does not meet the criteria 
specified in Sec.  65.315(b)(1).
    (c) If you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv or an 
image of a leak when monitoring a pressure vessel in accordance with 
Sec.  65.340(c)(1) or (2), submit a copy of the records specified in 
Sec.  65.380(h)(2).
    (d) If you use a closed vent system and non-flare control device, 
as specified in Sec.  65.325, Sec.  65.360(b)(1) or Sec.  65.370(c)(2), 
submit information in semiannual reports, as specified in subparts J 
and M of this part. For flares, report any instances when visual 
emissions occur longer than 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, a 
pilot flame is out, or the pilot flames are not monitored.
    (e) If you use a vapor balancing system, as specified in Sec.  
65.320, Sec.  65.360(b)(3) or Sec.  65.370(c)(1), submit information in 
semiannual reports, as specified in subparts J and M of this part.
    (f) If you use a fuel gas system, as specified in Sec.  65.330 or 
Sec.  65.360(b)(2), submit information in semiannual reports, as 
specified in subparts J and M of this part.


Sec.  65.386  What information must I submit in my annual periodic 
report?

    You must report the information specified in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section, as applicable, in annual periodic reports that you 
submit, as specified in Sec.  65.225.
    (a) Inspection results. You must submit a copy of the inspection 
record (required by Sec.  65.380(c)(2), (d)(3) and (g)(1)) when an 
inspection failure or leak is detected.
    (b) Estimated emissions from floating roof landings. Submit a copy 
of the estimated emissions record when a floating roof is landed, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(d)(1).
    (c) Estimated emissions from overfilling. Submit a copy of the 
estimated emissions record when a storage vessel is overfilled, as 
specified in Sec.  65.380(i).


Sec.  65.388  What other reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Notification of inspection. (1) Except as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, you must notify the 
Administrator at least 30 days prior to a storage vessel inspection 
required by Sec.  65.310(c) or Sec.  65.315(c). This notification may 
be included in your next annual periodic report if the annual periodic 
report will be submitted so that it is received by the Administrator at 
least 30 days prior to the inspection.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if an 
inspection is unplanned and you could not have known about the 
inspection 30 days in advance, then you must notify the Administrator 
at least 7 days before the inspection. Notification must be made by 
telephone immediately, followed by written documentation demonstrating 
why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, the notification, 
including the written documentation, may be made in writing and sent so 
that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days before the 
inspection.
    (3) A delegated state or local agency may waive the requirement for 
notification of storage vessel inspections.
    (b) Requests for alternate devices. If you request the use of an 
alternate device, as described in Sec.  65.315(e), you must submit an 
application in accordance with Sec.  65.260.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  65.390  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in 
the referencing subpart.

List of Tables to Subpart I of Part 65

     Table 1 to Subpart I of Part 65--Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels and Transfer
                                                   Operations
  [As required in Sec.  Sec.   65.310, 65.315, 65.320, 65.325, 65.330, 65.360 and 65.370, you must comply with
   each applicable control requirement for storage vessels and transfer operations specified in the following
                                                     table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     For a(n) . . .                                           You must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Atmospheric storage vessel that stores any regulated  a. Comply with Sec.   65.310 and the requirements
 material and does not meet criteria specified in item    referenced therein; or
 2 or item 3 to this table.                              b. Comply with the requirements in item 2 to this
                                                          table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Atmospheric storage vessel >=20,000 gal and <40,000   a. Comply with Sec.   65.315 and the requirements
 gal that stores material with a MTVP >=1.9 psia.         referenced therein, provided the MTVP of the stored
                                                          liquid is less than 76.6 kPa; or
                                                         b. Comply with Sec.   65.320 and the requirements
                                                          referenced therein; or
                                                         c. Comply with Sec.   65.325 and the requirements
                                                          referenced therein; or
                                                         d. Comply with Sec.   65.330 and the requirements
                                                          referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Atmospheric storage vessel >=40,000 gal that stores   a. Comply with item 2 to this table.
 material with a MTVP >=0.75 psia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17999]]

 
4. Pressure vessels....................................  a. Comply with Sec.   65.340 and the requirements
                                                          referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Transfer operations that involve loading of           a. Comply with Sec.   65.360 and the requirements
 transport vehicles.                                      referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Transfer operations that involve loading of           a. Comply with Sec.   65.370 and the requirements
 containers.                                              referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels
                                              Equipped With an IFR
    [As required in Sec.   65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor IFR, as specified in the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              At the following times .
 For each IFR, comply with . . .         You must . . .                  . .                  Except . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1; or..................  a. From within the         i. Before the initial     Not applicable.
                                    storage vessel, inspect    fill of the storage
                                    the floating roof deck,    vessel, and.
                                    deck fittings and rim
                                    seal(s) in accordance
                                    with Sec.   65.315(c)(1)
                                    and (2)(i); and
                                   .........................  ii. Each time the         (1) If the storage
                                                               storage vessel is         vessel is out of
                                                               completely emptied and    service on the date 10
                                                               degassed, or before the   years after the
                                                               date 10 years after the   previous inspection,
                                                               previous inspection       the inspection may be
                                                               from within the storage   delayed, provided it is
                                                               vessel, whichever         conducted prior to
                                                               occurs first.             filling the storage
                                                                                         vessel with regulated
                                                                                         material.
                                   b. From openings in the    i. At least annually....  (1) Identification of
                                    fixed roof or from                                   holes or tears in the
                                    within the storage                                   rim seal is required
                                    vessel, visually inspect                             only for the seal that
                                    the floating roof deck,                              is visible from the top
                                    deck fittings and rim                                of the storage vessel.
                                    seal in accordance with
                                    Sec.   65.315(c)(1).
                                                                                        (2) This inspection is
                                                                                         not required in a
                                                                                         calendar year when you
                                                                                         conduct an inspection
                                                                                         in accordance with item
                                                                                         1.a of this table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Option 2; or..................  a. From within the         i. Before the initial     See item 2.b.i.(1) of
                                    storage vessel, inspect    fill of the storage       this table.
                                    the floating roof deck,    vessel; and.
                                    deck fittings and rim
                                    seal(s) in accordance
                                    with Sec.
                                    65.315(c)(1); and
                                                              ii. Each time the         (1) If the storage
                                                               storage vessel is         vessel is out of
                                                               completely emptied and    service on the date 10
                                                               degassed, or before the   years after the
                                                               date 10 years after the   previous inspection,
                                                               previous inspection       the inspection may be
                                                               from within the storage   delayed provided it is
                                                               vessel, whichever         conducted prior to
                                                               occurs first.             filling the storage
                                                                                         vessel with regulated
                                                                                         material.
                                   b. From openings in the    i. Within 90 days after   (1) This option may be
                                    fixed roof, monitor each   initial fill; and.        used only if the
                                    deck fitting in                                      criteria for optical
                                    accordance with Sec.                                 gas imaging in Sec.
                                    65.315(c)(2)(iii); and                               65.315(c)(2)(iii) and
                                                                                         40 CFR part 60,
                                                                                         appendix K are met.
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   c. From openings in the    i. Within 90 days after   See item 2.b.i.(1) of
                                    fixed roof, monitor the    initial fill; and.        this table.
                                    circumference of the IFR
                                    in accordance with Sec.
                                     65.315(c)(6).
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Option 3......................  a. As an alternative to    i. Before the initial     Not applicable.
                                    Option 1 in this table,    fill; and.
                                    for an IFR with two rim
                                    seals, inspect the roof
                                    deck, deck fittings, and
                                    rim seals from within
                                    the storage vessel in
                                    accordance with Sec.
                                    65.315(c)(1) and (2)(i).
                                                              ii. Each time the         (1) If the storage
                                                               storage vessel is         vessel is out of
                                                               completely emptied and    service on the date 5
                                                               degassed, or before the   years after the
                                                               date 5 years after the    previous inspection,
                                                               previous inspection       the inspection may be
                                                               from within the storage   delayed provided it is
                                                               vessel, whichever         conducted prior to
                                                               occurs first.             filling the storage
                                                                                         vessel with regulated
                                                                                         material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18000]]


    Table 3 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels
                                              Equipped with an EFR
    [As required in Sec.   65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor EFR, as specified in the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              At the following times .
 For each EFR, comply with . . .         You must . . .                  . .                  Except . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1; or..................  a. Inspect the primary     i. Within 90 days after   Not applicable.
                                    rim seal, as specified     the initial fill of the
                                    in Sec.   65.315(c)(3),    storage vessel, and
                                    and
                                                              ii. Before the date 5     Not applicable.
                                                               years after the
                                                               previous primary seal
                                                               gap inspection.
                                   b. Inspect the secondary   i. Within 90 days after   Not applicable.
                                    rim seal, as specified     the initial fill of the
                                    in Sec.   65.315(c)(3),    storage vessel, and
                                    and
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   c. Visually inspect the    i. At least annually....  (1) Identification of
                                    floating roof deck, deck                             holes or tears in the
                                    fittings and secondary                               rim seal is required
                                    seal, as specified in                                only for the seal that
                                    Sec.   65.315(c)(1); and                             is visible from the top
                                                                                         of the storage vessel.
                                   d. Inspect the deck        i. At least annually....  Not applicable.
                                    fittings, as specified
                                    in Sec.
                                    65.315(c)(2)(i).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Option 2......................  a. Monitor the             i. Within 90 days after   Not applicable.
                                    circumference of the EFR   initial fill; and.
                                    in accordance with Sec.
                                     65.315(c)(5); and
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   b. Monitor each deck       i. Within 90 days after   Not applicable.
                                    fitting in accordance      initial fill; and.
                                    with Sec.
                                    65.315(c)(2)(ii); and
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   c. Visually inspect the    i. At least annually....  (1) Identification of
                                    floating roof deck, deck                             holes or tears in the
                                    fittings and secondary                               rim seal is required
                                    seal in accordance with                              only for the seal that
                                    Sec.   65.315(c)(1).                                 is visible from the top
                                                                                         of the storage vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Option 3......................  a. Monitor the             i. Within 90 days after   (1) This option may be
                                    circumference of the EFR   initial fill; and.        used only if the
                                    in accordance with Sec.                              criteria for optical
                                     65.315(c)(4); and                                   gas imaging in Sec.
                                                                                         65.315(c)(4) and 40 CFR
                                                                                         part 60, appendix K are
                                                                                         met.
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   b. Monitor each deck       i. Within 90 days after   (1) This option may be
                                    fitting in accordance      initial fill; and.        used only if the
                                    with Sec.                                            criteria for optical
                                    65.315(c)(2)(iii); and                               gas imaging in Sec.
                                                                                         65.315(c)(2)(iii) and
                                                                                         40 CFR part 60,
                                                                                         appendix K are met.
                                                              ii. At least annually...  Not applicable.
                                   c. Visually inspect the    i. At least annually....  (1) Identification of
                                    floating roof deck, deck                             holes or tears in the
                                    fittings and secondary                               rim seal is required
                                    seal in accordance with                              only for the seal that
                                    Sec.   65.315(c)(1).                                 is visible from the top
                                                                                         of the storage vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Add subpart J to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart J--National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

What This Subpart Covers

65.400 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.401 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.402 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.403 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Emission Limits and Other Standards--General

65.410 What are my compliance options?
65.413 What are the standards and compliance requirements for closed 
vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to comply 
with this subpart?
65.415 How must I identify equipment?
65.416 How must I designate special equipment?

Equipment Leak Standards

65.420 What are the standards and compliance requirements for valves 
in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service?
65.421 What are the standards and compliance requirements for pumps 
in light liquid service?
65.422 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid 
service?
65.423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid 
service?
65.424 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
pressure relief devices?
65.425 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
compressors?
65.426 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
sampling connection systems?
65.427 What are the standards and compliance requirements for open-
ended valves and lines?
65.428 What are the standards and compliance requirements for other 
equipment that contacts or contains regulated material?
65.429 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems?

Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair

65.430 What are my sensory monitoring requirements?
65.431 What instrument monitoring methods must I use to detect 
leaks?
65.432 What are my leak identification and repair requirements?

[[Page 18001]]

Alternative Equipment Leak Standards

65.440 What is the alternative means of emission limitation for 
equipment in batch operations?

Optical Gas Imaging Standards for Detecting Equipment Leaks

65.450 What are the standards and compliance requirements for using 
an optical gas imaging instrument to detect leaks?

Notifications, Reports and Records

65.470 What notifications and reports must I submit?
65.475 What are my recordkeeping requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

65.490 What definitions apply to this subpart?

List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65

Table 1 to Subpart J of Part 65--Instrument Readings That Define a 
Leak for Equipment Complying With Sec.  65.430(b)(2)
Table 2 to Subpart J of Part 65--Monitoring Frequency for Equipment 
in Batch Operations Complying With Sec.  65.440

Subpart J--National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  65.400  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards 
of a referencing subpart for equipment leaks.


Sec.  65.401  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who 
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly 
directed to comply with this subpart by a referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.402  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    This subpart applies to equipment in process units, closed vent 
systems and fuel gas systems that contains or contacts regulated 
material and is subject to a referencing subpart. This subpart applies 
to valves, pumps, connectors, agitators, pressure relief devices, 
compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves and lines, 
instrumentation systems and any other equipment, as defined in the 
referencing subpart. This subpart also applies to closed-purge and 
closed-loop systems used to meet the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  65.403  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.

Emission Limits and Other Standards--General


Sec.  65.410  What are my compliance options?

    (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
for each regulated source that is subject to control requirements for 
equipment leaks in a referencing subpart, you must comply with 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Identify subject equipment in accordance with Sec. Sec.  65.415 
and 65.416.
    (2) Comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section or, as applicable, comply with the alternative specified in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) As applicable, comply with the equipment-specific standards in 
Sec. Sec.  65.420 through 65.429 and the related requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  65.430 through 65.432.
    (ii) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, if 
you have equipment in a batch operation, you may elect to comply with 
the alternative monitoring frequency requirements in Sec.  65.440.
    (3) Comply with the applicable notification, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec.  65.470 and 65.475.
    (b) You are not required to comply with the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  65.420 through 65.440 for equipment in vacuum service, 
provided that you comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Identify the equipment, as specified in Sec.  65.415(f).
    (2) Continuously demonstrate that the equipment remains in vacuum 
service, as described in Sec.  65.416(e).
    (3) Comply with the applicable recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
65.475(b)(6).
    (c) If your referencing subpart specifies that you may comply with 
the optical gas imaging requirements in Sec.  65.450 as an alternative 
to complying with paragraph (a) of this section, you must comply with 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section if you elect to comply 
with the optical gas imaging alternative.
    (1) Identify subject equipment in accordance with Sec.  65.415.
    (2) Comply with Sec.  65.450 for leak detection and repair.
    (3) Comply with the applicable notification, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec.  65.470 and 65.475(e).


Sec.  65.413  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to 
comply with this subpart?

    A closed vent system and non-flare control device or a fuel gas 
system used to meet applicable requirements in Sec. Sec.  65.420 
through 65.427 must meet the applicable requirements of subpart M of 
this part. A flare used to meet applicable requirements in Sec. Sec.  
65.420 through 65.427 must meet the applicable requirements in Sec.  
63.11(b) of this chapter. You must not use a flare to control 
halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec.  65.295. The non-flare 
control device must also meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section.
    (a) A non-flare control device must reduce regulated material 
emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet 
concentration less than 20 ppmv.
    (b) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must conduct either a 
design evaluation or a performance test in accordance with subpart M of 
this part.


Sec.  65.415  How must I identify equipment?

    You must identify equipment subject to this subpart, as described 
in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Identification of the 
equipment does not require physical tagging of the equipment. For 
example, the equipment may be identified on a plant site plan, in log 
entries, by designation of process unit boundaries, by some form of 
weatherproof identification or by other appropriate methods.
    (a) Connectors. Except for inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined 
connectors meeting the provision of Sec.  65.422(d)(3) and connectors 
in instrumentation systems identified, pursuant to paragraph (d) of 
this section, identify the connectors subject to the requirements of 
this subpart. You need not individually identify each connector if you 
identify all connectors in a designated area or length of pipe subject 
to the provisions of this subpart as a group and you indicate the 
number of connectors subject. The identification of connectors must be 
complete no later than either the compliance date, as specified in your 
referencing subpart, or before completion of the initial round of 
monitoring required by Sec.  65.422(a)(2), whichever is later.
    (b) Pressure relief devices. Identify the pressure relief devices 
in gas or vapor service that vent to the atmosphere under the 
provisions of Sec.  65.424(a) and the pressure relief devices in gas or 
vapor service routed through a closed

[[Page 18002]]

vent system to a control device under the provisions of Sec.  
65.424(d).
    (c) Instrumentation systems. Identify instrumentation systems 
subject to the provisions of Sec.  65.430(a). You do not need to 
identify individual valves, pumps, connectors or other pieces of 
equipment within an instrumentation system.
    (d) Equipment in heavy liquid service. Identify the equipment in 
heavy liquid service, under the provisions of Sec.  65.430(c).
    (e) Equipment in service less than 300 hours per calendar year. 
Identify, either by list, location (area or group) or other method, 
equipment in regulated material service less than 300 hours per 
calendar year within a process unit subject to the provisions of this 
subpart.
    (f) Equipment in vacuum service. Identify, either by list, location 
(area or group) or other method, equipment in vacuum service within a 
process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (g) Other equipment. Identify any other equipment subject to any of 
the provisions in Sec.  65.410.


Sec.  65.416  How do I designate special equipment?

    (a) Equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor. (1) 
Designation and criteria for unsafe-to-monitor. You may designate the 
equipment listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) though (iv) of this section as 
unsafe-to-monitor if you determine that monitoring personnel would be 
exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with the 
monitoring requirements of this subpart. Examples of unsafe-to-monitor 
equipment include, but are not limited to, equipment under extreme 
pressure or heat, equipment that you cannot access without the use of a 
motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential exists 
or equipment in near proximity to hazards such as electrical lines.
    (i) Valves complying with Sec.  65.420 or Sec.  65.440.
    (ii) Pumps complying with Sec.  65.421 or Sec.  65.440.
    (iii) Connectors complying with Sec.  65.422 or Sec.  65.440.
    (iv) Agitators complying with Sec.  65.423 or Sec.  65.440.
    (2) Designation and criteria for difficult-to-monitor. You may 
designate the equipment listed in (a)(2)(i) though (iv) as difficult-
to-monitor if you determine that the equipment cannot be monitored 
without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 7 feet above a 
support surface or it is not accessible in a safe manner when it is in 
regulated material service.
    (i) Valves complying with Sec.  65.420 or Sec.  65.440. In a new 
source, the number of valves you designate as difficult-to-monitor must 
be less than 3 percent of the total number of valves in that new 
source, unless all of the difficult-to-monitor valves in that source 
are low leak technology, as described in Sec.  65.432(e)(3).
    (ii) Pumps complying with Sec.  65.421 or Sec.  65.440.
    (iii) Connectors complying with Sec.  65.422 or Sec.  65.440.
    (iv) Agitators complying with Sec.  65.423 or Sec.  65.440.
    (3) Identification of unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment. 
You must record the identity of equipment designated as unsafe-to-
monitor according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
and record the identity of equipment designated as difficult-to-monitor 
according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For 
both types of equipment, you must also record the planned schedule for 
monitoring this equipment and an explanation why the equipment is 
unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, as specified in Sec.  
65.475(b)(2)(ii).
    (4) Written plan requirements. For equipment designated as unsafe-
to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor, you must have a written plan that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, 
as applicable. You must keep the plan onsite as long as the equipment 
is designated unsafe-to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor.
    (i) For equipment designated as unsafe-to-monitor according to the 
provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must have a written 
plan that requires monitoring of the equipment as frequently as 
practical during safe-to-monitor times, but not more frequently than 
the periodic monitoring schedule otherwise applicable, and repair of 
the equipment according to the procedures in Sec.  65.432 if a leak is 
detected. If applicable, your written plan must also address how you 
will address any indications of liquids dripping observed during a 
weekly visual inspection.
    (ii) For equipment designated as difficult-to-monitor according to 
the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you must have a 
written plan that requires monitoring of the equipment at least once 
per calendar year and repair of the equipment according to the 
procedures in Sec.  65.432 if a leak is detected. If applicable, your 
written plan must also address how you will address any indications of 
liquids dripping observed during a weekly visual inspection.
    (b) Inaccessible connectors. You may designate a connector as an 
inaccessible connector if it meets any of the provisions specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) The connector is buried.
    (2) The connector is insulated in a manner that prevents access to 
the connector by a monitor probe.
    (3) The connector is obstructed by equipment or piping that 
prevents access to the connector by a monitor probe.
    (c) Compressors operating with an instrument reading of less than 
500 parts per million (ppm) above background. Identify the compressors 
that you elect to designate as operating with instrument reading of 
less than 500 parts per million (ppm) above background under the 
provisions of Sec.  65.425(b).
    (d) Pressure relief devices (PRD) in regulated material service 
that vent to atmosphere. If your referencing subpart specifies that 
releases to the atmosphere from a pressure relief device (PRD) is not 
allowed, identify all PRD in regulated material service, the process 
components served by the PRD and whether the PRD vent to atmosphere or 
through a closed vent system to a control device. This identification 
may be used to meet the requirements of Sec.  65.415(b).
    (e) Equipment in vacuum service. For equipment in vacuum service 
that contains or contacts regulated material, you must demonstrate that 
the equipment is operated and maintained in vacuum service, as 
described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) In vacuum service alarm. You must install a continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to measure pressure and an alarm 
system that will alert an operator immediately and automatically when 
the pressure is such that the equipment no longer meets the definition 
of in vacuum service. The alarm must be located such that the alert is 
detected and recognized easily by an operator. For the CPMS, you must 
check for obstructions (e.g., pressure tap pluggage) at least once each 
process operating day. You must conduct a performance evaluation 
annually, a check of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly and 
a visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and 
galvanic corrosion every 3 months.
    (2) In vacuum service alarm procedures. If the alarm is triggered 
for equipment operating in vacuum service, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section, you must immediately initiate procedures to get 
the equipment back into vacuum service, or you may chose to comply with 
the requirements of Sec.  65.410(a)(2).

[[Page 18003]]

    (3) In vacuum service alarm records. You must maintain records, as 
specified in Sec.  65.475(b)(6).

Equipment Leak Standards


Sec.  65.420  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service?

    Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section for valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light 
liquid service.
    (a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct 
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 and paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading 
that defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater.
    (2) Monitoring frequency. Except as specified in paragraph 
(a)(2)(vi) of this section, you must monitor valves for leaks monthly 
for the first 2 months after initial startup. After the first 2 months 
following initial startup, you must monitor valves for leaks at the 
frequency specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this 
section. You must also keep a record of the start date and end date of 
each monitoring period under this section for each process unit, as 
specified in Sec.  65.475(c)(1)(i).
    (i) At process units with at least 2-percent leaking valves, 
calculated according to paragraph (b) of this section, you must monitor 
each valve according to either paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this 
section.
    (A) Monitor each valve monthly.
    (B) If the summed number of valves found to be leaking (i.e., 
``VL'' in Equation 2 in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section) over the last two monitoring periods is three or less, you may 
elect to monitor each valve quarterly.
    (ii) At process units with less than 2-percent leaking valves, 
calculated as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you must 
monitor each valve quarterly, except as provided in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(iii) through (v) of this section.
    (iii) At process units with less than 1-percent leaking valves, you 
may elect to monitor each valve semiannually.
    (iv) At process units with less than 0.5-percent leaking valves, 
you may elect to monitor each valve annually.
    (v) At process units with less than 0.25 percent leaking valves, 
you may elect to monitor each valve biennially.
    (vi) Monitoring data generated before the regulated source became 
subject to the referencing subpart and meeting the criteria of either 
Sec.  65.431(a)(1) through (5), or Sec.  65.431(a)(6), may be used to 
qualify initially for less frequent monitoring under paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii) through (v) of this section.
    (3) Valve subgrouping. For a process unit or a group of process 
units to which this subpart applies, you may choose to subdivide the 
valves in the applicable process unit or group of process units and 
apply the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section to each 
subgroup. If you elect to subdivide the valves in the applicable 
process unit or group of process units, then the provisions of 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section apply.
    (i) The overall performance of total valves in the applicable 
process unit or group of process units to be subdivided must be less 
than 2-percent leaking valves, as detected according to paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section and, as calculated according to 
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (ii) The initial assignment or subsequent reassignment of valves to 
subgroups shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs 
(a)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) You must determine which valves are assigned to each subgroup. 
Valves with less than 1 year of monitoring data or valves not monitored 
within the last 12 months must be placed initially into the most 
frequently monitored subgroup until at least 1 year of monitoring data 
have been obtained.
    (B) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a less 
frequently monitored subgroup to a more frequently monitored subgroup 
provided that you monitored the valves to be reassigned during the most 
recent monitoring period for the less frequently monitored subgroup. 
The monitoring results must be included with that less frequently 
monitored subgroup's associated percent leaking valves calculation for 
that monitoring event.
    (C) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a more 
frequently monitored subgroup to a less frequently monitored subgroup 
provided that the valves to be reassigned have not leaked for the 
period of the less frequently monitored subgroup (e.g., for the last 12 
months, if the valve or group of valves is to be reassigned to a 
subgroup being monitored annually). Non-repairable valves may not be 
reassigned to a less frequently monitored subgroup.
    (iii) Every 6 months, you must determine if the overall performance 
of total valves in the applicable process unit or group of process 
units is less than 2-percent leaking valves and so indicate the 
performance in the next periodic report. You must calculate the overall 
performance of total valves in the applicable process unit or group of 
process units as a weighted average of the percent leaking valves of 
each subgroup according to Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.133

Where:

%VLO = Overall performance of total valves in the 
applicable process unit or group of process units.
%VLi = Percent leaking valves in subgroup i, most recent 
value calculated according to the procedures in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this section.
Vi = Number of valves in subgroup i.
n = Number of subgroups.

    (iv) If the overall performance of total valves in the applicable 
process unit or group of process units, determined according to 
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, is 2-percent leaking valves or 
greater, you may no longer subgroup and must revert to the program 
required in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section for that 
applicable process unit or group of process units. You can again elect 
to comply with the valve subgrouping procedures of paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section if future overall performance of total valves in the 
process unit or group of process units is again less than 2 percent.
    (v) You must maintain the records specified in Sec.  
65.475(c)(1)(ii).
    (vi) To determine the monitoring frequency for each subgroup, use 
the

[[Page 18004]]

calculation procedures of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (vii) Except for the overall performance calculations required by 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (iii) of this section, each subgroup must be 
treated as if it were a process unit for the purposes of applying the 
provisions of this section.
    (b) Percent leaking valves calculation. You must calculate the 
percent leaking valves in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Calculation basis and procedures. (i) You must decide no later 
than the compliance date specified in the referencing subpart or upon 
revision of an operating permit whether to calculate percent leaking 
valves on a process unit or group of process units basis. Once you have 
decided, all subsequent percentage calculations must be made on the 
same basis, and this also must be the basis used for comparison with 
the subgrouping criteria specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section.
    (ii) Calculate the percent leaking valves for each monitoring 
period for each process unit or valve subgroup, as provided in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.134

Where:

%VL = Percent leaking valves.
VL = Number of valves found leaking, as determined 
through periodic monitoring, as required in paragraph (a) of this 
section, including those valves found leaking, pursuant to 
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section and excluding non-
repairable valves, as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
VT = The total number of valves monitored.

    (2) Calculation for monitoring frequency. When determining the next 
monitoring frequency for each process unit or valve subgroup currently 
subject to monthly, quarterly or semiannual monitoring frequencies, the 
percent leaking valves shall be the arithmetic average of the percent 
leaking valves from the last two monitoring periods. When determining 
the next monitoring frequency for each process unit or valve subgroup 
currently subject to annual or biennial monitoring frequencies, the 
percent leaking valves shall be the arithmetic average of the percent 
leaking valves from the last three monitoring periods.
    (3) Non-repairable valves. You must include non-repairable valves 
in the calculation of percent leaking valves, as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must include a non-repairable valve in the calculation of 
percent leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as 
leaking and non-repairable.
    (ii) You may exclude a number of non-repairable valves (identified 
and included in the percent leaking valves calculation in a previous 
period, as required in paragraph (b)(3)(i)) up to a maximum of 1 
percent of the total number of valves in regulated material service at 
a process unit. If the number of non-repairable valves exceeds 1 
percent of the total number of valves in regulated material service at 
a process unit, you must include the number of non-repairable valves 
exceeding 1 percent of the total number of valves in regulated material 
service in the calculation of percent leaking valves.
    (c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is determined, pursuant to paragraph 
(a) of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures 
in Sec.  65.432, as applicable.
    (2) After a leak has been repaired, you must monitor the valve at 
least once within the first 3 months after its repair. The monitoring 
required by this paragraph is in addition to the monitoring required to 
satisfy the definitions of repair and first attempt at repair.
    (i) You must conduct monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431(a) 
and determine whether the valve has resumed leaking, as specified in 
Sec.  65.431(b).
    (ii) If the timing of the monitoring required by paragraph (a) of 
this section coincides with the timing of the monitoring specified in 
this paragraph, you may use the monitoring required by paragraph (a) of 
this section to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. 
Alternatively, you may perform other monitoring to satisfy the 
requirements of this paragraph, regardless of whether the timing of the 
monitoring period for periodic monitoring coincides with the time 
specified in this paragraph.
    (iii) If a leak is detected by monitoring that is conducted, 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must follow the 
provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section to 
determine whether that valve must be counted as a leaking valve for 
purposes of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) If you elected to use periodic monitoring required by paragraph 
(a) of this section to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section, then you must count the valve as a leaking valve.
    (B) If you elected to use other monitoring, prior to the periodic 
monitoring required by paragraph (a) of this section, to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, then you must count 
the valve as a leaking valve unless it is repaired and shown by 
periodic monitoring not to be leaking.
    (d) Special provisions for valves. (1) Fewer than 250 valves. Any 
valve located at a plant site with fewer than 250 valves in regulated 
material service is exempt from the requirements for monthly monitoring 
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Instead, you must 
monitor each valve in regulated material service for leaks quarterly or 
comply with paragraph (a)(2)(iii), (iv) or (v) of this section, except 
as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) No stem or packing gland. Any valve that is designed with a 
valve mechanism that is not connected to a device that penetrates the 
valve housing (e.g., a check valve) is exempt from the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must instead conduct 
sensory monitoring according to Sec.  65.430.
    (3) Unsafe-to-monitor valves. Any valve that you designate, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor valve is 
exempt from paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must 
monitor and repair the valve according to the written plan specified in 
Sec.  65.416(a)(4)(i).
    (4) Difficult-to-monitor valves. Any valve that you designate, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(2) as a difficult-to-monitor valve is 
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section. You must monitor and repair the valve according to the written 
plan specified in Sec.  65.416(a)(4)(ii).


Sec.  65.421  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
pumps in light liquid service?

    Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section for pumps in light liquid service.
    (a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct 
instrument

[[Page 18005]]

monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading 
that defines a leak is specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) 5,000 ppm or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers.
    (ii) 2,000 ppm or greater for all other pumps.
    (2) Monitoring frequency. You must monitor the pumps monthly to 
detect leaks. For a pump that begins operation after the initial 
startup date for the process unit, monitor within 30 days after the end 
of the pump startup period, unless the pump is replacing a leaking pump 
or if the pump meets any of the specifications in paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, pursuant to paragraph (a) 
of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures in 
Sec.  65.432, as applicable.
    (c) Visual inspection. (1) You must check each pump by visual 
inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from 
the pump seal.
    (2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal 
at the time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the procedure 
specified in either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) (if applicable) of this 
section prior to the next required inspection, except as specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the pump 
seal, as defined in Sec.  65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
    (ii) You must monitor the pump, as specified in Sec.  65.431(a).
    (A) If the instrument reading indicates a leak, as specified in 
Sec.  65.431(b) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a leak is 
detected, and you must repair it using the procedures in Sec.  65.432.
    (B) If the instrument reading does not indicate a leak, as 
specified in Sec.  65.431(b) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section, then 
a leak is not detected and no repair is required.
    (iii) If you observed liquids dripping during the last weekly 
inspection and the characteristics of the liquids dripping have not 
changed since that last weekly inspection (e.g., frequency of drips, 
different color, different odor), then you are not required to comply 
with paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section prior to the next 
weekly inspection.
    (3) You must document each inspection, as specified in Sec.  
65.475(c)(2)(i). If you comply with paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this 
section, the record must include a description of the characteristics 
of the liquids dripping.
    (d) Special provisions for pumps.
    (1) Dual mechanical seal pumps. Each pump equipped with a dual 
mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt 
from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided you 
meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (viii) 
of this section.
    (i) Each dual mechanical seal system meets the requirements 
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
    (A) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a 
pressure that is at all times greater than the pump stuffing box 
pressure.
    (B) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing 
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device 
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control 
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec.  65.413.
    (C) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that 
purges the barrier fluid into a process stream.
    (ii) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid service.
    (iii) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will 
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or both.
    (iv) Unless the pump is located within the boundary of an unmanned 
plant site, each sensor described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this 
section is observed daily or is equipped with an alarm.
    (v) Each pump is checked by visual inspection each calendar week 
for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal. You must 
document each inspection, as specified in Sec.  65.475(c)(2)(ii). If 
there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal at the 
time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the procedure specified 
in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this section prior to the next 
required inspection.
    (A) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the pump 
seal, as defined in Sec.  65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
    (B) You must monitor the pump, as specified in Sec.  65.431(a) and 
determine if there is a leak of regulated material in the barrier 
fluid, as specified in Sec.  65.431(b). If an instrument reading of 
2,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected.
    (vi) You must determine, based on design considerations and 
operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency 
of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure of the seal system, 
the barrier fluid system or both. You must keep records of the design 
criteria, as specified in Sec.  65.475(c)(2)(iii).
    (vii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed 
the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this section, or 
if, based on the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this 
section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier 
fluid system or both, a leak is detected.
    (viii) When you detect a leak, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) 
or (d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must repair it, as specified in 
Sec.  65.432.
    (2) No external shaft. Any pump that is designed with no externally 
actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing is exempt from the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Unmanned plant site. Any pump that is located within the 
boundary of an unmanned plant site is exempt from the weekly visual 
inspection requirement of paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)(v) of this section, 
and the daily requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, 
provided that each pump is visually inspected as often as practical and 
at least monthly.
    (4) Unsafe-to-monitor pumps. Any pump that you designate, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor pump, is 
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the pump according to the 
written plan specified in Sec.  65.416(a)(4)(i).
    (5) Difficult-to-monitor pumps. Any pump that you designate, in 
accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-monitor pump is 
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the pump according to the 
written plan specified in Sec.  65.416(a)(4)(ii).


Sec.  65.422  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid 
service?

    If required by your referencing subpart, you must comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 
for connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid 
service except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct 
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 and paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading 
that defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater.
    (2) Initial monitoring. You must monitor all connectors in the 
process unit initially for leaks by the later of either 12 months after 
the compliance

[[Page 18006]]

date specified in a referencing subpart or 12 months after initial 
startup. If all connectors in the process unit have been monitored for 
leaks, meeting the criteria of either Sec.  65.431(a)(1) through (5) or 
Sec.  65.431(a)(6) prior to the compliance date specified in the 
referencing subpart, no initial monitoring is required, provided either 
no process changes have been made since the monitoring or you can show 
that the results of the monitoring, with or without adjustments, 
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. If required to 
monitor because of a process change, you are required to monitor only 
those connectors involved in the process change.
    (3) Monitoring frequency. After the initial monitoring (or 
monitoring conducted before the regulated source became subject to the 
referencing subpart) required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you 
must monitor connectors for leaks at the frequency specified in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, depending on the 
result of the percent-leaking-connectors calculation specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section. You must also keep a record of the start 
date and end date of each monitoring period under this section for each 
process unit, as specified in Sec.  65.475(c)(3)(i).
    (i) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was 
greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, then you must monitor annually.
    (ii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was 
greater than or equal to 0.25 percent, but less than 0.5 percent, then 
monitor within 4 years. You are not required to monitor all connectors 
at the same time in the 4-year period, but you must separate monitoring 
of an individual connector by at least 2 years.
    (iii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was 
less than 0.25 percent, then monitor, as provided in paragraph 
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and either paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B) or 
(C) of this section, as appropriate.
    (A) You must monitor at least 50 percent of the connectors within 4 
years of the start of the monitoring period.
    (B) If the percent-leaking-connectors calculated from the 
monitoring results in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is 
greater than or equal to 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, you 
must monitor all connectors that have not yet been monitored during 
that monitoring period as soon as practical, but within the next 6 
months. At the conclusion of monitoring, a new monitoring period shall 
be started, pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, based on the 
percent leaking connectors of the total monitored connectors.
    (C) If the percent leaking connectors calculated from the 
monitoring results in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is less 
than 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, you must monitor all 
connectors that have not yet been monitored within 8 years of the start 
of the monitoring period.
    (b) Percent leaking connectors calculation. You must calculate the 
percent leaking connectors using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.135

Where:

%CL = Percent leaking connectors.
CL = Number of connectors found leaking during the 
monitoring period, as determined through periodic monitoring 
required in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section.
CT = Total number of connectors monitored.

    (c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is determined, pursuant to paragraph 
(a) of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures 
in Sec.  65.432, as applicable.
    (2) After a leak has been repaired, you must monitor the connector, 
as specified in Sec.  65.431(a), once within the first 90 days after 
its repair to confirm that it is not leaking. The monitoring required 
by this paragraph is in addition to the monitoring required to satisfy 
the definitions of repair and first attempt at repair.
    (d) Special provisions for connectors. (1) Unsafe-to-monitor 
connectors. Any connector that you designate, in accordance with Sec.  
65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor connector is exempt from the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must 
monitor and repair the connector according to the written plan 
specified in Sec.  65.416(a)(4)(i).
    (2) Difficult-to-monitor connectors. Any connector that you 
designate, in accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-
monitor connector is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the 
connector according to the written plan specified in Sec.  
65.416(a)(4)(ii).
    (3) Inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined connectors. (i) Any 
connector that meets the provisions of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of 
this section is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section and from the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  65.470 and 65.475.
    (A) Any connector you designate, in accordance with Sec.  
65.416(b), as an inaccessible connector.
    (B) Any connector that is ceramic or ceramic-lined (e.g., 
porcelain, glass or glass-lined).
    (ii) If you observe indications of a potential leak from any 
connector identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section by visual, 
audible, olfactory or other means, you must eliminate the visual, 
audible, olfactory or other indications of a potential leak to the 
atmosphere as soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next 
process unit shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner.


Sec.  65.423  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid 
service?

    Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section for agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in 
light liquid service.
    (a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct 
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 and paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading 
that defines a leak is 10,000 ppm or greater.
    (2) Monitoring frequency. You must monitor each agitator seal 
monthly to detect leaks.
    (b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, then you must repair the 
leak using the procedures in Sec.  65.432, as applicable.
    (c) Visual inspection. You must check each agitator seal by visual 
inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from 
the agitator seal. You must document each inspection, as specified in 
Sec.  65.475(c)(4)(i). If there are indications of liquids dripping 
from the agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, you must 
follow the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this 
section prior to the next required inspection.

[[Page 18007]]

    (1) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the agitator 
seal, as defined in Sec.  65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
    (2) You must monitor the agitator seal, as specified in Sec.  
65.431(a). If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is 
measured, as specified in Sec.  65.431(b), a leak is detected, and you 
must repair it according to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Special provisions for agitators. (1) Dual mechanical seal 
agitators. Each agitator equipped with a dual mechanical seal system 
that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section, provided you meet the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Each dual mechanical seal system meets the requirements 
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
    (A) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a 
pressure that is, at all times greater than the agitator stuffing box 
pressure.
    (B) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing 
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device 
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control 
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec.  65.413.
    (C) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that 
purges the barrier fluid into a process stream.
    (ii) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid service.
    (iii) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will 
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or both.
    (iv) Unless the agitator seal is located within the boundary of an 
unmanned plant site, each sensor described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of 
this section is observed daily or is equipped with an alarm.
    (v) Each agitator seal is checked by visual inspection each 
calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the agitator 
seal. You must document each inspection, as specified in Sec.  
65.475(c)(4)(ii). If there are indications of liquids dripping from the 
agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the 
procedure specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this section 
prior to the next required inspection.
    (A) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the agitator 
seal, as defined in Sec.  65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
    (B) You must monitor the agitator seal, as specified in Sec.  
65.431(a) and determine if there is a leak of regulated material in the 
barrier fluid, as specified in Sec.  65.431(b). If an instrument 
reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected.
    (vi) You must determine, based on design considerations and 
operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency 
of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure of the seal system, 
the barrier fluid system or both. You must keep records of the design 
criteria, as specified in Sec.  65.475(c)(4)(iii).
    (vii) If indications of liquids dripping from the agitator seal 
exceed the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this 
section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph 
(d)(1)(vi) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal 
system, the barrier fluid system or both, a leak is detected.
    (viii) When you detect a leak, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) 
or (d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must repair it, as specified in 
Sec.  65.432.
    (2) No external shaft. Any agitator that is designed with no 
externally actuated shaft penetrating the agitator housing is exempt 
from paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Unmanned plant site. Any agitator that is located within the 
boundary of an unmanned plant site is exempt from the weekly visual 
inspection requirement of paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)(v) of this section, 
and the daily requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, 
provided that each agitator is visually inspected as often as practical 
and at least monthly.
    (4) Equipment obstructions. Any agitator seal that is obstructed by 
equipment or piping that prevents access to the agitator by a monitor 
probe is exempt from the monitoring requirements of paragraph (a) of 
this section. You must instead conduct sensory monitoring, as described 
in Sec.  65.430.
    (5) Unsafe-to-monitor agitator seals. Any agitator seal that you 
designate, in accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-
monitor agitator seal is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the 
agitator seal according to the written plan specified in Sec.  
65.416(a)(4)(i).
    (6) Difficult-to-monitor agitator seals. Any agitator seal that you 
designate, in accordance with Sec.  65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-
monitor agitator seal is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the 
agitator seal according to the written plan specified in Sec.  
65.416(a)(4)(ii).


Sec.  65.424  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
pressure relief devices?

    Except as specified in paragraph (d), you must comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for 
PRD in gas and vapor service. If your referencing subpart specifies 
that releases to the atmosphere from PRD in regulated material service 
are not allowed, you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section for all PRD in regulated material 
service.
    (a) Operating requirements. Operate each PRD in gas or vapor 
service with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background.
    (b) Release requirements. If a PRD in gas or vapor service vents or 
releases to atmosphere, you must comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or 
(2) of this section following the release.
    (1) If the PRD does not consist of or include a rupture disk, 
conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 no later 
than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to regulated material 
service following a pressure release to verify that the PRD is 
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm. An 
instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is a deviation.
    (2) If the PRD consists of or includes a rupture disk, install a 
replacement disk as soon as practicable after a pressure release, but 
no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release. You must also 
conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.431 no later 
than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to regulated material 
service following a pressure release to verify that the PRD is 
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm. An 
instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is a deviation.
    (c) Pressure release management. If your referencing subpart 
specifies that releases to the atmosphere from PRD in regulated 
material service are not allowed, you must comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for all PRD in 
regulated material service, and any release from a PRD in regulated 
material service is a deviation.
    (1) You must equip each PRD in regulated material service with a 
device(s) that is capable of identifying and recording the time and 
duration of each pressure release and of notifying operators that a 
pressure release has occurred. If this instrument is capable of 
measuring the concentration of leaks through the PRD, then you may use 
this instrument to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.

[[Page 18008]]

    (2) If any PRD in regulated material service vents or releases to 
atmosphere, you must calculate the quantity of regulated material 
released during each pressure relief event. Calculations may be based 
on data from the PRD monitoring alone or in combination with process 
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (d) PRD routed to a control device. If all releases and potential 
leaks from your PRD are routed through a closed vent system to a 
control device, you are not required to comply with paragraphs (a), (b) 
or (c) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and 
control device must meet Sec.  65.413.


Sec.  65.425  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
compressors?

    You must comply with either the requirements specified in paragraph 
(a) or (b) of this section for compressors in regulated material 
service.
    (a) Seal system standard. Each compressor must be equipped with a 
seal system that includes a barrier fluid system and that prevents 
leakage of process fluid to the atmosphere. You must comply with 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Compressor seal system. Each compressor seal system must meet 
the applicable requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii) or 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a 
pressure that is at all times greater than the compressor stuffing box 
pressure.
    (ii) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing 
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device 
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control 
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec.  65.413.
    (iii) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that 
purges the barrier fluid directly into a process stream.
    (2) Barrier fluid system. The barrier fluid must not be in light 
liquid service. Each barrier fluid system must be equipped with a 
sensor that will detect failure of the seal system, barrier fluid 
system or both. Each sensor must be observed daily or must be equipped 
with an alarm unless the compressor is located within the boundary of 
an unmanned plant site.
    (3) Failure criterion and leak detection. (i) You must determine, 
based on design considerations and operating experience, a criterion 
that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or 
both. If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier 
fluid system or both, based on the criterion, a leak is detected, and 
you must repair it, pursuant to Sec.  65.432, as applicable.
    (ii) You must keep records of the design criteria, as specified in 
Sec.  65.475(c)(6)(i).
    (4) You must comply with Sec.  65.430 for all potential points of 
vapor leakage on the compressor other than the seal system.
    (b) Alternative compressor standard. (1) You must designate that 
the compressor operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 
above background at all times. Any instrument reading of 500 ppm above 
background or greater is a deviation.
    (2) You must conduct instrument monitoring of all potential points 
of vapor leakage initially upon designation, annually and at other 
times requested by the Administrator to demonstrate that the compressor 
operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 
background.
    (3) You must keep records of the compliance tests, as specified in 
Sec.  65.475(c)(6)(ii).


