Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR): Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 28, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 208)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57747-57796]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28oc98-37]

[[Page 57747]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, and 65

Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR): Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule

[[Page 57748]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, and 65

[AD-FRL-6173-4]
RIN 2060-AG28

Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR): Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes a consolidated Federal air rule for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI). This
proposed rule consolidates major portions of the following new source
performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to storage vessels,
process vents, transfer operations, and equipment leaks within the
SOCMI: 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR;
40 CFR part 61, subparts A, V, Y, and BB; and 40 CFR part 63, subparts
A, F, G, and H. The proposed rule is intended to pull together
applicable Federal SOCMI rules into one integrated set of rules in
order to simplify, clarify, and improve implementation of the existing
rules with which source owners or operators must comply. The
consolidated rule is an optional compliance alternative for SOCMI
sources; sources may simply continue to comply with existing applicable
rules or choose to comply with the proposed consolidated rule. The
effect of this consolidation will be to improve understandability,
reduce burden, clarify requirements, and improve implementation and
compliance.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 11,
1999.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed SOCMI CAR. If anyone
contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by November 27,
1998, a public hearing will be held on December 14, 1998, beginning at
9:30 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should notify
Yvonne Chandler, (919) 541-5627, to verify that a hearing will occur.
If a hearing is held, the docket will remain open for 30 days after the
hearing for the submission of rebuttal or supplementary information as
provided by section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act (Act).
Request to Speak at a Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact Yvonne Chandler, Emission Standards Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5627 by November 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), Attention, Docket No. A-96-01, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460. The EPA requests that
a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Comments on the proposal may also be submitted electronically by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number (A-96-01). No Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Docket. A docket, No. A-96-01, containing information considered by
EPA in development of the proposed standards for the CAR, is available
for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday except for Federal holidays at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460
[phone: (202) 260-7548]. The docket is located at the above address in
Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5262, fax number
(919) 541-0942, or e-mail: colyer.rick@epamail.epa.gov.
Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
is a network of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. The service is free except for the cost of a phone call. Dial
(919) 541-5472 for modems up to 14,400 bits per second (bps). The TTN
is also accessible through the Internet at ``http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov.'' If more information on the TTN is needed, call
the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to aid in
reading the preamble to the proposed SOCMI CAR.

I. Regulated Entities and Background Information
A. Regulated Entities
B. Background Information
II. Considerations in Rule Development
A. Goals and Objectives
B. Participation
III. Summary of the CAR
A. Scope
B. Overview of the CAR
IV. How the CAR Works and Its Structure
A. How the CAR Works
B. Structure of the CAR
V. Amendments to the Referencing Subparts
A. General Concepts
B. Description of Amendments
VI. Summary of the Proposed Rule and Significant Decisions in Rule
Consolidation
A. Basis for the CAR (Optional Implementation)
B. General Provisions
C. Storage Vessel Provisions
D. Process Vent Provisions
E. Transfer Rack Provisions
F. Equipment Leak Provisions
G. Closed-Vent Systems, Control Devices, and Routing to a Fuel
Gas System or a Process
H. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
VII. Delegation of the CAR to State Authorities
A. Approval of the CAR as an Alternative Compliance Approach
B. Policy on Delegation of the CAR
VIII. Incorporating CAR Requirements into the Title V Permit
IX. Extension of the Consolidation to Include the State
Implementation Plan
A. Pre-Approval of the CAR as Meeting the Clean Air Act
Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirement
B. EPA Approval of the CAR as an Alternative Compliance Measure
for the State Implementation Plan
C. Expedited State Implementation Plan Approvals for
Incorporation of the CAR as a Reasonably Available Control
Technology Compliance Option
D. Streamlining of Overlapping State Implementation Plan, New
Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standard
Hazardous Air Pollutants Requirements in the Title V Permitting
Process
X. Summary of Benefits and Other Impacts
XI. Additional Amendments to Equipment Leak Referencing Subparts
A. Closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices

[[Page 57749]]

B. Sampling Connection Systems
C. Standards for Control Devices and Recovery Systems
D. Safety Considerations
XII. Solicitation of Specific Comments
XIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 12866
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
H. Clean Air Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13045
K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments

I. Regulated Entities and Background Information

A. Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry units. For
example, producers of benzene,
toluene, or any other chemical
listed in table 1 of 40 CFR part
63, subpart F, and any other
chemical manufacturing process unit
identified in an applicable subpart
that references the use of this
part.
Producers of polypropylene,
polyethylene, polystyrene, or
poly(ethylene terephthalate).
Producers of vinyl chloride and
polyvinyl chloride.
Volatile organic compound storage
vessels.
Benzene storage vessels.
Benzene transfer operations.
Equipment (valves, pumps,
connectors, etc.) in benzene
service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather, to provide
a guide for entities likely to qualify to implement this action. This
table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially qualify to implement this action. To determine whether your
facility will qualify to implement this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 60 subparts Ka, Kb,
VV, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR; 40 CFR part 61, subparts V, Y, and BB; and
40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Background Information

Over the past 25 years, EPA has issued a series of Federal air
regulations, many of which affect the same plant site. As a result,
many facilities are now subject to multiple Federal rules applying to
different emission points. Each rule has its own emission control
requirements as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Although these rules were developed for different
purposes, under different statutory authorities, and apply to different
pollutants, they may impose many duplicative or near duplicative
requirements on a plant site, thus complicating implementation of and
compliance with these rules.
On March 16, 1995 President Clinton and Vice President Gore
announced several initiatives aimed at reinventing environmental
regulation. One of those initiatives was to consolidate Federal air
rules, so that all Federal air rules for any single industry would be
incorporated into a single rule. This rule would consist of ``* * * one
set of emission limitations, monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.''
The EPA selected the Federal air rules applying to the SOCMI for a
pilot project to study the feasibility and practical implications of
consolidating and streamlining existing rules, and to establish a
workable process for consolidation that can then be applied to other
consolidation efforts in the future. The SOCMI was selected as the
pilot because of the large number of similar Federal air regulations
that can apply at a single location. The SOCMI is subject to NSPS and
NESHAP under the Act, as well as to Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) air standards. The rules for a given type of emission point
require application of controls with similar control efficiencies and
include similar design, equipment, or operating standards. However, the
standards differ in their applicability and in some of their control,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Additionally,
both the SOCMI and State air pollution control agencies have expressed
great interest in consolidation of applicable Federal air requirements
to the extent possible for easier incorporation into title V operating
permits.
For these reasons, EPA believes that consolidation of the
requirements of the various rules into one rule would greatly benefit
both the industry and government enforcement agencies. It is believed
that such consolidation would improve compliance and enforceability and
reduce resource needs.

II. Considerations in Rule Development

A. Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives were established for developing
this proposed consolidation:
(1) Reduce regulatory burden by consolidating and simplifying
requirements and eliminating duplicative requirements.
(2) Facilitate implementation and compliance by making the
requirements easier to understand and incorporating streamlined
compliance approaches from the most recent rules.
(3) Consolidate the present system of Federal air rules that apply
to SOCMI facilities into a single rule without compromising
environmental protection and enforceability by maintaining the same
applicability and the same or greater emission control levels as the
underlying rules.
It is not EPA's intent to alter the applicability of the underlying
rules. Thus, only sources already subject to an underlying rule would
be affected by the CAR. Likewise, no source subject to an underlying
rule would become exempt under the CAR. In addition, regardless of
which eligible sources choose to comply with the CAR, implementation of
the CAR will not result in greater emissions. Rather, greater emission
reductions would be likely since all sources choosing to comply with
the CAR would be raised to the same level of control. It is anticipated
that, due to the burden reduction afforded by the CAR, sources will
choose to comply with the CAR despite potential increases in stringency
over some provisions in the underlying rules.
As a basis for the consolidation effort, EPA recognized that
strategies and approaches to regulating specific types of emission
points, such as storage tanks or equipment leaks, have evolved and
improved over the 25 years of SOCMI rule development. For the most
part, the referencing subparts have not been substantially revised
since promulgation, other than administrative changes. In developing
the CAR, EPA has focused on provisions that reflect the most current
and effective approaches to emission control as well as the clearest
and most concise language. Burden reduction was also a major theme in
the consolidation process, and each provision was examined closely for
potential burden reduction. Particular scrutiny was given to provisions
dealing with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Moreover,

[[Page 57750]]

reducing the number of applicable rules, in and of itself, is a source
of additional burden reduction. The EPA believes that creation of a
consolidated air rule around these goals and objectives will lead to
improved compliance and implementation for the SOCMI industry.

B. Participation

The EPA's strategy for consolidation included significant
participation by affected parties outside the Agency. The EPA
approached the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), which
represents the SOCMI, to discuss the concept of a consolidated SOCMI
rule and to contribute ideas for establishing such a rule. The CMA
readily supported the concept of consolidation and volunteered
resources to assist in the project. Air pollution agencies in States
where the majority of SOCMI facilities are located and national
environmental groups were also invited. Some States and environmental
groups declined direct involvement due to resource constraints and also
due to the fact that the applicability of the underlying rules would
not change, and the overall stringency of the underlying rules would
not be diminished.
In addition, an extended group of other interested parties
consisting of representatives from industries with similar emissions
and emission points as the SOCMI, environmental groups, and State
agencies was kept informed through correspondence and meetings. This
extended group was briefed and asked to provide input periodically
during development of the proposed CAR. Industries and organizations
represented in this group would not necessarily be affected by the CAR
but are interested in the outcome to determine whether a similar
consolidation effort would be beneficial for their interests. This
group includes the following interested parties:
<bullet> State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(STAPPA/ALAPCO) and other State air pollution agencies.
<bullet> Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association.
<bullet> Natural Resources Defense Council.
<bullet> American Petroleum Institute.
<bullet> Independent Liquid Terminals Association.
<bullet> National Petroleum Refiners Association.
<bullet> Society of Plastics Institute.

No groups have been purposely excluded from the process, and comment on
this proposal is welcome from any interested party.
The EPA convened meetings with affected parties on an as-needed
basis--roughly once every one to two months. At the earlier meetings,
goals, objectives, and basic principles of consolidation were
formulated. Subsequent meetings addressed technical issues, comparisons
of similar provisions, enforcement issues, and identification of burden
reduction opportunities. Ultimately, the work group provided well
balanced and informed input for EPA to develop a technically feasible
and enforceable consolidated rule.

III. Summary of the CAR

This section of the preamble provides a general overview of the
CAR. More detailed discussions and rationale for the CAR's provisions
are included in sections IV, V, and VI of this preamble.

A. Scope

One of the first decisions required for the consolidation effort
addressed which regulations would be consolidated. Many options were
considered, but EPA eventually decided to limit the scope of the pilot
SOCMI CAR to the Federal regulations listed in table 1. These are the
Federal Clean Air Act rules that affect the SOCMI and that are
consolidated in the CAR. The EPA determined that this scope was broad
enough to provide significant benefits, but well defined enough to
ensure a reasonable chance of success as a pilot project.

Table 1.--Scope: Rules Consolidated in the SOCMI CAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 60, subparts:
A: General Provisions
Ka: Petroleum Liquids Storage a
Kb: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage a
VV: SOCMI Equipment Leaks a
DDD: Certain Polymers and Resins Process vents a
III: SOCMI Air Oxidation Process Vents a
NNN: SOCMI Distillation Process Vents a
RRR: SOCMI Reactor Process Vents a
40 CFR part 61, subparts:
A: General Provisions
V: Equipment Leaks (for benzene and vinyl chloride) a
Y: Benzene Storage a
BB: Benzene Transfer a
40 CFR part 63, subparts:
A: General Provisions
F: SOCMI Applicability
G: SOCMI Storage, Transfer, and Process Vents a
H: SOCMI Equipment Leaksa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These subparts contain proposed language that refers readers to the
SOCMI CAR as an optional means of compliance. Thus, these subparts are
referred to as ``referencing subparts.''

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry rules under other
authorities (for example, RCRA), proposed rules, and rules potentially
subject to significant changes (for example, wastewater hazardous
organic NESHAP) were not included in this pilot effort. The EPA's
intent was to keep the rule development process manageable in order to
develop a practical CAR in a reasonable amount of time. If the SOCMI
CAR is widely perceived as useful to industry and to enforcement
agencies, EPA will consider these other SOCMI rules for consolidation
at a later date.
The EPA also considered the following rules for similar inclusion:
40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG for petroleum refinery equipment leaks and
KKK for onshore natural gas processing equipment leaks, and 40 CFR part
63, subpart I for certain processes subject to the negotiated
regulation for equipment leaks. Although these rules do refer subject
sources to the CAR's referencing subparts, they do not cover SOCMI
sources. Therefore, EPA decided not to allow sources subject to these
rules to comply with the CAR. This decision reflects EPA's decision to
limit the coverage of the CAR to better assess the effects,
enforcement, and implementation of the consolidation.
The vast majority of facilities affected by the rules in table 1
are SOCMI facilities; but some rules also affect non-SOCMI sources. For
example, 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ka and Kb apply to storage vessels
within SOCMI process units as well as those in non-SOCMI applications
such as refineries and bulk storage facilities. Subpart DDD of 40 CFR
part 60 (for certain polymers and resins production process vents) was
included in the consolidation because these production units are often
located at the same facilities as SOCMI units. The process vents for
these production units are often shared, and the control methods and
requirements are virtually identical. The consolidated part 61 subparts
for equipment leaks and for benzene storage and transfer also apply to
both SOCMI and non-SOCMI facilities. The consolidated part 63 rules
apply solely to SOCMI facilities. The CAR is designed primarily for
SOCMI processes, although co-located non-SOCMI sources might also take
advantage of the CAR under certain circumstances. Section III of this
preamble includes further discussion of which sources may choose to
comply with the CAR.
The EPA is also proposing consolidated general provisions for the
CAR by combining applicable requirements from the 40 CFR parts 60,

[[Page 57751]]

61, and 63 general provisions. These consolidated general provisions
would become applicable once a source becomes subject to the CAR.
General provisions are included in the consolidation so that the CAR
will contain all relevant provisions, with certain noted exceptions,
for sources complying with the CAR.

B. Overview of the CAR

The CAR is being proposed as a new part, 40 CFR part 65, since the
rules being consolidated are located across three different parts of 40
CFR (parts 60, 61, and 63). The proposed CAR comprises subparts A
through G of part 65. Part 65 will contain any future consolidated
Federal air rules, as well.
The CAR is proposed as an optional compliance method for sources
that are subject to one of the referencing subparts. The term
``referencing subpart(s)'' is used throughout 40 CFR part 65 and refers
to the SOCMI regulations subject to the footnote in table 1. The CAR is
designed to include all or most of the applicable provisions for a
source that chooses to use the CAR as a compliance method. Sources that
are not eligible or that choose not to comply with the CAR will
continue to comply with the applicable referencing subparts with no
change in compliance requirements.
Compliance with the CAR is allowed on a SOCMI CAR unit (SCU) basis.
An SCU is analogous to the types of process units defined in the
referencing subparts, and was developed specifically to describe the
collection of equipment and emission points that are eligible to choose
the CAR as a compliance method. The term ``SOCMI CAR unit'' is defined
in the proposed part 65 general provisions (Subpart A) and is further
described in section IV. A of this preamble. Under certain conditions,
emission points that are not part of an SCU, but are subject to one of
the referencing subparts, may also choose to comply with the CAR. These
conditions are further described in section IV.A.
Applicability
The CAR does not alter applicability for any source. Sources may
choose to comply with the CAR only when they are sources subject to a
referencing subpart and specifically referred to the CAR by that
subpart. Conversely, emission points or equipment that are not subject
to any referencing subparts can not become subject through any
provision in the CAR.
Along with the proposed CAR, today's notice proposes changes to the
referencing subparts. These proposed changes add ``pointers'' to the
CAR in each referencing subpart. The pointers are additions to the
applicability sections that specify which sources may take advantage of
the CAR and which subparts of part 65 would apply to each type of
emission point.
New sources that become subject to a referencing subpart will
consult the applicability provisions of that referencing subpart to
determine eligibility to comply with the CAR. If a new source is part
of an SCU that is implementing the CAR, the new source must also
implement the CAR, or the entire SCU (existing and new components) must
opt not to implement the CAR and comply with the applicable referencing
subpart(s) instead. Further discussion of SCUs and options for choosing
to comply with the CAR is presented in section IV.A of this preamble.
Subparts of the CAR
Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the CAR subparts. Subpart A
contains the CAR's general provisions, which apply to all sources
complying with the CAR. The general provisions cover applicability and
definitions; the general requirements for compliance, performance
tests, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; administrative
subjects. Note that some general requirements pertaining to Continuous
Parameter Monitoring Systems (CPMS) are located in subpart G of the
CAR.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 57752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC98.000

BILLING CODE: 6560-50-C

[[Page 57753]]

Each of subparts C through F outlines the compliance options for a
particular type of emission point. (Subpart B is reserved.)
<bullet> Subpart C--storage vessels,
<bullet> Subpart D--process vents,
<bullet> Subpart E--transfer racks, and
<bullet> Subpart F--equipment leaks.

Subparts C through F also contain the emission control requirements for
some of these compliance options, and the associated compliance,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specific to those
control options. However, if an owner or operator chooses to comply by
either (1) a closed-vent system and add-on control device, or (2)
routing to a fuel gas system or to a process as a compliance option,
the source is further referred to subpart G. Subpart G contains the
emission control requirements for closed-vent systems, control devices,
and routing to a fuel gas system or process, including the associated
testing, monitoring, data handling, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and general requirements related to CPMS.

IV. How the CAR Works and Its Structure

The CAR is an optional compliance method for sources subject to the
referencing subparts listed in table 1 of this preamble. The CAR is
designed so that, once an owner or operator has chosen to comply with
the CAR for a particular source, most of the relevant provisions for
that source are contained in part 65. Compliance with the CAR is
allowed for the collection of equipment that meets the definition of an
SCU. In addition, sources that are not part of an SCU may also choose
to comply with the CAR if they are (1) subject to one of the
referencing subparts, and (2) located at the same plant site with an
SCU that is complying with the CAR. Therefore, an owner or operator of
a SOCMI facility may choose to comply with the CAR for all or some of
the regulated sources subject to the referencing subparts at the
facility.
This section of the preamble describes who can use the CAR, what
part of a facility can comply with the CAR, and how the parts of the
facility that can comply with the CAR are delineated. The rationale for
these decisions is also explained.

A. How the CAR Works

Figures 2a and 2b present a thought process that might typically be
used by an owner or operator when determining whether the CAR is right
for their facility. This section of the preamble steps through these
figures and each of their decision points. In doing so, how the CAR
works and the rationale behind the CAR and it's facets are described.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 57754]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC98.001

[[Page 57755]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC98.002

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 57756]]

What Is SOCMI?
As shown in figures 2a and 2b, once an owner or operator decides
that the CAR may be of interest (i.e., they are subject to some
referencing subparts and are wondering what the next step is), the
first consideration would be whether or not the facility is a SOCMI
facility. As discussed previously, the CAR only applies to SOCMI
facilities. In the CAR, a SOCMI facility is considered any facility
that is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart III, NNN, or RRR or the HON;
or a facility that would have been subject to subpart III, NNN, or RRR
had construction of the regulated source commenced after the
applicability date of one of these rules.
In determining what should constitute a SOCMI facility in the CAR,
EPA decided that a SOCMI facility should be any facility that considers
itself part of that industry. The EPA reasoned that a facility would
consider itself a SOCMI facility if it was subject to any of the SOCMI
rules. The SOCMI rules are: 40 CFR part 60, subparts III, NNN, RRR, and
VV (the NSPS), and 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and H [the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON)]. Defining a SOCMI facility as any facility that
is subject to one of these rules is a simple matter. However, EPA also
reasoned that some facilities may not have triggered a SOCMI NSPS or
the HON but would consider themselves SOCMI because of the chemicals
they produce. For example, crotonic acid is a chemical that is
regulated as part of the SOCMI under 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV, III,
and NNN, but not regulated as part of the SOCMI under the HON. Thus, a
facility producing crotonic acid may not trigger the NSPS rules, but
still would consider itself part of the SOCMI because it produces a
SOCMI chemical. Therefore, EPA also considered facilities to be SOCMI
facilities if they could trigger a SOCMI NSPS with a modification or
reconstruction. The EPA considered this a reasonable decision since
many non-SOCMI facilities could easily make a change that would trigger
a SOCMI NSPS. The EPA decided that this concept would best be
represented in the SOCMI definition based upon the construction date of
the facility. This concept is handled in the definition with the
following phrase: ``* * * if construction of the regulated source had
commenced after the applicability date of the SOCMI NSPS.''
What Is a SOCMI CAR Unit?
The basic unit for determining CAR applicability is the SCU. This
new term is needed in order to clearly designate and describe the
particular combination of emission points that are eligible to comply
with the CAR. The definition of SCU is modeled after the definition of
``chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU)'' in the HON. The proposed
CAR defines an SCU as the equipment assembled and connected by pipes or
ducts to process raw materials and to manufacture an intended product.
The definition goes on to explain that the basic component of an SCU
is:
<bullet> A process vent subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart III,
NNN, or RRR (the referencing subparts that are NSPS for SOCMI process
vents); or
<bullet> Equipment subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (the
referencing subpart that is the NSPS for SOCMI equipment leaks);
<bullet> A CMPU that is subject to the SOCMI HON.

Without at least one of these basic components, there is no SCU. The
SCU also includes storage vessels, transfer operations, and equipment
leak emission points that are associated with an SCU and are also
subject to a referencing subpart. The EPA reasoned that in making the
CAR optional and thereby providing more flexibility to industry, they
might increase the complexity of implementing the CAR for regulatory
authorities. This is because inspectors would have to know all of the
referencing subparts and the CAR, and also understand which rule the
facility had chosen to comply with for each emission point. To offset
this potential increase in complexity, EPA decided that facilities
would have the option to comply with the CAR, but must do so at least
on a process unit basis so as to include a significant portion of the
facility.
A process unit is a small enough collection of emission points and
equipment to provide operational flexibility to the facility, but is a
large enough collection to avoid confusion and undue burden for
regulatory authorities. Furthermore, SOCMI facilities are typically
managed on a process unit basis. Therefore, identifying process units
and complying with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements by process unit would be consistent with existing
management activities. However, since the term ``process unit'' has
many different meanings and connotations across the referencing
subparts, EPA decided it would be better to define a new term for the
CAR--SCU was chosen.
Assigning Equipment to a SOCMI CAR Unit
All storage vessels, process vents, or transfer racks connected to
or operating with an SCU are not necessarily part of that SCU. Whether
or not particular emission points or equipment are part of an SCU is
determined by the assignment procedures prescribed in the proposed CAR
general provisions. Assignment procedures are prescribed for emission
points that are commonly shared between SCUs; these include storage
vessels, transfer racks, and distillation columns which have process
vents. In general, these assignment procedures follow common sense
decisions as to the primary purpose of the equipment. For example, if a
storage tank is dedicated to an SCU, then it is clearly part of that
SCU. Similarly, if the storage vessel is shared among SCUs and other
process units, its predominant use determines its assignment. The
assignment procedures are used to draw the SCU boundary lines at the
plant site. They are modeled after the assignment procedures in the
HON.
An additional HON provision included in the CAR provides
flexibility for equipment leak sources. If items of equipment (for
example, pumps, valves, connectors) that are assigned to a particular
SCU are managed by different administrative organizations from the rest
of the SCU, those items of equipment may be reassigned to a similarly
administered SCU.
Many existing NESHAP also contain assignment procedures for
determining applicability on a process unit basis. Under the CAR,
therefore, for SCUs that are also one of the following types of process
units, the boundary or defined limit of the SCU defaults to that
established for the following types of process units:
<bullet> CMPU as defined in the HON,
<bullet> Elastomer product process unit (EPPU) as defined in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart U;
<bullet> Thermoplastic product process unit (TPPU) as defined in 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJ;
<bullet> Petroleum refinery product process unit (PRPU) as defined
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.