Sec.  65.426  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
sampling connection systems?

    Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section 
for sampling connection systems in regulated material service. For the 
purposes of the definition of ``sampling connection system'' in Sec.  
65.295, a continuous emission monitoring system is not an analyzer 
vent.
    (a) Equipment design and operation. Each sampling connection system 
must be equipped with a closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent 
system. Each closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system must meet 
the applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (1) Gases displaced during filling of a 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) Gases remaining in the tubing or piping between the closed-
purge system valve(s) and sample container valves(s) after the valves 
are closed and a sample container is disconnected are not required to 
be collected or captured.
    (4) Each closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system must be 
designed and operated to meet requirements in either paragraph 
(a)(4)(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 or 
to a fuel gas system that meets the requirements of subpart M of this 
part.
    (iii) Capture and transport all the purged process fluid to a 
control device that meets Sec.  65.413.
    (iv) Collect, store and transport the purged process fluid to a 
system or facility identified in paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D) 
or (E) of this section.
    (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 parts 262, 264, 265 or 266.
    (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.
    (D) A waste management unit subject to and operated in compliance 
with the treatment requirements of Sec.  61.348(a), provided all waste 
management units that collect, store or transport the purged process 
fluid to the treatment unit are subject to and operated in compliance 
with the management requirements of Sec. Sec.  61.343 through 61.347.
    (E) A device used to burn-off specification used oil for energy 
recovery in accordance with 40 CFR part 279, subpart G, provided the 
purged process fluid is not hazardous waste, as defined in 40 CFR part 
261.
    (b) In-situ sampling systems. In-situ sampling systems and sampling 
systems without purges are exempt from the requirements of paragraph 
(a) of this section.


Sec.  65.427  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
open-ended valves and lines?

    Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section for all open-ended valves and lines in regulated material 
service.
    (a) Equipment and operational requirements. Equip open-ended valves 
and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve so that the 
open-ended valve or line operates with an instrument reading of less 
than 500 ppm above background. The cap, blind flange, plug or second 
valve must seal the open-ended valve or line at all times, except 
during operations requiring process fluid flow through the

[[Page 18009]]

open-ended valve or line, during maintenance or during operations that 
require venting the line between block valves in a double block and 
bleed system. If the open-ended valve or line is equipped with a second 
valve, close the valve on the process fluid end before closing the 
second valve.
    (b) Instrument monitoring. You must conduct instrument monitoring, 
as specified in Sec.  65.431 on the cap, blind flange, plug or second 
valve installed, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section initially 
upon installation, annually and at other times requested by the 
Administrator to demonstrate that the open-ended valve or line operates 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. Any 
instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or greater is a 
deviation.
    (c) Special provisions for open-ended valves and lines. (1) 
Emergency shutdown exemption. Open-ended valves and lines in an 
emergency shutdown system that are designed to open automatically in 
the event of a process upset are exempt from the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. If your referencing subpart 
specifies that releases are not allowed from open-ended valves and 
lines in an emergency shutdown system that are designed to open 
automatically in the event of a process upset, than any release from 
such an open-ended valve or line is a deviation.
    (2) Polymerizing materials exemption. Open-ended valves and lines 
containing materials that would autocatalytically polymerize or would 
present an explosion, serious overpressure or other safety hazard if 
capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system, as specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must instead conduct 
sensory monitoring, as described in Sec.  65.430.


Sec.  65.428  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
other equipment that contacts or contains regulated material?

    You must conduct sensory monitoring, as described in Sec.  65.430 
for the equipment specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this 
section.
    (a) All equipment at a plant site with less than 1,500 total pieces 
of equipment.
    (b) Any equipment that contains or contacts regulated material, but 
is not in regulated material service.
    (c) Equipment in regulated material service less than 300 hours per 
calendar year.
    (d) Valves, pumps, connectors and agitators in heavy liquid 
service.
    (e) Connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light 
liquid service not required by your referencing subpart to comply with 
the provisions of Sec.  65.422.
    (f) Instrumentation systems.
    (g) Pressure relief devices in liquid service.
    (h) Any equipment for which sensory monitoring is required 
specifically by a provision in Sec. Sec.  65.420 through 65.427.
    (i) Other equipment, as required by your referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.429  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems?

    You must meet the requirements of this section for equipment in any 
closed vent system or fuel gas system required to comply with subpart M 
of this part. You are not required to comply with Sec. Sec.  65.420 
through 65.428 for equipment complying with this section.
    (a) You must conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  
65.431 of all potential points of vapor leakage on any equipment in a 
closed vent system or fuel gas system initially upon installation, 
annually and at other times requested by the Administrator to 
demonstrate that the equipment operates with an instrument reading of 
less than 500 ppm above background. Any instrument reading of 500 ppm 
above background or greater is a deviation.
    (b) You must keep records of the compliance tests, as specified in 
Sec.  65.475(c)(9).

Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair


Sec.  65.430  What are my sensory monitoring requirements?

    (a) You must conduct sensory monitoring, as defined in Sec.  65.295 
for equipment identified in Sec.  65.428. You must also comply with 
paragraph (b) through (d) of this section, as applicable.
    (b) If indications of a potential leak to the atmosphere are found 
by sensory monitoring methods, you must comply with either paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Within 5 calendar days of detection, you must comply with 
either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) Repair the equipment, as defined in Sec.  65.295 for 
indications of a potential leak to the atmosphere detected during 
sensory monitoring.
    (ii) Determine that no bubbles are observed at potential leak sites 
during a leak check, using a soap solution.
    (2) Conduct instrument monitoring, as described in Sec.  65.431 
within 5 calendar days of detection and repair the equipment in 
accordance with Sec.  65.432 if the instrument reading is equal to or 
greater than the applicable level in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, you 
must comply with the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 
this section for equipment in heavy liquid service. Paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section describes how to determine or demonstrate that a piece of 
equipment is in heavy liquid service.
    (1) Retain information, data and analyses used to determine that a 
piece of equipment is in heavy liquid service.
    (2) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate that the piece 
of equipment or process is in heavy liquid service.
    (3) A determination or demonstration that a piece of equipment or 
process is in heavy liquid service shall include an analysis or 
demonstration that the process fluids do not meet the definition of 
``in light liquid service.'' Examples of information that could 
document this include, but are not limited to, records of chemicals 
purchased for the process, analyses of process stream composition, 
engineering calculations or process knowledge.
    (4) You are not required to comply with paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3) of this section if all the equipment of a certain type (e.g., 
valves) in your process unit is subject to sensory monitoring, as 
required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (d) You must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  
65.475(b)(5) for equipment in regulated material service less than 300 
hours per calendar year.


Sec.  65.431  What instrument monitoring methods must I use to detect 
leaks?

    (a) Instrument monitoring methods. Instrument monitoring, as 
required under this subpart, shall comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Monitoring method. Monitor, as specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, except as otherwise provided in this section. 
Traverse the instrument probe around all potential leak interfaces as 
close to the interface as possible, as described in Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7.
    (2) Monitoring instrument performance criteria. (i) Except as 
provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) monitoring instrument must meet the performance 
criteria of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except

[[Page 18010]]

the instrument response factor criteria in section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 
must be for the representative composition of the process fluid, not 
each individual hydrocarbon compound in the stream. For process streams 
that contain nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that are not 
hydrocarbons, the representative stream response factor must be 
determined on an inert-free basis. The response factor may be 
determined at any concentration for which monitoring for leaks will be 
conducted.
    (ii) If there is no instrument commercially available that will 
meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the 
representative response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an 
inert-free basis, as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) Monitoring instrument calibration procedure. (i) Calibrate the 
VOC monitoring instrument before use on each day of its use by the 
procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (ii) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the 
end of each monitoring day, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) 
through (D) of this section.
    (A) Check the instrument using the same calibration gas(es) that 
were used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures 
specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, section 10.1, 
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration 
gas value.
    (B) Record the instrument reading for each scale used, as specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section. Divide these readings by the initial 
calibration values for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the 
calibration drift as a percentage.
    (C) If any calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then you must 
re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with 
instrument readings below the applicable leak definition and above the 
applicable leak definition adjusted for negative drift. Determine the 
leak definition adjusted for negative drift according to Equation 4 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.136

Where:

LND = Applicable leak definition adjusted for negative 
drift, ppm.
L = Applicable leak definition, ppm.
ND = Magnitude of negative drift calculated, as described in 
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, percent.

    (D) If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of 
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at your 
discretion, you may re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last 
calibration with instrument readings above the applicable leak 
definition and below the applicable leak definition adjusted for 
positive drift. Determine the leak definition adjusted for positive 
drift according to Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.137

Where:

LPD = Applicable leak definition adjusted for positive 
drift, ppm.
L = Applicable leak definition, ppm.
PD = Magnitude of positive drift calculated, as described in 
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, percent.

    (4) Monitoring instrument calibration gas. Calibration gases shall 
be zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and the gases 
specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Mixtures of methane in 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 calibrate the lower scale with a 
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm above the 
concentration specified as a leak and calibrate the highest scale with 
a calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000 ppm. If only 
one scale on an instrument will be used during monitoring, you need not 
calibrate the scales that will not be used during that day's 
monitoring.
    (ii) A calibration gas other than methane in air may be used if the 
instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument does not 
meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section. In such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of one or 
more of the compounds to be measured in air.
    (5) Monitoring performance. Perform monitoring when the equipment 
is in regulated material service or is in use with any other material 
that is detectable by an instrument operated in accordance with Method 
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 
of this section.
    (6) Monitoring data. Monitoring data obtained prior to the 
regulated source becoming subject to the referencing subpart that do 
not meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of 
this section may still be used to qualify initially for less frequent 
monitoring under the provisions in Sec.  65.420(a)(2) or (3) for valves 
or Sec.  65.422(a)(3) for connectors, provided the departures from the 
criteria or from the specified monitoring frequency of Sec.  
65.420(a)(2) or (3) or Sec.  65.422(a)(3) are minor and do not 
significantly affect the quality of the data. Examples of minor 
departures are monitoring at a slightly different frequency (such as 
every 6 weeks instead of monthly or quarterly), following the 
performance criteria of section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7, instead of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or 
monitoring using a different leak definition if the data would indicate 
the presence or absence of a leak at the concentration specified in 
this subpart. Failure to use a calibrated instrument is not considered 
a minor departure.
    (7) Instrument monitoring using local ambient concentration 
(background) adjustments. You may elect to adjust the instrument 
readings for the local ambient concentration (``background''). If you 
elect to adjust instrument readings for background, you must determine 
the local ambient

[[Page 18011]]

concentration using the procedures in section 8.3.2 of Method 21 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (b) Using instrument readings. (1) If you elect not to adjust 
instrument readings for background, as described in paragraph (a)(7) of 
this section, you must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Monitor the equipment according to the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (ii) Compare all instrument readings directly to the applicable 
leak definition or performance level for the monitored equipment to 
determine whether there is a leak or to determine compliance with Sec.  
65.424(a) (pressure relief devices), Sec.  65.425(b) (alternative 
compressor standard) or Sec.  65.427(b) (open-ended lines and valves).
    (2) If you elect to adjust instrument readings for background, as 
described in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, you must comply with 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Monitor the equipment according to the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (ii) Determine the background level, as described in paragraph 
(a)(7) of this section.
    (iii) Compute the arithmetic difference between the maximum 
concentration indicated by the instrument and the background level 
determined.
    (iv) Compare this arithmetic difference to the applicable leak 
definition or performance level for the monitored equipment to 
determine whether there is a leak or to determine compliance with Sec.  
65.424(a) (pressure relief devices), Sec.  65.425(b) (alternative 
compressor standard) or Sec.  65.427(b) (open-ended lines and valves).


Sec.  65.432  What are my leak identification and repair requirements?

    (a) Leaking equipment identification and records.
    (1) When each leak is detected, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.420 
through 65.428, Sec.  65.440 or Sec.  65.450, attach a weatherproof and 
readily visible identification to the leaking equipment.
    (2) When each leak is detected, record and keep the information 
specified in Sec.  65.475(b)(8)(i).
    (b) Leak repair schedule. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section, you must make a first attempt at repair, as 
defined in Sec.  65.295, no later than 5 calendar days after the leak 
is detected. First attempt at repair for pumps includes, but is not 
limited to, tightening the packing gland nuts and/or ensuring that the 
seal flush is operating at design pressure and temperature. First 
attempt at repair for valves includes, but is not limited to, 
tightening the bonnet bolts, and/or replacing the bonnet bolts, and/or 
tightening the packing gland nuts, and/or injecting lubricant into the 
lubricated packing. Unless you determine, by other means, that the 
first attempt at repair was not successful, you must conduct instrument 
monitoring following the first attempt at repair, but no later than 5 
calendar days after the leak is detected to determine whether the first 
attempt at repair was successful.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4), (d) and (e) of this 
section, if the first attempt at repair required by paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section was not successful, you must repair each leak detected as 
soon as practical, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is 
detected. If required by the applicable definition of ``repair'' in 
Sec.  65.295, you must conduct monitoring following the repair, but no 
later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected to determine 
whether the repair was successful.
    (3) You must keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.475(b)(8)(ii) 
through (iv).
    (4) You may designate equipment as unsafe-to-repair, if you 
determine that repair personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger 
as a consequence of complying with the repair requirements of this 
subpart. You are not required to comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 
for equipment that you have designated unsafe-to-repair, but you must 
keep records, as specified in Sec.  65.475(b)(8)(v). You must also 
comply with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Leak identification removal.
    (1) Valves in gas and vapor service. The leak identification on a 
valve may be removed after it has been monitored, as specified in Sec.  
65.420(c)(2) and no leak has been detected during that monitoring.
    (2) Connectors in gas and vapor service. The leak identification on 
a connector may be removed after it has been monitored, as specified in 
Sec.  65.422(c)(2) and no leak has been detected during that 
monitoring.
    (3) Other equipment. Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section, you may remove the identification that you placed, 
pursuant to Sec.  65.432(a)(1), on equipment determined to have a leak 
after it is repaired.
    (d) Delay of repair. Delay of repair is allowed for any of the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. 
If you delay repair, you must comply with paragraph (e) of this 
section. You must also maintain records, as specified in Sec.  
65.475(b)(8)(vi) and (vii).
    (1) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected 
is allowed if repair within 15 days after a leak is detected is 
technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown, provided you 
comply with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must repair this equipment as soon as practical, but no 
later than the end of the next process unit shutdown or 5 years after 
detection, whichever is sooner. For the purposes of this section, a 
process unit shutdown is any shutdown that lasts more than 24 hours, 
regardless of whether it was planned or unplanned.
    (ii) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, 
you must repair all equipment for which you have delayed repair during 
the process unit shutdown.
    (iii) If you detect a leak less than 15 days before the process 
unit shutdown, you are not required to repair that leak during the 
process unit shutdown.
    (2) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected 
is allowed if the equipment is designated as unsafe to repair according 
to paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You must repair this equipment as 
soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next process unit 
shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner.
    (3) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected 
is allowed for equipment that you isolate from the process such that it 
does not contact or contain regulated material.
    (4) Delay of repair for valves, connectors and agitators is also 
allowed if you meet the provisions of paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) You document the planned repair date and demonstrate that 
emissions of purged material resulting from immediate repair would be 
greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of 
repair.
    (ii) When you do repair the equipment, the purged material is 
collected and destroyed, collected and routed to a fuel gas system or 
routed through a closed vent system to a control device. The fuel gas 
system or the closed vent system and the control device must meet Sec.  
65.413.
    (5) Delay of repair for pumps is also allowed if you meet the 
provisions of paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Repair will consist of any of the design changes specified in 
paragraph (d)(5)(i)(A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section.

[[Page 18012]]

    (A) Replacing the existing seal design with a new system that you 
have determined will provide better performance. You must document the 
demonstration that the new system will provide better performance than 
the existing seal.
    (B) Installing a dual mechanical seal system that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  65.421(d)(1).
    (C) Installing a pump that meets the requirements of Sec.  
65.421(d)(2).
    (D) Installing a system that routes emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device or to a fuel gas system. The closed vent 
system and control device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec.  
65.413.
    (ii) You complete repair as soon as practical, but not later than 6 
months after the leak was detected.
    (e) Requirements following the determination that delay of repair 
is necessary. (1) You must continue to monitor equipment for which you 
have delayed repair according to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1), 
(2), (4) or (5) of this section. You must monitor the equipment on the 
schedule required by Sec. Sec.  65.420 through 65.427, Sec.  65.440 or 
Sec.  65.450, as applicable. You must maintain records of this 
monitoring, as specified in Sec.  65.475(b)(8)(viii).
    (2) If you delay repair for a pump or agitator according to the 
provisions of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this section, 
you may suspend the weekly visual inspection required by Sec.  
65.421(c) for pumps or Sec.  65.423(c) for agitators.
    (3) Unless it is technically infeasible to do so, when you repair a 
valve or connector for which you have delayed repair according to the 
provisions of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section, you 
must replace the leaking equipment with low leak technology, as 
described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. You 
must develop a written plan that addresses the demonstration of whether 
a device or repair technique qualifies as low leak technology, criteria 
for selecting the low leak technology to be used for a repair and 
installation procedures for the selected technology.
    (i) Low leak technology for valves includes, but is not limited to, 
the options in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Repacking the valve or replacing the existing valve packing 
with low emissions packing.
    (B) Replacing the leaking valve with a valve designed to 
accommodate low emissions packing.
    (C) Replacing the existing valve with a bellow seal valve.
    (D) Other repair or replacement that has been tested rigorously and 
did not leak above 500 ppm during the entirety of the test.
    (ii) Low leak technology for connectors includes, but is not 
limited to, the options in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 
section.
    (A) Replacing the flange gasket.
    (B) Replacing the entire connector.
    (C) Other repair or replacement that has been tested rigorously and 
did not leak above 500 ppm during the entirety of the test.
    (iii) If you cannot replace the leaking equipment with low leak 
technology, then you would be required to explain why that replacement 
is technically infeasible in your annual periodic report, pursuant to 
Sec.  65.470(c)(3).
    (iv) If that equipment leaks again in the future and you delay the 
repair beyond 15 days, you must conduct a new analysis of the technical 
feasibility of using low leak technology.

Alternative Equipment Leak Standards


Sec.  65.440  What is the alternative means of emission limitation for 
equipment in batch operations?

    For equipment in a batch operation that operates in regulated 
material service during the calendar year, you may comply with the 
equipment monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section as an alternative to complying with the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  65.420 through 65.427.
    (a) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  65.420 
through 65.427, as modified by paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Monitor the equipment to detect leaks by the method specified 
in Sec.  65.431 and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Each time the process components and transport piping are 
reconfigured for the production of a different product, monitor the 
equipment in the reconfigured process unit for leaks within 30 days of 
startup of the process. Do not include this initial monitoring of 
reconfigured equipment in determining percent leaking equipment in the 
process unit.
    (2) You may elect to monitor pumps, valves and agitators at the 
frequencies specified in Table 2 to this subpart. Determine the 
operating time as the proportion of the year the batch operation that 
is subject to the provisions of this subpart is operating.
    (3) The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section are not requirements for monitoring at specific intervals 
and can be adjusted to accommodate process operations. You may monitor 
anytime 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. Reasonable intervals 
are defined in Sec.  65.280.
    (c) You must keep the records for equipment in batch operations, as 
specified in Sec.  65.475(d).

Optical Gas Imaging Standards for Detecting Equipment Leaks


Sec.  65.450  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
using an optical gas imaging instrument to detect leaks?

    (a) Introduction. This section contains requirements for the use of 
an optical gas imaging instrument used to identify leaking equipment.
    (b) Applicability. You may only use an optical gas imaging 
instrument to screen for leaking equipment if the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this paragraph are met.
    (1) Your referencing subpart must directly reference this section 
and specify that the use of an optical gas imaging instrument is 
allowed to screen for leaking equipment.
    (2) The optical gas imaging instrument must be able to meet all of 
the criteria and requirements specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K 
for optical gas imaging instruments, and you must conduct monitoring, 
as specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
    (3) You may only use the optical gas imaging instrument as an 
alternative to provisions that would otherwise require you to conduct 
monitoring, as described in Sec. Sec.  65.430 and 65.431. You must 
continue to comply with all other requirements in Sec. Sec.  65.420 
through 65.427 (e.g., weekly inspections of pumps, pursuant to Sec.  
65.421(c); for PRD, installation of a device that is capable of 
identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure 
release, pursuant to Sec.  65.424(c), if applicable; sampling 
connection system requirements in Sec.  65.426).
    (c) Compliance requirements. You must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Pursuant to Sec.  65.415, you must identify the equipment and 
process units for which the optical gas imaging instrument will be used 
to identify leaks.
    (2) Unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, the leak 
detection level for all equipment is 60 grams per hour.
    (3) Unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, you must 
monitor all equipment identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
bimonthly.

[[Page 18013]]

    (4) For equipment identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
you may not use the provisions for less frequent monitoring, based on 
the percent of equipment leaking in Sec. Sec.  65.420(a)(2) and 
65.422(a)(3).
    (5) When following the leak survey procedure in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix K, a leak is detected if you see any emissions using the 
optical gas imaging instrument. The leaking equipment must be 
identified for repair, as required in Sec.  65.432(a).
    (6) You must repair the leaking equipment as required in Sec.  
65.432(b) through (e).
    (7) Monitoring to confirm repair of leaking equipment must be 
conducted using the procedures referenced in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (d) Recordkeeping. You must comply with the requirements in Sec.  
65.475(e).

Notifications, Reports and Records


Sec.  65.470  What notifications and reports must I submit?