Transfer operations will still need to be assigned to EPPUs, TPPUs, and
PRPUs using the CAR's assignment procedures, since the rules in which
these process units are defined do not include procedures for assigning
transfer operations to process units.
A CMPU that is subject to the HON is, by definition, an SCU. The
other types of process units noted above (EPPU, TPPU, and PRPU) would
be an SCU only if they include a process vent or equipment that is
subject to one of the SOCMI NSPS referencing subparts (i.e., 40 CFR
part 60, subpart III, NNN,

[[Page 57757]]

RRR, or VV), or that would have been subject to one of these
referencing subparts had construction begun after the SOCMI NSPS
subparts' respective applicability dates.
Opting To Comply With the CAR
As shown on figures 2a and 2b, once the facility determines the SCU
boundaries, the next consideration is whether or not compliance with
the CAR is desirable for any part of the SCU. In making this decision,
the facility must keep in mind that compliance with the CAR is allowed
an SCU basis only. Therefore, if the facility operator decides that
complying with the CAR would be beneficial for any part of the SCU (for
example, the storage vessels), either all regulated sources of the SCU
must comply with the CAR, or all must regulated sources continue to
comply with their respective applicable referencing subpart. Within an
SCU, owners or operators may not choose to comply with the CAR for some
emission points while continuing to comply with the referencing
subparts for other emission points. Furthermore, if a facility operator
has chosen to comply with the CAR for a particular SCU, then all
existing and new regulated sources that are subject to referencing
subparts must comply with the CAR. This includes any future additions
to the SCU or any changes that trigger new source requirements.
In some circumstances, the CAR can apply to non-SOCMI emission
points or equipment. The proposed CAR allows non-SOCMI emission points
that are (1) subject to one of the referencing subparts, and (2)
located at a plant site with an SCU that is complying with the CAR to
also comply with the CAR. For example, a petrochemical plant containing
one or more SCUs would also include a number of non-SOCMI emission
points, such as petroleum or petroleum products storage vessels, or
non-SOCMI benzene transfer racks. These non-SOCMI emission points would
be subject to the same rules being consolidated for the SOCMI industry,
such as 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ka, Kb, or Y, and 40 CFR part 61,
subparts BB and V. Therefore, the source operator would be allowed to
apply the CAR to any or all such affected non-SOCMI emission points,
thus consolidating and simplifying an otherwise complex monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting management system.
The EPA wants to ensure that, if a facility chooses to implement
the CAR, a significant portion of the facility is included. The EPA
intends to encourage the use of the CAR but without causing confusion
concerning applicability. By requiring, at a minimum, an entire SCU to
implement the CAR before non-SOCMI points can opt in, a reasonable
balance is established to allow non-SOCMI points into the CAR. The EPA
decided that, if a facility has made the decision to use the CAR, it
should have the additional benefit of using the CAR for other emission
points or equipment at the facility that are subject to a referencing
subpart. This is a logical decision since control equipment and closed-
vent systems often are shared among emission points or across SCU
boundaries. In addition, EPA reasoned that this decision would
facilitate implementation, because if more emission points are
complying with the CAR at a facility, then fewer regulations will apply
to the site, and fewer differences will exist in compliance, and
recordkeeping and reporting methods used at the site.
Furthermore, since this rule has been developed solely for the
SOCMI, to allow compliance for individual emission points with no SOCMI
sources at the same site would both complicate enforcement and make the
success of the consolidation effort more difficult to assess.
The general provisions of the CAR also allow a facility to cease to
implement the CAR. In such cases, the regulated source becomes subject
to the applicable referencing subparts. These procedures will be
further discussed in section VI.B.

B. Structure of the CAR

Because the CAR would consolidate existing regulations from 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63, a new part 65 was created to contain the
consolidated rule. Part 65 will contain the SOCMI CAR, as well as any
future rule that consolidates Federal air rules for other industries.
The CAR has been developed as a set of subparts containing all the
required elements relevant to a source owner or operator who chooses to
comply with the CAR. Each subpart applies to a specific type of
emission point or aspect of regulation. The general provisions (subpart
A) address the administrative aspects of the regulation (for example,
where to send reports, timing of periodic reports, definitions, how to
request an alternative means of emission limitation), and those
provisions which are widely applicable to all sources (for example,
prohibitions and operation and maintenance requirements). Subpart C
(storage tanks), subpart D (process vents), subpart E (transfer
operations), and subpart F (equipment leaks) contain the compliance
options and all the specific requirements for each of those types of
emission points.
Subpart G contains all the provisions on closed-vent systems and
control devices, including testing, monitoring, data handling,
reporting and recordkeeping, and CPMS provisions. This was created as a
stand alone subpart because provisions in each of the referencing
subparts for closed-vent systems and control devices are very similar.
By consolidating all of these provisions, much overlap, duplication,
and minor changes in monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting will be
eliminated, and the requirements will be standardized.
Much consideration was given to the structure of the CAR. The EPA
assessed the pros and cons of numerous options, but concluded the most
workable approach is a modular CAR. This modular approach is designed
such that once a source operator decides to comply with the CAR, all or
most applicable provisions would be contained in the CAR. The source
operator would not need to refer to the referencing subpart after
applicability is established, unless specifically directed to do so in
the CAR. For example, a process vent subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN (distillation NSPS) would be referred to subpart D of the CAR for
applicable process vent requirements. If controls are required, the
source would subsequently be referred to the CAR subpart G for closed-
vent systems and control devices, and would not need to refer further
to subpart D. Subpart G, for closed-vent systems and control devices,
contains all the provisions needed to comply if a vent is routed to a
control device. As noted in section VI.B of this preamble, sources
complying with the CAR are subject to the CAR's general provisions
(subpart A) and also to a few clearly noted provisions in the general
provisions to the referencing subparts.
The CAR is also structured within each of the subparts to
facilitate function and ease of use. The proposed CAR has been written
with a more ``user-friendly'' approach, and the subparts more clearly
delineate the requirements that would apply to each plant function. For
example, the proposed storage vessel provisions contain distinct
requirements for design, operation, inspection, and repair for each
kind of storage vessel. This is intended to simplify tasks for the
design group or the inspection group at the plant, and to avoid each
group having to search the entire regulation for relevant requirements.
The CAR's structure facilitates the consolidation of all recordkeeping
and reporting activities into one system. Chemical plants subject to
numerous NSPS and

[[Page 57758]]

NESHAP could combine multiple environmental management systems tracking
multiple regulations into a single, simplified compliance effort.

V. Amendments to the Referencing Subparts

Along with the proposed CAR, today's notice also proposes changes
to the referencing subparts. The proposed changes add ``pointers'' in
the applicability sections of each referencing subpart. (The
referencing subparts are indicated in table 1.) The pointers specify
which regulated sources may take advantage of the CAR and which
subparts of 40 CFR part 65 apply to each type of emission point. This
section of the preamble outlines the amendments to the referencing
subparts and how EPA implemented the decisions regarding the CAR in the
referencing subparts.

A. General Concepts

The CAR uses the term ``regulated source'' to refer to whatever
collection of equipment at a stationary source is regulated by a
referencing subpart. For example, for 40 CFR part 60, subpart III, the
regulated source is a process vent from an air oxidation unit; and for
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, the regulated source is defined as
equipment components at a process unit. The term ``regulated source''
is defined in the proposed CAR and is used throughout the CAR to refer
to all of the equipment and emission points that are regulated by the
applicable referencing subparts at a plant site. The term is used
throughout this preamble in the same way.
The CAR does not alter applicability for any regulated source. In
order not to alter the applicability of the referencing subparts, the
pointer paragraphs are placed after the applicability paragraphs of the
referencing subpart. Language such as ``storage vessels subject to this
subpart'' is used in the pointer paragraphs to emphasize that only the
emission points that are subject to the referencing subparts are
eligible to comply with the CAR.
It is important to note that this is also true for equipment
subject to the equipment leak rules. The HON rule covers more equipment
types (for example, agitators) than 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40
CFR part 61, subpart V. It is EPA's intention that facilities choosing
to comply with the CAR in place of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V, but which are not subject to the HON, would comply
with the CAR only for the equipment types subject to the applicable
parts 60 and 61 rules. For example, the CAR's provisions for additional
equipment types covered by the HON (for example, agitators) would not
apply to sources referenced to the CAR from 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV
only. This concept prevents equipment that was not subject to
requirements under a referencing subpart from becoming subject to those
requirements solely due to CAR implementation.
Except for process vents, EPA decided to provide the CAR as a means
of compliance only for emission points where emission reduction is
required by the referencing subparts. The requirements for emission
points where emission reduction is not required vary widely and are
usually associated with establishing the applicability of the
referencing subpart; examples of these requirements include records of
vapor pressure for stored liquids, or records of the type of liquid
transferred. These records are kept to show that any changes made have
not caused an emission point to become subject to emission reduction.
Therefore, with the exception of process vents as discussed below, only
emission points subject to emission reduction under a referencing
subpart are eligible to comply with the CAR. In addition, all efforts
were made to not cross reference back and forth from the CAR to the
referencing subparts; cross referencing would have been necessary to
consolidate the requirements for emission points not subject to
emission reduction.
An exception was made for process vents, however; all process vents
subject to a referencing subpart can use the CAR to comply. This
decision was made because in the process vent rules, the applicability
cutoffs that determine whether emission reduction is required are very
similar. The CAR incorporates the total resource effectiveness (TRE)
index value calculation and other parameters used to determine whether
a process vent must be controlled, monitored, or neither.

B. Description of Amendments

The main pointer paragraph in each referencing subpart specifies
that an owner or operator may choose to comply with the CAR for all of
the emission points that are part of an SCU and that require control
under that subpart. Each main pointer paragraph specifies which
requirements of the referencing subpart are satisfied by the CAR. The
pointer refers to the applicability criteria so that only emission
points subject to emission reduction are eligible to comply with the
CAR, except for the process vent referencing subparts, as discussed
above. The pointer paragraph also specifies the applicable subpart of
the CAR. For example, a referencing subpart applicable to storage
vessels would specify that 40 CFR part 65, subpart C can be used to
comply.
In 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, the language clearly states that
railcars and tank truck loading racks are eligible to use the CAR for
compliance, but marine vessel loading racks are not eligible. The EPA
decided not to include marine vessel loading in the CAR, because, at
the time the scope of the CAR was determined, standards for marine
vessels were not finalized. (Since the CAR scope was set, National
Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart Y, were finalized.) Also, the rules for marine vessel
loading racks are different enough from railcar and tank truck loading
that it was not possible to consolidate these requirements with the
railcar and tank truck requirements.
Also proposed in most of the referencing subparts is a new
paragraph labeled ``Alternative means of compliance--affected source
basis.'' This provision specifies that an owner or operator may choose
to comply with the CAR for emission points subject to emission
reduction under the given referencing subparts that are not part of an
SCU but are located at the same plant site as an SCU that is complying
with the CAR; these are non-SOCMI emission points covered by a
referencing subpart. This paragraph is not necessary for the
referencing subparts that apply solely to the SOCMI (40 CFR part 63,
subparts G and H, 40 CFR part 60, subparts III, NNN, RRR, and VV)
because sources subject to one of these rules are, by definition,
always a part of an SCU.
It should be noted that the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V specify that if an owner or operator chooses to have
equipment at a process unit comply with the CAR for a process unit that
is not in a SCU but that is located at the same plant site as an SCU
complying with the CAR, then all of the equipment within that unit must
comply with the CAR. The EPA decided that all the equipment at a
process unit must comply because it would be too confusing for
implementation if individual equipment was allowed to comply with the
CAR.
The proposed additions to the referencing subparts also specify
that the CAR's general provisions, 40 CFR part 65, subpart A, supersede
most of the provisions in the referencing subparts' general provisions
(i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, 40 CFR part 61, subpart A, and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The provisions of the referencing subparts'
general provisions that are not superseded are listed. These provisions

[[Page 57759]]

pertain to applicability, reconstruction, modification, and pre-startup
activities. It is clarified that provisions which were required to be
met prior to implementing the CAR remain in force. For instance, if a
facility was required under the referencing subparts' general
provisions to conduct a performance test, but the performance test had
not been conducted, the facility would still be required to conduct the
performance test even if it chooses to comply with the CAR. The
facility would also be subject to any enforcement action that would
apply for not meeting the requirements of the rule--the CAR does not
rescind any past obligations.
The proposed amendments also specify that opting to use the CAR is
an ``all or nothing'' decision for the regulated sources contained in
an SCU. They state that the owner or operator must also comply with the
CAR for all emission points that are part of the SCU and that are
subject to any of the referencing subparts. For example, if an owner or
operator of an SCU has storage vessels in that SCU that are subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (the NSPS for Volatile
Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), and that owner or operator decides to
comply with the CAR for those storage vessels instead of subpart Kb,
then all of the equipment, process vents, transfer operations, or
storage vessels that are part of that SCU must comply with the
requirements in the CAR.
Additional amendatory language is added to subpart V of 40 CFR part
61 because certain sources are referred to subpart V from 40 CFR part
61, subparts F and J. Subparts F and J apply to equipment in vinyl
chloride or benzene service, respectively. Therefore, the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 61, subpart V specify that owners or
operators of equipment subject to 40 CFR part 61, subparts F or J also
may choose to comply with the CAR. All of the proposed amendments in 40
CFR part 61, subpart V allowing the choice to comply with the CAR would
also apply to 40 CFR part 61, subparts F and J sources. These
provisions include choosing to comply with the CAR on an SCU basis for
all equipment and emission points at an SCU, and choosing to comply
with the CAR on a regulated source basis for equipment or emission
points at the same plant site as an SCU complying with the CAR.
The EPA is allowing the CAR compliance option for sources subject
to 40 CFR part 61, subparts F and J primarily because these subparts
refer subject sources to part 61, subpart V, and these sources are
often part of SCUs. Non-SOCMI sources subject to subparts F and J can
implement the CAR, but only if there is an SCU on site implementing the
CAR.
In addition to the proposed CAR-related amendments to 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, several other amendments
to these rules are being proposed with today's action. These additional
proposed amendments are not necessary for implementation of the CAR;
rather, they would update the rules to reflect current safety and
clarity improvements for equipment leak rules. Section XI of this
preamble provides details on these proposed amendments.

VI. Summary of the Proposed Rule and Significant Decisions in Rule
Consolidation

A. Basis for the CAR (Optional Implementation)

The CAR is being proposed as an optional compliance alternative.
Several different approaches for the CAR were considered, including
mandatory compliance for SOCMI sources subject to the consolidated
subparts, with varying phase-in schedules. Different options were also
explored that allowed optional compliance for some sources and
mandatory for others. However, the optional compliance approach
reflected in the proposed CAR optimizes the benefits for affected
sources while assuring that stringency will not be compromised. The CAR
provides significant benefits to sources, as described in this section
and section X of this preamble, primarily through burden reduction,
simplification, and clarification. Implementing agencies will realize
complementary benefits in that, for sources complying with the CAR,
compliance requirements will be simplified and clarified, records and
reports will be considerably consolidated, and compliance determination
will be more straight-forward. Because both the industry and
enforcement personnel would be dealing with a single rule with
consistent requirements, conflicting interpretations and
misunderstandings should be reduced.
On the other hand, despite the potential benefits of the CAR, if
EPA were to make the CAR mandatory, a significant burden in the short
term might be created as sources made the transition to the CAR. The
EPA recognizes that some SOCMI plant sites subject to only one or two
of the referencing subparts would derive limited or no benefit from the
consolidated rule. Chemical plants with a small number of regulated
emission points (for example, a few storage tanks) and a well-
established compliance plan could incur an added burden if required to
become familiar with and implement the CAR. Some plants have data
handling, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting systems in place for
the requirements and format of the existing rules; the added initial
cost to comply with the CAR could be significant compared to the
benefit. The relative costs and benefits realized by plants would
depend on several factors, including the size of the plant, the number
of regulations that currently apply, the company's perception of
benefits, and long-term burden reductions that would accrue from
compliance with the CAR.
In addition, if EPA were to make compliance with the CAR mandatory,
it would create a conflict between maintaining current stringency
levels and striving for simplicity and consolidation. To avoid
increasing the stringency of applicable requirements for any affected
source, the CAR would either have to consolidate at the lowest common
denominator (i.e., least stringent provisions), or consist of a
collection of provisions of different stringencies. The former solution
is environmentally unacceptable, and the latter solution results in an
overly complex rule that forfeits many of the benefits of
consolidation.
In order for the CAR provisions to be at least as stringent as the
underlying rules and to also achieve complete consolidation, it was
necessary to select the most stringent of the referencing subparts as
the basis for the CAR. In this case, the HON was deemed to include the
most stringent control options. Although several other referencing
subparts contain the same control requirements (for example, for
process vents), the HON provides additional compliance flexibility in
many cases. This flexibility has been adopted in the CAR.
The Agency concluded that the presumption of a mandatory CAR was
inconsistent with a simplification. Sources can choose to implement the
CAR or continue to implement the underlying subparts, depending on
their situation and what they see as more advantageous.
Enforcement representatives supported the simplicity of the CAR
over the numerous existing rules. The benefit to enforcement personnel
is not as great for an optional CAR as it would be for a mandatory CAR,
since the implementing agency would still need to support
implementation and enforcement of the underlying rules as well as the
CAR. However, the implementation burden will be eased at

[[Page 57760]]

those sources that choose the CAR. In addition, sources implementing
the CAR may increase their emission reductions since the CAR will be
more stringent for some emission points.
The EPA weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the various
approaches and concluded that an optional CAR with one set of
requirements would be the most workable and acceptable.
As the development of the CAR proceeded, the provisions in each of
the referencing subparts were carefully assessed for relative
stringency as well as for the relative merits of the language and
presentation of the requirements. The EPA concluded that the HON
provided the best starting point for developing consolidated provisions
for the CAR as an optional compliance mechanism. The HON was
promulgated in 1994 (with several subsequent amendments) and reflects
an improved understanding of control approaches for the SOCMI.
Furthermore, the control provisions of the HON, in general, represent
the most stringent and comprehensive pollution control requirements of
the referencing subparts consolidated in the CAR. Therefore, they
provide the most appropriate level of control for the CAR, given EPA's
objective of not compromising stringency in consolidation. In addition,
where the HON and another subpart apply to the same emission point, the
HON requirements generally override those of the other subpart, with
some exceptions.
Over the years during which the referencing subparts were
promulgated, EPA and the SOCMI have continuously enhanced their
understanding of emission control technology for SOCMI sources.
Development of the HON benefitted from this enhanced understanding and
from significant industry input regarding the operation of SOCMI
facilities. Because the HON was developed to reflect a refined approach
to regulating the SOCMI, it reflects substantial burden reduction,
clarity of language, and flexibility in compliance options.
The EPA strives to continually reduce the compliance burden
associated with regulations promulgated under the Act. As both EPA and
State agencies have gained experience with and understanding of
compliance and enforcement issues, EPA's regulatory approaches have
evolved to incorporate more streamlined and flexible compliance
approaches. The HON provisions include many elements of flexibility
that substantially reduce the compliance burden. The HON language also
makes explicit many requirements that are implied in the other
referencing subparts. Such clarifications promote consistent compliance
and enforcement and, in some cases, constitute a burden reduction by
eliminating guesswork and uncertainty.
While the HON reflects an updated approach to SOCMI regulation,
many of the basic elements of the referencing subparts are still very
similar to the HON. For storage vessels, the provisions in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y are very similar to the
corresponding HON provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). The most
significant differences among storage vessel provisions occur between
the HON and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka. However, there are markedly
fewer sources subject to subpart Ka than to the other storage vessel
subparts consolidated.
Likewise, the HON's provisions for process vents are very similar
to those in all of the consolidated process vent rules. In fact, the
performance standards are virtually the same across all consolidated
process vent regulations. The CAR's provisions for transfer operations
consolidate 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB and the HON transfer operation
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). The HON provisions provide
increased compliance flexibility over subpart BB without compromising
stringency.
Equipment leak provisions in the CAR are also based on the HON
language but include some significant improvements. These improvements
do not change stringency but enhance the simplicity, clarity, and
``user-friendliness'' of the provisions. Subpart G of the CAR, the
closed-vent system and control device provisions, represents a
different approach to the order and presentation of regulatory
requirements. While the CAR subpart G is based on the HON's language,
its organization and structure are different in that the closed-vent
system and control device requirements for all emission points (i.e.,
storage, transfer, process vents, and equipment leaks) with associated
closed-vent system and control devices are all presented in one
consolidated subpart.
While the HON has provided a good starting point for the CAR, the
consolidation effort included substantial modification to some of the
HON language as well as important additions and deletions. Many of the
modifications are clarifications of HON language or changes that
incorporate CAR terminology. All provisions in each of the referencing
subparts were assessed and compared for consolidation. In some cases,
language from a referencing subpart other than the HON was deemed more
appropriate for the CAR. The following sections of this preamble (VI.B
through VI.H) provide a detailed description of each subpart of the CAR
and the significant decisions regarding (1) changes to HON language,
and (2) the ramifications of using the HON language for sources
referenced from 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. Also noted are instances where
language from referencing subparts other than the HON is used.

B. General Provisions

The part 65 general provisions consolidate the general provisions
applicable to SOCMI sources from subparts A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and
63. In addition, provisions in the HON, 40 CFR part 63 subparts, F and
G, that are general in nature are also consolidated in the part 65
general provisions. These particular provisions are designated in the
HON as overriding the corresponding requirements in the part 63 general
provisions. These overriding provisions apply to SOCMI sources and
therefore were consolidated in the proposed CAR general provisions.
(The HON overrides are listed in table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart F).
The consolidated general provisions focus on administrative aspects
and broad requirements that are generally applicable to all sources
complying with the CAR, such as definitions, operation and maintenance
requirements, general recordkeeping and reporting procedures, and
compliance determination. Also included are administrative provisions
concerning availability of information, state authority, delegation,
circumvention, addresses for report submittal, and incorporation by
reference. Although the general provisions to the referencing subparts
contain provisions regarding add-on control equipment, testing, and
monitoring, these types of requirements are consolidated in the CAR's
subpart G as described in section III.B of this preamble.
Consolidated general provisions for the CAR eliminate much of the
complexity of the general provisions to the HON. In the CAR general
provisions, an ``override'' table for general provisions, such as that
in the HON, is not necessary, since all applicable provisions have been
brought into, or are referenced in, the CAR. All of the applicable
provisions that are general in nature are contained in one CAR subpart,
eliminating the complexity inherent in the HON where general
requirements are contained in three different subparts (40 CFR part 63
subparts A, F, and G). Non-applicable requirements have been
eliminated. For example, no continuous emissions

[[Page 57761]]

monitoring system (CEMS), opacity, or particulate matter provisions are
included in the CAR since they are not applicable, thus reducing the
amount of text that must be read and understood.
Although every effort has been made to make the CAR a stand-alone
rule, as noted in section IV above, there are certain requirements in
the general provisions to the referencing subparts that are not
addressed in part 65 and that still remain applicable to sources
complying with the CAR. Requirements dealing with pre-startup
activities, applicability, modification, and reconstruction are still
governed by the underlying general provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61,
and 63. The part 65 general provisions include a table (table 1 of 40
CFR part 65, subpart A) specifying the paragraphs and sections in each
part's general provisions that still apply to sources complying with
the CAR. Since the CAR does not alter the applicability of any of the
underlying subparts, these general provisions regarding applicability
must also remain applicable.
In addition, owners and operators who choose to comply with the CAR
are still obligated to fulfill requirements that applied while they
were complying with a referencing subpart. For example, if a facility
is required by a referencing subpart to complete a performance test,
opting to comply with the CAR does not remove the requirement to
conduct a performance test or protect the source from enforcement
actions for not completing the test.
Discussion in the following paragraphs highlights the primary
differences between the general provisions for the proposed CAR and
those for the referencing subparts.
Applicability
Regulated sources may comply with the CAR only if they are subject
to one of the referencing subparts and are specifically referenced to
part 65. Further discussion of eligibility to comply with the CAR and
how the eligibility is presented in the referencing subparts is
contained in sections IV.A and V of this preamble, respectively.
The applicability provisions also include requirements for
implementation of the CAR. An implementation schedule is required and
must be established either through a title V permit application or
permit modification for title V sources, or in the Initial Notification
of Part 65 Applicability for non-title V sources. In either case, the
implementation schedule can not extend for more than 3 years, and the
provisions prohibit any gaps in compliance between complying with the
referencing subpart and implementing the CAR. A maximum of a 3-year
implementation period is allowed because there will be some facilities
that will need time to install equipment or otherwise prepare for
compliance with the CAR for some individual emission points. In these
cases, the facility can begin taking advantage of many of the burden
reductions by complying with the CAR for most emission points while
preparing for compliance for a few emission points. These few emission
points would continue to comply with the appropriate referencing
subpart. Many facilities will be able to comply with the CAR with few
adjustments or additions at their facility, and a 3-year implementation
schedule will not be necessary.
As described above in section IV.A, new sources that become subject
to a referencing subpart must consult the applicability provisions in
that referencing subpart to determine eligibility to comply with the
CAR. New regulated sources (for example, storage vessels or
distillation vents) that are part of an SCU that is complying with the
CAR would also have to comply with the CAR, or the entire SCU
(including the new regulated source) would have to opt not to comply
with the CAR. For new sources choosing upon startup to comply with the
CAR instead of the applicable referencing subpart, the implementation
date is at initial startup.
The proposed CAR also provides for owners or operators deciding to
no longer comply with the CAR and to comply, instead, with the
applicable referencing subpart(s). Title V sources must propose a
transition date in a title V permit amendment; non-Title V sources may
propose a transition date in a periodic report or in a separate notice.
The provisions requiring compliance on an SCU basis would still apply,
and owners or operators must make the transition to the referencing
subparts for an entire SCU, not for individual emission points. The
transition must ensure that no gaps in compliance occur; the SCU must
be in full compliance at all times with either the CAR or the
applicable referencing subparts.
Definitions: General
The CAR consolidates the definitions from the 12 referencing
subparts, 40 CFR part 63, subpart F and the general provisions of 40
CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 into one definition section. In developing the
definitions for the CAR, EPA assessed all of the definitions in the
referencing subparts and all of the definitions in the applicable
general provisions. Many terms defined in the CAR have been defined in
one or more of these subparts. In some cases, slight variations exist
in definitions for which no substantive difference was intended. The
EPA recognized that multiple definitions for the same term or phrase
has led to confusion in the past. Therefore, a single set of
definitions was developed for implementing the CAR and is included in
the proposed general provisions.
Since the HON language provides the basis for the CAR, the HON
definitions are used in the CAR for most terms. However, definitions
have been added or modified in the CAR for several reasons. New terms
have been defined either to reduce wordiness and redundant language, or
to designate a single term to replace many similar terms from all the
referencing subparts. In some cases, definitions from the HON have been
modified to improve clarity or to make requirements more explicit. A
few terms in the CAR are taken from referencing subparts other than the
HON.
The goal of consolidating definitions in the CAR general provisions
was to provide clear definitions and to avoid using different words to
mean the same thing. The more recent SOCMI rules elaborate on
definitions to avoid misinterpretation or implementation problems that
arose in earlier rules. The newer definitions expand and elucidate, but
they do not change the original intent of the rule. The more
significant definition changes and additions are noted as follows.
Definitions: New
Several terms not defined in any of the referencing subparts or
their general provisions are introduced in the CAR. Some of these terms
incorporate important concepts that need to be defined for the CAR;
these include the following.
A new definition for ``empty or emptying'' for storage vessels was
added for clarification. This definition helps to clarify when a
storage vessel is considered empty. In particular, lowering the stored
liquid level so that a floating roof rests on its legs, as necessitated
by normal operations, is not considered emptying. Further discussion of
issues associated with the emptying of storage vessels is presented in
the Storage Vessel section of this preamble (section VI.C).
A new definition for ``low throughput transfer racks'' was added to
clarify requirements for these racks that are subject to the closed-
vent systems and control device requirements. Low throughput transfer
racks require a

[[Page 57762]]

design evaluation, while high throughput transfer racks require a
performance test.
The term ``closed-vent system shutdown'' was added to the CAR to
distinguish a shutdown affecting a closed-vent system from a shutdown
affecting a process unit. Different requirements apply for process unit
shutdowns and for closed-vent system shutdowns, and the two terms
therefore need to be distinguished.
Several new terms were added to the CAR to provide a single general
term to replace several different terms used in the referencing
subparts. These include the following.
Definitions for ``regulated material,'' ``in regulated material
service,'' and ``regulated source'' were created for the CAR to
generalize the pollutant [volatile organic compounds (VOC), total
organic compounds (TOC), hazardous air pollutants (HAP), etc.] and the
source (affected facility, affected source, etc.) being regulated. The
referencing subparts specify the regulated pollutant(s) and define the
source, either in the title of the standard or in the applicability
provisions prior to referring sources to the CAR. Therefore, while the
term used in the CAR is new, pollutants and sources regulated in the
referencing subparts do not change in the CAR.
``Process unit'' and ``process vent'' are defined in the CAR to
encompass the definitions from all of the referencing subparts. The
definition of ``process unit'' includes the equipment specified by the
definition of ``chemical manufacturing process unit'' in the CAR. The
CAR also provides a definition for the ``process unit'' which is to be
used when there is no definition for the term in the referencing
subpart.
``SOCMI CAR Unit'' was added to the CAR definitions to describe the
boundary of the entity subject to the CAR. A detailed discussion
concerning SCUs is included in section IV.B of this preamble.
Other new terms were defined in the CAR to reduce wordiness or
redundancy. A new definition for ``control system'' was added to
simplify language referring to control devices and their associated
closed-vent system. A control system is simply the combination of a
closed-vent system and a control device. Using a single term to include
both closed-vent systems and control devices simplifies the language.
Three new definitions were added to describe internal and external
floating roof failures: ``failure, EFR'', ``failure, IFR type A'', and
``failure, IFR type B.'' Two new definitions were added to describe
which process vents require monitoring and which ones do not: ``Group
2A process vents'' and ``Group 2B process vents.'' Adding these
definitions avoids having to repeat lengthy text describing the
specific floating roof failures or the two types of Group 2 process
vents each time they are referred to in the regulation.
Definitions: Modified HON Definitions
Many of the definitions incorporated from the HON have been
modified, primarily for clarity of language or to specify the
particular types of emission points (for example, equipment leaks) to
which a term applies. The modifications to the HON definitions are
described as follows.
To comply with the HON process vent requirements, an owner or
operator has several compliance options, one of which is to collect and
route process vent emissions to a control device. There are two broad
categories of control devices, combustion devices (such as a boiler or
incinerator) and recapture devices (such as a condenser or absorber).
Absorbers, condensers, and carbon adsorbers are often used as recovery
devices designed to return recovered material to the process; if the
recovered material from these devices is disposed of, then the device
qualifies as a recapture device and can be used as a control device.
The HON contains similar definitions for ``control device'' in both
subparts F and G. The CAR definition is based on the HON definitions,
which include language stating that for process vents in general, a
product recovery device can not be used as the control device if the
owner or operator is complying by routing emissions to a control
device. Recovery devices are equipment normally used for the purpose of
recovering chemicals for fuel value, use, reuse, or for sale; control
devices, on the other hand, are equipment that reduce emissions of
regulated material to the atmosphere through combustion or some other
means.
The CAR includes additional language in the control device
definition clarifying that some particular recovery devices can be
considered control devices. This requirement is the same in the HON,
however, the HON does not clarify it in the control device definition.
In summary, a recovery device is allowed to be considered a control
device for process vents if (1) it was installed prior to 1993, (2) it
is the last recovery device before venting to the atmosphere, (3) it is
capable of meeting the 98 percent reduction standard, but it is not
capable of achieving the 20 parts per million (ppm) standard, and (4)
the recovery device must comply with control device requirements if the
recovered material is disposed. The use of recovery devices with
process vents is further discussed in section VI.E of this preamble.
In the definition of ``equipment,'' the CAR includes new language
clarifying that the definition applies only to equipment leak
provisions. The word ``equipment'' is used in a more general sense in
other subparts.
The CAR definition of malfunction differs from the HON in that it
includes monitoring equipment as equipment to which the malfunction
provisions apply. The HON definition of malfunction incudes air
pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process, but does
not include monitoring requirement.
In the definition of ``open-ended valve or line,'' the reference in
the HON definition to ``pressure relief valves'' was changed to simply
``relief valves'' since it is intended to also include relief valves
that do not necessarily relieve pressure.
The definition of ``organic monitoring device'' is taken from the
HON but has been modified to clarify that an organic monitoring device
can be used at locations other than at an exiting recovery device.
Process heaters and boilers both are types of enclosed combustion
devices. General requirements for enclosed combustion devices, as well
as specific requirements for process heaters versus boilers, are
contained in the CAR. When comparing the process heater definitions in
the referencing subparts confusion exists as to which enclosed
combustion devices are process heaters and which are boilers. The
``process heater'' definition in the CAR is based on the HON
definition, but the phrase ``enclosed combustion'' is added for
clarity. In addition, the CAR adds language specifically including
heating water as a secondary function of a process heater. The HON
definition could have been interpreted to exclude heating water as a
function of process heaters.
In the CAR, the HON definition of ``recapture device'' was modified
to clarify that, for purposes of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting, recapture devices are subject to the same provisions as
recovery devices. The same sentence was added to the definition of
``recovery device'' to reinforce this clarification.
The definitions of ``repair'' and ``first attempt at repair'' are
very similar to the HON definitions but were modified in the CAR to
clarify that the definitions apply to equipment leak requirements

[[Page 57763]]

and not to other emission points such as storage vessels.
Similarly, the definition of ``set pressure'' is from the HON
subpart H but is clarified in the CAR to specify that it applies only
to equipment leak provisions.
``Routed to a process or route to a process'' is defined as it is
in the HON subpart H, except that in the CAR the phrase ``by hard-
piping or a closed-vent system'' is deleted. Emissions vented to a
process are not considered to be vented through a closed-vent system
and therefore are not subject to the closed-vent system requirements.
This change is made for clarification and consistency with the CAR's
use of the closed-vent system terminology, and it does not affect the
intent or the regulatory requirements. Striking ``by hard-piping''
allows flexibility in the types of equipment (i.e., ductwork) that can
be used to route to a process.
The CAR's definition of ``closed-vent system'' is taken from the
definition in subpart G of the HON, but changes were also made to this
definition to help clarify which equipment is included in a closed-vent
system and, therefore, subject to the closed-vent system requirements.
The CAR definition of closed-vent system excludes systems that
transport gas or vapors back to a process. Under the CAR, a closed-vent
system is a system routing vapors to a control device; piping that
routes vapors back to a process is not considered a closed-vent system.
The CAR definition of ``closed-vent system'' also has additional
language added to exclude vapor collection systems that are part of a
tank truck or rail car, and to clearly describe where the system begins
on transfer racks. It should be noted that the phrase ``open to the
atmosphere'' does not include air or inert gas intakes for systems
where gas make-up is needed to prevent pulling a vacuum.
The CAR definition of ``run'' for a performance test combines the
definitions from the general provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
As such, it adds language to the HON definition clarifying that a run
may be either intermittent or continuous, within the limits of good
engineering judgement.
The definition ``temperature monitoring device'' is changed in the
CAR to require an accuracy of <plus-minus>1.2 degrees Celsius, as
opposed to <plus-minus>0.5 degrees Celsius in the HON. The EPA
believes, based on investigations undertaken in this effort, that
temperature monitoring devices with the <plus-minus>1.2 degrees Celsius
accuracy are more widely available, are in place at more plant sites,
and are adequate for demonstrating compliance.
The definition of ``total resource effectiveness index value or TRE
index value'' as defined in the HON was modified in the CAR to better
describe the purpose of the index. This modified definition is
considered more useful for compliance purposes.
The definition of ``total organic compounds'' is similar to the
definitions in the referencing subparts. One aspect of the definition,
however, could not be consolidated. Total organic compounds, or TOC, is
a term in the TRE index value equations. As discussed in more detail
under the process vent section (see section VI.D), the TRE index value
determination cannot be consolidated because of the different
approaches presented in the HON and the non-HON process vent
referencing subparts. To maintain the necessary distinction for TRE
index value determinations, the TOC definition in the CAR states that,
for the non-HON referencing subparts, TOC does not include compounds
``that the Administrator has determined do not contribute appreciably
to the formation of ozone.''
A few definitions in the CAR are taken from referencing subparts
other than the HON because the terms are not defined in the HON. These
include, for example, ``distance piece'' from 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV and ``stuffing box pressure'' from 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. These
are useful terms in the CAR and definitions for them are considered
helpful for understanding equipment leak provisions.
As HON definitions were incorporated into the CAR, some editing was
required to remove references to specific provisions in the HON.
Generally, the references to HON provisions were edited to refer to the
corresponding provision in the CAR, or in some cases, the definitions
were edited to incorporate the meaning or context of the referenced
provision. For example, a definition for ``initial startup'' has been
developed for the CAR to specify the point of initial startup for
various cases and situations. This definition encompasses all of the
different situations described in the referencing subparts that entail
an ``initial startup.'' These include new or reconstructed sources as
well as certain specified additions or changes not defined by the
referencing subparts as a new source. The CAR definition of ``initial
startup'' incorporates the description of additions and changes from
Sec. 63.100(l) and (m) of the HON that would trigger an ``initial
startup.''
Definitions: Changes to Definitions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
The use of HON definitions as the basis for the CAR implies changed
definitions for sources referred from the other referencing subparts.
In general, these differences do not constitute substantive changes to
the rule, but provide improvements in clarity and simplification of
requirements. For example, some of the CAR terms, while not defined in
the part 60 and 61 referencing subparts or their general provisions,
are used in their regulatory language (for example, initial startup).
Other terms defined in the CAR introduce new concepts that were not
needed in the part 60 and 61 referencing subparts. For example, the CAR
provides new means of compliance such as fuel gas systems and vapor
balancing systems; therefore, these terms are defined in the CAR.
However, most of the differences in definitions between the CAR and the
non-HON referencing subparts result from the CAR incorporating a HON
definition that is different from the corresponding non-HON definition.
The more significant definition changes relative to the non-HON
referencing subparts are as follows.
The CAR incorporates the HON definition of ``alternative test
method'' which requires that alternative test methods be validated
using Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63. Method 301
validation, a more recently developed approach unavailable to older
rules, is not required by the non-HON referencing subparts. The EPA now
uses Method 301 to validate proposed alternative test methods.
Therefore, requiring its use by the regulated source simply ensures
consistency in evaluating alternative methods, and will codify what is
already being done.
In 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD and 40 CFR subpart 61, subpart BB,
the definition of ``car seal'' includes the regulatory requirement to
replace a broken car-seal with a new seal. In general, definitions are
not appropriate locations for enforceable requirements. Therefore, the
CAR adopted the definition from the HON and 40 CFR part 60, subpart
RRR. The requirement for replacing broken car-seals is included in the
closed-vent system provisions of subpart G of the CAR.
The CAR's definition of ``closed-vent system'' is taken from the
definition in subpart G of the HON but has additional language added to
exclude vapor collection systems that are part of a tank truck or rail
car, and to clearly describe the system boundaries for transfer racks.

[[Page 57764]]

The CAR definition differs from those found in 40 CFR part 60, subparts
III, NNN, and RRR with respect to this clarification for vapor systems.
The CAR includes the definition of ``continuous parameter
monitoring system'' from part 63. This term replaces the ``monitoring
device'' definition in part 60 and is used for consistency; it does not
constitute a change in monitoring requirements.
The CAR's definition of ``connector'' is taken from the HON and
explicitly excludes certain types of connectors that are included under
the definitions of ``connector'' in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40
CFR part 61 subpart V. The CAR excludes joined fittings that are welded
completely around the circumference and, for purposes of recordkeeping
and reporting, inaccessible fittings and ceramic or ceramic lined
fittings.
``Halogenated vent stream or halogenated stream'' is defined in 40
CFR part 60, subparts III, NNN, and RRR based on parts per million by
volume (ppmv) of halogenated compounds in the stream (20 ppmv or
greater). The CAR incorporates the HON definition, which defines a
halogenated stream on the basis of mass emission rate of halogen atoms
(0.45 kilograms per hour). Further discussion of issues associated with
determination of halogenated vent streams is included in section VI.D
of this preamble.
The CAR definition of ``liquids dripping'' is taken from the HON
subpart H. It is more explicit than the definitions in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V in that it includes examples
of what constitutes indications of liquids dripping.
``Process unit shutdown'' is defined in all of the referencing
subparts for equipment leaks. The CAR uses the definition from the HON
subpart H, which differs from the other referencing subparts in
clarifying when a process unit shutdown has occurred. The CAR
definition explicitly states that a process unit shutdown has occurred
only when (1) the shutdown is planned, (2) it occurs under appropriate
safety constraints, and (3) repairs can be effected. Furthermore, a
``process unit shutdown'' has not occurred if the shutdown is (1)
unplanned, and (2) lasts for too short a time for process material to
be cleared from the process unit, and results in greater emissions than
would occur with delay of repair.
The CAR definitions of certain control devices include several
changes relative to the referencing subparts. The basic definition of
``boiler'' is similar across all the process vent referencing subparts.
However, the definition in 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR and the HON
contain additional language stating that ``boiler'' does not include
incinerators. The HON definition also states that ``boiler'' does
include industrial furnaces. The CAR definition includes both these
additions (incinerators are not boilers, industrial furnaces are
boilers) as well as a third addition stating that process heaters are
not boilers.
The CAR's definition of ``incinerator'' is unmodified from the HON.
The definition in 40 CFR part 60, subparts III and NNN, and 40 CFR part
61, subpart BB specifically state that an incinerator ``does not
extract energy in the form of stream or process heat.'' However, the
CAR definition clarifies that there can be a recovery section to an
incinerator as long as it is a separate section that is not
manufactured or assembled as a single unit with the combustion section.
The CAR definition also clarifies, relative to subparts DDD and III
that an incinerator can use auxiliary fuel to heat waste gas.
The CAR definition of ``process heater'' provides a similar
clarification that, although heating water can not be the primary
function of a process heater, heating water or generating steam can be
a secondary function.
The definitions of ``repair'' and ``first attempt at repair'' are
consistent with those in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V, but they include additional language from the HON stating
that monitoring to verify repair is required as part of the repair.
The definition of ``start up'' is taken from the HON. It clarifies
what is included in ``start-up'' definitions in parts 60 and 61 by
specifying some examples of equipment and activities included in start
up.
Compliance With Standards and Operation and Maintenance Requirements
In Sec. 65.3, the CAR general provisions consolidate provisions
regarding compliance with operation and maintenance requirements. These
provisions are consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63. The
main source of burden reduction and clarity improvements for these
provisions lies in the fact that provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63
subparts A, F, G, and H have been consolidated in one location. Small
wording changes were made for clarity and to modify text to fit the CAR
structure. For example, the HON states that use of acceptable operation
and maintenance procedures can be determined based on (among other
things) a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The CAR provisions
clarify that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is optional
for equipment leaks, unless the equipment is equipped with a control
device, in which case a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan is
required. The startup, shutdown and malfunction plan would be used to
determine acceptable operation and maintenance procedures only in cases
where such a plan is required. Other clarifying language consists of
more descriptive paragraph titles and introductory sentences clearly
indicating which standards are addressed in each subsection.
The CAR's provisions on compliance are also organized differently
from the HON. The CAR contains all compliance requirements together at
the beginning of this section (Sec. 65.3), and moves the detailed
requirements for performance tests and the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (which are included within the HON compliance section)
to their own separate subsections. With this arrangement, provisions in
the CAR are easy to locate by section and subsection headings.
In reviewing the operation and maintenance provisions for
consolidation, EPA noted that the HON does not specify that monitoring
must be conducted during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Of course,
if the monitor itself is malfunctioning, monitoring would not be
required, assuming that any minimum data availability requirements are
met. While the HON makes reference to monitoring data for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction in the provisions regarding
excursions that occur during such periods, there are no explicit
requirements that such monitoring take place. Therefore, in the CAR,
EPA explicitly requires that monitors must be in operation except when
they are malfunctioning or except to avoid damage caused by
contemporaneous startup, shutdown, or malfunction with other equipment.
The EPA's discussions with industry representatives indicate that there
have been differing interpretations regarding monitoring during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, but that requirements to monitor
during these periods would not substantially increase the monitoring
burden. Without data from periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
EPA can not determine the extent of an exceedance where normal
operation has been misidentified as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Nor would EPA have the data to compare the effectiveness
of techniques to minimize emissions during such episodes. As a result,
monitoring data for periods of

[[Page 57765]]

startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered essential and are
explicitly required in the CAR.
The EPA has also clarified what provisions do not apply during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The HON broadly states that the
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H do not apply during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. This has been clarified in the CAR
to specify that it is the emission standards and established parameter
ranges that do not apply during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The
EPA reasoned that this more specific reference more accurately reflects
the intent of the rule.
Recordkeeping
The recordkeeping section of the CAR general provisions sets forth
basic requirements related to duration of records retention, and
availability and accessibility of records. Again, a primary benefit of
these provisions is that they merge all the general recordkeeping and
reporting provisions for all regulated sources into one place. While
the requirements are substantially the same as those in the HON, burden
reductions are achieved through simplification, clarification, and
elimination of redundancy.
The CAR requirements for records retention are clearer than those
in the referencing subparts in that they explicitly state record
retention times for title V sources (5 years) and non-title V sources
(2 years, unless a referencing subpart specifies otherwise.) While the
5-year retention time for title V sources applies for all records
required under the Act, retention time for title V sources is not
stated explicitly in the 40 CFR part 60 and 61 general provisions.
The provisions for where the retained records must be kept is one
of very few instances in the CAR where the requirements are not
consolidated. In this case, two different provisions are given: one
that applies to sources that are subject to the HON and a second
provision that applies to sources subject to the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61
referencing subparts. The provision that applies to HON sources is from
the HON. It states that records must be retained on site for 6 months
and must be accessible within 2 hours. For the remaining 4 and \1/2\
years, the records may be retained offsite. The provision that applies
to the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 sources states that records must be
retained on site for 2 years, but may be retained off site for the
remaining 3 years. The HON provision resulted from the settlement
agreement for the HON litigation. The EPA considers it important to
retain this provision as revised under the litigation for HON sources.
For this provision, EPA considers that it is not appropriate to expand
the applicability beyond the HON. The EPA is concerned that allowing
records to be stored offsite after 6 months will make it difficult for
an inspector to determine compliance. Under the HON, EPA has allowed
records to be taken off site after 6 months to determine how well this
approach works and to assess whether any inspection issues arise. At
this time, EPA does not have sufficient information to warrant
expanding the scope of this provision. Therefore, a different provision
is provided for non-HON referencing subparts.
Reporting
The reporting requirements in the CAR general provisions pertain to
reports that are required for all or most complying sources.
Notifications and reports that are specific to particular emission
points are addressed in the subparts for each particular type of
emission point. The general provision reporting requirements include a
Notification of Initial Startup, an Initial Notification of Part 65
Applicability for non-title V sources, and an Initial Compliance Status
Report.
Notification of Initial Startup is required within 15 days after
initial startup for any regulated source that has implemented the CAR
at initial startup. The notification under the CAR is similar to the
initial notification in the referencing subparts.
Initial Notification of Part 65 Applicability is the only new
separate report required in the CAR. It is required for non-title V
sources and must include identification of each subject emission point
and its applicable part 65 subpart, and a proposed implementation
schedule. As an alternative to ``identifying each emission point,'' the
process unit containing the emission points can be identified along
with the kind of emission point in the process unit that will comply.
Title V sources are not required to submit this notification since this
information would be included in their title V permit application or
modification request.
The Initial Compliance Status Report is required for all new
regulated sources complying with the CAR and is due within 240 days
after the applicable compliance date set in the referencing subpart, or
60 days after the initial performance test, whichever is earlier. The
contents of the Initial Compliance Status Report pertain primarily to
performance tests and are different for each type of emission point.
The reporting requirements are therefore specified in the applicable
subpart. Since sources may be required to conduct more than one
performance test, the CAR allows the information on each performance
test to be submitted separately, 60 days after each test is completed.
The CAR allows more time to submit the performance test than the
referencing subparts because the CAR will affect more emission points
at a facility. The EPA deemed it appropriate to allow more time to
complete all of the performance tests and reports.
The general provisions reporting requirements also specify the
timing and frequency of periodic reports. Only semiannual periodic
reports are required. The CAR has clarified and simplified when the
periodic reports are due and what the reporting period is. The CAR
allows more time (60 days after the end of each 6-month period) for
periodic reports than the NSPS general provisions (30 days), because
the combined report required by the CAR will be larger and will take
more time to prepare. The CAR's periodic reports, like those in the
HON, cover multiple emission points; the 60 day reporting date is taken
from HON.
The CAR has greatly simplified the language regarding report
submittal. The CAR's provisions on where to send reports are based on
the HON, but reduce six paragraphs of text to one short paragraph. The
HON requires that all reports be sent to EPA Regional Offices, and also
to State agencies once authority has been delegated to the State. Since
reports generally must now be sent to both offices under title V, the
CAR simply requires that all reports be submitted to the relevant
Regional Office and State agency. The CAR also includes a new provision
allowing Regional Offices to waive reporting to EPA.
Another new provision in the CAR allows an owner or operator to
submit semiannual reports on the same schedule as the title V periodic
reports. Furthermore, if a semiannual report requires the same
information as that submitted with a title V report, the semiannual
report need only reference the title V report for the information. In
addition, a source owner or operator can arrange with the Administrator
a common schedule for reporting, and may, upon approval, adjust the
postmark or time period deadline to coincide with state reporting
schedules. This added flexibility for reporting schedules can reduce
the number and frequency of report submittal for sources complying with
the CAR.