    (a) Notification of Compliance Status. You must include the 
information listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, as 
applicable, in the Notification of Compliance Status that you submit 
according to the procedures in Sec.  65.225.
    (1) The notification must provide the information listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section for each regulated 
source subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (i) Process unit, closed vent system or fuel gas system 
identification.
    (ii) Number of each equipment type (e.g., valves, pumps).
    (iii) Method of compliance with the standard (e.g., ``monthly leak 
detection and repair,'' ``equipped with dual mechanical seals,'' ``in 
vacuum service'').
    (2) For valves subject to Sec.  65.420 and connectors subject to 
Sec.  65.422, provide the historical monitoring data you are using to 
qualify for less frequent monitoring in lieu of having to do initial 
monitoring, if applicable.
    (3) If you are required to comply with Sec.  65.424(c), provide the 
information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Description of the monitoring system to be implemented, 
including the PRD and process parameters to be monitored.
    (ii) A description of the alarms or other methods by which 
operators will be notified of a release.
    (4) For closed vent systems, non-flare control devices and fuel gas 
systems, pursuant to Sec.  65.413, provide the applicable information 
specified in Sec.  65.880.
    (b) Semiannual periodic report. You must report the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section, as 
applicable, in the semiannual periodic report that you submit, as 
specified in Sec.  65.225.
    (1) For compressors, pursuant to Sec.  65.425(b), that are to be 
operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, report the 
date of any instrument reading 500 ppm or greater and the date of the 
next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
    (2) For PRD in gas or vapor service, pursuant to Sec.  65.424(b), 
any instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater, more than 5 days after 
the PRD returns to service after a release.
    (3) For open-ended valves and lines, pursuant to Sec.  65.427(b), 
report the date of any instrument reading 500 ppm or greater and the 
date of the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
    (4) If your referencing subpart specifies that releases are not 
allowed from PRD in regulated material service to the atmosphere, 
report each release, including duration of the release and estimate of 
quantity of substances released.
    (5) For open-ended lines in an emergency shutdown system that are 
designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset (and are 
not required to install a cap/plug), report each release if your 
referencing subpart states that releases from these types of open-ended 
lines are not allowed.
    (6) For equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, 
pursuant to Sec.  65.429, report the date of any instrument reading 500 
ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument reading of less than 
500 ppm.
    (7) For closed vent systems, non-flare control devices and fuel gas 
systems, pursuant to Sec.  65.413, provide the applicable information 
specified in Sec.  65.882. For flares, report any instances when visual 
emissions occur longer than 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, a 
pilot flame is out, or the pilot flames are not monitored.
    (c) Annual periodic report. You must report the information 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section, as 
applicable, in the annual periodic report that you submit, as specified 
in Sec.  65.225.
    (1) Provide a summary table that includes the information specified 
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section for each process 
unit.
    (i) For the equipment specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through 
(E) of this section, report the number of each type of equipment for 
which leaks were detected.
    (A) Valves, pursuant to Sec.  65.420(a).
    (B) Pumps, pursuant to Sec.  65.421(a), (d)(1)(v)(B) and 
(d)(1)(vii).
    (C) Connectors, pursuant to Sec.  65.422(a).
    (D) Agitators, pursuant to Sec.  65.423(a), (d)(1)(v)(B) and 
(d)(1)(vii).
    (E) Compressors, pursuant to Sec.  65.425(a).
    (ii) Report the total number of valves and connectors monitored and 
the percent leaking, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.420(b) (valves) and 
65.422(b) (connectors).
    (iii) For each type of equipment specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of this section, report the number of leaks 
that were not repaired, as required by Sec.  65.432.
    (iv) Identify the number of valves that are determined by Sec.  
65.420(b)(3) to be non-repairable.
    (2) Where you delay any repair, pursuant to Sec.  65.432(d), report 
that delay of repair has occurred and explain why delay of repair is 
necessary.
    (3) If you delayed repair for a valve or connector and you 
demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to repair the equipment 
using low leak technology, pursuant to Sec.  65.432(e)(3), include 
documentation of that demonstration.
    (4) For PRD subject to Sec.  65.424(b), report confirmation that 
you conducted all monitoring to show compliance conducted within the 
reporting period.
    (5) For compressors, pursuant to Sec.  65.425(b), that are to be 
operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, report 
confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to show compliance 
conducted within the reporting period.
    (6) For open-ended lines and valves, pursuant to Sec.  65.427(b), 
report confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to show 
compliance conducted within the reporting period.
    (7) For equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, 
pursuant to Sec.  65.429, report confirmation that you conducted all 
monitoring to show compliance conducted within the reporting period.
    (8) Report the information listed in Sec.  65.470(a)(1) through (3) 
for the Notification of Compliance Status for regulated sources with 
later compliance dates. Report any revisions to items reported in an 
earlier Notification of Compliance Status if the method of compliance 
has changed since the last report.


Sec.  65.475  What are my recordkeeping requirements?

    (a) Recordkeeping system. You may develop and use one recordkeeping 
system to comply with the

[[Page 18014]]

recordkeeping requirements for all of your sources that are subject to 
the provisions of this subpart. The recordkeeping system must identify 
the type of program being implemented (e.g., quarterly monitoring, dual 
mechanical seals) for each type of equipment. The records required by 
this subpart are specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 
section.
    (b) General equipment records. (1) As specified in Sec.  65.415, 
you must keep equipment identification records if the equipment is not 
physically tagged and you elect to identify the equipment subject to 
this subpart through written documentation such as a log or other 
designation.
    (2) If you designate equipment as either unsafe- or difficult-to-
monitor, you must keep the records specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section onsite as long as the equipment is 
designated as either unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor.
    (i) You must maintain the identity of unsafe- and difficult-to-
monitor equipment, as specified in Sec.  65.416(a).
    (ii) You must keep records of the planned schedule for monitoring 
unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment and an explanation why the 
equipment is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, as specified in Sec.  
65.416(a)(3).
    (iii) You must keep a written plan for monitoring unsafe- or 
difficult-to-monitor equipment, as required by Sec.  65.416(a)(4). Your 
plan must include procedures for repairing any leaks found when 
monitoring is conducted.
    (3) You must maintain the identity of compressors operating with an 
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, as specified in Sec.  
65.416(c).
    (4) You must keep records associated with the determination that 
equipment is in heavy liquid service, as specified in Sec.  65.430(c), 
if applicable.
    (5) You must keep records associated with the determination that 
equipment is in regulated material service less than 300 hours per 
calendar year, as specified in Sec.  65.430(d), if applicable.
    (6) For equipment in vacuum service, you must keep records of any 
pressure alarms triggered, including the date and time the alarm was 
triggered, as well as the duration the equipment was not in vacuum 
service.
    (7) You must maintain records of the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) through (vi) of this section for monitoring 
instrument calibrations conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and Sec.  65.431(a)(3) and 
(4).
    (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 Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7.
    (v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by Sec.  
65.431(a)(3)(ii) (i.e., instrument reading for calibration at end of 
the monitoring day and the calculated percent difference from the 
initial calibration value).
    (vi) If you make your own calibration gas, a description of the 
procedure used.
    (8) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) 
through (viii) of this section for leaking equipment detected according 
to Sec.  65.431 and repaired according to Sec.  65.432. You must keep 
the information for connectors complying with the 8-year monitoring 
period allowed under Sec.  65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the 
date of its last use.
    (i) The date the leak was detected and the maximum instrument 
reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, 
including the background concentration if you elect to adjust 
instrument readings for background, as described in Sec.  65.431(a)(7).
    (ii) The date of first attempt to repair the leak.
    (iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
    (iv) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, at the time the leak is successfully repaired or 
determined to be non-repairable.
    (v) A record of the identity and an explanation, as specified in 
Sec.  65.432(b)(4) for any equipment designated as unsafe-to-repair.
    (vi) ``Repair delayed,'' the reason for the delay if a leak is not 
repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak and, where 
appropriate, why the repair was technically infeasible without a 
process unit shutdown, pursuant to Sec.  65.432(d)(1), or the 
calculation showing that emissions of purged material resulting from 
immediate repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to 
result from delay of repair, pursuant to Sec.  65.432(d)(4)(i). As an 
alternative to listing the reason for delay of repair for each leak, 
you may elect to develop written guidelines that identify the 
conditions that justify a delay of repair. If you elect to develop 
written guidelines, you may document the reason for delay of repair for 
each leak in your records by citing the relevant sections of the 
written guidelines. You must maintain the written guidelines at the 
plant site.
    (vii) Dates of process unit shutdowns that occur while the 
equipment is unrepaired.
    (viii) Instrument readings measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7, while repair is delayed.
    (9) You must keep the applicable records specified in Sec.  65.860 
for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to 
comply with this subpart.
    (c) Specific equipment records. You must keep the records specified 
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section as applicable to the 
compliance options with which you are complying.
    (1) For valves, you must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The start and end dates of each monitoring period for each 
process unit, as specified in Sec.  65.420(a)(2).
    (ii) If you decided to subgroup valves, pursuant to Sec.  
65.420(a)(3), the valve subgrouping records specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Which valves are assigned to each subgroup.
    (B) Monitoring results and calculations made for each subgroup for 
each monitoring period.
    (C) Which valves are reassigned, the last monitoring result prior 
to reassignment and when they were reassigned.
    (D) The results of the semiannual overall performance calculation 
required in Sec.  65.420(a)(3)(iii).
    (iii) The inputs and results for the calculation to determine 
percent leaking valves in Sec.  65.420(b)(1).
    (2) For pumps, you must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Pursuant to Sec.  65.421(c), documentation that pump visual 
inspections occurred, the date of each inspection and the results of 
each inspection, including a description of the characteristics of the 
liquids dripping, if observed.
    (ii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.421(d)(1)(v), documentation that dual 
mechanical seal pump visual inspections occurred, the date of each 
inspection and the results of each inspection.
    (iii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.421(d)(1)(vi), documentation of the 
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid 
system or both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of 
how those criteria were selected and any changes to the criteria and 
the reason for the changes.

[[Page 18015]]

    (3) For connectors, you must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The start date and end date of each monitoring period for each 
process unit, pursuant to Sec.  65.422(a)(3).
    (ii) The inputs and results for the calculation to determine 
percent leaking connectors in Sec.  65.422(b).
    (4) For agitators, you must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Pursuant to Sec.  65.423(c), documentation that agitator seal 
visual inspections occurred, the date of each inspection and the 
results of each inspection.
    (ii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.423(d)(1)(v), documentation that dual 
mechanical seal agitator visual inspections occurred, the date of each 
inspection and the results of each inspection.
    (iii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.423(d)(1)(vi), documentation of the 
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid 
system or both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of 
how those criteria were selected, and any changes to the criteria and 
the reason for the changes. This record must be available for review by 
an inspector.
    (5) For pressure relief devices, you must maintain records of the 
information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Pursuant to Sec.  65.424(b), the dates of pressure releases and 
the dates and results of monitoring following a pressure release, 
including the background level measured and the maximum instrument 
reading measured during the monitoring (or the concentration measured 
by the monitor required by Sec.  65.424(c), if applicable).
    (ii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.424(b)(2), the date the rupture disk was 
replaced.
    (iii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.424(c)(2), the quantity of regulated 
material released during each pressure relief event.
    (6) For compressors, you must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Pursuant to Sec.  65.425(a)(3), documentation of the criteria 
that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or 
both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of how those 
criteria were selected, and any changes to the criteria and the reason 
for the changes.
    (ii) Pursuant to Sec.  65.425(b), for compressors operating under 
the alternative compressor standard, records of the dates and results 
of each compliance test, including the background level measured and 
the maximum instrument reading measured during each compliance test.
    (7) For sampling connection systems complying with Sec.  65.426, 
you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) Records of the date of each purge.
    (ii) An estimate of the amount of material purged.
    (8) Pursuant to Sec.  65.427(b), for open-ended valves and lines, 
records of the dates and results of each compliance test, including the 
background level measured and the maximum instrument reading measured 
during each compliance test.
    (9) Pursuant to Sec.  65.413, for equipment in closed vent systems 
and fuel gas systems, records of the dates and results of each 
compliance test, including the background level measured and the 
maximum instrument reading measured during each compliance test.
    (d) Records for the alternative compliance option for equipment in 
batch operations. For equipment in each batch operation complying with 
Sec.  65.440, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section, as applicable, as well as paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Prepare a list of equipment added to the batch operation since 
the last monitoring period required in Sec.  65.440.
    (2) Record and keep, pursuant to the referencing subpart and this 
subpart, the date and results of the monitoring required in Sec.  
65.440 for equipment added to a batch operation since the last 
monitoring period. If no leaking equipment is found during this 
monitoring, you must record that the inspection was performed, but 
records of the actual monitoring results are not required.
    (3) Maintain records demonstrating the proportion of the time 
during the calendar year the equipment is in use in a batch operation 
that is subject to the provisions of this subpart. Examples of suitable 
documentation are records of time in use for individual pieces of 
equipment or average time in use for the process unit. These records 
are not required if you do not adjust monitoring frequency by the time 
in use, as provided in Sec.  65.440(b)(2) and (3).
    (4) Document that the equipment was in service at the time you 
conducted instrument monitoring, pursuant to Sec.  65.440.
    (e) Records for optical gas imaging. Pursuant to Sec.  65.450, you 
must keep the records described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of 
this section:
    (1) The equipment and process units for which you choose to use the 
optical gas imaging instrument.
    (2) All records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
    (3) A video record to document the leak survey results. The video 
record must include a time and date stamp for each monitoring event.
    (4) Identification of the equipment screened and the time and date 
of the screening.
    (5) Documentation of repairs attempted and repairs delayed, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii) through (viii) of this section. If 
you confirm repair of a leak using the optical gas imaging instrument, 
then instead of the maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 required by paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this 
section, you must keep a video record following repair to confirm the 
equipment is repaired. You must keep the information for connectors 
complying with the 8-year monitoring period allowed under Sec.  
65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the date of its last use.
    (f) Flare records. If you use a flare as specified in Sec.  65.413, 
you must keep records of all visual emissions observed, periods when a 
pilot flame is out, and any periods that the pilot flames are not 
monitored.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  65.490  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in 
the referencing subpart.

List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65

 Table 1 to Subpart J of Part 65--Instrument Readings That Define a Leak
            for Equipment Complying With Sec.   65.430(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     If you comply with Sec.       The instrument reading that defines a
      65.430(b)(2) for . . .                   leak is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Valves........................  i. 500 ppm.

[[Page 18016]]

 
2. Pumps.........................  i. 5,000 ppm for pumps handling
                                    polymerizing monomers and 2,000 ppm
                                    for all other pumps.
3. Connectors....................  i. 500 ppm.
4. Agitators.....................  i. 10,000 ppm.
5. Instrumentation systems.......  i. 10,000 ppm.
6. PRD...........................  i. 500 ppm.
7. Compressors...................  i. 500 ppm.
8. Open ended valves or lines....  i. 500 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2 to Subpart J of Part 65--Monitoring Frequency for Equipment in Batch Operations Complying With Sec.
                                                     65.440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          And you would be required
 If the equipment in a batch operation    to monitor the equipment   You must monitor the equipment in the batch
            is in use . . .              in a process operating the                operation . . .
                                              entire year . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 0 to less than 25 percent of the      a. Monthly................  i. Quarterly.
 hours during the year.
                                         b. Quarterly..............  i. Annually.
                                         c. Semiannually...........  i. Annually.
2. 25 to less than 50 percent of the     a. Monthly................  i. Quarterly.
 hours during the year.
                                         b. Quarterly..............  i. Semiannually.
                                         c. Semiannually...........  i. Annually.
3. 50 to less than 75 percent of the     a. Monthly................  i. Bimonthly.
 hours during the year.
                                         b. Quarterly..............  i. Three times per year.
                                         c. Semiannually...........  i. Semiannually.
4. 75 to 100 percent of the hours        a. Monthly................  i. Monthly.
 during the year.
                                         b. Quarterly..............  i. Quarterly.
                                         c. Semiannually...........  i. Semiannually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Add subpart M to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart M--National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices

General

65.700 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.701 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.702 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
65.703 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.704 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
65.705 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Control Devices

65.710 What general monitoring requirements must I meet for control 
devices?
65.711 What are the requirements for continuous emission monitoring 
systems (CEMS)?
65.712 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring 
systems (CPMS)?
65.713 How do I establish my operating limits?
65.720 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?
65.724 What requirements must I meet for small boilers and process 
heaters?
65.726 What monitoring requirements must I meet for thermal 
oxidizers?
65.728 What monitoring requirements must I meet for catalytic 
oxidizers?
65.732 What monitoring requirements must I meet for fuel gas 
systems?
65.740 What monitoring requirements must I meet for absorbers?
65.742 What monitoring requirements must I meet for adsorbers 
regenerated onsite?
65.744 What monitoring requirements must I meet for non-regenerative 
adsorbers?
65.746 What requirements must I meet for condensers?
65.748 What requirements must I meet for biofilters?
65.760 What requirements must I meet for sorbent injection and 
collection systems?
65.762 What requirements must I meet for fabric filters?
65.800 What requirements must I meet for other control devices?

Performance Testing

65.820 What are the performance testing requirements?
65.821 At what process conditions must I conduct performance 
testing?
65.822 At what process conditions must I conduct performance testing 
for batch process operations?
65.823 How do I sample from vent streams?
65.824 What is the performance test duration?
65.825 What performance test methods do I use?
65.826 How do I calculate emissions in parts per million by volume 
concentration?
65.827 How do I demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction 
requirement?
65.828 How do I determine percent reduction?
65.829 How do I demonstrate compliance with a hydrogen halide and 
halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart?
65.830 When can an engineering assessment be used and what does it 
include?

Batch Emission Calculations

65.835 What emissions calculations must I use for batch process 
operations for purposes of compliance with an aggregated percent 
reduction?

Design Evaluation

65.850 How do I demonstrate compliance through design evaluation?

Recordkeeping

65.855 How do I calculate monitoring data averages?
65.860 What records must I keep?

Reporting

65.880 What information do I submit as part of my Notification of 
Compliance Status?
65.882 What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic 
report?

[[Page 18017]]

65.884 What other reports must I submit and when?

List of Tables in Subpart M of Part 65

Table 1 to Subpart M of Part 65--CEMS Monitoring
Table 2 to Subpart M of Part 65--Monitoring Equipment as an 
Alternative to CEMS Monitoring
Table 3 to Subpart M of Part 65--Operating Parameters, Operating 
Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies
Table 4 to Subpart M of Part 65--Calibration and Quality Control 
Requirements for CPMS
Table 5 to Subpart M of Part 65--Methods and Procedures for 
Conducting Performance Tests for Vent Streams

Subpart M--National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices

General


Sec.  65.700  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards 
of a referencing subpart for closed vent systems, control devices and 
routing of air emissions to a fuel gas system.


Sec.  65.701  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who 
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly 
directed to comply with this subpart by a referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.702  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must comply with the following:
    (1) The applicable provisions of subpart H of this part.
    (2) The General Provisions that are applicable to the referencing 
subpart (i.e., subpart A of parts 60, 61 or 63 of this chapter), as 
specified in subpart H and the referencing subpart.
    (3) The section(s) of this subpart corresponding to the control 
measure(s) being used.
    (4) Sec.  65.720 for closed vent systems.
    (5) All applicable requirements referenced in the provisions listed 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (b) Operation of closed vent systems, control devices or fuel gas 
systems. You must operate closed vent systems, control devices or fuel 
gas systems used to comply with the referencing subpart, at all times 
when emissions are vented to or collected by these systems or devices.
    (c) Halogenated vent streams. Unless required to do so by paragraph 
(d) of this section, you may determine whether each vent stream is 
halogenated by establishing the mass emission rate and the vent stream 
concentration (parts per million by volume (ppmv), by compound) of 
halogen atoms, based on one or more of the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Process knowledge that no halogen, hydrogen halides or organic 
halides are present in the process.
    (2) Applicable engineering assessment, as discussed in Sec.  
65.830.
    (3) Concentration of compounds containing halogen and hydrogen 
halides measured by Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, 
and organic halides measured by Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-6.
    (4) Concentration of compounds containing hydrogen halides may be 
measured by Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
    (5) Any other method or data that has been validated according to 
the applicable procedures in Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
    (d) Halogenated vent stream control requirements. If you control a 
vent stream using a boiler, process heater, oxidizer or fuel gas 
system, you must determine whether the vent stream is halogenated, 
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. If you determine the vent 
stream is halogenated, you must convey the gas stream exiting the 
boiler, process heater or oxidizer to a halogen reduction device, such 
as an absorber meeting the requirements of Sec.  65.740, or other 
device meeting the requirements of Sec.  65.800, before it is 
discharged to the atmosphere. You may use a halogen reduction device to 
reduce the vent stream halogen atom mass emission rate to less than 
0.45 kilogram per hour and, thus, make the vent stream nonhalogenated.
    (e) Performance test requirements. You must conduct a performance 
test according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829. 
However, you are not required to conduct a performance test if any of 
the control measures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this 
section are used.
    (1) A control device for which the referencing subpart allows a 
design evaluation as an alternative to the performance test.
    (2) You use a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) meeting 
the requirements in Sec.  65.711 to monitor the performance of the 
control device that would otherwise require performance testing.
    (3) Control measures for which you have received an approved 
performance test waiver, according to Sec.  65.245 of this chapter.
    (4) If a prior performance test was conducted using the same 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.724(b) for boilers and process 
heaters, Sec.  65.726(b) for thermal oxidizers, Sec.  65.728(b) for 
catalytic oxidizers, Sec.  65.740(b) for absorbers, Sec.  65.742(f) for 
adsorbers regenerated on site, Sec.  65.744(b) for non-regenerative 
adsorbers, Sec.  65.746(b) for condensers, Sec.  65.748(b) for 
biofilters, Sec.  65.760(b) for sorbent injection, Sec.  65.762(b) for 
fabric filters and Sec.  65.800(b) for other control devices, as 
applicable, and, either no process changes have been made since the 
test or you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, 
with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite 
process changes, you may only use a prior performance test that is less 
than 5 years old in lieu of a performance test. You must request 
permission to substitute a prior performance test by application to the 
Administrator that includes the information specified in Sec.  
65.884(f). You must be able to establish appropriate operating limits 
using the information collected during the prior performance test. If a 
performance test is waived, you are still subject to any subsequent or 
periodic performance test requirements.
    (5) If you use a condenser and comply with Sec.  65.746.
    (f) Process changes. If you make a change to process equipment or 
operating conditions that is expected to affect the operating parameter 
values of a control device and render the operating limits ineffective 
as indicators of compliance with the standard, you must conduct a 
performance test, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, within 
180 days of the date of start-up of the change to establish new 
operating limits and demonstrate that the changed emission point is in 
compliance with the applicable emission limit of the referencing 
subpart. Whenever you make a change, you must report the change, as 
specified in Sec.  65.884(i).
    (g) Monitoring data averages. You must calculate monitoring data 
averages, as specified in Sec.  65.855.
    (h) Recordkeeping. You must keep up-to-date, readily accessible 
records of applicable records, as specified in Sec.  65.860.
    (i) Reports. You must submit reports, as specified in Sec. Sec.  
65.880 through 65.884.


Sec.  65.703  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    This subpart applies to control devices that receive regulated 
material and that are used to comply with a referencing subpart. This 
subpart also applies to closed vent systems that route

[[Page 18018]]

regulated material to control devices and fuel gas systems that receive 
regulated material.


Sec.  65.704  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.


Sec.  65.705  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in 
the referencing subpart.

Control Devices


Sec.  65.710  What general monitoring requirements must I meet for 
control devices?