[[Page 57766]]

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
In general, owners and operators choosing to comply with the CAR,
including non-HON sources, are required to develop and implement a
written plan for operating and maintaining the source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These provisions are based on the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements from the 40 CFR part 63
general provisions and the HON (Secs. 63.151 and 63.152 of 40 CFR part
63, subpart G). Changes have been made to fit the CAR format, but the
intent and purpose of the startup, shutdown, malfunction plan have been
maintained as in part 63. As with the HON, this plan is optional for
equipment complying with subpart F of the CAR (the equipment leak
provisions), except that it is mandatory for equipment equipped with a
control device. However, any control devices used for compliance with
the equipment leaks provisions are subject to subpart G of the CAR,
rather than subpart F, and therefore require a written plan for
startup, shutdown and malfunction.
The general provisions for parts 60 and 61 do not require a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. However, the ultimate effect
of the CAR plan is to reduce the reporting burden associated with
startup, shutdown and malfunction. As long as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction is handled according to the plan, sources need only report
that the event occurred. The report can be submitted as a semiannual
notice, or it can be submitted as part of the periodic report. This
procedure replaces the part 60 and 61 requirements to submit detailed
reports for each startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Therefore, even
though the plan must be maintained, the CAR potentially reduces the
total number and complexity of the reports.
The CAR does not adopt the 40 CFR part 63 general provision
requirement that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan be
incorporated into the source's title V permit. In keeping with the
memorandum ``Incorporation of Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Plans into
Sources' Title V Permits'' from the Director of OAQPS to Regional Air
Directors (January 18, 1996), regarding incorporation of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan into title V permits, the CAR clarifies
that the plan must be maintained on-site but not necessarily
incorporated by reference into a title V permit. The permit must,
however, include the enforceable requirement to have a plan and to
maintain the plan on-site. Since the plan is required to be
periodically updated, incorporation by reference would make a title V
permit modification necessary for each revision to the plan and would,
therefore, be counter-productive.
The CAR also contains revised provisions regarding reasons for
finding a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan to be inadequate and
requiring that it be revised. Plans are considered inadequate under the
HON if they fail to provide for the operation of the regulated source
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction to minimize emissions to at
least the levels required by all relevant standards. However, EPA
decided that emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction, while
needing to be minimized in accordance with good air pollution control
practice, can not always be minimized to the levels required by the
standards. It is impractical, as well as contradictory with other
provisions, to expect sources to continually meet applicable emission
standards while experiencing a startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Plans
under the CAR must only provide that emissions be minimized to the
extent practical in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices.
Although the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of subpart A are
not included in the CAR, these provisions are likely to be required in
future rulemakings. These provisions state:

At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, owners or operators shall operate and maintain any
affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required
by all relevant standards.

The HON, as it was revised by 62 FR 2721, January 17, 1997 specifically
overrides this provision of the part 63 general provisions. The CAR
incorporates the HON provisions because it is the simplest approach
that upholds the language negotiated in the HON litigation settlement,
and EPA has applied it to part 60 and part 61 sources for simplicity
and consistency. It should be noted that the HON, through the general
provisions [40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B)], requires that the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan include provisions specifying how an
owner or operator will ``provide for the operation of the source
(including associated air pollution control equipment) during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction event in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices * * *'' The CAR incorporates this
provision. The HON also requires that during a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction ``* * * the owner or operator shall implement, to the
extent reasonably available, measures to prevent or minimize excess
emissions to the extent practical.'' This provision acts to replace the
provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of subpart A in the HON and the CAR.
However, EPA believes that explicitly requiring operation consistent
with good air pollution control practices at all times is not
unreasonable and is likely to continue to be required in future
rulemakings.
Certain provisions in the part 63 general provisions regarding
immediate reporting of periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
have not been included in the CAR. These provisions require an
immediate report of any actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction that are not consistent with the startup, shutdown, or
malfunction plan. The EPA determined that such reports appear to be
inconsistent with provisions from subpart G of the HON requiring that
such actions be reported in the periodic report rather than an
immediate report. The CAR incorporates the provisions from the HON
subpart G, since they require reports that are sufficient to ensure
continuous compliance and are potentially less burdensome. The CAR also
allows startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports, title V periodic
reports, and CAR periodic reports to be submitted together.
A semi-annual summary report of the occurrences and durations of
each startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which excess emissions
occur is required by the CAR general provisions. The report is the
companion to the records specified in Secs. 65.162(a) and 65.163(c) of
the CAR, which not only require records of occurrences and durations,
but also provide for other records associated with startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (such as a record that the procedures in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan were followed). The summary report is
required if, during a semi-annual reporting period, (1) the total
duration of periods of inoperation or malfunction of a CPMS is equal to
or greater than 5 percent of the total operating time for the reporting
period, or (2) the total duration of periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction during which excess emissions occur for a regulated source
are equal to or greater than 1 percent of that regulated source's
operating time for the reporting period. This summary report is
included in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction report, which can be
included in the periodic report. The HON does not

[[Page 57767]]

specify that this information be submitted with the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction report. The EPA considers this an important addition to
the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction provisions, because it would
highlight when a startup, shutdown, and malfunction condition exists
for a significant amount of time, and would also indicate a condition
that happens frequently during a semi-annual period. Nevertheless, this
is a substantial burden reduction from the referencing NSPS, which
require detailed reports on the causes of excess emissions and summary
reports when the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting
period is less than 1 percent of the total operating time for the
reporting period, and when CPMS downtime is less than 5 percent of the
total operating time for the reporting period.
Waivers and Alternatives
The CAR consolidates the mechanism for requesting alternatives and
waivers for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These provisions
describe what is required of the applicant, and the procedures for
approval or denial of the alternative or waiver. The CAR specifically
allows alternatives for recordkeeping as well as monitoring, while the
referencing subparts general provisions specify alternative monitoring
methods only.
The CAR also includes procedures for requesting approval of an
alternative means of emission limitation for design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards, as do specific subparts in part 60,
the part 61 general provisions, and the HON. The CAR's language is
based on language from the HON, subpart F, but the CAR clarifies that
alternative means of emission limitation are not applicable to
performance standards. Performance standards do not specify a means to
limit emissions, so any means is already acceptable.
The CAR general provisions include consolidated administrative
requirement sections on ``Availability of Information and
Confidentiality,'' ``State Authority,'' ``Prohibited Activities and
Circumvention,'' and ``Incorporation by Reference.'' The CAR includes
minor wording changes and clarifications to the part 63 language; for
example, in the prohibitions provisions, the prohibition on failing to
report is eliminated and replaced throughout the CAR with the specific
requirements to report.

C. Storage Vessel Provisions

The storage vessel provisions consolidate the requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subparts Ka (petroleum liquids storage) and Kb (volatile
organic liquids storage), 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y (benzene storage),
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (HON storage). The referencing subparts
will direct storage vessels to subpart C of the CAR, which specifies
the compliance options for storage vessels. Subpart C contains the
control requirements for floating roofs only. Subpart C references
subpart G for the control requirements for control devices (including
flares) and routing to a process or fuel gas system. This split in
requirements facilitates consolidation and reduces text. For example,
the flare provisions do not have to be listed in multiple places in the
CAR. This structure clarifies and simplifies the referencing subparts
which may present the flare requirements on different bases, in
different formats, and in multiple locations (including the individual
general provisions).
There are several compliance options for storage vessels, but not
all storage vessels qualify for all options. Owners and operators of
storage vessels containing liquid with a low (less than 76.6 kilo-
Pascal) maximum true vapor pressure have the option to comply by using
an internal floating roof (IFR), external floating roof (EFR), or an
EFR converted into an IFR. Storage vessels under the CAR equipped with
floating roofs are only required to comply with the provisions in
subpart C of the CAR. However, there are other control options
available to all storage vessels, including: (1) routing emissions
through a closed-vent system to a flare or control device, and (2)
routing emissions to a process or fuel gas system. Those vessels
equipped with a closed-vent system or that have emissions routed to a
process or fuel gas system must also comply with subpart G of the CAR.
For those vessels, subpart C specifies a 95 percent reduction control
efficiency for control devices and it provides for 240 hours per year
downtime for planned routine maintenance of flares or control devices.
In addition, subpart C clarifies that the performance requirements for
flares and control devices do not apply during planned routine
maintenance or control system malfunctions.
An allowance for downtime for planned routine maintenance of
control devices is contained in both 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y and the
HON. The downtime allowance is included in the CAR in subpart C, while
an associated record is required with the other control device records
in subpart G. The 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ka and Kb do not include
this allowance.
Subpart Y of 40 CFR part 61 and the HON storage vessel provisions
provide downtime for planned routine maintenance for all storage vessel
control devices. The HON allows 240 hours per year and subpart Y allows
72 hours per year. The EPA believes that for SOCMI storage vessels, it
is acceptable to allow 240 hours per year downtime for routine
maintenance for control devices, thus providing operational flexibility
without creating a significant potential for environmental degradation.
The EPA maintains that it may be appropriate for storage vessels
associated with other industries to be allowed less downtime depending
on the use and maintenance activities of the industry.
New CAR Structure and Other Significant Changes From the HON
This section identifies the rationale and benefit of the structure
of the CAR storage vessel provisions. It also outlines the significant
differences between the storage vessel provisions in the referencing
subparts and those in the CAR. In some cases, the CAR clarifies the
language adopted from the HON; in others, HON concepts have been
extended to the other storage vessel rules. While the CAR incorporates
the HON storage vessel provisions, the CAR provisions have been
structured to better match procedures and operations at a plant. The
CAR structure is a new approach to all of the referencing subparts. At
a plant site, the personnel responsible for designing or re-designing
storage vessels are not typically the same personnel responsible for
operating the vessels. Likewise, different personnel are in charge of
inspecting vessels, and they may not be the same personnel that repair
the vessels. In addition, plant environmental staff may be in charge of
keeping records and making reports although they have no other storage
vessel responsibilities.
Based on industry suggestions, the provisions for IFRs and EFRs are
organized into design, operation, inspection, repair, and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. This more closely reflects how plant
personnel actually function in complying with the referencing subparts
and the modular format is clearer for each audience. Storage vessel
operators, for example, do not necessarily need to be familiar with the
inspection requirements.
The CAR also clarifies the storage vessel requirements of the
referencing subparts by specifying how floating roofs should be
monitored. While the HON provisions, which form the basis of CAR
provisions, require only annual inspection of floating roofs, industry
representatives were concerned that the

[[Page 57768]]

requirement in each of the referencing subparts that IFRs and EFRs must
float at all times implies that continuous monitoring is required;
however, no explicit provisions are provided for demonstrating
continuous compliance. The EPA does not consider continuous monitoring
necessary to ensure that roofs remain floating at all times; EPA
considers annual observation to be adequate. The CAR requires that
roofs be inspected for floating status during an annual inspection and
at any other time the roof is viewed. This clarification was deemed
necessary to provide a practical means to ensure that IFRs and EFRs
float at all times, and it provides a means of achieving the
environmental protection intended by the referencing subparts in a
manner that is potentially less burdensome to the industry.
Another clarification to the referencing subparts incorporated into
the CAR is the operating requirement to empty a tank whenever the roof
is resting on the leg supports. All the storage vessel referencing
subparts state that when the roof rests on the leg supports, the
process of filling, emptying, or refilling the vessel shall be
continuous and accomplished as soon as possible. This has been
interpreted to mean that the liquid level in a vessel can be dropped
below the leg level only when the vessel is to be completely emptied.
This can result in either: (1) an effective ``loss'' of available tank
capacity if the owner or operator maintains the level at an adequate
margin above the leg supports to prevent fluctuations without resting
the roof on the legs, or (2) a requirement to completely empty the
vessel if fluctuations lower the liquid level below the leg level.
Emptying a vessel would increase the vapor space between the roof (as
it rests on the leg supports) and the liquid level, thus increasing
emissions. Emptying a vessel can also result in significant expense in
maintaining extra tanks or barges to handle the emptied liquid.
The intent of the provision in the referencing subparts is to
prevent the liquid level from rising and falling while the roof is
resting on the supports. While the roof is on the supports,
fluctuations in the liquid level generate emissions by increasing the
vapor space between the roof and the liquid level as the liquid level
falls, and then pushing these vapors out of the vessel as the level
rises. Emissions are minimized if the vapor space is minimized. Not
requiring emptying the tank if the liquid level falls below the roof
supports would minimize the vapor space. Emissions are also minimized
when the liquid level is raised during a continuous fill to a point
where the roof is again floating, without an intervening drop in the
liquid level. The CAR language is a revision of the language in the
referencing subparts which requires only that once the roof is resting
on the legs, the process of filling or refilling must be continuous and
done as soon as practical. The CAR definition of ``empty'' or
``emptying'' is also clarified to specify that when the liquid level
drops below the roof supports during normal operation, the event is not
considered emptying. Therefore, none of the provisions that must occur
upon emptying are triggered. (The note in the HON provisions to this
effect is not needed with the clarifications in the CAR.)
Since resting the roof on its leg supports while the tank is in
service is not a common occurrence, this revision is unlikely to
significantly affect emissions, but the revision provides operational
relief to the owner or operator when unforeseen inventory problems
force the liquid level to drop below the leg supports. It should be
noted that a new recordkeeping requirement has been created to document
when this occurs [Sec. 65.47(e)]. However, the benefits of added
operating flexibility and of the clarified language, which helps avoid
interpretation conflicts, far outweigh the slight additional burden of
creating a new record.
Another significant burden reduction for storage vessels concerns
time extensions for repair and for seal gap measurements of unsafe
vessels. Under several of the referencing subparts, a vessel is
required to be repaired within 45 days if failures (as defined for
storage vessel floating roofs) are found during the vessel inspection.
If the vessel cannot be repaired within 45 days, a single extension of
up to 30 days to empty the vessel and remove it from service may be
requested from the Administrator. The provisions in the proposed CAR
allow up to two extensions of up to 30 calendar days each without prior
Administrator approval. The source operator is only required to
document the basis for the extension and retain records of repairs and
report them in the next periodic report. Extending the exemptions from
the HON to all storage vessels complying with the CAR creates a
consistent approach to compliance. Allowing extensions for repair
creates operational flexibility without significantly affecting
emissions.
The CAR also incorporates the HON's more flexible provisions for
instances where performing seal gap measurement may be unsafe. The
source operator is allowed up to two extensions of up to 30 days each
to empty and remove a vessel from service once it is determined to be
unsafe. The referencing subparts other than the HON do not include
special provisions for instances where performing seal gap measurements
would be unsafe. Allowing extensions for safety purposes incorporates
that latest ``common sense'' approach to seal gap measurement
procedures.
The concept of an EFR converted into an IFR is contained in the HON
but is not included in the other storage vessel referencing subparts.
No additional requirements are specified in the HON. Instead, it
clarifies which EFR requirements and which IFR requirements apply to
these storage vessels. The CAR incorporates this clarification by
including a special section for converted storage vessels. The section
points out which provisions should be followed, but does not otherwise
contain additional requirements. This clarification incorporates the
most current approach to control and better represents situations that
can occur in the industry.
Other Changes From the Referencing Subparts
Several burden reducing changes were made to the recordkeeping and
reporting provisions for storage vessels. The changes from the
referencing subparts create a consolidated program that will increase
clarity and compliance while reducing industry burden. These changes
are discussed below.
The proposed CAR provides for 90 days as the time within which gap
measurements would be required once a vessel that had been out of
service for over 1 year is refilled. The HON and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart Y also allow 90 days; however, 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ka and
Kb specify 60 days. Therefore, the 90 day allowance would provide a
burden reduction for part 60 storage vessels complying with the CAR.
The timing of reports for storage vessels has been standardized in
subpart C of the CAR. For both the prior notice of gap measurements and
notice of vessel filling or refilling, the CAR retains the same 30-day
requirement included in each of the referencing subparts. However, the
CAR requires results of defect inspections, seal gap measurement
results, and seal gap exceedences to be reported in the periodic
semiannual report, as they are in the HON. These reports in 40 CFR part
60, subparts Ka and Kb, and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y are required
either 30

[[Page 57769]]

or 60 days after the inspection, depending on the regulation. The CAR's
consolidated submittals provide a reporting burden reduction for 40 CFR
part 60, subparts Ka and Kb, and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y sources.
Notifications for refilling a vessel that has been emptied and
notifications prior to seal gap measurement of EFR's are required as in
the HON. However, where these notifications are also sent to a State or
local agency, a copy to EPA is not required. In reviewing the use of
these notifications, EPA determined that the States and local agencies
used the reports to observe refilling in cases where they are the
delegated authority. The State or local agency may also waive these
notifications.
The proposed CAR provisions require less information for seal gap
measurement reports than the HON does. For example, for EFR seal gap
measurements, sources would not be required to report raw data or
calculations of each measurement, as specified in the HON provisions.
Only the result of the gap measurement calculations that indicate
noncompliance are required under the CAR; vessels with seal gap
measurements that are in compliance need only be listed. Because the
more detailed raw data would still be retained as an onsite record, EPA
believes that reporting it would be unnecessary.
Records of inspections have also been streamlined in the proposed
CAR. For example, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb requires sources to record
the condition of each component inspected. The CAR requires only a
record that the inspection has been performed on a specific vessel, the
date of inspection, and a reference to the type of inspection
performed. These records could consist of a simple checklist of subject
storage vessels with dates entered for particular inspections
performed. The proposed CAR requires a description of the condition of
a component only if a problem is detected.
Additional Requirements Resulting From the Consolidated Program
This section details the provisions of the CAR that are based on
the HON language and that introduce changes to the other referencing
subparts. These changes, which may impose additional burden, primarily
to subpart Ka tanks, as detailed below, should be considered in
relation to all the positive advantages of consolidating the design
requirements as well as those previously discussed for storage vessel
complying with the CAR.
The requirements for storage vessels previously complying with 40
CFR part 60, subpart Ka are significantly different under the CAR.
These differences primarily include design requirements for floating
roofs and the allowance for a vapor mounted seal for an EFR. Modeled
after the HON provisions, the CAR design specifications require a
secondary seal above a vapor mounted seal for an IFR, and they do not
allow vapor mounted seals for an EFR. Subpart Ka of 40 CFR part 60
allows vapor mounted seals for EFRs and does not specify types of seals
for IFRs. In general, it is expected that storage vessels subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart Ka will require upgrading in order to comply with
the CAR's floating roof design requirements.
Other differences include the CAR's requirements for seal gap
measurement and IFR inspection and repair procedures. Owners and
operators with storage vessels subject to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ka
are required to have ``no gaps'' in the secondary seal, but the rule
does not provide any explicit procedures for determining compliance.
The CAR's explicit procedures provide clarity. Likewise, the CAR's
explicit requirements for repair procedures and time frames are now
included for storage vessels previously complying with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ka. Similarly, subpart Ka of 40 CFR part 60 does not specify
any IFR inspection or repair provisions. The explicit CAR provisions,
based on the HON, are new to sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ka. Another design requirement that would be new to these storage
vessels is the CAR provision requiring that covers on the roof be
gasketed.
Design requirements for guide poles are found in the HON and are
used in the CAR. The CAR requires gasketed caps on unslotted guide
poles (except for antirotational devices equipped with a welded cap)
and gasketed floats (or other devices) on slotted guide poles. Both of
these requirements are new to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ka and Kb and 40
CFR part 61, subpart Y.

D. Process Vent Provisions

The process vent provisions consolidate the process vent
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts III (air oxidation process
vents), NNN (distillation vents), and RRR (reactor vents), and part 63,
subpart G (HON process vents). The process vents subpart in the CAR,
subpart D, provide significant opportunity for consolidation because
the process vent referencing subparts are similar in their structure
and requirements.
Subpart D of the CAR contains all the provisions for the
performance standards; determining if control, monitoring, or neither
is required; TRE index value determinations; process changes; and
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for vents that comply without
the use of either a recovery or control device. Vents that comply by
using recovery or control devices are also subject to subpart G of the
CAR for further provisions regarding operation, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting for control and recovery devices. This
section discusses subpart D of the CAR; section V.G and H discuss
subpart G of the CAR.
Language Clarification and Consolidation
This section presents the rationale and use of some of the
terminology used in the process vents subpart of the CAR. It points out
the initial confusion or repetitive language in the referencing
subparts as well as the changes proposed in the CAR. The control
requirements for vents are the same across all the referencing subparts
and each also has provisions for using TRE index values for classifying
vents into three categories, as follows: control required, no control
required but monitoring required, or no control required and no
monitoring required. While the performance standards for vents are the
same in the referencing subparts, the language used to describe the
three vent classifications is not. The 40 CFR part 60 rules use long
text descriptions that cite TRE index value, concentration, and flow
rate to describe each vent classification every time the language
refers to a vent classification. The HON uses ``Group 1'' and ``Group
2'' to distinguish process vents where control is and is not required,
but the HON also uses long descriptions whenever Group 2 is mentioned
to describe if monitoring is required or not. These different
approaches not only create confusion but also significantly expand the
language.
The CAR expands on the HON terms that describe each vent
classification by establishing nomenclature for each classification.
Process vents where control is required are referred to as ``Group 1.''
Process vents where control is not required but monitoring is required
are referred to as ``Group 2A.'' Process vents where neither control
nor monitoring are required are referred to as ``Group 2B.'' This
change allows for less overall text and makes the rule easier to read
and understand, thereby resulting in better compliance and facilitating
enforcement. The consistent terminology for these vents throughout the
CAR also reduces confusion in recordkeeping and reporting and makes
classification of specific vents easier.

[[Page 57770]]

The remainder of this section will refer to process vents by using the
Group 1, Group 2A, and Group 2B terminology to indicate the vent
classification specified by the CAR or by the referencing subparts.
Consolidation of Requirements
This section discusses which process vent provisions and approaches
in the referencing subparts were consolidated to create the CAR process
vent subparts. The significant changes, including discussions of the
rationale and benefits of the changes, are highlighted below.
The consolidated requirements for process vent group determination
is summarized in table 2. Several vent characteristics (TRE index
value, flow rate, and concentration) are used in the referencing
subparts to determine group status. However, variability exists across
the referencing subparts in the values that are used for these
characteristics. Where possible the CAR has consolidated these criteria
to propose a rule that is consistent for all vents.

Table 2.--The CAR Process Vent Group Determinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group assignment
Vent stream characteristic --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2A 2B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total resource effectiveness <ls-thn-eq>1.0 >1.0 to 4.0 >4.0.
(TRE).
and and or
Flow rate.................... <gr-thn-eq>0.011 scmm <gr-thn-eq>0.011 scmm <0.011 scmm.
and and or
Pollutant concentrationa..... <gr-thn-eq>300 ppmv TOC <gr-thn-eq>300 ppmv TOC <300 ppmv TOC.
<gr-thn-eq>50 ppmv HAP <gr-thn-eq>50 ppmv HAP <50 ppmv HAP.
Control...................... Control required No control; monitor required No control and no monitoring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Process vents subject only to 40 CFR part 60 subpart III or 40 CFR part 63, subpart G are not eligible for the 300 ppmv TOC concentration cutoff.
Process vents subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G are eligible for the 50 ppmv HAP concentration cutoff. Process vents subject to only the 40 CFR
part 60, subparts are not eligible for the 50 ppmv HAP concentration cutoff.

Each of the process vent subparts being consolidated used a TRE
index value to determine group status. The 40 CFR part 60 rules and the
HON use similar parameters (for example, flow rate, heating value) but
different coefficients in the equations, yielding different TRE index
values. The CAR contains a single equation along with accompanying
tables containing all the needed coefficients. The coefficients vary
depending on process vent stream parameters and the referencing part
(HON or NSPS). The single equation eliminates the need to duplicate in
the CAR many pages of equations from the referencing subparts. While
the new equation looks different from those in the referencing
subparts, it yields the same TRE index values and, therefore, does not
change any applicability determinations.
The different coefficients for the HON and the NSPS rules are
necessary to avoid altering the stringency of the referencing subparts.
The TRE index equations essentially are used to determine whether or
not a particular vent stream is cost-effective to control (in terms of
cost per unit of pollution reduced). The coefficients of the TRE
equation vary because source category specific decisions were made
pertaining to acceptable levels of cost-effectiveness in each rule.
Consolidating to a single set of coefficients would change the TRE
index value and, therefore, change the applicability criteria of the
referencing subparts.
There are some minor differences among the referencing subparts in
the provisions regarding the numerical levels for TRE index value, flow
rate, and concentration that are used in determining group status
(Group 1, Group 2A, or Group 2B).
Group 2A vents are required to monitor certain parameters to ensure
that the TRE index value remains above 1.0 (a TRE index value of less
than 1.0 indicates that control is required). Two of the referencing
subparts, 40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN and RRR, specify a TRE index
value criterion of 8.0, below which monitoring is required; these are
Group 2A vents. The two other referencing subparts have a Group 2A TRE
index value criterion of 4.0. Statistically, there is a chance that the
actual TRE index value could fluctuate during normal operation to less
than 1.0 if the calculated TRE is less than the Group 2A criterion.
This is why monitoring is required for Group 2A process vents (i.e., to
ensure that the TRE index value does not fall below the 1.0 criterion).
After reviewing the development history of these cutoffs for each
rule, EPA determined that the probability of the TRE fluctuating from a
value in the range of 4.0 to 8.0 to less than 1.0 is small compared to
the probability of it fluctuating from a value in the range of 1.0 to
4.0 to less than 1.0. In the CAR, EPA proposes a TRE index value cutoff
of 4.0 for consistency. Thus, vents with TRE index values greater than
4.0 (i.e., Group 2B) would not have to monitor. This consolidation
would result in no impact on emissions because the vents in question
were never subject to control requirements; they were only subject to
monitoring requirements.
The low flow rate criterion for Group 2B status was similarly
consolidated in the CAR. The cutoffs in the referencing subparts range
from 0.005 standard cubic meters per minute (scmm) in the HON to 0.008
scmm in 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN to 0.011 scmm in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart RRR. Subpart III of 40 CFR part 60 does not contain a low flow
rate criterion. The EPA proposes to use 0.011 scmm in the CAR. Based
upon an analysis of EPA's process vent database, EPA concluded that the
population of process vents with a flow rate between 0.005 and 0.011
scmm would be very small. This data analysis is documented in more
detail in the following memorandum available in the Docket: ``Process
Vent Applicability Criteria,'' from Greg DeAngelo, Eastern Research
Group, to Rick Colyer, EPA, dated July 17, 1998. In the case of air
oxidation vents (i.e., those subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart III),
EPA believes that no vents will have flow rates below 0.011 scmm
because of the high flow rates in the vent streams from these unit
operations.
The low concentration cutoff for Group 2B status also was
consolidated. Based on an analysis of EPA process vent database, EPA
considered it appropriate to extend the 300 ppmv TOC low concentration
cutoff from 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR to subpart NNN sources, but did
not apply the cutoff to subpart III sources. Air oxidation process
vents subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart III can have low

[[Page 57771]]

concentrations but very high flow rates that could potentially result
in significant mass emissions of regulated pollutant even at low
concentrations. The 50 ppmv HAP concentration cutoff was retained for
40 CFR part 63, subpart G sources because the concentration cutoff is
in terms of HAP and no direct, consistent relationship can be
established between HAP and TOC emissions given the many different
types of processes across the industry.
Another concept that was taken from the HON and used in the CAR is
the procedures for monitoring a Group 2A process vent that meets the
Group 2A criteria without the use of a recovery device. In other words,
the process vent has the characteristics of a Group 2A process vent
``naturally,'' without the addition of a recovery device. In this case,
because the standard monitoring parameters for recovery devices do not
apply, the CAR specifies that the owner or operator should determine
the appropriate parameters to monitor. Under this case-by-case
determination, the proposed monitoring parameters, monitoring schedule,
and recordkeeping and reporting procedures would be submitted to the
Administrator for approval and then become the provisions for the
process vent. This concept is a clarification to the part 60 rules,
which do not address process vents that are Group 2A ``naturally.''
Engineering Assessment
The CAR allows the use of engineering assessment in lieu of testing
to determine vent characteristics. Engineering assessment is allowed
when determining vent stream flow rate and concentrations and TRE index
value for verifying Group 2B status. Halogenated vent stream status can
also be determined using engineering assessment. Compared to testing,
engineering assessment is a less burdensome approach to determining
vent stream characteristics. Allowing engineering assessment for
verifying Group 2B status does not decrease environmental protection
because any process vent with an estimated TRE index value between 1.0
and 4.0 must be tested and is potentially subject to control. Using
engineering assessment for process vents with a TRE index value above
4.0 also allows facilities to focus attention on vents where control or
monitoring is expected to be required.
Engineering judgement is allowed in the process vent referencing
subparts of part 60 only for TRE index value determination after a
process change is made, but it is not allowed for the initial
determination of vent characteristics. Also, the specifications
included in the CAR of what an engineering assessment entails, and the
examples of engineering assessment, are not in the process vent NSPS.
The HON does not allow the use of engineering judgement for the
initial determination of concentration and flow rate to verify Group 2B
status. These vents would have to be tested to evaluate the
concentration or flow rate. The CAR allows engineering assessment for
the initial determination of low concentration and flow rate. The EPA
has determined that engineering assessment is appropriate for these low
concentration and/or low flow rate streams. This assessment is
available for review by an inspector who can always request that a test
be conducted if needed.
Other Burden Reductions
There are several other minor provisions based on HON provisions
that are consolidated in the CAR for consistency, simplicity, or to
provide burden reduction. They are discussed below.
As in all the referencing subparts, the CAR requires that the group
status of the process vent must be evaluated whenever a process change
is made. The part 60 rules list examples of process changes, and these
lists are similar to the examples in the HON, except that the HON list
includes changes in production rates as an example of a process change.
The CAR includes production rate changes as examples of process
changes.
Likewise, the CAR includes the HON provisions regarding where to
locate the sampling site for purposes of determining the vent stream
characteristics. The CAR approach essentially specifies that the
sampling site should be located after the last recovery device but
prior to the control device inlet (and prior to release to the
atmosphere). In addition to this same requirement, the part 60 process
vent referencing subparts also provide sampling site provisions for
streams that are mixed prior to venting to a control device. In these
provisions, calculations are required to back-calculate the effect of
the control device on the individual streams that are mixed. The EPA
determined that this back-calculation was not necessary, because a
determination of the efficiency for the control device to reduce the
mixed stream is a good indication of the efficiency to reduce emissions
from individual streams. These 40 CFR part 60 provisions, therefore,
were not adopted in the CAR.
The net heating value equation in the CAR specifies that the
concentrations of the individual compounds are to be determined on a
wet basis. All of the process vent referencing subparts and the general
provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 contain a net heating value
equation, but the equation is presented in several different forms
across the rules with respect to whether or not the concentration
component of the equation is on a wet or dry basis. Some equations
specify wet basis, but some equations specify dry basis and include a
correction for the water vapor content of the vent stream. With the
exception of 40 CFR part 60, subpart III, all the equations are
mathematically equivalent, so the results are the same. In subpart III,
the equation is given in the wet basis form, but the provisions do not
require that it be on a wet basis. Because industry input indicated
that the wet basis form for the equation is more prevalent, the wet
basis form is used in the CAR and the concentration is required to be
on a wet basis. This is a possible change for 40 CFR part 60, subpart
III since some owners or operators subject to subpart III may have been
calculating net heating value using concentration on a dry basis in the
equation meant for wet basis concentrations. These owners or operators
would therefore need to recalculate the net heating value under the
CAR.
A change has been proposed to subpart III, however, specifying that
the concentration should be on a wet basis (62 FR 45369, August 27,
1997). Note that this Federal Register citation refers to changes in
test methods; the actual text of the proposed amendment to subpart III
is in the air docket at A-97-12 or on the web at http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/emc. Once this change is final, subpart III and the CAR will be
consistent on this issue.
The HON has a requirement to report which criteria (TRE index
value, concentration, or flow rate) a process vent meets to qualify as
a Group 2B vent and to report the test results (if any) accompanying
the determination. Under the CAR, records of test information must be
maintained, but no reports are required. The report is required only to
identify which vents are Group 2B. It does not have to list which
criteria each vent meets. This reporting requirement operates in
conjunction with the CAR's approach to reporting process changes. If a
process change is made that does not result in upgrading the group
status (for example, Group 2B to Group 2A), then only a statement to
that effect is required. This is a burden reduction because if a
process vent that meets

[[Page 57772]]

Group 2B status for one criterion now meets Group 2B status for a
different criterion following a process change, only a brief report
would be required rather than test results, engineering assessments, or
the like. All records of calculations after a process change are still
required to be kept.
Halogenated Vent Streams
Some concerns may exist in the consolidated process vent rules for
halogenated process vents subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts III, NNN,
or RRR but not subject to the HON. Two separate but related issues
exist: (1) whether a vent stream is halogenated, and (2) how to control
a halogenated vent stream.
The TRE index value is a function of whether the vent stream is
halogenated or nonhalogenated. The CAR and all of the referencing
subparts direct the owner or operator to use one set of coefficients to
make the TRE index value calculation for a halogenated vent stream,
while another set of coefficients must be used to make the TRE index
value calculation for a nonhalogenated vent stream. The CAR provisions
consolidate the definition of a halogenated vent stream using the HON
definition. The definition specifies that when the mass emission rate
of halogen atoms contained in the organic compounds is equal to or
greater than 0.45 kilogram per hour, the process vent stream is
considered halogenated.
This is potentially an important issue for process vents subject to
one of the part 60 process vent referencing subparts, because those
rules define halogenated streams differently. A stream is considered
halogenated if it contains 20 ppmv or greater halogens (versus 0.45
kilograms per hour under the CAR). The consolidation of this definition
in the CAR could result in a halogenated vent in the NSPS rules
becoming a nonhalogenated vent in the CAR, or vice versa. With the
different set of coefficients for calculating TRE index values for
halogenated and nonhalogenated vent streams, this could change the TRE
index value of a vent and, therefore, the group status. If a group
status changes as a result of the CAR, a different control and/or
monitoring requirement may be triggered.
The EPA believes this is an insignificant difference because only a
small subset of vents might have different halogenated status under the
CAR versus the NSPS process vent rules. Also, the majority of sources
subject to the process vent NSPS are also subject to the HON.
Therefore, this difference would have little effect on rule
applicability.
The HON provisions for process vents also include additional
control requirements for halogenated Group 1 process vents, while the
other referencing subparts do not specify any additional control. The
HON prohibits flaring of halogenated vents and specifies that a halogen
reduction device must be used if the process vent is to be combusted.
The proposed CAR includes the HON provisions regarding flares and
halogen reduction devices for combusted halogenated Group 1 process
vents. Based on industry input, EPA believes that halogenated vents are
very rarely flared because the flare tip corrodes under these
conditions.
These are substantial changes from the 40 CFR part 60 rules
(especially the possibility of requiring the installation of a halogen
reduction device such as a scrubber) that may prove to be an impediment
to some sources that otherwise may wish to use the CAR. The EPA
believes that the total population of process vents that contain
halogens, are Group 1, and are subject to a 40 CFR part 60 rule, but
that are not subject to the HON is small. The EPA specifically requests
comment on this issue.

E. Transfer Rack Provisions

The transfer rack provisions consolidate the transfer rack
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB (benzene transfer
operations), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (HON transfer racks).
Transfer racks complying through the use of a control device are
referred to subpart G of the CAR, thereby eliminating much of the
regulatory text contained in the transfer sections of the referencing
subparts.
The CAR transfer provisions are based on the transfer provisions of
the HON. The only significant change relative to the HON provisions
involves elimination of a recordkeeping requirement. The HON requires
that records be kept of liquids transferred through each transfer rack.
The EPA has determined that this record is not necessary for transfer
racks complying with the CAR. The intent of the record in the HON was
to determine if the liquids being transferred triggered the HON control
requirements for the transfer rack. Since control is required for all
transfer racks complying with the CAR, this record is not needed.
The primary benefit of using the CAR for transfer racks subject to
40 CFR part 61, subpart BB is to extend the same compliance options of
the HON to non-major SOCMI sources subject to subpart BB.
The HON allows vapor balancing as an alternative to the
installation of a control device. The process of vapor balancing
consists of returning vapors expelled from the vehicle being loaded
through vapor lines to the storage vessel being emptied. This option is
not contained in 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB. Vapor balancing is an
option under the HON because EPA determined that it reduces emissions
by at least 98 percent and is therefore an acceptable alternative to a
control device. Consequently, vapor balancing is included in the CAR to
provide flexibility for non-major SOCMI sources subject to subpart BB.
In addition, the CAR clarifies the definitions of vapor balancing
and closed-vent system. Vapor balancing systems are not subject to the
closed-vent system equipment leak provisions. Previously, the
referencing subparts used different approaches and terminology,
creating confusion about whether or not an individual section of the
transfer rack was part of the process or part of the closed-vent
system. The consolidated definitions clarify the issue. See the
discussion of the definitions in section VI.B of this preamble for more
information.
``Vapor collection system'' is the term used in the referencing
subparts to describe the equipment that collects and transports
transfer rack emissions. Throughout the CAR, uniform language is
adopted that refers to this type of equipment as ``closed-vent
systems.'' This standardization, along with the revised definitions,
further clarifies which sections of the transfer rack are included in
the closed-vent system and which are process piping.
The HON also introduces two other compliance alternatives that can
be used for transfer racks, neither of which are included in 40 CFR
part 61, subpart BB. Emissions from transfer racks can be routed either
to a process or to a fuel gas system. These options are consistent with
EPA's current approach to emissions control and provide operational
flexibility while maintaining environmental protection. During the
development of the HON, EPA determined that both of these alternatives
reduce emissions by at least 98 percent and are therefore acceptable
alternatives to a control device. Therefore, these two options are
included in the CAR's provisions for transfer racks.
The CAR allows two alternatives for demonstrating leak tightness
for tank trucks and rail cars. Source operators may rely on either a
Department of Transportation tank certification for tank trucks and
railcars, or Method 27

[[Page 57773]]

test results and documentation. The HON allows both of these
alternatives, recognizing that either is an acceptable means of
demonstrating leak tightness of tank trucks and railcars. However,
because it was drafted prior to the DOT certification program, 40 CFR
part 61, subpart BB does not make this choice available for transfer
racks and specifies only Method 27. Allowing this alternative in the
CAR provisions provides a potential for burden reduction because owners
and operators of tank trucks and railcars are already required to keep
the DOT certifications under DOT regulations. Under the CAR they do not
have to perform Method 27 in addition to keeping the DOT certification.
This alternative provides for a significant reduction in recordkeeping
burden in 40 CFR part 61, because subpart BB required several ancillary
records related to Method 27 to be kept by the owner or operator of the
transfer rack. These records are not necessary in conjunction with the
much simpler records needed for the DOT certifications.
The HON also allows an owner or operator to use a control device to
reduce the organic concentration of transfer rack emissions to 20 ppmv,
(on a dry basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen) as an alternative to
reducing emissions by 98 percent. However, 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB
does not provide this alternative, so the CAR includes this option as a
means of flexibility for transfer rack compliance.
Achieving a 98 percent reduction of a vent stream that initially
has a very low concentration can be infeasible or unreasonably costly.
Allowing a 20 ppmv concentration in addition to a 98 percent reduction
provides operational flexibility without compromising environmental
protection. This is an example of extending the more up-to-date
procedures of the HON to sources subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB.
The CAR adopts the control requirements of the HON for halogenated
transfer rack vent streams. These requirements are similar to those
discussed in section VI.D of this preamble for halogenated process
vents. These are new requirements for transfer racks subject to 40 CFR
part 61, subpart BB. The EPA does not expect the new requirement to
affect many vent streams because few transfer racks that are subject to
40 CFR part 61, subpart BB will contain halogens in sufficient quantity
to be considered halogenated by the CAR.

F. Equipment Leak Provisions

The proposed CAR's equipment leaks provisions consolidate the
equipment leaks requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (SOCMI
equipment leaks), 40 CFR part 61, subpart V (the generic equipment leak
requirements for 40 CFR part 61, subparts F [vinyl chloride] and J
[benzene]), and part 63, subpart H (HON equipment leaks).
Applicability of the CAR's equipment leak requirements is
determined by applicability provisions in the referencing subparts.
These provisions specify the components that would be subject to the
CAR. The provisions of the CAR apply only to those components that are
subject to the referencing subparts and are specifically referred to
the CAR. The CAR does not alter the applicability of the referencing
subpart. For example, the equipment leak provisions of subpart VV of 40
CFR Part 60 state that subject equipment includes all pumps, valves,
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended lines, and connectors that contain or contact a process
fluid that is at least 10 percent VOC by weight. When the CAR is
applied, only those same components would be subject to the provisions
in the CAR. Thus, even though the CAR contains provisions for
agitators, the agitator provisions would not apply to a source subject
only to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, because agitators are not covered
by 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
This section of the preamble discusses the CAR provisions for
alternative monitoring for valves, connector monitoring, the overall
improvements to the structure of the equipment leaks provisions in the
CAR, provisions from the HON that were clarified or improved through
incorporation into the CAR, and significant changes between the
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V
and those contained in the CAR.
Alternative Monitoring Program for Valves
The most significant difference between the equipment leaks
provisions in the CAR and those in the referencing subparts is the
CAR's innovative approach for monitoring valves for leaks. The CAR
alternative monitoring program can significantly reduce the amount of
burden associated with monitoring valves for leaks without increasing
the emissions of regulated pollutants to the environment. The valve
monitoring program is discussed below.
The premise for the CAR alternative monitoring program is that
industry data and experience have shown that, at some facilities, some
valve populations tend to leak more frequently than others. The
referencing subparts require valve monitoring on a process unit basis,
such that a certain number of valves that tend to leak frequently may
continually force all of the valves in the process unit to be monitored
frequently. Separate process units can qualify for less frequent
monitoring if the percent leaking valves in the process unit falls to a
small enough number. The CAR alternative monitoring program extends
this concept by allowing subgrouping, within or across process units,
to determine the valves that must be monitored. Each subgroup
correlates to a specific monitoring frequency based on the percent
leaking in that subgroup.
Under the CAR alternative, the owner or operator can place valves
that are expected to leak more frequently into one subgroup. Because
these valves leak more frequently they would be monitored more
frequently. Then, the valves in the other subgroups can qualify for
less frequent monitoring because the valves that leak more frequently
will not be included in their percent leaking calculations. This is
conceptually the same as the current programs which allow different
monitoring frequencies for different process units, in that the
performance of a given process unit does not disqualify another process
unit from less frequent monitoring. The primary difference in the CAR
alternative monitoring program is that subgrouping can be based on
site-specific factors other than process unit boundaries.
The main benefit of the CAR alternative monitoring program is to
allow facilities to focus on valves that tend to leak, while relieving
the burden of monitoring valves that tend not to leak and achieving
essentially the same level of environmental protection provided by the
referencing subparts. The cost of monitoring, which is a significant
burden to the industry, is thereby reduced without creating a greater
potential for negative environmental impact.
Several safeguards have been built into the CAR alternative
monitoring program to ensure that the level of environmental protection
does not deteriorate. First, to initially qualify for the CAR
alternative monitoring program, the overall performance of all valves
in the alternative monitoring program must be less than 2 percent
leakers. Also, if the overall performance of the valves in the
alternative monitoring program fails to meet the program's required 2
percent leak rate, as determined through semi-annual performance
checks, the entire population of valves in the alternative monitoring
program would revert to the