    (a) You must meet the general monitoring requirements of this 
section for all control devices used to comply with the referencing 
subpart.
    (b) If you choose to use a CEMS to meet the requirements as 
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with the 
provisions specified in Sec.  65.711. If you choose to use a continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to meet the requirements, as 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with the 
provisions specified in Sec.  65.712.
    (c) You are not required to operate CEMS or CPMS during periods of 
no flow, or no flow of regulated material to the control device; 
however, if flow could be intermittent, you must install a flow 
indicator to identify periods of flow/no flow at the inlet or outlet of 
the control device. You must keep records of periods of flow/no flow, 
or no flow of regulated material to the control device, as specified in 
Sec.  65.860(i). Flow indicators used only to identify periods of flow 
and no flow are not subject to the requirements of Sec.  65.712. 
However, you must perform a flow meter verification check annually. You 
must perform the annual verification check for at least two points, one 
at the instrument's zero and the other at the instrument's span.
    (d) All monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a 
continuous record.
    (e) A deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (5) of this section. Monitoring data are not required to be 
collected during periods of non-operation of the process unit or 
portion thereof (resulting in cessation of the emissions to which 
monitoring applies).
    (1) Periods of excess emissions, which are those periods when the 
daily or block average value from a CEMS, reduced to the units of the 
emissions standards, as specified in Sec.  65.711(j), exceeds an 
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart.
    (2) Operating parameter exceedances, which are those periods when 
the daily or block average value of one or more monitored operating 
parameters is outside the operating limit established under this rule.
    (3) Any discharges to the atmosphere through a bypass line.
    (4) Any period when you route regulated materials to a monitored 
emission point that you do not collect data using your CEMS, CPMS or 
other required non-continuous monitoring, as applicable. This does not 
include periods of normally scheduled quality assurance activities in 
your CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan or CPMS monitoring 
plan that require the instrument to be offline (e.g., during 
calibration checks).
    (5) Any period when you route regulated emissions to a monitored 
emission point when the continuous monitoring system (CMS) is not 
operating properly or is out of control, as specified in Sec.  
65.711(i) or Sec.  65.712(d).


Sec.  65.711  What are the requirements for continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS)?

    (a) General. You must comply with the requirements of this section 
for each CEMS unless the Administrator specifies or approves a change 
(minor, intermediate or major) in methodology or an alternative for the 
specified monitoring requirements and procedures, as provided in Sec.  
65.240.
    (b) Operation of CEMS. You must install, maintain and operate each 
CEMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Install each CEMS according to the procedures contained in the 
applicable performance specification(s) listed in paragraph (h) of this 
section. Locate the sampling probe or other interface at a measurement 
location relative to each regulated process unit such that you obtain 
representative measurements of emissions from the regulated source 
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
    (2) When you combine the regulated emissions from two or more 
regulated emission units before release to the atmosphere, you may 
install an applicable CEMS for each emissions unit or for the combined 
emissions stream, provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limit for each emissions unit.
    (3) If the relevant emission limit is a mass emission standard and 
the regulated emissions from a regulated emissions unit are released to 
the atmosphere through more than one emission point, you must install 
an applicable CEMS at each emission point.
    (4) You must ensure the readout (that portion of the CEMS that 
provides a visual display or record), or other indication of emissions, 
from any CEMS required for compliance with an emission standard is 
readily accessible onsite for operational control or inspection by the 
operator of the source.
    (5) You must conduct a CEMS performance evaluation, pursuant to the 
schedule specified in the referencing subpart, and periodically, as 
specified in your CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (6) All CEMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 
(sampling, analyzing and data recording) for each successive 15-minute 
period.
    (7) Except for maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or 
checks to maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero 
and span adjustments, you must operate all CEMS and collect data 
continuously when you route regulated emissions to the monitored 
emission point.
    (8) Upon submittal of the CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval, you must operate and 
maintain each CEMS according to the CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (9) You must modify the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring 
plan to incorporate the Administrator's comments and resubmit the plan 
for approval to the Administrator within 30 days of receiving the 
Administrator's comments. Upon re-submittal to the Administrator for 
approval, you must operate and maintain each CEMS in conformance with 
the revised CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan.
    (10) For each CEMS, you must comply with the procedures for out-of-
control periods described in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (11) You must reduce data from each CEMS, as specified in paragraph 
(j) of this section.
    (c) Quality control program. You must develop and implement a CEMS 
quality control program documented in a CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring

[[Page 18019]]

plan. You must include in the CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Routine quality control and assurance procedures that address 
the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) CEMS evaluation procedures that meet the requirements of 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (3) Additional information, as listed in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (d) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--
routine quality control and assurance procedures. In the CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan, you must include a 
description of the procedures listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) 
of this section and a schedule for conducting these procedures. The 
routine procedures must provide an assessment of CEMS performance and 
must be consistent with and incorporate applicable provisions of the 
procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (1) Initial and subsequent calibration of the CEMS and acceptance 
criteria.
    (2) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the 
CEMS.
    (3) Preventive maintenance of the CEMS, including spare parts 
inventory.
    (4) Data recording, calculations and reporting;
    (5) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis 
methods.
    (6) Program of corrective action for a CEMS that is not operating 
properly or is out-of-control.
    (e) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--CEMS 
evaluation. In the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan, you 
must include the information listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
    (1) A description of the applicable CEMS evaluation procedure 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section and the site-specific 
details and procedures necessary to describe the applicable procedure 
for your specific operation.
    (2) The evaluation program objectives.
    (3) Acceptance criteria.
    (4) An evaluation program summary.
    (5) Data quality objectives. (The pre-evaluation expectations of 
precision, accuracy and completeness of data.)
    (6) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS evaluation, which must 
include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; an existing CEMS that is 
newly used to demonstrate compliance with a referencing subpart and has 
not previously had a CEMS evaluation; a process change that is expected 
to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the Administrator's request 
for a performance evaluation under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. A 
CEMS that is newly used to demonstrate compliance with a referencing 
subpart that has previously had a CEMS evaluation, as specified in this 
paragraph (e) of this section, and has followed routine quality 
assurance procedures, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 
since the previous CEMS evaluation, does not trigger an additional CEMS 
evaluation unless a change is also made that is expected to affect the 
performance of the CEMS.
    (f) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--
additional information. In the CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan, you must include information that provides background 
about the source and monitoring equipment, as specified in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Identification of the pollutant being monitored by the CEMS and 
the expected concentrations, including worst case concentrations at 
normal operation and during possible process upsets.
    (2) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the 
information specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vii) of this 
section.
    (i) Manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment 
components.
    (ii) Performance specifications, as provided by the manufacturer 
and any differences expected for your installation and operation.
    (iii) Location of the CMS sampling probe or other interface and a 
justification of how the location meets the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (iv) Placement of the CEMS readout, or other indication of 
emissions, indicating how the location meets the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (v) Span of the analyzer.
    (vi) Justification of the selection for the specific monitoring 
equipment with respect to the pollutant and pollutant concentrations 
expected.
    (vii) Identification of the cycle time for the CEMS, indicating 
that it meets the requirement of (b)(3) of this section.
    (3) Description of the data collection and reduction systems, 
including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
    (i) A copy of the data acquisition system algorithm used to reduce 
the measured data into the reportable form of the standard and 
calculate the applicable averages.
    (ii) Identification of whether the algorithm excludes data 
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, 
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain 
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
    (iii) If the data acquisition algorithm does not exclude data 
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, 
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain 
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments, then include a 
description of your procedure for excluding this data when the averages 
calculated, as specified in Sec.  65.855, are determined.
    (iv) If the measured data are converted to the reportable form of 
the standard and/or averages calculated manually, documentation of the 
calculation procedure.
    (4) Identification of the applicable EPA performance 
specification(s) for the CEMS.
    (g) CEMS procedures. You must operate each CEMS in accordance with 
each of the applicable procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of 
this section and the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2) through (4) of this 
section, you must comply with procedure 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
F. If you operate a CEMS, based on Fourier transform infrared 
spectroscopy, you must replace the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 
requirements of procedure 1 with the validation requirements and 
criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of 
part 60, appendix B.
    (2) If you operate a particulate matter CEMS, you must comply with 
procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, instead of procedure 1 at 40 
CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (3) If you operate a mercury CEMS, you must comply with procedure 5 
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, instead of procedure 1 at 40 CFR part 
60, appendix F.
    (4) If you operate a CEMS, meeting Performance Specification 9 or 
15 requirements, you must determine the target analyte(s) for 
calibration using either process knowledge of the vent stream or the 
presurvey screening procedures in section 16 of Method 18 at 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-6 on the control device outlet stream.

[[Page 18020]]

    (h) Certification. As specified in the CEMS performance evaluation 
and monitoring plan in paragraph (c) of this section, you must perform 
a CEMS evaluation and certify your CEMS in accordance with the 
performance specifications listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (9) of 
this section, as specified in paragraphs (h)(10) and (11) of this 
section, and in accordance with your CEMS performance evaluation and 
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph 
(h)(12) of this section provides for situations when the performance 
specifications listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (9) of this section 
are not applicable. The performance specifications listed in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (11) of this section are found in appendix B of part 60.
    (1) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11.
    (2) For hydrogen halides, Performance Specification 15.
    (3) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A or 12B.
    (4) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2.
    (5) For total hydrocarbons, Performance Specification 8A.
    (6) For speciated organic compounds using a gas chromatograph, 
Performance Specification 9.
    (7) For speciated organic compounds using Fourier transform 
infrared spectroscopy, Performance Specification 15.
    (8) For oxygen or carbon dioxide, Performance Specification 3.
    (9) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4, if your 
emission limit is above 200 ppmv, or Performance Specification 4A if 
your emission limit is equal to or less than 200 ppmv.
    (10) If you operate a CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 
15, you must determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using 
either process knowledge of the vent stream or the pre-survey screening 
procedures in section 16 of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 
on the control device outlet stream.
    (11) You may only use Performance Specification 15 to measure 
hydrogen halides if you are not required to include halogens in your 
measurement or you can demonstrate that there are no halogens in the 
vent stream.
    (12) If you wish to use a CEMS with no applicable Performance 
Specification, you must submit a request for approval to use an 
alternate monitoring method according to Sec.  65.240. Your alternative 
monitoring method request must include the procedures for a CEMS 
evaluation and other information typically contained in a Performance 
Specification. This information must also be included in the CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan specified on paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (i) Out-of-control periods. For each CEMS, you must comply with the 
out-of-control procedures described in paragraph (i) of this section 
when the CEMS is out-of-control, as defined in paragraph (i)(1).
    (1) If the conditions in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section occur, the CEMS is out-of-control.
    (i) If the zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable) or high-
level calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration 
drift specification in the applicable performance specification.
    (ii) A CEMS is out of control if the CEMS fails a performance test 
audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy test audit or 
linearity test audit.
    (2) When the CEMS is out of control, you must take the necessary 
corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate the 
system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct 
retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable 
limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you 
conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 
exceedance of the performance requirements established in this section. 
The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the 
completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the 
system is within the allowable limits. You must not use data recorded 
during periods the CEMS is out of control in data averages and 
calculations, used to report emissions or operating levels, as 
specified in Sec.  65.855(b).
    (j) CEMS data reduction. You must reduce data from a CEMS, as 
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Convert all CEMS emission data into units of the emission limit 
of the referencing subpart for reporting purposes using the conversion 
procedures specified in that subpart. After conversion into units of 
the emission limit, you may round the data to the same number of 
significant digits as used in that emission limit.
    (2) If a referencing subpart specifies an emission standard in a 
specific percent oxygen, you must correct the concentrations, as 
measured by the CEMS in accordance with Sec.  65.826(b).
    (3) Calculate averages, as specified in Sec.  65.855.
    (4) Record the CEMS data, as specified in Sec.  65.860.
    (k) The CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan must be 
submitted for approval to the Administrator 60 days before the CEMS 
evaluation is to be conducted.
    (l) If you are not proposing any alternative monitoring methods and 
are intending to demonstrate compliance using the monitoring method(s) 
specified in this section, you do not have to wait for approval of your 
CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan before conducting the 
CEMS evaluation or before following the other procedures of the CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan.
    (m) If you are proposing an alternative monitoring method, follow 
the procedures in Sec.  65.240.


Sec.  65.712  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS)?

    (a) General. You must comply with the requirements of this section 
for each CPMS unless the Administrator specifies or approves a change 
(minor, intermediate or major) in methodology or an alternative for the 
specified monitoring requirements and procedures, as provided in Sec.  
65.240.
    (b) Operation of CPMS. You must install, maintain and operate each 
CPMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Install and locate each CPMS sampling probe or other interface 
at a measurement location relative to each regulated process unit or 
control device being monitored such that you obtain representative 
measurements of the operating parameter from the regulated source or 
control device (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
    (2) You must ensure the readout (that portion of the CPMS that 
provides a visual display or record), or other indication of the 
monitored operating parameter from any CPMS required for compliance is 
readily accessible onsite for operational control or inspection by the 
operator of the source.
    (3) All CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 
(sampling, analyzing and data recording) for each successive 15-minute 
period.
    (4) Except for maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or 
checks to maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero 
and span adjustments, you must operate all CPMS and collect data 
continuously when you route regulated emissions to the monitored 
emission point.
    (5) Upon submittal of the CPMS monitoring plan to the Administrator 
for approval, you must operate and maintain each CPMS according to the

[[Page 18021]]

CPMS monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (6) You must modify the CPMS monitoring plan to incorporate the 
Administrator's comments and resubmit the plan for approval to the 
Administrator within 30 days of receiving the Administrator's comments. 
Upon re-submittal to the Administrator for approval, you must operate 
and maintain each CPMS in conformance with the revised CPMS monitoring 
plan.
    (7) For each CPMS, you must comply with the out-of-control 
procedures described in paragraphs (d) of this section.
    (8) You must reduce data from a CPMS, as specified in paragraphs 
(e) of this section.
    (9) All monitoring equipment must meet the minimum accuracy, 
calibration and quality control requirements specified in Table 4 to 
this subpart.
    (10) Your CPMS must be capable of measuring the appropriate 
parameter over a range that extends from a value that is at least 20 
percent less than the lowest value that you expect your CPMS to 
measure, to a value that is at least 20 percent greater than the 
highest value that you expect your CPMS to measure. The data recording 
system associated with each CPMS must have a resolution that is equal 
to or better than one-half of the required system accuracy.
    (11) All CPMS must be installed, operational and calibrated, as 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within 24 hours before 
conducting the performance test or, if a performance test is not 
required, prior to the compliance date. Subsequent calibrations must be 
conducted, as specified in the CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Quality control program. You must develop and implement a CPMS 
quality control program documented in a CPMS monitoring plan. The CPMS 
monitoring plan must contain the information listed in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The information specified in Sec.  65.225(g).
    (2) Identification of the parameter to be monitored by the CPMS and 
the expected parameter range, including worst case and normal 
operation.
    (3) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the 
information specified in (c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment 
components.
    (ii) Performance specifications, as provided by the manufacturer, 
and any differences expected for your installation and operation.
    (iii) The location of the CMS sampling probe or other interface and 
a justification of how the location meets the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (iv) Placement of the CPMS readout, or other indication of 
parameter values, indicating how the location meets the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (v) Span of the analyzer.
    (vi) Identify the parameter detected by the parametric signal 
analyzer and the algorithm used to convert these values into the 
operating parameter monitored to demonstrate compliance, if the 
parameter detected is different from the operating parameter monitored.
    (vii) Justification for the selection of the specific monitoring 
equipment with respect to the parameter and expected parameter values.
    (viii) Identify the cycle time for the CPMS.
    (4) Description of the data collection and reduction systems, 
including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
    (i) A copy of the data acquisition system algorithm used to reduce 
the measured data into the reportable form of the standard and 
calculate the applicable averages.
    (ii) Identification of whether the algorithm excludes data 
collected during CPMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, 
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain 
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
    (iii) If the data acquisition algorithm does not exclude data 
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, 
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain 
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments, then include a 
description of your procedure for excluding this data when the averages 
calculated, as specified in Sec.  65.855 are determined.
    (iv) If the measured data are converted to the reportable form of 
the standard and/or averages calculated manually, documentation of the 
calculation procedure.
    (5) Routine quality control and assurance procedures, including 
descriptions of the procedures listed in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through 
(vi) of this section and a schedule for conducting these procedures. 
The routine procedures must provide an assessment of CPMS performance.
    (i) Initial and subsequent calibration of the CPMS and acceptance 
criteria.
    (ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the 
CPMS.
    (iii) Daily checks for indications that the system is responding. 
If the CPMS system includes an internal system check, you may use the 
results to verify the system is responding, as long as you check the 
internal system results daily for proper operation and the results are 
recorded.
    (iv) Preventive maintenance of the CPMS, including spare parts 
inventory.
    (v) Data recording, calculations and reporting.
    (vi) Program of corrective action for a CPMS that is not operating 
properly.
    (d) Out-of-control periods. For each CPMS, you must comply with the 
out-of-control procedures described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) A CPMS is out-of-control if the zero (low-level), mid-level (if 
applicable) or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 
accuracy requirement of Table 4 of this subpart.
    (2) When the CPMS is out of control, you must take the necessary 
corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate the 
system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct 
retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable 
limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you 
conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 
exceedance of the performance requirements established in this section. 
The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the 
completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the 
system is within the allowable limits. You must not use data recorded 
during periods the CPMS is out of control in data averages and 
calculations, used to report emissions or operating levels, as 
specified in Sec.  65.855(b).
    (e) CPMS data reduction. You must reduce data from a CPMS, as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You may round the data to the same number of significant 
digits, as used in that emission limit.
    (2) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies must not be included in daily averages.
    (3) Calculate averages, as specified in Sec.  65.855.
    (4) The data from a CPMS must be recorded, as specified in Sec.  
65.860.
    (f) Monitoring plan submittal date. The CPMS monitoring plan must 
be submitted for approval to the

[[Page 18022]]

Administrator 60 days before the initial CPMS evaluation is to be 
conducted.
    (g) Implementing the monitoring plan. If you are not proposing any 
alternative monitoring methods and are intending to demonstrate 
compliance using the monitoring method(s) specified in this section, 
you do not have to wait for approval of your CPMS monitoring plan 
before conducting the performance test or before following the 
procedures of the CPMS monitoring plan.
    (h) Alternative monitoring method. If you are proposing an 
alternative monitoring method, follow the procedures in Sec.  65.240.


Sec.  65.713  How do I establish my operating limits?

    You must establish operating limits for operating parameters 
required to be monitored by this subpart by following the requirements 
in this section or you may request approval of monitoring alternatives, 
as specified in Sec.  65.884(h).
    (a) You must establish the operating limit for each operating 
parameter for each control device, based on the operating parameter 
values recorded during the performance test, and may be supplemented by 
engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. 
Performance testing is not required to be conducted over the entire 
range of allowed operating parameter values.
    (b) The established operating limit must represent the conditions 
for which the control device is meeting the specified emission limit of 
the referencing subpart.
    (c) You must establish your operating limit as an operating 
parameter range, minimum operating parameter level or maximum operating 
parameter level, as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, as 
applicable. Where this subpart does not specify which format to use for 
your operating limit (e.g., operating range, or minimum/maximum 
operating levels), you must determine which format best establishes 
proper operation of the control device such that the control device is 
meeting the specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
    (d) The operating limit may be based on ranges or limits previously 
established under a referencing subpart. If a performance test is not 
required for a control device and, except as specified in Sec.  
65.748(b) for biofilters, the operating limit may be based on 
engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations included 
in the required design evaluation.
    (e) For batch processes, you may establish operating limits for 
individual emission episodes, including each distinct episode of vent 
stream emissions, if applicable. If you elect to establish separate 
operating limits for different emission episodes within a batch 
process, then you must comply with the provisions in paragraphs (e)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) Maintain a daily schedule or log of operating scenarios for 
batch processes according to Sec.  65.860(f)(1).
    (2) Provide rationale for each operating limit for each emission 
episode in a batch pre-compliance report, as specified in Sec.  
65.884(g). You must also report the rationale according to Sec.  
65.884(j).


Sec.  65.720  What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?

    (a) General. If you operate a closed vent system that collects 
regulated material from a regulated source, you must meet the 
applicable requirements of this section. You must also meet the 
applicable requirements of subpart J of this part.
    (b) Collection of emissions. Each closed vent system must be 
designed and operated to collect the regulated material vapors from the 
emission point, and to route the collected vapors to a control device 
with no release to the atmosphere through bypass lines.
    (c) Bypass lines. Use of the bypass at any time to divert a 
regulated vent stream is an emissions standards deviation for all 
pollutants regulated by the referencing subpart. The use of the bypass 
during a performance test invalidates the performance test. You must 
comply with the provisions of either paragraphs (c)(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) Bypass line flow indicator. Install, maintain and operate a 
CPMS for flow, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Install a CPMS for flow at the entrance to any bypass line. The 
CPMS must record the volume of the gas stream that bypassed the control 
device.
    (ii) Equip the CPMS for flow with an alarm system that will alert 
an operator immediately and automatically when flow is detected in the 
bypass line. Locate the alarm such that an operator can easily detect 
and recognize the alert.
    (2) Bypass line valve configuration. Secure the bypass line valve 
in the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 
configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism 
at least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the 
non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the 
bypass line.
    (d) Bypass records. For each closed vent system that contains 
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the control 
device and to the atmosphere, or cause air intrusion into the control 
device, you must keep a record of the information specified in either 
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) You must maintain records of any alarms triggered because flow 
was detected in the bypass line, including the date and time the alarm 
was triggered and the duration of the flow in the bypass line. You must 
also maintain records of all periods when the vent stream is diverted 
from the control device or air intrudes into the control device. You 
must include an estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of 
regulated material in the gas and the resulting emissions of regulated 
material that bypassed the control device.
    (2) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such 
cases, you must record the date that you complete the monthly visual 
inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms. You must also record the 
occurrence of all periods when the seal or closure mechanism is broken, 
the bypass line valve position has changed or the key for a lock-and-
key type lock has been checked out. You must include an estimate of the 
volume of gas, the concentration of regulated material in the gas and 
the resulting emissions of regulated material that bypassed the control 
device.


Sec.  65.724  What requirements must I meet for small boilers and 
process heaters?

    (a) Small boiler or process heater monitoring. You must install the 
monitoring equipment and meet the requirements specified for small 
boilers and process heaters in either Table 1 or Table 2 to this 
subpart, even if the small boiler or process heater is part of a fuel 
gas system.
    (b) Small boiler or process heater performance test. You must 
conduct a performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 
65.829, and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, even if the 
small boiler or process heater is part of a fuel gas system, unless one 
of the provisions in paragraph (c) of this section is met.
    (1) When demonstrating compliance with a percent reduction emission 
limit in a referencing subpart, you must determine the weight-percent 
reduction of organic regulated material or total organic compounds 
(minus methane and ethane) across the device by comparing the total 
organic compounds (minus methane and ethane) or organic regulated 
material in all combusted vent

[[Page 18023]]

streams and primary and secondary fuels with the total organic 
compounds (minus methane and ethane) or organic regulated material 
exiting the combustion device, respectively.
    (2) When determining the weight-percent reduction, you must locate 
the sampling sites for the measurement of total organic regulated 
material or total organic compound (minus methane and ethane) 
concentrations, as applicable, at the inlet of the small boiler or 
process heater such that all vent streams and primary and secondary 
fuels introduced into the boiler or process heater are included.
    (c) Small boiler or process heater performance test exemptions. You 
are not required to conduct a performance test if any of the general 
control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are used. You are also 
not required to conduct a performance test if your small boiler or 
process heater burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance with 
the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by conducting 
comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the 
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec.  63.1207(j) 
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63, 
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at 
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
    (d) Boiler or process heater design evaluation. If a referencing 
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  65.850. The design evaluation must 
demonstrate that the small boiler or process heater meets the 
applicable emission limit; consider the auto ignition temperature of 
the regulated material and the vent stream flow rate; establish the 
design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone 
residence time; and describe the method and location where the vent 
stream is introduced into the flame zone.
    (e) Boiler or process heater performance test records. If you have 
chosen to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you 
must record the operating parameters, as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 
and (2) of this section, as applicable, measured during each 
performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 
65.829.
    (1) Record the fire box temperature measured during the performance 
test at least every 15 minutes and average the temperature over each 
run of the performance test.
    (2) Record a location description of the vent stream junction into 
the boiler or process heater.
    (f) Boiler or process heater monitoring records. You must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).