[[Page 57774]]

original valve monitoring program. As a result, each process unit would
revert to the monitoring frequency dictated by the percent leaking
valves observed. This may also introduce monthly monitoring for many
valves. The EPA considers this possibility a significant incentive for
owners or operators to maintain good performance at plant sites
employing the subgrouping program.
In addition, valves with less than one year of monitoring data (or
valves not monitored within the last 12 months) must initially be
placed into the most frequently monitored subgroup. Provisions to
restrict switching valves between subgroups are included to prevent
circumvention. These provisions, discussed below, ensure that valves
cannot be moved back and forth between subgroups to hide or diminish
the impact of leaking valves on the percent leaking valves
calculations.
Under the proposed alternative, a valve can be moved into a less
frequently monitored subgroup only when data have been collected that
demonstrate that the valve has not leaked during the entire monitoring
period of the subgroup to which it is moving (for example, no leaks for
the past 12 months before moving a valve into an annually monitored
subgroup). Therefore, valves with a demonstrated lower incidence of
leaks can migrate into the longer monitoring period subgroups. Because
even a few leaking valves in a subgroup can disqualify the subgroup for
the longer monitoring periods, it is anticipated that owners and
operators will be very cautious when considering whether or not to move
suspect valves into the longer monitoring period subgroup.
To move a valve into a more frequently monitored subgroup, the
valve must have been monitored during the most recent monitoring period
for the group it is moving from, and it must have had its monitoring
results included with the group from which it is moving. The intent of
this safeguard is to prevent leaking valves from being shuttled out of
a subgroup to protect that subgroup from triggering a more frequent
monitoring period.
The placement and subsequent reassignment of valves into subgroups
is a decision that will be made on a case-by-case basis by the owners
and operators. The alternative program takes advantage of the knowledge
of the process that the owner or operator possesses. At a given
facility, for example, valves operating under certain temperatures or
valves located adjacent to certain pieces of equipment may be more
likely to leak. No single set of criteria can be applied to the entire
industry, as the characteristics of valves that are more likely to leak
at one facility may not be the same at another facility.
Some additional records and items to include in the periodic
reports are necessary for this program to ensure compliance. These
records and reporting items consist essentially of recording which
valves are initially assigned to each subgroup, which valves have
subsequently been reassigned, and the results of the semiannual
performance checks. The burden associated with retaining these records
and making these reports is far outweighed by the savings in reduced
monitoring.
The other aspect of the valve program is the ability to earn longer
monitoring periods with good performance. The HON currently allows a
series of extended monitoring periods based on improved performance,
culminating with an annual monitoring period for process units with
less than 0.5 percent leaking valves. The CAR equipment leaks subpart
introduces an additional 2-year monitoring period for process units
with less than 0.25 percent leaking valves. This extended monitoring
period would be available to valves whether or not the owner or
operator chooses to use the alternative subgrouping program for
compliance. Since 0.25 percent of a typical valve population (either a
process unit under the base monitoring program or a subgroup under the
CAR alternative monitoring program) is a very small number of leaking
valves, EPA considers this change a logical extension of the original
monitoring periods specified in the HON. Furthermore, it has the
potential to substantially reduce monitoring costs without increasing
long-term emissions to the environment.
Revised Monitoring Program for Connectors
Another major difference between the CAR and the referencing
subparts is the approach taken to control equipment leak emissions from
connectors. The HON is the only referencing subpart with connector
monitoring provisions, but the CAR's approach to connector monitoring
requires much less frequent monitoring for SCUs with good performance
histories.
For connectors, as for valves, the monitoring periods have been
extended. The HON is the only referencing subpart that specifies
periodic monitoring for connectors, and it contains provisions for
extending the monitoring period to once every 4 years if the percentage
of leaking connectors is less than 0.5 percent. The CAR extends the HON
concept to an 8-year monitoring period for process units with less than
0.25 percent leaking connectors, while introducing connector monitoring
to sources previously complying with the sensory monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV. This approach for connectors applies on an SCU basis; subgrouping
similar to the alternative valve monitoring program is not allowed.
The EPA believes that the extended 8-year monitoring period is
warranted for connectors which can achieve and maintain a leak rate of
less than 0.25 percent. The lower threshold will forbid any poorly
performing connectors from qualifying. In addition, connectors are
static pieces of equipment without any moving parts. They are much less
likely to leak than dynamic pieces of equipment like pumps and valves.
As a safeguard built into the provisions allowing an 8-year
monitoring frequency, the CAR requires at least half of the connectors
to be monitored within the first 4 years. The process unit must have
less than 0.35 percent leaking connectors to remain in the 8-year
program; failing the percent leak criteria means the owner or operator
must monitor the rest of the values within the next 6 months. The
result of this monitoring will then determine the new monitoring
period. The 0.35 percent criterion was selected so that, if 0.35
percent (or more) of the first half of the connectors leak, the overall
connector population will be monitored, and the overall results will be
used to determine the monitoring frequency.
The changes for valves and connectors introduce concepts designed
not only to significantly reduce the burden of complying with equipment
leak inspections but also to maintain environmental protection. The EPA
believes that the safeguards incorporated into the new programs for
valves and connectors are sufficient to meet both of these goals.
CAR Structure
Some of the improvement to the CAR subpart F entails restructuring
with the intent to isolate and emphasize the different provisions in a
manner more consistent with typical plant operation. For example,
monitoring for leaks and leak repair are presented separately because
the personnel at a plant site responsible for these two activities are
not necessarily the same. In addition to creating a ``user-friendly''
format, the other goal of restructuring is to avoid repetition of
requirements. Equipment

[[Page 57775]]

identification provisions, for example, are presented once rather than
duplicated for each equipment type discussed.
In general, the equipment leaks subpart of the CAR is structured in
the following manner. Provisions common to all equipment types (such as
equipment identification, monitoring for leaks, and leak repair) are
consolidated and presented once, at the beginning of the subpart.
Following these provisions are component-by-component standards (for
example, for valves and for pumps). After the standards sections, the
subpart contains alternatives for batch units and for enclosed process
units as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all
equipment.
The general benefit of this structure is that plant personnel need
to be familiar with only the portions of the subpart that affect them.
Personnel responsible only for component repair, for example, can refer
to two or three sections in the subpart and do not have to read all of
the sections. A discussion of some of the more specific benefits of
structure improvements follows.
Two sections have been created through restructuring: ``Instrument
and Sensory Monitoring for Leaks'' and ``Leak Repair.'' This
restructuring is intended to more closely relate the structure of the
equipment leaks subpart to the way plants are configured and operated.
The referencing subparts contain the leak detection and repair
provisions for each type of component within the section for that
component. EPA believes that significant consolidation and
simplification can be achieved by combining the leak detection and leak
repair provisions into one set of provisions, since they are very
similar or identical for the different types of components. Instrument
leak detection procedures are the same across the components, including
the method used, calibration, monitoring procedure, and leak
identification.
The same is true for leak repair procedures. All of the referencing
subparts include provisions for repair within 15 days (first attempt
within 5 days), removal of leak identification, delay of repair, and
recordkeeping. Many of the CAR's recordkeeping provisions are contained
in the new leak detection and repair sections because the personnel
detecting and repairing the leaks are generally the same ones who
create and maintain the records. Only leak detection and repair
specific to individual components or situations are retained in the
individual sections addressing those components.
An additional restructuring was achieved by creating a parallel
construction for the equipment component sections which have similar
types of provisions. The standards for valves, pumps, connectors,
agitators, pressure relief devices in liquid service, and
instrumentation systems are broken into parallel paragraphs addressing
compliance schedule, leak detection, percent leaking component
calculations, and leak repair, where these provisions are applicable.
Any special provisions for that component follow the standardized
paragraphs. A consistent structure for these sections enables the owner
or operator to more easily understand the requirements for each
component and facilitate the owner or operator's compliance activities.
For consistency and clarity, all owners or operators controlling
equipment leak emissions with closed-vent systems and control devices
or by routing to a process or to a fuel gas system are also subject to
subpart G of the CAR. Subpart F of the CAR specifies 95 percent or
greater control efficiency for control devices before referring all
three of these compliance options to subpart G. Subpart G then provides
the consistent, consolidated procedures for the control device or
routing emissions to a process or fuel gas system.
Clarifications and Improvements From the HON
In addition to consolidating primarily on the HON requirements, the
CAR makes some significant clarifications, changes, and improvements to
the HON provisions. These issues, some of which also constitute changes
for sources referenced from the other two equipment leaks referencing
subparts, are discussed in more detail below. This section discusses
changes to provisions taken from the HON. In cases where the HON and
the non-HON requirements are substantially identical, the discussion in
this section is equally applicable to all three referencing subparts.
When the discussion applies to all three equipment leak referencing
subparts instead of only the HON, the discussion is specially noted.
Identification of subject equipment has been simplified for all
sources complying with the CAR. It is not necessary to individually
identify each piece of equipment, as long as equipment subject to the
CAR can be distinguished from other equipment through means of a plant
site plan, log entries, process unit boundaries, or another method.
This does not preclude the use of individual equipment identification,
but it does offer flexibility and the opportunity for burden reduction
as a source does not have to track a complex numbering scheme for
compliance. For example, the CAR simplifies identification of
connectors by allowing them to be identified by grouping or area.
Closed-vent systems and control devices, pressure relief devices, and
instrumentation systems must be identified, but the CAR provisions do
not specify particular formats. The referencing subparts, on the other
hand, require lists of identification numbers for individual pieces of
equipment; the CAR is more flexible and thus reduces the recordkeeping
burden. Such flexibility, however, does not relieve an owner or
operator's responsibility for the ability to locate components at the
plant site.
Regarding unsafe-to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor equipment, the
HON requires owners or operators to develop a written plan for
monitoring the equipment, but does not explicitly require the
monitoring. The CAR clarifies that monitoring of the equipment is
required according to the written plan that is developed.
The CAR clarifies that compressors designated as operating with an
instrument reading less than 500 ppm, as well as pressure relief
devices, are subject to a performance standard as opposed to a work
practice standard with respect to instrument monitoring. Thus, if a
compressor is monitored using Method 21 and an instrument reading of
500 ppm or greater is detected, it is a violation of the standard. If a
pressure relief device is monitored 5 days after a pressure release and
an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is detected, it is also a
violation of the standard. These are clarifications, not changes, from
the HON.
The CAR maintains the HON provisions with respect to the monitoring
instrument specifications and calibration procedure. However, the CAR
includes provisions for adjusting instrument readings for instruments
that cannot meet the Method 21 performance criteria. The CAR also
allows calibration with gases other than methane or n-hexane where the
instrument does not respond to either of these compounds.
Provisions in all three referencing subparts require monitoring
only when equipment is in regulated material service, in service of an
acceptable surrogate VOC, or in service of any other detectable
material. The CAR does not include the ``acceptable surrogate VOC''
phrase because it is redundant and confusing in relation to ``any other
detectable material.''
As discussed earlier in this section, the HON and the CAR allow
owners or operators to monitor valves and

[[Page 57776]]

connectors less frequently when the percentage of leaking components is
low. Monitoring data collected prior to implementation of a referencing
subpart can be used to qualify initially for less frequent monitoring,
even if the data were obtained with minor departures from the CAR's
monitoring procedures and methods. The CAR further clarifies the
original HON language by indicating that (1) earlier data may be used
only for initial qualification, and (2) this provision includes
initially qualifying for annual monitoring. The original HON language
was unclear whether older data could be used all the time, and whether
old data could be used to qualify initially for annual monitoring. Both
CAR clarifications are consistent with EPA's determination of the
original HON intent.
The CAR clarifies language dealing with repair of leaks. Leaks must
be repaired within 15 days of detection, unless the leak qualifies for
delay of repair. Provisions in all three referencing subparts allow for
delay of repair ``* * * if the repair is technically infeasible without
a process unit shutdown.'' This language potentially discourages any
attempts at repair between the 15th day after detection and the next
process unit shutdown, since a successful repair within that period
would then disqualify one from the original delay of repair. Some
equipment leaks legitimately qualify for delay of repair, yet they can
be repaired after the 15-day repair deadline and before the next
process unit shutdown. These repairs can be effected by continued
repeat attempts over time until the leak is repaired. In order to
eliminate the potential disincentive to attempt repair of leaks after
the fifteenth day, the CAR revises the wording of this provision to
state that delay of repair is allowed if repair ``within 15 days after
a leak is detected'' is technically infeasible without a process
shutdown.
The CAR adds some flexibility for calculation of percent leaking
valves by allowing the calculation for either a single process unit or
a group of process units. Owners or operators must commit to one of
these approaches by their CAR implementation date, and perform all
subsequent percent leaking calculations on the same basis. The basis
may be changed through revision of the operating permit or other
appropriate notification.
The CAR also simplifies the calculation procedure by not
incorporating a partial credit for removed valves. Industry
representatives indicated that this credit was little used and overly
complicated the equation. The simplified equation, along with the
reduction in burden associated with the alternative monitoring programs
and the extended monitoring periods, outweighs any negative aspects of
not including the complex procedures necessary to use the credit for
removed valves.
Another complicated procedure from the HON was not incorporated
into the CAR. In order to provide a credit for removed and allowed
nonrepairable connectors, the HON contains multiple equations for
determining the percent leaking connectors and contains complicated
recordkeeping and testing provisions. Based on industry comment that
these credits complicated the procedures, added recordkeeping burden,
and were seldom used, the EPA decided not to include them in the CAR.
The CAR does not incorporate the valve quality improvement program
(QIP) found in the HON. The goals of the QIP and of the CAR's
subgrouping procedures are the same--to focus attention and effort on
poorly performing valves. Owners and operators are expected to be able
to subgroup their valves such that valves with continuing problems will
be re-assigned into a single subgroup (which will likely be subject to
quarterly or monthly monitoring). The additional focus and financial
incentives for improvement inherent in the CAR make the QIP for valves
unnecessary.
The pump section has also been improved and clarified. The CAR
clarifies that documentation of weekly visual checks need only include
a record that the check was conducted; pump-by-pump documentation is
not required. The CAR also clarifies what constitutes leak repair when
indications of liquid dripping are observed during the visual
inspection. ``Repaired'' in this situation means that the indications
of liquid dripping have been eliminated. In addition, an owner or
operator may show that the liquids dripping are not process fluid (for
example, the liquids dripping are condensate).
The CAR replaces the term ``agitator'' with ``agitator seal'' to
more accurately convey the intent of the requirement. The agitator
itself is not subject to leaking; rather, the agitator seal is subject
to leaking.
The CAR incorporates the HON's alternative provisions for batch
processes and modifies these provisions to allow additional flexibility
regarding the required use of pressure measurement devices. The HON
requires a device with a precision of <plus-minus>2.5 millimeters of
mercury in the range of the test pressure and the capability to measure
pressures as high as the relief set pressure of the pressure relief
device. Under the CAR, when such a device is not reasonably available,
owners and operators may use an alternative pressure measurement device
if the duration of the test is extended as specified.
Significant Changes From the Non-HON Equipment Leak Referencing
Subparts
This section summarizes the significant differences between the
equipment leak provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV and those of the CAR. Some of the changes that are also
clarifications and improvements from the HON are discussed in the
preceding section.
The CAR's equipment leaks provisions do not apply to equipment in
vacuum service. While 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV require a record of equipment in vacuum service, the CAR
follows the approach in the HON and does not specify this record. Also,
the CAR exempts equipment that is intended to be in regulated material
service less than 300 hours per calendar year, as the HON does.
Although there is an identification record associated with this
exemption, having the exemption is a net burden reduction for 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV sources complying
with the CAR.
The CAR also incorporates the HON clarification that equipment not
containing process fluids is not subject to the equipment leak
provisions. When 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV were drafted, rules typically did not explicitly state what did not
apply. These non-HON equipment leak referencing subparts are intended
to apply only to equipment containing process fluids; the rules do not,
however, explicitly exempt equipment that does not contain process
fluids. Since the drafting of these rules, the EPA's philosophy has
shifted and this explicit clarification from the HON has been used in
the CAR.
Provisions regarding alternative means of emission limitation were
consolidated into one set of requirements. The CAR requires public
notice in the Federal Register if the Administrator approves an
alternative means of emission limitation. This public notice is not
specifically required in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, but public notice
is required by section 112 of the Act.
Sources subject to the non-HON equipment leak referencing subparts
would benefit from the general identification requirements of the CAR,
which allow whatever identification scheme makes the most sense at a
given

[[Page 57777]]

facility. However, the CAR introduces some new component-specific
identification provisions for these sources, such as special
identifications for pressure relief devices or instrumentation systems.
The CAR language provides a net burden decrease associated with
equipment identification.
Although 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV
include procedures that are considered to comprise first attempt at
repair for leaking valves, these subparts do not contain parallel
procedures for first attempt at repair for leaking pumps. HON language
is used in the CAR to clarify what is meant by first attempt at repair
for pumps.
An additional burden reduction and clarification is achieved by
incorporating the HON definition of ``repair'' with the leak repair
requirements. Both 40 CFR part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV require valve monitoring for two successive months before
the leaking valve identification can be removed. The CAR follows the
HON language and allows the removal of the identification after the
valve is ``repaired,'' which by definition includes follow-up
monitoring.
The CAR also adopts the HON provisions for records of delay of
repair, allowing owners and operators to develop written procedures for
delay of repair and to simply cite relevant sections of their written
procedures as the record of reason for delay. In addition, the CAR
includes the HON's exemption for unsafe-to-repair connectors.
Provisions contained in the CAR for connectors are taken from the
HON. These include periodic instrument monitoring with a leak
definition of 500 ppm; less frequent monitoring for good performance;
special provisions for difficult-to-monitor or unsafe-to-monitor
connectors; and exemptions from monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for inaccessible, ceramic, or ceramic-lined
connectors.
For sampling connection systems, the CAR contains flexible language
from the HON allowing purged process fluid to be collected, stored, and
transported to one of several systems or facilities. One option from
the HON [transporting the purged process fluid to a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Group 1 wastewater stream or to an
NPDES-permitted facility] is allowed in the CAR for HON sources only.
As explained in more detail in section XI, sources subject to 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V cannot be eligible for this option because the
option requires an absence in the stream of particular organic HAP
listed on table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; however, any source
subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart V will contain benzene or vinyl
chloride, two of the compounds listed in table 9. This option is not
allowed for sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV because
purged materials for these sources may contain VOC species which are
not HAP, and thus, were not evaluated along with the organic HAP
species when the option was developed for the HON.

G. Closed-Vent Systems, Control Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas
System or a Process

Subpart G of the CAR addresses the closed-vent system control
devices, and routing vent streams to fuel gas systems or process
equipment. Subpart G consolidates requirements from all of the storage
vessel, process vent, transfer rack, and equipment leak referencing
subparts (including the general provisions and continuous process vent
provisions from 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD).
Subpart D of the CAR does not consolidate the process vent
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD with those of 40 CFR part 60,
subparts III, NNN, RRR and the HON because these subparts differ in
terms of the applicability criteria for control. Subpart DDD of 40 CFR
part 60 differs from the NSPS and the HON in that it does not use TRE
index value, flow, or concentration to determine if control is required
for the vent. Also, subpart DDD does not have provisions included in
the NSPS and the HON requiring monitoring for vents that are not
required to be controlled. The control requirements for subpart DDD
process vents, however, are essentially identical to those in 40 CFR
part 60, subparts III, NNN, RRR, and the HON and were able to be
consolidated in subpart G of the CAR.
The EPA has significantly restructured these provisions from all of
the referencing subparts. Table 3 summarizes the sections of subpart G
of the CAR. After short applicability, definition, and standards
sections (Secs. 65.140 to 65.142), subpart G is organized as follows:
Secs. 65.143 to 65.156 addresses the requirements for equipment,
operating, performance tests (or compliance determinations for flares)
and monitoring for closed-vent systems, for routing to a fuel gas
system or process, and for each type of recovery or control device
specified in the referencing subparts (for example, flares,
incinerators, absorber); Secs. 65.157 to 65.158 addresses performance
test and flare compliance determination requirements and procedures;
and Secs. 65.159 to 65.165 addresses data handling, CPMS,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for closed-vent systems,
recovery and control devices, and routing to a fuel gas system or
process.

Table 3.--Structure of 40 CFR Part 65, Subpart G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Content
------------------------------------------------------------------------
65.140.......................... Applicability.
65.141.......................... Definitions
65.142.......................... Standards (roadmap to subpart G).
65.143.......................... Closed-vent systems requirements.
65.144.......................... Routing to fuel gas systems and
processes.
65.145-......................... Control and recovery devices
65.155 requirements
65.156.......................... General monitoring requirements
65.157-......................... Performance test and flare compliance
65.158 determination requirements and
procedures.
65.159-......................... Data handling and recordkeeping.
65.163
65.164-......................... Notifications and reports.
65.166
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standard section, Sec. 65.142 of subpart G of the CAR, acts as
a roadmap to subpart G. All of the CAR subparts reference a specific
paragraph of Sec. 65.142. These paragraphs outline the specific
sections of subpart G that apply to a given situation.
In addition to the overall restructuring, the individual device
sections (Secs. 65.145--65.155) are organized in the same general
manner: sections begin with a discussion of equipment and operating
requirements, are followed by paragraphs discussing flare compliance
determinations or performance test requirements, and conclude with
paragraphs discussing monitoring requirements. This makes it easier to
find specific information on the device of interest.
A number of decisions were made by EPA in the consolidation of
these provisions. These decisions are discussed below in subsections
that are in the order that they appear in subpart G of the CAR.
Decisions made in the consolidation of subpart G provisions on
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions associated with
closed-vent systems, control and recovery devices, and routing to a
fuel gas system of a process are discussed in section VI.H.
Closed-Vent Systems
The language in the HON provides the basis for language in subpart
G. The primary change to the HON closed-vent

[[Page 57778]]

system language is the restructuring to meet the format used elsewhere
in the CAR. That is, in this case, to separate the provisions into
equipment and operating requirements (including by-pass monitoring),
inspection requirements, inspection procedures, and leak repair
provisions. Specific clarifications to the HON language are discussed
below.
Clarifying improvements were made to the consolidated closed-vent
system inspection procedures. For example, the HON requires that the
calibration gas be no more than 2000 ppm higher than the leak
definition. This requirement in the HON is given in a generic section,
to apply to various leak definitions. Since the leak definition for
closed-vent systems is 500 ppmv, the CAR specifies a calibration gas
concentration limit of 2500 ppm for multiscale instruments for closed-
vent systems. In addition, the HON requires that an instrument response
factor, if used, to be based on the mathematical average response
factor for the given process fluid. Since the process fluid composition
can vary considerably, EPA reduced the burden of this provision in the
CAR by specifying the response factor be based on a representative
response factor, which could apply to a family of process fluids. This
avoids numerous response factor calculations for process fluids that
are only marginally different in composition.
The CAR does not adopt a HON requirement to inspect storage vessel
closed-vent systems during filling of the vessel. Pressure in a storage
vessel closed-vent system, and therefore potential leaks of regulated
material, is not a function of filling, since storage vessels are
designed to relieve at low pressures. This requirement is not found in
any of the other referencing subparts.
The HON transfer operations has a provision that repairs must be
made no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected or at
the beginning of the next transfer loading operation. The EPA decided,
as a clarification, to extend this concept to all emission points, that
is, that repair can be extended longer than 15 days if the closed-vent
system is not in use. The proposed CAR requires repair no later than 15
calendar days or at the beginning of the next introduction of vapors to
the system.
Several aspects of the HON that are adopted in the CAR provide
clarity and, in some cases, burden reductions, relative to the other
referencing subparts. A summary of the significant changes from the
other referencing subparts follows.
The CAR clarifies that closed-vent systems must be operating at all
times when emissions are vented to them. Although this requirement is
explicitly stated in 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and DDD, and 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V it is only implied in the other referencing subparts
that it is necessary to have the closed-vent system in operation when
emissions are vented to it. The requirement derives from the general
provisions requirements in each part to `` * * * operate and maintain
any affected facility, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices * * * '' Also, a similar requirement for control devices is
stated in many rules. Explicitly stating the requirement improves all
the rules by making the compliance requirements clear.
For equipment in a closed-vent system that can divert the stream
away from the control device and to the atmosphere, the owner or
operator is required to either (1) install, maintain, and operate a
flow indicator that takes a reading at least every 15 minutes, or (2)
to secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. The HON exempts certain
equipment (pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes, low leg
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, and open-ended valves or
lines) from these requirements. The EPA has incorporated this exemption
into the CAR as a clarification for the non-HON referencing subparts.
The closed-vent system provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD,
and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB require the owner or operator to car-
seal open all inline valves in a closed-vent system (valves leading to
the control device). The other referencing subparts present this
requirement by specifying either flow indicators or car-sealed closed
valves on all lines diverting the stream away from the control device
and to the atmosphere. For consistency, the car-sealed closed or flow
indicator approach is followed in the CAR.
The CAR requires bypass monitoring. Instead of bypass monitoring
for lines that can divert the vapors in a closed-vent system away from
the control device to the atmosphere, 40 CFR part 60, subparts III and
NNN contain process vent flow monitoring provisions prior to the
control device. The CAR does not allow this method of monitoring for
bypasses. The EPA decided that the methods used by the HON and many of
the other referencing subparts are more relevant. Monitoring the vent
flow does not ensure that bypasses are not taking place. Regulated
sources currently using flow monitors under 40 CFR part 60, subparts
III and NNN would have to switch to bypass monitoring in order to use
the CAR. Furthermore, this change will be a significant burden
reduction for many sources. Many process vents not subject to the HON
but subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts III and NNN, are routed to
control devices subject to the HON through common closed-vent systems
which are subject to the HON. These vents can, under the CAR, perform
only the bypass monitoring requirements of the HON instead of also
having their vent flow measured under 40 CFR part 60, subparts III and
NNN.
The language used in the closed-vent system inspection provisions
of the CAR are based on the more recent work practice approach of the
HON and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV for closed-vent system inspections.
The requirement to ``operate with no detectable emissions'' as stated
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, and the
requirement of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka to ``collect all VOC vapors
and gases discharged from the storage vessel'' are not included in the
CAR. The EPA concluded that the HON work practice inspection language
was more specific and easier for enforcement and compliance, while
achieving the intent of the referencing subparts.
The CAR also retains the distinction between hardpiping and
ductwork made in the HON and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV closed-vent
system inspection provisions. Hardpiping and ductwork have different
leak inspection requirements. This distinction does not exist in 40 CFR
part 61, subparts V, Y and BB. Also, HON provisions covering situations
where it is unsafe or difficult to inspect the closed-vent system were
applied to the CAR.
Fuel Gas Systems and Processes
Fuel gas systems consist of piping and control systems that gather
gaseous streams and return them to combustion devices for use as fuel
gas. For such systems, the CAR adopted the equipment and operating
requirements as well as compliance determination procedures from the
HON.
The EPA reasoned that the explicit HON provisions for routing
emissions to a process or to a fuel gas system should be allowed in the
CAR when the owner or operator chooses or is required to comply with
storage vessel, transfer, or equipment leak control requirements. The
emission point types covered by the HON are the same as those covered
by the referencing subparts. While developing the HON, EPA determined

[[Page 57779]]

that routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process provides
sufficient control, in most cases in excess of 98 percent reduction.
None of the non-HON referencing subparts explicitly allowed this
option. (See 61 FR 43703, August 26, 1996, for further discussion of
this issue.)
Note that the option of routing to a fuel gas system or to a
process is not provided for process vents in the CAR, since, based on
the CAR's definition of process vents, these vent streams are not
considered to be process vents unless or until they are vented to the
atmosphere.
Non-Flare Control Devices for Storage Vessels and Low-Throughput
Transfer Racks
The HON was used as the basis for the CAR language for this
section. The structure is similar to the other sections of subpart G
with an equipment and operating requirements, a design evaluation or
performance test requirements, and a monitoring requirement paragraph.
Although the language is based on the HON, it is important to note that
this section represents a consolidation of HON storage vessel and HON
low-throughput transfer rack provisions. Low-throughput transfer racks
are racks that transfer less than a total of 11.8 million liters per
year of liquid containing regulated materials.
The storage vessel and HON low-throughput transfer rack provisions
are very similar. The only differences are: (1) the HON storage vessel
provisions require a design evaluation and the HON transfer provisions
allow a choice between a design evaluation or performance test; and (2)
the low-throughput transfer rack provisions in the HON require the
monitoring parameters and ranges to be identified, as does the HON
storage vessel provision, but it also requires specific monitoring
devices to be installed depending on the control device being used.
The CAR allows a choice of a design evaluation or performance test
for both storage vessels and transfer racks. The EPA reasoned that a
performance test could be used in place of a design evaluation since it
is more definitive than a design evaluation in many cases. The CAR
clarifies the HON transfer monitoring provisions by consolidating the
provisions of the HON storage vessels. Also, EPA clarifies in the CAR
that when a performance test is conducted the facility can specify the
parameters to be monitored and their appropriate ranges. Continuous
monitoring is not required for either storage vessels or transfer racks
unless this is specifically required in the monitoring plan which
identifies the parameters to be monitored and the monitoring range.
This is as required in the HON storage vessel provisions and a
clarification to the transfer rack provisions.
The storage vessel subparts, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR
part 61, subpart Y, do not allow for a performance test instead of a
design evaluation, so the CAR provides a flexibility that was
previously unavailable in these rules. The performance test/design
evaluation options are summarized below:
(1) The owner or operator may choose to do a design evaluation
instead of a performance test to set the monitoring parameters. The
requirements for determining the monitoring parameters were taken from
the HON--the owner or operator chooses the parameters, the ranges, and
the monitoring frequency based on site-specific information,
manufacturer's specifications, engineering judgment, or other
significant information.
(2) The owner or operator may vent to a shared control device that
must comply with the performance testing requirements of the CAR. The
requirements for this case are taken from the HON. There are minimal
records and reports for this case, because the facility is already
keeping records and submitting reports for the other emission point
that shares the control device. The EPA reasoned that requiring just
the performance test instead of the design evaluation would be
acceptable, as the performance test provides the information necessary
to assure the control device can perform at the level needed to meet
the standard.
(3) The owner or operator may choose to do a performance test
instead of a design evaluation. This is the new option under the CAR;
it is not contained in any of the referencing subparts except for the
HON transfer rack provisions. This option applies the provisions for
determining parameter ranges as described in the option for storage
vessels and low-throughput transfer racks conducting a design
evaluation on a non-shared control device (option 1).
Subpart BB of 40 CFR part 61 does not provide for a design
evaluation instead of performance test for low-throughput transfer
racks. The EPA reasoned that performance tests should not be required
for subpart BB low-throughput transfer racks for the same reason that
they are not required for HON low-throughput transfer racks. At this
low level of throughput it is difficult to organize a performance test
because of the infrequent loading of tank trucks or railcars. (See
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--Background Information for
Final Standards. Volume 2A: Comments on Process Vents, Storage Vessels,
Transfer Operations, and Equipment Leaks. Final IS. EPA-453/R-94-003a.
pp 4-13--4-14.) Also, EPA recognizes that many of the subpart BB
transfer racks at a SOCMI facility will be subject to the HON.
Therefore, this provision is already available to these subpart BB
transfer racks.
Subpart Ka of 40 CFR part 60 requires submission of a monitoring
plan for control devices (including flares), but it contains no
requirements to monitor per the plan or to report. The CAR storage
vessel non-flare control device provisions are more prescriptive than
the subpart Ka provisions, but EPA believes that there are very few
subpart Ka storage vessels using closed-vent systems and control
devices for compliance. In the spirit of consolidation, and noting that
the CAR is a compliance alternative, the design evaluation and
compliance determination provisions are based on the HON language.
Provisions in the HON, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and 40 CFR part
61, subpart Y, all provide the equivalent of a design evaluation in the
case where storage vessel vapors are controlled by a non-flare control
device. The CAR language, as based on the HON, has several details
required in the design evaluation that are not required in subparts Kb
and Y. Specifically these details pertain to information that must be
included in the design evaluation given the type of device. For
instance, the CAR specifies for enclosed combustors that, if
applicable, the design evaluation must include the autoignition
temperature of the stream being combusted, the flow rate, the
combustion temperature and the residence time. The CAR also specifies
the information required for carbon adsorbers and condensers. Subparts
Kb and Y do not contain these details. The EPA is requiring these
details in the CAR because these are the pieces of information that
would be contained in a design evaluation whether it be for a HON or
subpart Kb or Y storage vessel. By specifying these as requirements,
the CAR is clearer and will avoid miscommunications when design
evaluations are prepared.
Subpart Kb of 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y require
a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds and a minimum temperature of

[[Page 57780]]

816 deg. C for enclosed combustion devices. Enclosed combustion devices
with temperature and residence time greater than or equal to these
minimums need only indicate in the documentation that this condition
exists and no other documentation is required. The CAR has the same
provision but uses a minimum temperature of 760 deg. C and a minimum
residence time of 0.5 seconds, as does the HON. The EPA chose the HON
values to incorporate in the CAR because it was determined under the
HON that these values are appropriate to obtain the necessary emissions
reduction. Also, by using the HON values, the enclosed combustors
meeting the minimums in subparts Kb and Y would also meet the minimums
under the HON.
The requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and part 61, subpart
Y to include in the design evaluation report the manufacturer's design
specifications for the control device was not incorporated into the CAR
because most controls are not purchased as a package; other
requirements in the CAR will provide sufficient reports of the control
device specifications.
Non-Flare Control Devices Used to Control Equipment Leaks
A section of subpart G of the CAR contains the equipment,
operating, and monitoring requirements for non-flare control devices
used to control equipment leak emissions. Very similar language is used
in all three equipment leaks referencing subparts. This section
clarifies that a performance test is not required for control devices
used only to control emissions from equipment leaks.
The requirement to operate the control device at all times when
emissions are vented to them is explicitly contained only in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV, but the requirement can be inferred for the other
subparts as outlined above in the general closed-vent system
discussion.
Flares
Equipment and operating provisions for flares are consolidated into
this section of the CAR from many referencing subparts, including the
general provisions from 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The flare equipment and
operating requirements, flare compliance determination procedures, and
monitoring provisions are consolidated, as discussed below.
The EPA identified that the HON requirement for pilot flame
monitoring could be read to call for monitoring of each pilot flame,
which was not the intent of the HON. The wording was clarified to
require a device capable of ``detecting that at least one pilot flame
is present.'' The EPA also decided that to increase the flexibility of
the rule, flare flame monitoring would be allowed as it is allowed in
40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD. Any outage of the flame or pilot flame
would be reportable under the CAR.
The HON language is used in the CAR for clarification on performing
the Method 22 visible emission tests for flare compliance
determinations at transfer operations with loading cycles of less than
2 hours. The observation under Method 22 is required to extend for 2
hours. Under the CAR, the observation can be conducted for the complete
loading cycle for loading cycles less than 2 hours. Subpart BB of 40
CFR part 61 does not have this provision.
The heating value formula for flares from 40 CFR part 60 general
provisions is used throughout the CAR because this equation is believed
to be the most prevalent in use. Using the part 60 general provisions
equation consolidates and clarifies the equations, which were presented
in the various referencing subparts with different terms, different
formats, and on different bases (wet or dry). The various equations,
however, all yield the same results if correctly applied, but the
different representations caused confusion. The heating value equation
for part 60 process vents, for example, was changed from a dry to a wet
basis to be identical to the part 60 general provisions equation. Note
that a ``D'' variable instead of a ``C'' variable for concentration is
used in this equation to distinguish net heating value concentration
from another concentration variable used in earlier equations in the
CAR.
The CAR includes a requirement that is essentially the same as
provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD requiring flare flame or
pilot monitors to be operated during any flare compliance
determination. This is a common sense provision that is not explicitly
stated elsewhere, and it is included in the CAR for consistency and
clarity.
Incinerators
For the most part, the HON language was used as the basis for the
incinerator provisions in the CAR. Incinerator operating requirements
from 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and DDD were used in the CAR to
explicitly require that incinerators shall be operated at all times
when emissions are vented to them. The actual part 60 requirements
specify that the incinerators shall be operated at all times when
emissions may be vented to them. This was clarified in the CAR to read
``are vented to them'' because the part 60 requirement could be
interpreted to require continuous operation of the device even when not
receiving emissions. In addition, while this requirement is not
explicitly stated in the HON for incinerators, it is an implied general
control device requirement that the control device must be operating.
This provision has been added to all the control device sections but is
only mentioned here.
In addition, a provision from the NSPS process vent rules (40 CFR
part 60, subparts DDD, III, NNN, and RRR) was included in the
incinerator section. This provision specifies what should be done if an
owner or operator decides to replace an existing control device with
another control device. The HON does not specify what should be done in
this case, and the NSPS language specifies that the notice be made 90
days before the change. The NSPS language was used in the CAR, but
modified to state that the notification of the change must only be made
prior to the change. This notification can be included in an amendment
to a title V permit or, if title V is not applicable, in a separate
notice that can be part of a periodic report. The addition of this
provision adds clarity. This provision was added to every control
device section but is only mentioned here.
To clarify when initial performance tests are required, the CAR
added language regarding incinerator performance test requirements. The
HON language exempting an owner or operator from the requirement to
conduct a performance test if the incinerator burns hazardous waste and
meets the requirements of RCRA was included in the CAR for all sources
subject to performance test requirements. The EPA has determined that
these incinerators are adequately tested under the RCRA program. (61 FR
43708, August 26, 1996) This exemption also applies to design
evaluations and performance tests for storage vessels and low-
throughput transfer racks and is included in the section of subpart G
regarding non-flare control devices used on storage vessels and low-
throughput transfer racks.
Boilers and Process Heaters
Although the HON language for boiler and process heater
requirements was used for the basis of the requirements in the CAR, 40
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, III, NNN and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB
contain essentially the same requirements for boilers (subpart RRR of
40 CFR part 60 contains requirements identical to the HON.) One
exception is

[[Page 57781]]

that some of the referencing subparts do not contain the exemptions
from performance tests and from monitoring for vents introduced as
primary fuel or for boilers or process heaters larger than 44 MW. An
exemption from performance testing and monitoring when the vent stream
is mixed with the primary fuel, or for boilers or process heaters
larger than 44 MW, was taken from the HON and included in the CAR. The
basis for this decision by EPA to allow these exemptions is contained
in Reactor Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry--Background Information for Promulgated Standards (EPA-450/3-
90-016b). This document explains that a vent stream introduced with the
primary fuel would be expected to have an emissions reduction greater
than 98 percent because temperatures are higher when the vent stream is
passed through the flame front. The EPA has also outlined in this
document that large boilers and process heaters are expected to achieve
an emission reduction greater than 98 percent. These exemptions also
apply to design evaluations and performance tests for storage vessels
and low-throughput transfer racks and is included in the section of
subpart G regarding non-flare control devices used on storage vessels
and low-throughput transfer racks.
The requirement in 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB and in 40 CFR part
60, subparts DDD, III, and NNN for records to be kept of the periods of
boiler or process heater operation is not included in the CAR. The
record of boiler or process heater periods of operation is not
necessary as it is a safety hazard to introduce gas into an idle
combustion device. Therefore, vent streams are not expected to be
vented to the boiler or process heater unless the device is operating,
so a record of when the device is or is not operating is not needed.
Absorbers, Condensers, and Carbon Adsorbers Used as Control or Final
Recovery Devices
Subpart G of the CAR covers absorbers, condensers, and carbon
adsorbers in four sections of the subpart. Section 65.150 covers
absorbers as control devices, Sec. 65.151 covers condensers as control
devices, and Sec. 65.152 covers carbon adsorbers as control devices,
and Sec. 65.153 covers all three devices when they are used as final
recovery devices. The recovery device section (Sec. 65.153) is
specifically for devices that are used as final recovery devices on
Group 2A process vents. When these devices are used as control devices
(i.e., a recapture device on a Group 1 process vent, or a recovery or
recapture device on a transfer rack) Secs. 65.150 through 65.152 apply,
as applicable.
Very few changes were made to the HON language for these devices,
except for the restructuring of provisions (discussed in sections IV.B
and VI.A of this preamble), the addition of the NSPS process vent
provision on changing control devices and the requirement to be
operating at all times when emissions are vented to them (both
discussed in this section under incinerators). Changes to the other
referencing subparts are discussed below.
Subpart BB of 40 CFR part 61 for benzene transfer operations does
not contain provisions for condensers and absorbers. It does allow
carbon adsorbers equipped with organic monitoring devices to be used.
In the CAR, the absorber and condenser provisions are available for all
referencing subparts, including subpart BB.
In addition, under 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB for benzene transfer
operations, only organic monitors could be used for determining
compliance with the standard when using a carbon adsorber. Under 40 CFR
60, subpart DDD, only organic monitors could be used for determining
compliance with the standard when using an absorber, condenser, or
carbon adsorber for control of a continuous process vent. In the CAR,
as in the HON, either an organic monitoring device or a regenerative
stream flow monitoring device is allowed for carbon adsorbers; an
organic monitoring device or a condenser exit temperature monitoring
device is allowed for condensers; and an organic monitoring device, or
a scrubbing liquid temperature monitoring device and a specific gravity
monitoring device is allowed for absorbers.
Halogen Scrubbers and Other Halogen Reduction Devices
Halogen reduction device requirements have been consolidated into
one section rather than listed in the individual control device
sections. These HON requirements have been included in the CAR for all
process vents and transfer operations. The other referencing subparts
did not have specific halogen vent stream requirements, so the CAR is
potentially introducing some additional requirements for halogenated
vent streams subject to the non-HON referencing subparts, if the owner
or operator chooses to comply with the CAR.
Other Control Devices
This section (Sec. 65.155) of subpart G outlines the requirements
for control devices other than those specified in Secs. 65.147 through
65.154. The CAR differs from 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD, III, NNN,
and RRR in that more detail is given in the CAR on the information that
must be provided to the Administrator in order to obtain approval for
other devices. Under the NSPS, the Administrator specifies the
appropriate monitoring procedures for the device. Under the CAR, a plan
is submitted that includes the proposed monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping procedures. By providing more details on the information
to be submitted and by allowing the facility to propose monitoring, EPA
believes this will clarify the information needed and aid in
communication during the process of reviewing these plans.
Subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB also
contain a general duty requirement that specifies that the facility
must ``provide the Administrator with information describing the
operation of the control device * * * that would indicate proper
operation and maintenance * * *'' for non-listed control devices. The
EPA did not include the general duty requirement in the CAR in favor of
the more specific monitoring requirements for non-listed control
devices from 40 CFR part 63, general provisions, and the HON.
Under the CAR, approval authority for the monitoring recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for other control devices is delegated to
the states as it is under the HON and part 61. Under the NSPS process
vent referencing subparts, this authority is not delegated. The
decision to delegate authority is consistent with state authority under
title V. The EPA considered that authority should be delegated for this
approval across all the rules in order to consolidate the provisions.
Also, many of the facilities subject to the NSPS process vent
referencing subparts are also subject to the HON, therefore the
authority would already be delegated to the States in many instances.

H. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

This section describes the CAR provisions from subpart G regarding
performance tests, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. These provisions are included in subpart G, rather than
in the general provisions, because they are specific requirements for
closed-vent systems, control and recovery devices,

[[Page 57782]]

and routing to a fuel gas system or process.
Many significant differences exist between the CAR provisions on
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (which generally follow the HON
provisions), and these same provisions in the non-HON referencing
subparts. This section provides a brief description of the differences.
For a more complete discussion of the HON recordkeeping program see the
HON proposal preamble (57 FR 62608, December 31,1992), the promulgation
preamble (59 FR 19407, April 22, 1994), and the Background document at
promulgation (Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--Background
Information for Final Standards, Volume 2E: Comments on Recordkeeping,
Reporting, Compliance and Test Methods, EPA-453/R-94-003e).
Both the CAR and the part 60 and 61 subparts require monitoring of
the same control device operating parameters. However, the CAR requires
a site to justify and set site-specific operating parameter ranges for
control and recovery devices. The site can set the operating parameter
ranges to be the same as the NSPS established ranges. The control or
recovery device operating parameters are monitored and if the
monitoring results, on a daily average basis, fall outside the
parameter range, then there is an excursion and it must be reported.
The CAR allows one excused excursion before the excursion is considered
a violation. The HON allows six excused excursions in the first
semiannual reporting period (this would be in the first year of being
subject to the HON), five excused excursion in the second semiannual
reporting period, and so on, until one excused excursion is allowed in
the sixth and all subsequent semiannual reporting periods.
The CAR provisions are different from the non-HON referencing
subparts where specific monitoring ranges are given in the rules
depending on the control or recovery device being used. In 40 CFR part
60 and 61, 3-hour averages are required of the monitored parameters.
These 3-hour averages are compared to the monitoring ranges specified
in the rules. If a 3-hour average is outside the range in the rule it
must be reported, and the out-of-range values may trigger the
Administrator to require another performance test. If the performance
test indicates that the control or recovery device is not performing at
the required level, the facility would be in violation.
The CAR allows owners or operators to use the ranges from the non-
HON referencing subparts as the operating parameter ranges for the
sources accustomed to those ranges; or, a source can justify a site-
specific range. However, any excursions after the one excused excursion
would be considered a violation.
One change made to these HON provisions in the CAR pertains to the
records of continuous monitors. In the HON, the owner or operator has
the option of maintaining a record of (1) each measured value, or (2)
block average value for intervals up to 15-minute averages. The CAR
also contains these options. In addition, a third option is given that
allows retention of hourly average data and the most recent three valid
hours of continuous records. The EPA decided to allow this option as a
burden reduction, because many computer systems currently in use in the
SOCMI industry only archive hourly data and ``over-write'' the raw data
every few hours, because of the massive amount of storage that would be
required to maintain records of data on a more frequent basis. Typical
SOCMI process computer systems handle thousands of data points, so that
even hourly records involve tens of thousands of data records each day.
The CAR alternative has been provided to allow use of these existing
systems without requiring installation of new computer systems or
parallel paper (strip chart) systems. The EPA felt it was necessary to
require the most recent three valid hours of records so that an
inspector would have the necessary data to determine whether averages
were correctly calculated. The EPA reasoned that 3 hours of data are
sufficient for checking on potential programming error. By requiring
the most recent 3 hours, the EPA ensures a randomness to the 3 hours of
data available to check. The CAR specifies valid hours because an
invalid hour of monitoring may not contain the necessary data for the
average verification. By providing for adequate data to demonstrate
that the hourly average is correctly calculated, no reduction in
compliance assurance is anticipated and very large initial and ongoing
costs for new recordkeeping systems are avoided for many SOCMI
facilities.
The following paragraphs describe additional burden reductions and
clarification changes made in the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting sections of subpart G.
General Monitoring Requirements
The CAR specifies which monitoring data must be kept and used for
compliance when a primary CPMS and a backup are being used. This
clarification is not explicit in parts 60 or 61.
The CAR adopts the requirements from 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 general
provisions for the immediate repair or replacement of CPMS parts to
correct routine malfunctions. These requirements are not in the general
provisions of 40 CFR part 60. This requirement spells out good
practices as required under 40 CFR 60.11(d) and 60.13(e) and (f), 40
CFR part 60, subpart A.
In addition to the provisions to request alternative monitoring and
recordkeeping procedures allowed under all referencing subparts, the
CAR, as does the HON, specifically allows nonautomated CPMS in certain
situations. Although nonautomated CPMS are allowed, the provisions do
require data to be collected, no less frequently than hourly.
Therefore, EPA believes that nonautomated CPMS would be a real option
only for facilities where the cost of automation would not be
justifiable. A small batch operation is an example where the cost may
not be justifiable.
Performance Tests and Flare Compliance Determination Requirements
The CAR allows 180 days to complete required performance tests, and
60 days to submit the report after the performance test. The general
provisions to part 60 allow up to 180 days and the General Provisions
to part 61 allow 90 days for conducting the performance test and
submitting the report. The General Provisions to part 63 allow 180 days
to conduct the performance test and 60 days to submit the report, while
the HON specifies 150 days to conduct the test. The EPA adopted the
time frame from the part 63 general provisions because it provides the
greatest amount of time to conduct the performance test and prepare the
report; this more expansive time frame is appropriate for the CAR,
given the potentially large number of performance tests and reports
that would need to be completed. The shorter length of time from part
61 would not be appropriate for the CAR because the CAR covers several
emission point types, and the shorter time frame could make the
organizing of the performance tests and the preparing of reports more
difficult.
The referencing subparts do not clearly indicate what activities
must be performed during a performance test for a flare. The CAR does
not use the term ``performance test'' for flares; for the purposes of
distinction and clarity, the