Sec.  65.726  What monitoring requirements must I meet for thermal 
oxidizers?

    (a) Thermal oxidizer monitoring. You must install the monitoring 
equipment and meet the requirements specified for thermal oxidizers in 
either Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
    (b) Thermal oxidizer performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless 
any of the general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are 
used. You are also not required to conduct a performance test if your 
thermal oxidizer burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance 
with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by 
conducting comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the 
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec.  63.1207(j) 
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63, 
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at 
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
    (c) Thermal oxidizer design evaluation. If a referencing subpart 
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance 
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the 
requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the oxidizer 
meets the applicable emission limit, the design evaluation must 
consider the auto-ignition temperature of the regulated material and 
the vent stream flow rate and establish the design minimum and average 
temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence 
time.
    (d) Thermal oxidizer performance test records. If you have chosen 
to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 
record the fire box temperature measured during each performance test 
conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829. Record the 
fire box temperature at least every 15 minutes and average the 
temperature over each run of the performance test.
    (e) Thermal oxidizer monitoring records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).


Sec.  65.728  What monitoring requirements must I meet for catalytic 
oxidizers?

    (a) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring. You must install the monitoring 
equipment and meet the requirements specified for catalytic oxidizers 
in either Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. For catalytic oxidizers for 
which you have selected to monitor temperature at the inlet of the 
catalyst bed, as specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct 
catalyst checks according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct sampling and analysis of the catalyst and meet 
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must determine a schedule for conducting sampling and 
analysis of the catalyst, based upon the expected degradation rate of 
the catalyst, and following the manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's 
recommended procedures for sampling and analysis.
    (ii) The catalyst sampling and analysis schedule must be included 
in the performance test plan specified in Sec.  65.820(b) and approved 
by the Administrator.
    (iii) If results from the catalyst sampling and analysis indicate 
that your catalyst will become inactive in 18 months or less, you must 
replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent 
with the manufacturer's recommendations within 3 months before the 
catalyst is anticipated to become inactive or within half the time 
available between receiving the catalyst activity report and when the 
catalyst is expected to become inactive, whichever is less. 
Additionally, you must determine if a more frequent catalyst 
replacement schedule is necessary.
    (iv) If you replace the catalyst bed with a catalyst different from 
the

[[Page 18024]]

catalyst used during the performance test, you must conduct a new 
performance test according to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) You must conduct annual internal inspections of the catalyst 
bed to check for fouling, plugging, mechanical breakdown, channeling, 
abrasion and settling, and follow the procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) If indications of fouling, plugging, mechanical breakdown, 
channeling, abrasion or settling are found during the internal 
inspection of the catalyst, you must replace the catalyst bed or take 
other corrective action consistent with the manufacturer's 
recommendations.
    (ii) If you find any of these issues during the annual inspection, 
then you must increase your inspection frequency to semi-annual. You 
must increase the inspection frequency from semi-annual to quarterly, 
and quarterly to monthly, if you find any issues requiring corrective 
action during the semi-annual or quarterly inspection. You may return 
the inspection frequency to the next less stringent frequency level 
when no issues are found during an inspection.
    (iii) If you replace the catalyst bed with a catalyst different 
from the catalyst used during the performance test, you must conduct a 
new performance test according to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Catalytic oxidizer performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless 
any of the general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are 
used. You are also not required to conduct a performance test if your 
catalytic oxidizer burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance 
with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by 
conducting comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the 
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec.  63.1207(j) 
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63, 
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at 
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
    (c) Catalytic oxidizer design evaluation. If a referencing subpart 
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance 
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the 
requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the oxidizer 
meets the applicable emission limit, the design evaluation must 
consider the vent stream flow rate and you must establish the design 
minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and 
outlet.
    (d) Catalytic oxidizer performance test records. If you have chosen 
to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 
record the upstream and downstream temperatures and the temperature 
difference across the catalyst bed measured during each performance 
test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829. Record 
the upstream and downstream temperatures and the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed at least every 15 minutes and average each 
temperature and temperature differential over each run of the 
performance test.
    (e) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring records. You must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    (f) Catalytic oxidizer other records. For catalytic oxidizers for 
which you have selected the monitoring specified in Table 2 to this 
subpart, you must also maintain records of the results of the catalyst 
sampling and inspections required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section, including any subsequent corrective actions taken.


Sec.  65.732  What monitoring requirements must I meet for fuel gas 
systems?

    (a) You must submit a statement that the emission stream is 
connected to the fuel gas system in the Notification of Compliance 
Status Report, as required, pursuant to Sec.  65.880(b).
    (b) You must meet the requirements of subpart J of this part for 
all components of a fuel gas system.
    (c) If you have small boilers or process heaters that are part of a 
fuel gas system, you must also comply with the provisions of Sec.  
65.724 for the small boilers or process heaters.
    (d) You must not route halogenated vent streams to a fuel gas 
system unless the requirements of Sec.  65.702(d) are met.


Sec.  65.740  What monitoring requirements must I meet for absorbers?

    (a) Absorber monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment 
and meet the requirements specified for absorbers in either Table 1 or 
2 to this subpart.
    (b) Absorber performance test. You must conduct a performance test, 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless any of the general 
control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are used.
    (c) Absorber design evaluation. If a referencing subpart allows you 
to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, and you 
chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the absorber meets the 
applicable emission limit, address the characteristics specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) For an absorber, the design evaluation must consider the vent 
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-gas ratio, 
absorber liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, pressure drop 
and the reaction kinetics or absorption characteristics of the 
constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation must 
establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration 
level.
    (2) For tray and packed column absorbers, the design evaluation 
must consider the characteristics specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, in addition to type and total number of theoretical and actual 
trays, type and total surface area of packing for the entire column and 
type and total surface area for individual packed sections if the 
column contains more than one packed section.
    (d) Absorber performance test records. If you have chosen to 
monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must keep 
readily accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section, as applicable, measured during each 
performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 
65.829.
    (1) The absorber influent liquid flow rate or liquid-to-gas ratio 
measured during the performance test. Record the influent liquid flow 
rate or liquid-to-gas ratio at least every 15 minutes and average the 
flow rate or liquid-to-gas ratio over each run of the performance test.
    (2) If applicable, the pressure drop through the absorber, the pH 
of the absorber liquid effluent, exit gas temperature, inlet gas 
temperature, specific gravity, liquid feed pressure, oxidation chemical 
flow rate and/or the oxidation chemical strength of the absorber liquid 
influent measured during the performance test. Record the pressure drop 
through the absorber, the pH of the absorber liquid effluent, exit gas 
temperature, inlet gas temperature, specific gravity, liquid feed 
pressure, oxidation chemical flow rate and/or the

[[Page 18025]]

oxidation chemical strength of the absorber liquid influent at least 
every 15 minutes and average each operating parameter over each run of 
the performance test.
    (e) Absorber monitoring records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in paragraph Sec.  65.860(a).


Sec.  65.742  What monitoring requirements must I meet for adsorbers 
regenerated onsite?

    (a) General. If you use regenerative adsorption systems that you 
regenerate onsite, you must treat the regulated materials extracted 
from the adsorption system as process wastewater or process vents 
subject to control levels required by the referencing subpart.
    (b) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. You must install the 
monitoring equipment and conduct the monitoring, as specified in either 
Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart for regenerative adsorption systems 
that you regenerate onsite. For regenerative adsorbers, except those 
monitored with CEMS, you must also conduct the checks specified in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, include in your monitoring plan 
required in Sec.  65.712(c) your plans for complying with paragraph (d) 
of this section and develop a corrective action plan, as specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (c) Regenerative adsorber valve and cycle verification. For 
regenerative adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must 
perform a verification of the adsorber during each day of operation. 
The verification must be through visual observation or through an 
automated alarm or shutdown system that monitors and records system 
operational parameters. The verification must confirm that the adsorber 
is operating with proper valve sequencing and cycle time.
    (d) Regenerative adsorber weekly measurements. For regenerative 
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must conduct weekly 
measurements of each adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compounds or 
regulated materials concentration over the last 5 minutes of an 
adsorption cycle using the methods and procedures in paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section. If the measured concentration is greater than the 
maximum normal concentration established in paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, you must take corrective action, as specified in the 
corrective action plan required in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (1) You must measure the concentration using the method that you 
used to establish the maximum normal concentration, and the method must 
be one of the methods specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) 
of this section. You must use Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-1 to select the sampling location, which should be at the 
centrally located 10-percent area of the stack or sample port cross-
section.
    (i) Use chromatographic analysis by using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A. Calibrate the instrument following the procedures 
described in EPA Method 18 using a calibration gas or gas mixture 
containing the compounds present in the adsorber vent gas that can be 
measured by the method.
    (ii) Use a portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, for open-ended lines. Where EPA Method 21 
uses the term ``leak definition,'' you must substitute the term 
``maximum normal concentration.'' Calibrate the instrument following 
the procedures described in EPA Method 21 using one of the calibration 
gases specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this 
section.
    (A) A calibration gas or gas mixture representative of the normal 
compound(s) present in the adsorber vent gas.
    (B) Propane.
    (C) Methane.
    (D) Isobutylene.
    (iii) Use a flame ionization analyzer by using Method 25A at 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7. Calibrate the instrument following the 
procedures described in EPA Method 25A using propane.
    (2) You must establish a maximum normal concentration for each 
adsorber bed vent gas, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
    (i) For each adsorber bed, measure the outlet volatile organic 
compound or regulated material concentration weekly, as specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section, during the last 5 minutes of the 
adsorption cycle for at least 8 weeks. These measurements must be taken 
within a 90-day time period.
    (ii) Calculate the average outlet concentration for each adsorber 
bed as the average of the outlet concentrations measured, as required 
in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Determine maximum normal concentration for each adsorber bed 
as the 99th percentile confidence level using the one-sided z-statistic 
test described in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.138

Where:

P99 = 99th percentile confidence level pollutant 
concentration in parts per million.
Mean = Arithmetic average of the volatile organic compound or 
regulated material concentration in the adsorber vent gas, 
calculated as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
SD = Standard deviation of the mean pollutant concentration, 
calculated as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
t = t distribution critical value for 99th percentile (0.01) 
probability for the appropriate degrees of freedom (number of 
samples minus one), as obtained from a Distribution Critical Value 
Table. Use a value of 3 if you have 8 samples.

    (iv) You must reestablish your maximum normal concentration for an 
adsorber bed according to paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section each time you replace the adsorbent in an adsorber bed.
    (e) Regenerative adsorber corrective action plan. For regenerative 
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must develop a 
corrective action plan describing corrective actions to be taken and 
the timing of those actions when a weekly measurement is above the 
maximum normal concentration. The plan must specify that you will 
initiate procedures to identify the cause and take corrective action no 
later than 8 hours after the weekly measurement. Three consecutive 
weekly measurements greater than the maximum normal concentration is a 
deviation. Examples of corrective actions that could be included in 
your plan are listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Analyze the adsorber inlet vent to determine if inlet 
concentrations are in the expected range.

[[Page 18026]]

    (2) Obtain samples at other locations in the system to determine if 
conditions are normal.
    (3) Verify the system temperatures, regeneration stream mass and 
other operational parameters are within normal ranges.
    (4) Test the operation of valves in the system, verify the valves 
are working as intended and not allowing gas to pass through when 
closed.
    (5) Obtain a sample of the carbon to check for bed poisoning or 
deterioration of the carbon.
    (6) Replace the adsorbent in the adsorber bed with fresh adsorbent.
    (f) Regenerative adsorber performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless 
any of the general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are 
used.
    (g) Regenerative adsorber design evaluation. If a referencing 
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 
absorber meets the applicable emission limit, address the following 
characteristics, as applicable. For an adsorption system that 
regenerates the adsorber bed directly onsite in the control device, 
such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation must consider the 
vent stream mass flow rate, vent stream composition and concentrations, 
relative humidity, and temperature and must establish the design 
exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption 
cycle time, number and capacity of adsorber beds, type and working 
capacity of adsorbent used for adsorber beds, design total regeneration 
stream mass flow over the period of each complete adsorber bed 
regeneration cycle, design adsorber bed temperature after regeneration, 
design adsorber bed regeneration time and design service life of 
adsorbent. For vacuum desorption, the lowest required vacuum level and 
duration needed to assure regeneration of the beds must be considered.
    (h) Regenerative adsorber performance test records. If you are 
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily 
accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(5) of this section, as applicable, measured during each performance 
test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (1) For non-vacuum regenerative adsorbers, you must record the 
total regeneration stream mass flow during each adsorber bed 
regeneration cycle during the period of the performance test, and 
temperature of the adsorber bed after each regeneration during the 
period of the performance test (and within 15 minutes of completion of 
any cooling cycle or cycles).
    (2) For non-vacuum regeneration adsorbers, you must record the 
adsorber bed temperature during regeneration, except for any 
temperature regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature 
closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle.
    (3) For vacuum regenerative adsorbers, you must record the vacuum 
profile over time during each regeneration cycle, and the period of 
time the vacuum level is below the minimum target level during the 
period of the performance test.
    (4) You must record regeneration frequency and duration during the 
period of the performance test.
    (5) You must record the observations of the verification of the 
adsorber operation during the period of the performance test.
    (i) Regenerative adsorber monitoring records. You must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
and emissions required to be monitored under paragraph (b) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    (j) Regenerative adsorber other records. For regenerative 
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must also maintain 
records, as specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The corrective action plan required in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (2) For the adsorber verification required in paragraph (c) of this 
section, you must maintain daily records of the verification 
inspections, including the visual observations and/or any activation of 
an automated alarm or shutdown system with a written entry into a log 
book or other permanent form of record.
    (3) For the monitoring required in paragraph (d) of this section, 
you must record the weekly volatile organic compound or regulated 
material outlet concentration observed over the last 5 minutes of the 
adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed.
    (4) If the measured concentration obtained during the monitoring 
required in paragraph (d) of this section is greater than the maximum 
normal concentration for 3 consecutive weekly measurements, you must 
keep a record of these periods, including the date of the third 
measurement and the date and time when the concentration becomes less 
than the maximum normal concentration, or when the adsorbent is 
replaced.
    (5) You must keep records of the measurements used to determine the 
maximum normal concentrations established for each adsorber bed.
    (6) You must keep records of the date and time the adsorbent is 
replaced and which adsorbent bed was replaced.


Sec.  65.744  What monitoring requirements must I meet for non-
regenerative adsorbers?

    (a) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring. You must install the 
monitoring equipment and meet the requirements specified for non-
regenerative adsorbers in either Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart. 
Non-regenerative adsorbers include adsorbers that cannot be regenerated 
and regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite. For non-
regenerative adsorbers for which you have selected the monitoring 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must also comply with 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and you may reduce your monitoring 
frequency according to paragraphs (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when 
breakthrough, as defined in Sec.  65.295, is detected between the first 
and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh canister) 
will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will become the 
second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph, ``immediately'' means 
within 8 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 
gallons or less, and within 24 hours of the detection of a breakthrough 
for adsorbers greater than 55 gallons.
    (2) In lieu of the daily monitoring, as specified in Table 3 to 
this subpart, you may reduce your monitoring frequency by establishing 
the average adsorber bed life. To establish the average adsorber bed 
life, you must conduct daily monitoring of the outlet volatile organic 
compound or regulated material concentration of the first adsorber bed 
in series until breakthrough, as defined in Sec.  65.295, occurs for 
the first three adsorber bed change-outs. You must re-establish an 
average adsorber bed life if you change the adsorbent brand or type,

[[Page 18027]]

or if any process changes are made that would lead to a lower bed 
lifetime. You must measure the outlet concentration of volatile organic 
compounds or outlet concentration of regulated material(s) in 
accordance with Table 2 to this subpart. Once the average life of the 
bed is determined, you may conduct ongoing monitoring, as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent has more 
than 2 months of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed 
life, as established in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the date 
the adsorbent was last replaced.
    (ii) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent has more 
than 2 weeks of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed life, 
established in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the date the 
adsorbent was last replaced.
    (b) Non-regenerative adsorber performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless 
any of the general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are 
used.
    (c) Non-regenerative adsorber design evaluation. If a referencing 
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 
absorber meets the applicable emission limit, address the following 
characteristics, as applicable. For an adsorption system that does not 
regenerate the adsorber bed directly on site in the control device, 
such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation must consider the vent 
stream mass flow rate, vent stream composition and concentrations, 
relative humidity and temperature and must establish the design exhaust 
vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of adsorber 
bed, type and working capacity of adsorbent used for the adsorber bed 
and design adsorbent replacement interval, based on the total adsorbent 
working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.
    (d) Non-regenerative adsorber performance test records. If you are 
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily 
accessible records of the outlet volatile organic compound or regulated 
material concentration for each adsorber bed, as provided in Table 2 to 
this subpart, measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant 
to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829. You must also keep records of the 
date and time you last replaced the adsorbent.
    (e) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring records. You must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    (f) Non-regenerative adsorber other records. For non-regenerative 
adsorbers for which you have selected the monitoring specified in Table 
2 to this subpart, you must also maintain records, as specified in 
paragraph (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Records of the date and time you replace the adsorbent.
    (2) If you conduct monitoring less frequently than daily, as 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must record the average life 
of the bed.


Sec.  65.746  What requirements must I meet for condensers?

    (a) Condenser monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment 
and meet the requirements specified for condensers in either Table 1 or 
Table 2 to this subpart.
    (b) Condenser performance test. You are not required to conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless 
required by a referencing subpart. Instead, you must conduct a design 
evaluation, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless you 
choose to use a CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec.  65.711 to 
monitor the performance of the condenser.
    (c) Condenser design evaluation. If you chose to do a design 
evaluation in lieu of using CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec.  
65.711, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in 
demonstrating that the condenser meets the applicable emission limit, 
address the characteristics specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (1) The design evaluation must consider the vent stream flow rate, 
relative humidity, temperature and conditions under which entrainment 
of the condensing liquid could occur, and must establish the design 
outlet organic regulated material compound concentration level, design 
average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream and the design 
average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and 
outlet.
    (2) You must establish your operating limit for temperature of the 
condensate receiver and calculate the resulting regulated material 
concentration using the methodologies in Sec.  65.835(d) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emissions standard of the referencing subpart.
    (d) Condenser monitoring records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    (e) Condenser other records. If you chose to do a design evaluation 
in lieu of using CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec.  65.711, you 
must calculate and record the regulated material concentration using 
continuous and direct measurements of the condensate receiver 
temperature and the methodology in Sec.  65.835(d).


Sec.  65.748  What requirements must I meet for biofilters?

    (a) Biofilter monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment 
and meet the requirements specified for biofilters in either Table 1 or 
Table 2 to this subpart.
    (b) Biofilter performance test. You must conduct a performance 
test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, and paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section, unless one of the provisions in 
paragraph (c) of this section is met.
    (1) The operating temperature limit must be based on only the 
temperatures measured during the performance test; these data may not 
be supplemented by engineering assessments or manufacturer's 
recommendations, as otherwise allowed in Sec.  65.713(a).
    (2) You may expand the biofilter bed temperature operating limit by 
conducting a repeat performance test that demonstrates compliance with 
the percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration limit, as 
applicable.
    (3) You must conduct a repeat performance test using the applicable 
methods specified in Sec.  65.825 within 2 years following the previous

[[Page 18028]]

performance test and within 150 days after each replacement of any 
portion of the biofilter bed media with a different type of media or 
each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume) of the biofilter 
bed media with the same type of media.
    (c) Biofilter performance test exemptions. You are not required to 
conduct a performance test if any of the general control measures 
specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are used. If the operating limit is 
established using data from previous performance tests in accordance 
with Sec.  65.702(e)(4), replacement of the biofilter media with the 
same type of media is not considered a process change and would not 
require a new performance test; however, you are still subject to the 
repeat performance test requirements, as specified in paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section.
    (d) Biofilter design evaluation. If a referencing subpart allows 
you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, and 
you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the biofilter meets the 
applicable emission limit, address the characteristics specified in the 
referencing subpart.
    (e) Biofilter performance test records. If you are required to 
conduct a performance test, you must record the biofilter bed 
temperature and moisture content, and the pressure drop through the 
biofilter bed measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant 
to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829. You must record the biofilter bed 
temperature, moisture content and the pressure drop through the 
biofilter bed at least every 15 minutes and average these operating 
parameters over each run of the performance test.
    (f) Biofilter monitoring records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).


Sec.  65.760  What requirements must I meet for sorbent injection and 
collection systems?

    (a) General. If you use sorbent injection as an emission control 
technique, you must operate the sorbent injection system in accordance 
with this section. You must also meet the requirements in Sec.  65.762 
for the fabric filters used for sorbent collection.
    (b) Sorbent injection monitoring. You must install the monitoring 
equipment and meet the requirements specified for sorbent injection in 
either Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart.
    (c) Sorbent injection performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, and 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, unless one of the general 
control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) is used. A performance 
test conducted to meet the requirements of this section also satisfies 
the performance test requirements of Sec.  65.762(b) provided that you 
monitor and record the appropriate fabric filter operating parameters 
during the performance test.
    (1) You must conduct the performance test at the outlet of the 
fabric filter used for sorbent collection.
    (2) If the sorbent is replaced with a different brand and type of 
sorbent that was used during the performance test, you must conduct a 
new performance test.
    (d) Sorbent injection design evaluation. If a referencing subpart 
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance 
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the 
requirements of Sec.  65.850 and, in demonstrating that the sorbent 
injection system meets the applicable emission limit, address the 
characteristics specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, 
as applicable.
    (1) For a sorbent injection system, the design evaluation must 
consider the vent stream flow rate and temperature, levels of regulated 
materials to be adsorbed in the vent stream, sorbent type and brand, 
sorbent mass injection rate, sorbent injection carrier gas system, 
design of the injection system, location of sorbent injection site, 
downstream collection device (fabric filter or other device to capture 
the sorbent), residence time of the gas-sorbent mixture and contact 
characteristics of the gas-sorbent mixture.
    (2) For a sorbent injection system that is controlling dioxins, 
furans, total hazardous air pollutants (HAP) or total organic HAP, as 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must consider the temperature 
in the combustion device and in any particulate control devices 
upstream of injection system.
    (e) Sorbent injection performance test records. If you are required 
to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily accessible records 
of the data specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, as 
applicable, measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant 
to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829.
    (1) Record the brand and type of sorbent used during the 
performance test.
    (2) If you have chosen to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 
to this subpart, you must record the parameters, as specified in 
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) Record the rate of sorbent injection measured during the 
performance test at least every 15 minutes and average the injection 
rate over each run of the performance test.
    (ii) Record the carrier gas flow rate measured during the 
performance test at least every 15 minutes and average the flow rate 
over each run of the performance test.
    (iii) Record the temperature downstream of the combustion device 
and/or downstream of any particulate control devices, as applicable, 
measured during the performance test. Record the temperature(s) at 
least every 15 minutes and average the temperature(s) over each run of 
the performance test.
    (f) Sorbent injection monitoring records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters 
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (b) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations, 
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating 
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  65.860(a).
    (g) Sorbent injection other records. You must keep records of the 
type and brand of sorbent used. If the type or brand of sorbent is 
changed, you must record the date the sorbent was changed, and maintain 
documentation that the substitute will provide the same or better level 
of control as the original sorbent.

[[Page 18029]]

Sec.  65.762  What requirements must I meet for fabric filters?

    (a) Fabric filter monitoring. You must equip fabric filters with a 
bag leak detection system that is installed, calibrated, maintained and 
continuously operated according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (10) of this section. Monitoring systems associated with 
bag leak detection are also subject to the requirements of Sec.  
65.710.
    (1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that 
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter 
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent or compartment (e.g., for a 
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
    (2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer 
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of 1 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains 
per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection 
system in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and consistent 
with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  65.265).
    (4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that 
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate material 
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located 
such that the alert is observed readily by plan operating personnel.
    (6) Install a bag leak detection system in each compartment or cell 
for positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all 
compartments or cells to a common stack. Install a bag leak detector 
downstream of the fabric filter if a negative pressure or induced air 
filter is used. If multiple bag leak detectors are required, the 
system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (7) Calibration of the bag leak detection system must, at a 
minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output level by adjusting 
the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the 
alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (8) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points or alarm delay 
time, except as established in a CPMS monitoring plan required in Sec.  
65.712 and paragraph (e)(1) of this section. In no event may the 
sensitivity be increased more than 100 percent or decreased by more 
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a 
complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates the baghouse is in good 
operating condition.
    (9) Each bag leak detection system must be operated and maintained 
such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during a 6-month period. If the alarm sounds more than 5 percent 
of the operating time during a 6-month period, it is considered an 
operating parameter exceedance and, therefore, a deviation, as 
specified in Sec.  65.710(e)(2). You must calculate the alarm time, as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no 
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
    (ii) If corrective action is required, each alarm time is counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour.
    (iii) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, 
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the 
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
    (iv) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating 
time during a 6-month period.
    (10) If the alarm on a bag leak detection system is triggered, you 
must, within 1 hour of an alarm, initiate procedures to identify the 
cause of the alarm and take corrective action, as specified in the 
corrective action plan required in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (b) Fabric filter performance test. You must conduct a performance 
test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, unless one of the 
general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) is used. A 
performance test conducted to meet the requirements of this section 
also satisfies the performance test requirements of Sec.  65.760(c) 
provided that Sec.  65.760(c)(1) and (2) are followed and the 
appropriate sorbent injection operating parameters are monitored and 
recorded.
    (c) Fabric filter design evaluation. If a referencing subpart 
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance 
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the 
requirements of Sec.  65.850. The design evaluation must include the 
pressure drop through the device and the ratio of volumetric gas flow 
to surface area of the cloth.
    (d) Fabric filter performance test records. You must document the 
bag leak detection system's sensitivity to detecting changes in 
particulate matter emissions, range, averaging period and alarm set 
points during each performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
65.820 through 65.829.
    (e) Fabric filter monitoring records. For each bag leak detector 
used to monitor regulated material emissions from a fabric filter, you 
must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) A CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in Sec.  65.712. You must 
also include performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations) in your CPMS monitoring plan, including how the 
alarm set-point will be established.
    (2) A corrective action plan describing corrective actions to be 
taken and the timing of those actions when the bag leak detection alarm 
sounds. You must initiate corrective action no later than 48 hours 
after a bag leak detection system alarm. Failure to take action within 
the prescribed time period is considered a deviation. Corrective 
actions may include, but are not limited to, the actions listed in 
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other conditions that may cause an increase in 
regulated material emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise fixing 
the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
fixing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the regulated material 
emissions.
    (3) Records of any bag leak detection system alarm, including the 
date, time, duration and the percent of the total operating time during 
each 6-month period that the alarm sounds, with a brief explanation of 
the cause of the alarm, the corrective action taken and the schedule 
and duration of the corrective action.
    (f) You must submit analyses and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  65.265) and specifications for bag leak detection 
systems as part of the Notification of Compliance Status Report, as 
required, pursuant to Sec.  65.880(f).


Sec.  65.800  What requirements must I meet for other control devices?

    (a) Other control device monitoring. If you use a control device 
other than those listed in this subpart, you must

[[Page 18030]]

meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit to the Administrator for approval the planned 
operating parameters to be monitored, and the recordkeeping and 
reporting procedures, as specified in Sec.  65.884(h). You must also 
include a rationale for the proposed monitoring in your submittal. The 
Administrator will approve, deny or modify the proposed monitoring, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the 
plan or through the review of the permit application or by other 
appropriate means.
    (2) If you receive approval from the Administrator for the 
information required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must then 
establish an operating limit for the operating parameters that 
indicates proper operation of the control device. The information 
required in Sec.  65.880(d) must be submitted in the Notification of 
Compliance Status Report. The operating limit may be based upon a prior 
performance test meeting the specifications of Sec.  65.702(e)(4).
    (b) Other control device performance test. You must conduct a 
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, as 
applicable, unless any of the general control measures specified in 
Sec.  65.702(e) are used.
    (c) Other control device performance test records. If you are 
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily 
accessible records of the approved operating parameters, as established 
in paragraph (a) of this section measured during the performance test 
and any other records as may be necessary to determine the conditions 
of the performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 
through 65.829.
    (d) Other control device records. You must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and 
readily accessible, as applicable.
    (1) You must keep records of the operating parameter(s) monitored, 
pursuant to the approved plan established in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (2) Records of flow/no flow, as provided in Sec.  65.860(i).

Performance Testing


Sec.  65.820  What are the performance testing requirements?

    For each control device for which a performance test is required, 
you must conduct a performance test according to the schedule specified 
by the referencing subpart and the procedures in this section 
Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, as applicable, unless any of the 
general control measures specified in Sec.  65.702(e) are used. For all 
performance tests, a notification of the performance test and a 
performance test plan are also required, as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section. You must also provide the performance 
testing facilities, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (a) Notification of performance test. You must notify the 
Administrator of your intention to conduct a performance test, as 
specified in Sec.  65.884(a).
    (b) Performance test plan. Before conducting a required performance 
test, you must develop and submit a performance test plan to the 
Administrator for approval. The test plan must include a test program 
summary, the test schedule, data quality objectives and both an 
internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality 
objectives are the pretest expectations of precision, accuracy and 
completeness of data, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) The internal quality assurance program must include, at a 
minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to 
provide an assessment of test data bias and precision; an example of 
internal quality assurance to measure precision is the sampling and 
analysis of replicate samples.
    (2) You must perform a test method performance audit during the 
performance test, as specified in Sec.  60.8(g), Sec.  61.13(e), or 
Sec.  63.7(c)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
    (3) You must submit the performance test plan to the Administrator 
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to 
take place, that is, simultaneously with the notification of intention 
to conduct a performance test required under paragraph (a) of this 
section, or on a mutually agreed upon date.
    (4) The Administrator may request additional relevant information 
after the submittal of a performance test plan.
    (5) If you would like to use an alternative test method or a change 
to a test method, you must follow the requirements of Sec.  65.250, 
except for minor test method changes. You may propose minor test method 
changes in your performance test plan. Approval of the test plan is 
approval of any minor test method changes included in the test plan.
    (c) Approval of performance test plan.
    (1) The Administrator will notify you of approval or intention to 
deny approval of the performance test plan within 30 calendar days 
after receipt of the original plan and within 30 calendar days after 
receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted under 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. An intention to disapprove the 
plan will include the information provided in (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section and will be provided to you before the Administrator 
disapproves a performance test plan.
    (i) Notice of the information and findings on which the intended 
disapproval is based.
    (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present, within 30 calendar 
days after you have been notified of the intended disapproval, 
additional information to the Administrator before final action on the 
plan.
    (2) If the Administrator does not approve or disapprove the 
performance test plan within the time period specified in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, then you must conduct the performance test 
within the time specified in this subpart using the specified method(s) 
and any minor changes to the test methods proposed in the test plan.
    (d) Performance testing facilities. If required to do performance 
testing, you must provide performance testing facilities, as specified 
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Sampling ports adequate for the applicable test methods, 
including meeting the provisions of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) Constructing the air pollution control system such that 
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately 
determined by applicable test methods and procedures; and
    (ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during 
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and 
procedures.
    (2) Safe sampling platform(s).
    (3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
    (4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
    (5) Any other facilities that the Administrator deems necessary for 
safe and adequate testing of a source.


Sec.  65.821  At what process conditions must I conduct performance 
testing?

    You must conduct performance tests under the conditions specified 
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, as applicable, unless 
the Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions. 
Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records 
as may be

[[Page 18031]]

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests performed, 
pursuant to this section.
    (a) Continuous process operations. For continuous process 
operations, you must conduct all performance tests at maximum 
representative operating conditions for the process.
    (b) Batch process operations. For batch process operations, testing 
must be conducted at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical 
worst-case conditions, as specified in Sec.  65.822.
    (c) Combination of both continuous and batch unit operations. For 
combined continuous and batch process operations, you must conduct 
performance tests when the batch process operations are operating at 
absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case conditions, 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and the continuous 
process operations are operating at maximum representative operating 
conditions for the process, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (d) You must not conduct a performance test during startup, 
shutdown, periods when the control device is bypassed or periods when 
the process, monitoring equipment or control device is not operating 
properly.


Sec.  65.822  At what process conditions must I conduct performance 
testing for batch process operations?

    If you choose to conduct testing at absolute worst-case conditions 
for batch process operations, you must characterize the conditions by 
the criteria presented in paragraph (a) of this section. If you choose 
to conduct testing at hypothetical worst-case conditions for batch 
process operations, you must characterize the conditions by the 
criteria presented in paragraph (b) of this section. In all cases, a 
performance test plan must be submitted to the Administrator for 
approval prior to testing in accordance with Sec.  65.820(a) through 
(d). The performance test plan must include the emission profile 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (a) Absolute worst-case conditions. You must consider all relevant 
factors, including load and compound-specific characteristics, in 
defining absolute worst-case conditions. Absolute worst-case conditions 
are defined by the criteria presented in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 
this section if the maximum load is the most challenging condition for 
the control device. Otherwise, absolute worst-case conditions are 
defined by paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (1) The period in which the inlet to the control device will 
contain the maximum projected regulated material load and will always 
contain at least 50 percent of the maximum regulated material load (in 
pounds) capable of being vented to the control device over any 8-hour 
period. An emission profile, as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, must be used to identify the 8-hour period that includes the 
maximum projected regulated material load.
    (2) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control 
device will contain the highest regulated material mass loading rate, 
in lb/hr, capable of being vented to the control device. An emission 
profile, as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must be used 
to identify the 1-hour period of maximum regulated material loading.
    (3) The period of time when the regulated material loading or 
stream composition (including non-regulated material) is most 
challenging for the control device. These conditions include, but are 
not limited to, paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Periods when the stream contains the highest combined regulated 
material load, in lb/hr, described by the emission profiles in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Periods when the stream contains regulated material 
constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.
    (iii) Periods when the stream contains regulated material 
constituents that approach limits of adsorptivity for adsorption 
systems.
    (b) Hypothetical worst-case conditions. Hypothetical worst-case 
conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain 
the highest hourly regulated material load of emissions that would be 
predicted to be vented to the control device from the emissions profile 
described in paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section.
    (c) Emission profile. For batch process operations, you must 
develop an emission profile for the vent to the control device that 
describes the characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the 
control device under worst-case conditions. The emission profile is an 
analysis of regulated material emissions versus time and must be 
developed, based on any one of the procedures described in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Emission profile by process. The emission profile by process 
must consider all emission episodes (for example, but not limited to, 
vessel filling, empty vessel purging, gas sweep of a partially filled 
vessel, vacuum operations, gas evolution, depressurization, heating and 
evaporation) that could contribute to the vent stack for a period of 
time that is sufficient to include all processes venting to the stack 
and must consider production scheduling. The emission profile by 
process must describe the regulated material load to the device that 
equals the highest sum of emissions from the episodes that can vent to 
the control device in any given hour. Emissions per episode must be 
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec.  65.835(b).
    (2) Emission profile by process equipment. The emission profile by 
process equipment must consist of emissions that meet or exceed the 
highest emissions, in lb/hr, that would be expected under actual 
processing conditions. The emission profile by process equipment must 
describe component configurations used to generate the emission events, 
volatility of materials processed in the process equipment and the 
rationale used to identify and characterize the emission events. The 
emissions may be based on using a compound more volatile than compounds 
actually used in the process(es), and the emissions may be generated 
from all process equipment in the process(es) or only selected process 
equipment.
    (3) Emission profile by capture and control device limitation. The 
emission profile by capture and control device must consider the 
capture and control system limitations and the highest emissions, in 
lb/hr, that can be routed to the control device, based on maximum flow 
rate and concentrations possible because of limitations on conveyance 
and control components (e.g., fans and lower explosive level alarms).


Sec.  65.823  How do I sample from vent streams?

    You must conduct the applicable sampling, as specified in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) You must use Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as 
appropriate, to select the sampling sites.
    (1) For determination of compliance with a percent reduction 
requirement of regulated material or total organic compounds, sampling 
sites must be located at the outlet of the control device, and with the 
exception noted in Sec.  65.724(b)(2), the control device inlet 
sampling site must be located at the exit from the unit operation 
before any control device.
    (2) For determining compliance with a ppmv total regulated material 
or total organic compounds emissions limit in a referencing subpart, 
the sampling site

[[Page 18032]]

must be located at the outlet of the control device.
    (3) For determining compliance with an emission limit requirement 
of a vent stream halogen atom mass emission rate prior to a combustion 
device, or to demonstrate that a vent stream is not halogenated, 
pursuant to Sec.  65.702(c), collect samples prior to the combustion 
device.
    (b) For determining compliance with percent reduction emission 
limits, you must collect samples simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 
of the control device during the performance test.
    (c) For correcting concentrations to specified percent oxygen, the 
sampling site for the measurement of oxygen concentration must be the 
same as that of the regulated material samples, and the samples must be 
taken concurrently.
    (d) For each test run, you must take either real-time measurements, 
an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples per hour. If 
grab sampling is used, then the samples must be taken at approximately 
equal intervals in time, such as 15-minute intervals during the run.


Sec.  65.824  What is the performance test duration?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for 
continuous process operations, a performance test must consist of three 
runs of at least 1 hour in length; and must be conducted under the 
conditions specified in Sec.  65.821(a).
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for batch 
process operations, a performance test must consist of three runs; and 
must be conducted under the conditions specified in Sec.  65.821(b). 
Each run must occur over the same absolute or hypothetical worst-case 
conditions, as defined in Sec.  65.822, and be tested over the length 
of the episode, at a minimum of 1 hour and not to exceed 8 hours.
    (c) For control devices used to control emissions from transfer 
racks (except low throughput transfer racks that are capable of 
continuous vapor processing, but do not handle continuous emissions or 
multiple loading arms of a transfer rack that load simultaneously), 
each run must represent at least one complete tank truck or tank car 
loading period, during which regulated materials are loaded.


Sec.  65.825  What performance test methods do I use?

    You must conduct the performance test using the applicable test 
methods and procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart and 
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable, unless you 
request an alternative test method or a change to a test method, as 
specified in Sec.  65.250.
    (a) If you use ASTM D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  65.265) in lieu of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or 
Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A to measure specific organic 
regulated material compound concentration, as applicable, at the inlet 
and/or outlet of a control device, then you must meet the conditions 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The target compound(s) must be listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99 (2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous 
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265), and the 
target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100 
ppmv.
    (2) If one (or more) target compound(s) is not listed in Section 
1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination 
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265), but 
is potentially detected by mass spectrometry, an additional system 
continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in Section 
10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, met, documented and 
submitted with the performance test report, even if a moisture 
condenser is not used or the compound is not considered soluble.
    (3) A minimum of one sample/analysis cycle must completed at least 
every 15 minutes.
    (b) If using Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to 
determine compliance with a total organic compounds outlet 
concentration or percent reduction limit specified in a referencing 
subpart, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Calibrate the instrument on propane.
    (2) When demonstrating compliance with an outlet concentration 
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart, you must use a 
span value of the analyzer between 1.5 and 2.5 times the applicable 
emission limit in the referencing subpart. When demonstrating 
compliance with a percent reduction by making measurements at the inlet 
and outlet of the control device, you must use a span value of the 
analyzer of between 1.5 and 2.5 times the highest expected total 
organic compounds concentration at each location.
    (3) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to Equation 
25A-1 of Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (c) If you are using Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 
pursuant to Table 5 to this subpart, you must follow the validation 
procedure of section 13.0 of EPA Method 320 unless the validation 
procedure was conducted at another source and it can be shown that the 
exhaust gas characteristics are similar at both sources. When 
demonstrating compliance with an emission limit for hydrogen halides 
and halogens, EPA Method 320 may only be used if you can show that 
there are no diatomic halogen molecules present in the vent stream 
being tested.
    (d) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device 
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to 
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and 
formaldehyde is the principal regulated material compound (i.e., the 
highest concentration for any regulated compound in the stream by 
volume), you must use Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to 
measure formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
unless the vent stream being tested has entrained water droplets. If 
the vent stream contains entrained water droplets, you must use EPA 
Method 316 instead of EPA Method 320 to measure formaldehyde 
concentration. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde as a surrogate 
for the percent reduction in total regulated material emissions.
    (2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated 
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration limit, 
and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains 
greater than 10 percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you must use Method 
320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine the formaldehyde 
concentration, unless the vent stream being tested has entrained water 
droplets. If the vent stream contains entrained water droplets, you 
must use EPA Method 316 instead of EPA Method 320 to measure 
formaldehyde concentration. Calculate the total organic regulated 
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration by 
totaling the formaldehyde emissions measured using EPA Method 316 or 
EPA Method 320 and the other regulated material

[[Page 18033]]

compound emissions measured using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-6, Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, EPA Method 320 or ASTM 
D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous 
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265).
    (e) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device 
contains carbon disulfide, you must conduct emissions testing according 
to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and 
carbon disulfide is the principal regulated material compound (i.e., 
the highest concentration for any regulated compound in the stream by 
volume), you must use Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or 
Method 15 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-5, to measure carbon disulfide 
at the inlet and outlet of the control device. Use the percent 
reduction in carbon disulfide as a surrogate for the percent reduction 
in total regulated material emissions.
    (2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated 
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration limit, 
and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains 
greater than 10 percent (by volume) carbon disulfide, you must use 
Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 15 at 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-5, to determine the carbon disulfide concentration. 
Calculate the total organic regulated material concentration or total 
organic compounds concentration by totaling the carbon disulfide 
emissions measured using Method 15 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-5 or 
Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 and the other regulated 
material compound emissions measured using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-6, or Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, Method 320 
at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A or ASTM D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  65.265), as applicable.
    (f) You must not use Method 26 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, to 
test gas streams with entrained water droplets.


Sec.  65.826  How do I calculate emissions in parts per million by 
volume concentration?

    Use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section to 
calculate ppmv concentration. The calculated concentration must be 
corrected to a standard percent oxygen, if required by the referencing 
subpart, using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (a) Concentration calculation. The concentration of either total 
organic compounds (minus methane or ethane) or total organic regulated 
material must be calculated according to paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 
this section.
    (1) The total organic compounds concentration (CTOC) is the sum of 
the concentrations of the individual components and must be computed 
for each run using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.139

Where:

CTOC = Concentration of total organic compounds (minus 
methane and ethane), dry basis, ppmv.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.
n = Number of components in the sample.
Cji = Concentration of sample component j (where j is not 
methane or ethane) of sample i, dry basis, ppmv.

    (2) You must compute the total organic regulated material (CREG) 
according to Equation 2 of this section except that you need only sum 
the regulated species.
    (b) Concentration correction calculation. If a referencing subpart 
requires the concentration of total organic compounds or organic 
regulated material to be corrected to standard oxygen, the correction 
must be made, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. For 
batch process operations, you must correct the concentration for 
supplemental gases, as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration corrected to a standard percent 
oxygen (Cc) specified by the referencing subpart, using Equation 3 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.140

Where:

Cc = Concentration of total organic compounds or organic 
regulated material corrected to a standard percent oxygen, dry 
basis, ppmv.
CTOC = Concentration of total organic compounds (minus 
methane and ethane) or organic regulated material, dry basis, ppmv.
%O2s = Concentration of oxygen specified by the 
referencing subpart, percentage by volume.
%O2d = Measured concentration of oxygen, dry basis, 
percentage by volume.

    (2) For batch process operations, correct the measured 
concentration for any supplemental gases using Equation 4 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.141


[[Page 18034]]


Where:

Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of regulated 
material, dry basis, ppmv.
Cm = Actual concentration of regulated material measured 
at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv.
Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams vented 
to the control device, except supplemental gases, cubic meters per 
minute.
Qs = Total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases, 
cubic meters per minute.


Sec.  65.827  How do I demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction 
requirement?

    (a) To demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction requirement 
for a control device specified in a referencing subpart, you must 
comply with Sec.  65.828.
    (b) To meet a process aggregated percent reduction emission 
requirement specified in a referencing subpart for a batch process, you 
must follow the provisions, as specified in Sec.  65.835.
    (c) For combined streams of continuous and batch process operations 
subject to a process aggregated percent reduction emission requirement 
in a referencing subpart, you must demonstrate that the control device 
meets the percent reduction requirements for both batch and continuous 
process operations by following the provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  
65.828 and 65.835.


Sec.  65.828  How do I determine percent reduction?

    To determine a percent reduction for a control device, you must use 
the procedures specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. For 
small boilers and process heaters, you must follow the provisions of 
Sec.  65.724(b)(1) and (2).
    (a) Mass rate of total organic compounds or regulated material. 
Compute the mass rate of either total organic compounds (minus methane 
and ethane) or regulated material (Ei, Eo), as 
applicable. Use Equations 5 and 6 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.142

Where:

Ei, Eo = Emission rate of total organic 
compounds (minus methane and ethane) or emission rate of regulated 
material in the sample at the inlet and outlet of the control 
device, respectively, dry basis, kilogram per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (g-mol 
per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per gram) (minute per hour), 
where standard temperature is 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees 
Fahrenheit).
N = Number of compounds in the sample.
Cij, Coj = Concentration on a dry basis of 
organic compound j (where j is not methane or ethane) in ppmv of the 
gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively. If the total organic compounds emission rate is being 
calculated, Cij and Coj include all organic 
compounds measured minus methane and ethane; if the regulated 
material emissions rate is being calculated, all organic regulated 
material are included.
Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of compound j, 
gram per g-mol, of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the 
control device, respectively.
Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard 
cubic meter per minute, at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68 
degrees Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively.

    (b) Percent reduction in total organic compounds or regulated 
material. Determine the percent reduction in total organic compounds 
(minus methane and ethane) or regulated material using Equation 7 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.143

Where:

R = Control efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei = Mass rate of total organic compounds (minus methane 
and ethane) or regulated material at the inlet to the control device 
as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, kilograms total 
organic compounds per hour or kilograms regulated material per hour.
Eo = Mass rate of total organic compounds (minus methane 
and ethane) or regulated material at the outlet of the control 
device, as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, kilograms 
total organic compounds per hour or kilograms regulated material per 
hour.


Sec.  65.829  How do I demonstrate compliance with a hydrogen halide 
and halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart?

    You must conduct a performance test, pursuant to Sec.  65.820, and 
follow the procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, as 
applicable, when determining compliance with a hydrogen halide and 
halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.
    (a) To determine compliance with a halogen atom mass emission rate 
emission limit requirement, you must use Equation 8 of this section to 
calculate the mass emission rate of halogen atoms:

[[Page 18035]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.144

Where:

E = Mass of halogen atoms, dry basis, kilogram per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6(ppmv)-1 
(g-mol per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per gram) (minute per 
hour), where standard temperature is 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees 
Fahrenheit).
Q = Flow rate of gas stream, dry standard cubic meters per minute, 
determined according to an engineering assessment, as specified in 
Sec.  65.830 or, pursuant to Table 5 to this subpart.
n = Number of halogenated compounds j in the gas stream.
m = Number of different halogens i in each compound j of the gas 
stream.
j = Halogenated compound in the gas stream.
i = Halogen atom in compound j of the gas stream.
Cj = Concentration of halogenated compound j in the gas 
stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Lji = Number of atoms of halogen i in compound j of the 
gas stream.
Mji = Molecular weight of halogen atom i in compound j of 
the gas stream, kilogram per kilogram-mol.

    (b) Calculate the mass emissions rate of each hydrogen halide and 
halogen compound as the summation of the measured concentrations and 
the gas stream flow rate, as shown in Equations 9 and 10 of this 
section. To determine compliance with an outlet mass emission rate 
limit specified in a referencing subpart, only Equation 10 is required.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.145

Where:

Ei, Eo = Total mass rate of hydrogen halide 
and halogen compounds, in kilograms per hour.
K = 6 x 10-5, Conversion factor of milligrams per minute to 
kilograms per hour.
Cij, Coj = Concentration of each hydrogen 
halide and halogen compound in the gas stream, in milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively.
Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard 
cubic meter per minute, at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68 
degrees Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively.

    (c) Calculate the percent reduction of hydrogen halide and halogen 
compounds using the inlet and outlet mass emission rates calculated in 
paragraph (b) of this section and Equation 7 of this section.
    (d) To demonstrate compliance with a mass rate (e.g., kilogram per 
hour) outlet emission limit, the test results must show that the mass 
emission rate of total hydrogen halides and halogens measured at the 
outlet of the absorber or other halogen reduction device is below the 
mass rate outlet emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.


Sec.  65.830  When can an engineering assessment be used and what does 
it include?

    (a) You may conduct an engineering assessment if you perform any of 
the actions described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Determine whether a vent stream is halogenated, as specified in 
Sec.  65.702(c)(2).
    (2) Supplement your performance test, as specified in Sec.  
65.713(a).
    (3) Establish your operating limit on ranges or limits previously 
established under a referencing subpart, as specified in Sec.  
65.713(d).
    (4) Determine flow rate of a gas stream, as specified in Equation 8 
of Sec.  65.829(a).
    (5) Calculate regulated material emissions for each emission 
episode that is not described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: 
Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265), as specified 
in Sec.  65.835(b)(2) or Sec.  65.835(d)(3).
    (6) Calculate regulated material emissions for each emission 
episode that you can demonstrate to the Administrator that the emission 
estimation techniques in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265) are not appropriate, as 
specified in Sec.  65.835(e).
    (b) An engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of 
current operating practices at the process unit.
    (2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the 
process under representative operating conditions.
    (3) Maximum flow rate, regulated material emission rate, 
concentration or other relevant parameter specified or implied within a 
permit limit applicable to the vent stream.
    (4) Design analysis, based on accepted chemical engineering 
principles, measurable process parameters or physical or chemical laws 
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not 
limited to, the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) Use of material balances, based on process stoichiometry to 
estimate maximum organic regulated material concentrations.
    (ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate, based on physical process 
equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.
    (iii) Estimation of regulated material concentrations, based on 
saturation conditions.

Batch Emission Calculations


Sec.  65.835  What emissions calculations must I use for batch process 
operations for purposes of compliance with an aggregated percent 
reduction?

    (a) General. To demonstrate compliance with a process aggregated 
percent reduction emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch 
process operations, including batch process operations in combined 
streams of continuous and batch unit operations, you must compare the 
sums of the controlled and uncontrolled emissions for the batch vent 
streams subject to control within the process, and show that the 
specified reduction is met. The emission reduction must be calculated 
as shown in Equation 11 of this section using parameters from Equations 
12 and 13 of this section.

[[Page 18036]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.146

Where:

Eu = Uncontrolled emissions for batch vent streams.
Ec = Controlled emissions for batch vent streams.
Ei = Uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode, as 
determined, pursuant to Sec.  65.835(b).
i = Each emission episode that applies to the batch process (for 
example, but not limited to, vessel filling, empty vessel purging, 
gas sweep of a partially filled vessel, vacuum operations, gas 
evolution, depressurization, heating and evaporation).
Di = Controlled emissions for each emission episode from 
a condenser, as determined, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 
section.
Zi = Emission percent reduction for a control device 
other than a condenser used during an emission episode (i), as 
determined, pursuant to Sec.  65.828.

    (b) Uncontrolled emissions. You must calculate uncontrolled 
emissions from all process equipment according to the procedures 
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to demonstrate 
initial compliance with a percent reduction emission limit in a 
referencing subpart for batch process operations, including operations 
in combined streams of continuous and batch unit operations. You must 
also use these procedures if you choose to develop an emission profile 
by process, as specified in Sec.  65.822(c)(1).
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must 
determine uncontrolled emissions of regulated material using 
measurements and/or calculations for each batch emission episode within 
each unit operation using the emission estimation techniques described 
in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  65.265). Chemical property data can be obtained 
from standard reference texts.
    (2) You must conduct an engineering assessment according to Sec.  
65.830 in order to calculate uncontrolled regulated material emissions 
for each emission episode that is not described in Section 3 of EPA 
EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
65.265). You may also conduct an engineering assessment according to 
Sec.  65.830 if you meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) or (e) 
of this section. Data or other information supporting a finding that 
the emissions estimation equations are inappropriate are subject to 
preapproval by the Administrator and must be reported in the batch pre-
compliance report.
    (c) Controlled emissions. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of 
this section, you must calculate controlled emissions using the percent 
reduction for the control device, as determined from the performance 
test required in Sec.  65.828 to demonstrate initial compliance with a 
percent reduction emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch 
process operations, including batch process operations in combined 
streams of continuous and batch unit operations.
    (d) Controlled emissions from condensers. For a condenser used as 
control, you may calculate controlled emissions from the condenser 
using the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 
section to demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction 
emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch process operations, 
including batch process operations in combined streams of continuous 
and batch unit operations.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, you 
must determine controlled emissions from the condenser using 
calculations for each batch emission episode within each unit operation 
according to the emission estimation techniques described in Section 3 
of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
65.265). You must use the temperature and regulated material partial 
pressures that are determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 
conditions of the condenser. Chemical property data can be obtained 
from standard reference texts.
    (2) For heating and depressurization episodes, you must determine 
controlled emissions from the condenser using the procedures, as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must determine the average molecular weight of regulated 
material in vapor exiting the receiver using Equation 14 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.147

Where:

MWRM = Average molecular weight of regulated material in 
vapor exiting the receiver.
(Pi)T1 = Partial pressure of each regulated 
material in the vessel headspace at initial temperature of the 
receiver.
(Pi)T2 = Partial pressure of each regulated 
material in the vessel headspace at final temperature of the 
receiver.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual regulated 
material.
n = Number of regulated material compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a regulated material compound.


[[Page 18037]]


    (ii) You must determine the number of moles of non-condensable gas 
displaced from the vessel using Equation 15 of this section for heating 
episodes; and Equation 16 of this section for depressurization 
episodes, as applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.148

Where:

[Delta][eta] = Number of moles of non-condensable gas displaced from 
the vessel being heated or depressurized.
V = Volume of free space in the vessel being heated or 
depressurized.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
Pnc1 = Initial partial pressure of the non-condensable 
gas in the headspace of the vessel being heated or depressurized.
Pnc2 = Final partial pressure of the non-condensable gas 
in the headspace of the vessel being heated or depressurized.
T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel contents being 
heated.
T2 = Final temperature of the vessel contents being 
heated.
T = Exit temperature of the receiver.

    (iii) You must determine the mass of regulated material emitted 
from the receiver due to the vessel being heated or depressurized using 
Equation 17 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.149

Where:

E = Mass of regulated material emitted from the receiver due to the 
vessel being heated or depressurized.
[Delta][eta] = The number of moles of non-condensable displaced from 
the vessel being heated or depressurized, as calculated for heating 
episodes using Equation 15 of this section; or as calculated for 
depressurization episodes using Equation 16 of this section.
PT = Pressure in the receiver.
Pi = Partial pressure of each individual regulated 
material determined at the temperature of the receiver.
Pj = Partial pressure of each individual condensable 
(including regulated material) determined at the temperature of the 
receiver.
n = Number of regulated material compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a regulated material compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
MWRM = Average molecular weight of regulated material in 
vapor exiting the receiver, as calculated using Equation 14 of this 
section.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including regulated material) 
in the emission stream.

    (3) You must conduct an engineering assessment, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for each emission episode that is not 
described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  65.265).
    (4) You may elect to conduct an engineering assessment, as 
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator that the methods described in paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) of 
this section are not appropriate.
    (e) Modified emission estimation technique. Instead of calculating 
uncontrolled emissions, as specified in Sec.  65.835(b)(1) of this 
section, or instead of calculating controlled emissions from a 
condenser used as a control device, as specified in Sec.  65.835(d)(1) 
and (2) of this section, you may conduct an engineering assessment, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if you can demonstrate 
to the Administrator that the emission estimation techniques in Section 
3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  65.265) are not appropriate. The engineering assessment can 
result in modified versions of the emission estimation techniques 
described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  65.265) if you demonstrate that they have been 
used to meet other regulatory obligations, and they do not affect 
applicability assessments or compliance determinations under the 
referencing subpart. One criterion you could use to demonstrate that 
the emission estimation techniques described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP 
Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  65.265) are 
not appropriate is if previous test data are available that show a 
greater than 20- percent discrepancy between the test value and the 
estimated value.

Design Evaluation


Sec.  65.850  How do I demonstrate compliance through design 
evaluation?

    (a) For each non-flare control device for which a design 
evaluation, as allowed by the referencing subpart, is used as an 
alternative to a performance test, as specified in Sec.  65.702(e)(1), 
you must conduct the design evaluation according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
    (b) You must prepare a design evaluation, as specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section. Also, unless you are using a CEMS to monitor the 
emissions to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of the 
referencing subpart, you must prepare a monitoring description, as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The design

[[Page 18038]]

evaluation and monitoring description must be submitted with the 
Notification of Compliance Status Report, as specified in Sec.  
65.880(c). You must comply with Sec.  63.711 for all CEMS.
    (c) The design evaluation must include documentation demonstrating 
that the control device being used achieves the required emission limit 
of a referencing subpart. You must identify in the design evaluation, 
each emission point routed to the control device and the applicable 
emission limit. The design evaluation must also address the composition 
of the vent stream entering the control device, including flow and 
regulated material concentration, and the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section and Sec.  65.724(d) for 
boilers and process heaters, Sec.  65.726(c) for thermal oxidizers, 
Sec.  65.728(c) for catalytic oxidizers, Sec.  65.740(c) for absorbers, 
Sec.  65.742(d) for adsorbers regenerated onsite, Sec.  65.744(c) for 
non-regenerative adsorbers, Sec.  65.746(c) for condensers, Sec.  
65.748(d) for biofilters, Sec.  65.760(d) for sorbent injection and 
Sec.  65.762(c) for fabric filters, as applicable.
    (1) For storage vessels, the design evaluation must include 
documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves 
the required control efficiency during reasonably expected maximum 
filling rate.
    (2) For transfer racks, the design evaluation must demonstrate that 
the control device achieves the required control efficiency during the 
reasonably expected maximum transfer loading rate.
    (3) For a non-flare control device used to control emissions from 
batch process operations, establish emission profiles and conduct the 
evaluation under worst-case conditions, as determined, pursuant to 
Sec.  65.822.
    (4) If the vent stream is not the only inlet to the control device, 
the efficiency demonstration also must consider all other vapors, gases 
and liquids other than fuels received by the control device.
    (d) The monitoring description must include the information 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section to identify the 
operating parameters that you will monitor to assure proper operation 
of the control device such that the control device is meeting the 
specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
    (1) A description of the operating parameter or parameters to be 
monitored, an explanation of the criteria used for selection of that 
parameter (or parameters) and when the monitoring will be performed 
(e.g., when the liquid level in the storage vessel is being raised). If 
continuous records are specified, indicate whether the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  65.712 and 65.713 apply.
    (2) The operating limit, monitoring frequency (e.g., every 15 
minutes), and averaging time for each operating parameter identified in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The specified operating limit must 
represent the conditions for which the control device is being properly 
operated and maintained such that the control device is meeting the 
specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
    (e) You must operate and maintain the non-flare control device so 
that the monitored operating parameters, as determined in paragraph (d) 
of this section, remain within the operating limits specified in the 
Notification of Compliance Status whenever emissions of regulated 
material are routed to the control device.

Recordkeeping


Sec.  65.855  How do I calculate monitoring data averages?

    (a) Data averages for compliance. You must calculate monitoring 
data averages, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this 
section, daily average values of continuously monitored emissions and 
operating parameters must be calculated for each operating day using 
all continuously monitored data, except the data specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section must be excluded from the average. The operating 
day must be the period defined in the operating permit or in the 
Notification of Compliance Status.
    (2) For batch process operations and as an alternative to the 
requirement for daily averages in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you 
may determine averages for operating blocks while excluding the data 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) If all values of a monitored operating parameter, during an 
operating day or operating block, are below the operating limit 
established, pursuant to Sec.  65.713, you do not have to calculate the 
daily average for the operating parameter. In such cases, you may not 
discard the recorded values, as allowed in Sec.  65.860(a)(2).
    (4) If all values of monitored continuous emissions, during an 
operating day or operating block, reduced, as specified in Sec.  
65.711(j), are below the emission limit specified in the referencing 
subpart, you do not have to calculate the daily or block average of the 
emissions. In such cases, you may not discard the recorded values, as 
allowed in Sec.  65.860(a)(2).
    (b) Excluded data. In computing averages to determine compliance, 
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must exclude 
monitoring data recorded during periods identified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
    (2) Periods of no flow to a control device, as recorded, pursuant 
to paragraph Sec.  65.860(i).
    (3) Any monitoring data recorded during CEMS or CPMS system 
breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, 
instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, 
calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable) and 
high-level adjustments.
    (c) Data averages for recording. For the purposes of recording and 
in addition to the averages specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 
you may calculate hourly averages of continuous parameter monitoring 
and continuous emissions data from all measured values or, if measured 
more frequently than once per minute, from at least one measured value 
per minute. The hourly averages may include values of excluded periods, 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The hourly averages may 
be retained as an alternative to retaining records of all measured 
values if the provisions of Sec.  65.860(a)(2) are met.


Sec.  65.860  What records must I keep?

    (a) Continuous monitoring data records. You must maintain records, 
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you 
must maintain a record of each measured value measured at least once 
every 15 minutes.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or in 
Sec.  65.855(a)(4) through (6), you may calculate and record block 
hourly average values calculated, as specified in Sec.  65.855(c) and 
discard all but the most recent 3 hours of continuous (15-minute or 
shorter) records that do not include deviations that are specified in 
Sec.  65.710(e). If you select this method for retaining monitoring 
data, you must also meet the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) You must retain a file that contains a hard copy of the data 
acquisition

[[Page 18039]]

system algorithm used to reduce the measured data into the reportable 
form of the standard and calculate the hourly averages.
    (ii) The 1-hour averages may include measurements taken during 
periods of CEMS or CPMS system breakdowns, out-of-control periods, 
repairs, maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to 
maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-
level), mid-level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments. However, 
you must not include these periods for any average computed to 
determine compliance, as specified in Sec.  65.855(a).
    (iii) A record must be maintained stating whether the calculated 1-
hour averages include, or do not include, measurements taken during 
periods of CEMS or CPMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, 
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain 
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
    (3) The Administrator, upon notification to you, may require you to 
maintain all measurements, as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, if the Administrator determines these records are required to 
more accurately assess the compliance status of the regulated source.
    (4) You must keep records of all applicable daily and operating 
block averages, as calculated, pursuant to Sec.  65.855(a).
    (5) You must keep records of periods of operation during which the 
daily average of monitored operating parameters, calculated as 
specified in Sec.  65.855(a), is outside the operating limits 
established, pursuant to Sec.  65.713.
    (6) You must keep records of periods of operation during which the 
daily average of continuous emissions, calculated as specified in Sec.  
65.855(a), is above the emission standard specified in the referencing 
subpart.
    (b) Non-continuous monitoring records. You must keep up-to-date and 
readily accessible records, as specified in Sec.  65.728(f) for 
catalytic oxidizers, Sec.  65.742(j) for adsorbers regenerated onsite, 
Sec.  65.744(k) for non-regenerative adsorbers, Sec.  65.746(e) for 
condensers, Sec.  65.760(g) for sorbent injection and Sec.  65.762(e) 
for fabric filters.
    (c) Performance test records. For each performance test conducted, 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, and for any prior 
performance test that is accepted in place of a performance test 
conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  65.820 through 65.829, you must keep 
readily accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section, as applicable, recorded over the full 
period of the performance test, as well as averages calculated over the 
full period of the performance test.
    (1) The records specified in Sec.  65.724(e) for boilers and 
process heaters, Sec.  65.726(d) for thermal oxidizers, Sec.  65.728(d) 
for catalytic oxidizers, Sec.  65.740(d) for absorbers, Sec.  65.742(h) 
for adsorbers regenerated onsite, Sec.  65.744(d) for non-regenerative 
adsorbers, Sec.  65.746(e) for condensers, Sec.  65.748(e) for 
biofilters, Sec.  65.760(e) for sorbent injection, Sec.  65.762(d) for 
fabric filters and Sec.  65.800(c) for other control devices.
    (2) The concentration of regulated material or total organic 
compounds (ppmv, by compound), as applicable, at the outlet of the 
control device, as specified in Sec.  65.826; or the percent reduction 
of regulated material or total organic compounds, as applicable, 
achieved by the control device, as specified in Sec.  65.828.
    (3) You must retain copies of the performance test reports during 
the period that the performance tests are applicable to the operating 
limits being complied with and 5 years after the time they become 
obsolete. A complete test report must include the items listed in 
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (xvii) of this section. A performance test 
is ``completed'' when field sample collection is terminated.
    (i) The purpose of the test.
    (ii) A brief process description.
    (iii) A complete unit description, including a description of feed 
streams and control devices.
    (iv) Sampling site description.
    (v) Pollutants measured.
    (vi) Description of sampling and analysis procedures and any 
modifications to standard procedures.
    (vii) Quality assurance procedures.
    (viii) Record of operating conditions during the test, including 
the records required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (ix) Record of preparation of standards.
    (x) Record of calibrations.
    (xi) Raw data sheets for field sampling.
    (xii) Raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses.
    (xiii) Chain-of-custody documentation.
    (xiv) Explanation of laboratory data qualifiers.
    (xv) Example calculations of all applicable stack gas parameters, 
emission rates, percent reduction rates and analytical results, as 
applicable.
    (xvi) Any other information required by the test method or the 
Administrator.
    (xvii) Any additional information necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (d) CMS records. You must maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan and the 
CPMS monitoring plan, as applicable, developed and implemented, as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  65.711 and 65.712, respectively.
    (2) Results of all CEMS evaluations, as specified in the CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan and, as specified in Sec.  
65.711, including the information listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Raw CEMS evaluation measurements.
    (ii) All measurements necessary to determine the conditions of the 
CEMS evaluation.
    (iii) Raw performance testing measurements associated with relative 
accuracy tests and audits.
    (iv) Cylinder gas certifications.
    (v) Information specified to be recorded in the applicable 
performance specification.
    (3) Records of all calibrations, certifications, audits, 
adjustments and other quality control procedures required in the CEMS 
performance evaluation and monitoring plan or CPMS monitoring plan.
    (4) If you use more than one CEMS to measure the regulated 
materials from one emissions unit (e.g., multiple breechings, multiple 
outlets), you must maintain records for both CEMS. However, if you use 
one CEMS as a backup to another CEMS, you must maintain records for the 
CEMS used to meet the monitoring requirements of this part.
    (e) General process records. You must maintain records of the 
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) A description of the process and the type of process equipment 
used, including a description of storage vessels, wastewater, transfer 
operations or heat exchangers that are subject to this subpart.
    (2) An identification of related vent streams, including, for batch 
operations, their associated emissions episodes.
    (3) The applicable control requirements of this subpart, including 
the level of required control for each emission point.
    (4) The control device(s) and/or methods used on each regulated 
emission point to meet the emission standard, including a description 
of the operating conditions of the control device.

[[Page 18040]]

    (5) Combined emissions that are routed to the same control device.
    (6) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and the 
operating limit(s) that apply for each emission point routed to the 
control device.
    (7) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate 
compliance.
    (8) Actual total monthly process operating time.
    (f) Batch process records. You must keep records for batch process 
operations, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) You must keep a schedule or log of operating scenarios, updated 
each time you put a different operating scenario into effect. You must 
maintain records in your daily schedule or log of processes indicating 
each point at which an emission episode with a different operating 
limit begins and ends, even if the duration of the emission episode and 
the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
    (2) For each operating scenario, you must record a justification 
demonstrating that the operating limit selected for the operating 
scenario (or operating limits selected for the individual emission 
episodes of the operating scenario) will not result in emissions in 
excess of the emissions standards. All calculations and engineering 
analyses performed to develop the operating limits must be included in 
the records. For the purposes of this paragraph, a revised operating 
scenario for an existing proc