[[Page 57783]]

CAR refers to ``flare compliance determinations.'' Some HON provisions
for performance tests should be included in the CAR's flare compliance
determination, but many should not. The provisions that do apply are
adopted from the performance test language in the HON, but are modified
to apply to flares. Examples of the provisions that apply to flare
compliance determinations are the provision that the Administrator may
require a flare compliance determination at any time and the provision
on flare compliance determination waivers. The EPA considers this a
clarification.
The CAR excludes a provision from both 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB
and the HON that requires a closed-vent system routing emissions from a
transfer rack to a control device to be inspected prior to a
performance test being conducted. The inspection is a leak detection
inspection using Method 21. The EPA did not include this provision in
the CAR because the closed-vent system is already under the requirement
to be inspected initially and annually. This initial and periodic
inspection is sufficient to ensure that the closed-vent system does not
leak during the performance test. Also, closed-vent systems on other
types of emission points are not required to be inspected prior to a
performance test.
Sources are not required to conduct a performance test to comply
with the CAR if a performance test has been conducted previously using
the same test method required by the CAR and under the same operating
conditions that currently exist. This exemption is not in any other
referencing subparts other than the HON.
Additionally, the CAR allows performance tests and compliance
determinations to be waived through written request to the
Administrator if the Administrator determines that (1) the source is
being operated in continuous compliance, (2) the source is operating
under a compliance extension under 40 CFR part 63, or (3) the source is
operating under a compliance waiver under 40 CFR part 61.
Performance Test Procedures
The CAR specifies that each performance test will consist of three
separate runs using the applicable method; each run must be at least an
hour in duration; and compliance will be determined using the
arithmetic mean of the results of the three runs. This language is
taken from the general provisions for 40 CFR part 60. The HON has
similar language, but 40 CFR part 61 has no equivalent. Thus the CAR
clarifies the requirements for part 61 sources.
The CAR requires that performance tests be conducted during
``maximum representative operating conditions for the process.'' It
clarifies this requirement by specifying that, during the performance
test, the control device may be operated at maximum or minimum
representative operating conditions for monitored control device
parameters, whichever results in lower emission reduction. The general
provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 also require performance tests at
maximum capacity and at representative operating conditions of the
process. Subparts III, NNN, and RRR of 40 CFR part 60 require
performance tests to be conducted at ``* * * full operating conditions
and flow rates * * .'' The general provisions of 40 CFR part 61 require
the performance test to be run ``* * * under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify * * *.'' None of the non-HON referencing
subparts, nor any of the general provisions, contain the additional
clarifying provisions that the control device may be operated under
maximum or minimum representative operating conditions, whichever
results in lower emission reduction. The CAR provisions represent the
intent of all of the referencing subparts and add some additional
clarity.
For transfer racks, the CAR provides details on how a performance
test must be conducted for control devices capable of continuous vapor
processing and for intermittent vapor processing systems. Subpart BB of
40 CFR part 61 does not specify these details for transfer racks and
requires performance tests to be conducted over a complete loading
cycle. The explicit provisions of the CAR are useful for transfer racks
because loading a tank truck or railcar can take much longer than an
hour. For long loading cycles it makes sense to base the test run on
how the control device works instead of on the loading cycle.
The CAR clarifies the performance test requirements for a boiler or
process heater with a design input capacity less than 44 MW that is
used as a control device. The CAR requires the inlet sampling site to
be located so that it measures the pollutant concentration in all vent
streams and primary and secondary fuels. Therefore, the percent
reduction is determined for all vent streams and primary or secondary
fuels. This clarification is not in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III,
or NNN.
Subpart BB of 40 CFR part 61 allows the use of Method 25B to
determine concentration for calculating the percent reduction
efficiency. The CAR does not allow this method because Method 25B can
only be used when a primary constituent in the vent stream is assumed.
In a consolidated rule for SOCMI, an industry that varies significantly
on vent stream composition, a method that is not flexible can not be
specified. Method 25B can always be requested as an alternative method,
on a case-by-case basis.
For combustion devices that do not use supplemental combustion air,
the CAR does not contain the provision in 40 CFR part 61, subpart DDD
which specifies that the concentration shall not be corrected to 3
percent oxygen when calculating the percent reduction or outlet
concentration. Rather, the CAR and all of the other referencing
subparts require the concentration to be corrected to 3 percent oxygen
for all combustion devices. The EPA requests comment on what effect
this may have on subpart DDD sources.
Performance Test Records
The CAR includes the requirement for records to be kept of the
location where a vent stream is introduced into a boiler or process
heater. However, the CAR does not include the requirement contained in
40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD to also keep these records for
incinerators. Subpart DDD is the only referencing subpart that has this
requirement. Incinerators are required to have performance tests and
continuous monitoring conducted. Conversely, boilers and process
heaters that have their vent stream introduced with the primary fuel
(in the flame zone) are not required to have performance tests or
continuous monitoring conducted. Therefore, it is not necessary to
locate where the vent stream is introduced in an incinerator for a
determination of compliance, because performance tests and continuous
monitoring are required. The EPA considers this a burden reduction.
The CAR requires records of the percent reduction or pollutant
concentration to be determined at the outlet of the combustion device,
on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen. While 40 CFR part 61,
subpart BB does not explicitly require that the percent reduction be
recorded for boilers less than 44 MW design input capacity, it is
generally understood that these records are required. The CAR therefore
clarifies the intent of subpart BB.
Non-Flare Control and Recovery Device Monitoring Records
The CAR reduces the requirements for CPMS calibration records by
requiring only those records that are necessary to

[[Page 57784]]

determine the accuracy of the readings. The CAR requires retention of
only the ``as found'' and ``as left'' readings whenever an adjustment
is made that will effect the CPMS reading, and a ``no adjustment''
statement otherwise. Compared to referencing subpart language requiring
retention of ``all'' calibration records, the CAR language
significantly reduces the number of potential records that must be
retained and adds clarity to what is needed.
Under the CAR, the option to use a data compression system for
control and recovery device data handling is allowed. Owners or
operators may request approval of an automated data compression
recording system that does not record values at a set frequency, but
records values that meet set criteria for variation from previously
recorded values. Under the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 referencing subparts,
this data compression option was not previously offered. Although EPA
does not generally recommend expanding the application of this data
compression option until experience is gained with the impact of such
record-reduction systems on compliance determinations and enforcement,
this provision is extended in the CAR to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 sources
to provide HON sources this flexibility, which was previously provided
to them, and to facilitate consolidation of the rules.
Other Records
Section 65.163 contains requirements for ``Other Records.'' Under
the CAR, closed-vent systems that contain bypass lines keep only hourly
records of flow indicator operation and diversion detection. Subpart
RRR of 40 CFR part 60 requires ``continuous records.'' The EPA
determined that continuous (i.e., 15-minute records) records are not
necessary to ensure compliance in this case, but rather continuous
monitoring with a record made once per hour indicating whether there
was flow (and therefore, bypass) at any monitored time within the hour.
Similarly, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, RRR, and NNN require continuous
records of pilot flame monitoring results, while the CAR requires
hourly records like the HON and the 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 general
provisions flare requirements.
The CAR does not include the provision from 40 CFR part 60,
subparts DDD and RRR and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, and the HON
transfer provisions that requires a description to be maintained of the
vent stream. The description must contain a schematic recording of all
valves and vent pipes that could vent the stream to the atmosphere. The
EPA decided that this record would not be required in the CAR because
of the burden associated with keeping a description with an up-to-date
schematic. These types of descriptions are difficult to keep up-to-date
because of the frequency with which the routing systems change. Also,
the facility can explain the system at an inspector's request with the
aid of other drawings, equipment leak records, and visually. An
inspector could also request this description to be provided at the
time of the inspection.
The CAR incorporates language from the HON which recognizes unsafe
or difficult-to-inspect equipment in a closed-vent system which allows
less frequent monitoring of such equipment. This allowance is not in 40
CFR part 61, subpart V. The CAR therefore provides some flexibility in
dealing with this type of equipment.
For car seals, the CAR requires monthly visual inspection with
records that indicate when a car-seal is broken. The 40 CFR part 60,
subpart RRR requirement to record the serial numbers of car-seals and
to maintain this record when car-seals are replaced is not in the CAR.
Thus, the necessary record is whether a car-seal is broken and not
exactly which car-seals are in place. Not having to record the serial
numbers of all car-seals provides a burden reduction to subpart RRR
sources.
When equipment leaks are detected in a closed-vent system, 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV require records of
information such as repair method, the signature of owner or operator,
and expected date of successful repair. These requirements are not
included in the CAR. In the spirit of consolidation, EPA considers that
the records specified in Sec. 65.163(a)(3) adequately document the
necessary information for leaking equipment. The required records are:
the instrument and the equipment identification number; the operator
name, initials, or identification number; the date the leak was
detected, the date of the first attempt at repair, the date of
successful repair of the leak; maximum instrument reading measured
after the leak is successfully repaired or determined to be
nonrepairable; the reason for a delay of repair, if there is a delay;
and copies of the periodic reports if records are not maintained on a
computerized database.
The CAR includes requirements for records to be maintained of
locations where a vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process
heater, and of instances when this location is changed. This
requirement is also included in the referencing subparts. However, as a
burden reduction, the CAR does not contain the requirement in 40 CFR
parts 60 and 61 to report this information. This information is helpful
to the implementing agency if a change is made and the vent stream no
longer will be introduced with the primary fuel; in these cases, a
performance test may be necessary. If so, a notification and report of
the performance test are required. Therefore, these cases will be
reported. In the other situations, these records can be reviewed, as
needed, at the facility.
The CAR provides additional flexibility regarding the notification
to the Administrator that a performance test is being conducted.
Although this flexibility is not currently provided in the referencing
subparts, it is consistent with revisions proposed in 61 FR 47840,
September 11, 1996 (Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction). The
CAR specifies what should be done if there is a delay in conducting the
scheduled performance test. The CAR requires the owner or operator to
provide at least 7 days notice prior to the rescheduled date of the
performance test, or to arrange a rescheduled date by mutual agreement
with the Administrator. The EPA recognizes that unforeseen situations
happen and that provisions for rescheduling are useful.
The CAR allows a request to be submitted at any time for the use of
alternative test methods. The general provisions of 40 CFR part 61
includes time constraints on when an alternative test method may be
requested (i.e., 30 days after the effective date or, for new sources,
not later than with the notification of anticipated startup). Although
all general provisions allow an alternative test method to be
requested, the other general provisions do not specify a time frame
within which the request must be submitted. The EPA considers it a
clarification to not specify a time frame within which the request must
be submitted, because an alternative test method may be requested for
performance tests other than at startup. It is not necessary to have
the test method approved 30 days after an effective date or by the
notification of anticipated startup as long as it is approved in time
to conduct the performance test on schedule.

VII. Delegation of the CAR to State Authorities

Many States have obtained delegation to implement and enforce the
CAR's referencing subparts. These States' authority to implement and
enforce the underlying NSPS or NESHAP rests on the State code, and the
delegation of authority by EPA to the State in turn

[[Page 57785]]

rests on the State's ability to implement and enforce those Federal
requirements.
By today's action, EPA is proposing to consolidate and somewhat
revise certain provisions contained in parts 60, 61, and 63, for
affected SOCMI sources, such that regulated sources would be allowed to
comply with those newly revised provisions in the CAR. These regulatory
revisions could result in the need for subsequent action at the State
level to revise the State code and to submit an updated delegation
request to EPA, which could then necessitate additional Federal
administrative procedures, before the source could take advantage of
the CAR and before the State could enforce it. State rulemaking and EPA
action on delegation requests are time consuming, often taking several
years. In the interim, the source may be unable to avail itself of the
CAR benefits, because the CAR could apply at the Federal level while
the NSPS and NESHAP continue to apply through the State's code until
the State's code can be amended.
The EPA does not wish such a situation to impede adoption of the
CAR by a source. Indeed, EPA encourages implementation of the CAR at
the earliest possible date following promulgation of the final rule. A
streamlined approach to implement the CAR under delegated State
authorities is thus an important ingredient to the success of the rule
consolidation effort.
In order to facilitate and expedite delegation and implementation
of the CAR, EPA is taking two steps. First, EPA is proposing to
recognize the CAR as an alternative compliance approach to the
individual subparts being consolidated. This step, as discussed below,
may allow sources in some States to begin to use the CAR immediately
after promulgation while still remaining in compliance with the
existing State code of regulations upon which delegation is based. The
EPA believes this will be a useful approach for States that have the
ability to recognize approved alternatives under the existing State
regulations on which delegation rests. Second, to minimize
administrative delays, EPA is proposing to waive the need for formal
delegation of the CAR where the State is already delegated authority to
implement the underlying NSPS or NESHAP subparts. Both of these
proposed actions are discussed in more detail below.

A. Approval of the CAR as an Alternative Compliance Approach

The NSPS and NESHAP being consolidated in today's proposal, and the
statutory authorities from which those rules stem, provide for the
approval of alternative means of emission limitations and for
appropriate alternative testing or monitoring methods as approved by
the Administrator. To facilitate and expedite implementation, EPA is
proposing to approve the CAR as a comprehensive alternative set of
compliance requirements to the NSPS and NESHAP which it consolidates,
specifically 40 CFR part 60 subparts A, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN and
RRR; part 61 subparts A, V, Y, and BB; and part 63 subparts A, F, G,
and H. This pre-approved alternative would be available for all sources
to which the CAR applies.
The intent of this approval is to allow States and sources
immediate use of the CAR, by providing a mechanism through which States
can implement and enforce the CAR prior to undertaking additional State
rulemaking. By designating the CAR as an approved alternative
compliance approach under the existing NSPS and NESHAP, EPA seeks to
provide a doorway within the existing State code and delegated
authorities through which the CAR can be accessed, utilized, and
enforced. This approach may eliminate or minimize the need for State
rule revisions and delegation updates.
The Administrator is proposing approval of the CAR as an
alternative means of compliance with the individual subparts listed
above.
The CAR streamlines and revises much of the existing monitoring,
record keeping, and reporting procedures of the underlying NSPS and
NESHAP standards, without changing the basic control requirements or
monitoring methods. Today's proposal is intended to simplify
implementation of the standards, to reduce EPA, state, and industry
burden in complying with the rules, and to facilitate compliance
monitoring, while having no adverse effect on the accuracy, quality,
and timeliness of the compliance monitoring data. EPA is proposing that
all of the provisions of the CAR serve in whole as an alternative
compliance approach for the subparts which it consolidates. To simplify
implementation, the CAR can be used directly as an alternative
compliance approach, without prior application or request to EPA. The
CAR simply requires notification that the alternative approach would be
implemented.
The EPA expects that comprehensive approval of the CAR as an
alternative compliance approach for the existing NSPS and NESHAP which
it consolidates will facilitate and expedite implementation by states
and local agencies. EPA is today proposing to revise the underlying
NSPS and NESHAP regulations such that the CAR would be recognized as an
alternative approach to the existing NSPS and NESHAP provisions for
sources opting into the CAR. However, EPA is aware that the unrevised
NSPS and NESHAP regulations will, at least for an interim, remain the
enforceable provisions in many states, absent state rulemaking to
incorporate the CAR. The NSPS and NESHAP as they are currently adopted
by the state also remain federally enforceable in those states where
they form the basis of delegation by EPA to the state. Today's proposed
action to approve the CAR as an alternative compliance approach
clarifies EPA's intent that compliance with the CAR should serve to
fulfill a source's obligations to comply with applicable NSPS and
NESHAP consolidated therein, even in cases where the unrevised NSPS and
NESHAP still reside in the state or local code. States may rely on this
approval under the existing NSPS and NESHAP to allow sources expedited
use of the CAR, and may enforce the CAR as an approved alternative
compliance approach for the existing NSPS and NESHAP in accordance with
the current delegation of authority to the state.
The EPA is providing notice and opportunity for comment on this
proposed action to approve the CAR as an alternative compliance
approach to 40 CFR part 60 subparts A, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN and
RRR, part 61 subparts A, V, Y, and BB, and part 63 subparts A, F, G,
and H. Comments are requested with regard to both the validity of this
approval and to the usefulness of this mechanism for expediting
implementation of the CAR.

B. Policy on Delegation of the CAR

Today's proposed rule was developed based on consolidating the
existing requirements of Parts 60, 61, and 63 that apply to SOCMI,
without changing the applicability or reducing the stringency of the
existing regulations. For this reason, EPA believes that, where a State
has been delegated authority to administer all of the applicable rules
under Parts 60, 61, and 63, no further delegation of authority is
necessary in order for such State to administer the CAR. The EPA
therefore proposes to allow a State to administer the CAR without
further action by EPA if such State has been delegated the authority to
administer each of the applicable referencing subparts.
However, States that lack delegated authority to administer any of
the referencing subparts that apply at a source that seeks to implement
the CAR

[[Page 57786]]

must obtain such delegation prior to allowing that source to comply
with the CAR.
The EPA requests comment on this proposed delegation policy.

VIII. Incorporating CAR Requirements Into the Title V Permit

Title V of the Act and EPA's operating permits regulations at 40
CFR part 70 require all ``applicable requirements'' (standards or
requirements under the Act, as defined at 40 CFR part 70.2) to be
included in the operating permit for any source that is required to
have an operating permit. Since a permit can contain only the
applicable requirements in effect at the time it was issued, or last
revised, any newly-promulgated requirements (such as those in the CAR)
would not be in the permit until the permit is revised to include them.
Revising the permit is also necessary if a source adopts substitute
requirements under the CAR, since without a permit revision, the source
would be in non-compliance with the provisions of its operating permit.
Consequently, once a source adopts the CAR, to the extent that the
existing permit terms will be replaced or modified by provisions of the
CAR, the permit must be revised to delete those permit terms and add
the applicable CAR provisions. This section discusses the processes by
which permits would be revised to incorporate provisions of the CAR.
Under 40 CFR part 70.7, operating permits may be revised through
one of three mechanisms: administrative amendments, minor permit
modifications, or significant permit modifications. The administrative
amendment process is for: (1) changes that are trivial or
administrative, such as typographical errors, or change of ownership;
(2) changes that provide more frequent monitoring or reporting; (3)
incorporating terms of preconstruction permits that meet the compliance
requirements of section 70.6 and that were issued under a process that
has been ``enhanced'' to provide EPA and public review; or (4) other
changes similar to these that have been approved by EPA in a State part
70 program. Any change resulting from CAR requirements will add the CAR
as an applicable requirement to the source's permit, and therefore, is
not likely to be a trivial or administrative change. In addition, the
CAR will usually require less rather than more frequent monitoring or
reporting. Consequently, CAR requirements do not appear to be eligible
as administrative amendments.
To determine if incorporation of CAR requirements qualifies as a
minor permit revision, the type of change that might arise from the CAR
must be evaluated against the relevant criteria of
Secs. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (6). If the change does not meet any
of these criteria (the criteria are written in the negative), the
change may be made using the minor permit revision process; otherwise,
it must use the significant permit revision procedures. To summarize
the minor permit revision criteria, a minor permit revision is not
allowed if the change: (1) violates an applicable requirement; (2)
significantly changes existing monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping;
(3) establishes or changes case-by-case emissions limitations; (4)
establishes a potential-to-emit limitation; (5) is a title I
modification; or (6) is required by the permitting authority to be a
significant permit modification. Criterion (2) is clearly the one
criteria that might be triggered by incorporation of CAR requirements,
since CAR requirements could change existing monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements in the permit. To determine if criterion (2)
does apply, it is necessary to determine if incorporation of CAR
requirements will result in a significant change to monitoring,
reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
In terms of their significance to monitoring, recordkeeping or
reporting requirements, changes from the CAR can be sorted into two
broad categories, depending on the amount of discretion a source has in
determining the new requirement. The first category comprises changes
over which the source has little discretion in determining the
monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements. In most cases, the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are established by
the CAR, and once the source has decided to be covered by the CAR, it
has no ability to change the requirements. For example, Sec. 65.47(e)
requires owners or operators of storage vessels using floating or
external roofs to record when the roof was set on its legs and when it
was refloated. This is a new record not previously required under any
referencing storage vessel rule. As another example,
Sec. 65.44(c)(9)(ii) allows up to two 30-day extensions (after an
initial 45 days) to empty and remove a storage vessel from service
after the source finds that it is unsafe to perform gap seal
measurements. Under subpart Kb of 40 CFR part 60 and subpart Y of 40
CFR part 61, the source was allowed one 30 day extension, which
required prior approval [Sec. 60.113b(b)(4)(iii) and
Sec. 61.272(b)(4)(iii)]; extensions were not addressed under subpart Ka
of 40 CFR part 60. Under the CAR (as in the HON), both the first and
second 30-day extensions are available to the source without requesting
prior approval by EPA; although documentation for why an extension is
necessary must be maintained. Other examples include
Sec. 65.48(c)(2)(ii), which requires reporting of storage vessel seal
gap measurement results, rather than all raw seal gap measurement data
as required in subpart Kb of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y of 40 CFR part
61, and subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 [Sec. 60.115b(b)(2),
Sec. 61.276(d)(1), and Sec. 63.122(e)(1)]; or Sec. 65.161(a)(3), which
requires keeping records of the latest 3 hours of continuous (15-
minute) monitoring data, rather than keeping records of all continuous
monitoring data, as under the HON, see Sec. 63.152(f)(2).
The examples given so far illustrate changes in which the source is
adopting the CAR requirements in lieu of previous requirements, without
changing or adding to the CAR requirements. Other requirements under
the CAR, still within the first category, may require a source to
determine monitoring requirements. For example, under
Sec. 65.148(c)(1), a facility using an incinerator to meet the 98
percent reduction requirement of Sec. 65.63(a)(2) of subpart D for
process vents, is required to monitor temperature within a range of
temperature determined by the source. The source may establish, as part
of its title V application, the parameter range that it will use, based
on a performance test, or it may rely on prior performance tests or use
an existing range or an established limit in a referenced subpart. In
EPA's view, a change in a parameter range based on a relevant EPA-
approved performance test is not a significant change, since the range
is determined by the results of the test and cannot be set arbitrarily.
In addition, the parameter to be monitored is set by the CAR, and is
therefore outside the source's discretion.
Thus, EPA does not consider this first category of changes to be
``significant changes'' within the meaning of criterion (2) for minor
permit revisions. The EPA interprets the criterion as requiring the
significant permit revision process when a significant monitoring
change is made in the permit revision process, and especially when the
changes are source-specific monitoring changes involving significant
judgment. The types of changes to monitoring requirements that EPA
considers significant within the meaning of

[[Page 57787]]

criterion (2) include establishing equivalent SIP monitoring
requirements, streamlining of redundant monitoring requirements, or
significant changes to source-specific monitoring. The first category
of CAR requirements should not have these characteristics, since the
amount of judgment involved in establishing source-specific
requirements such as parameter levels is not significant. There is also
no requirement to demonstrate that these requirements are equivalent to
existing requirements, as would be the case when establishing
equivalent SIP requirements or streamlining.
The second category of changes involves significant discretion on
the part of the source in determining monitoring, recordkeeping or
reporting requirements. For example, under Sec. 65.63(d) of subpart D,
which applies to a group 2A process vent without a recovery device, a
source is allowed to establish the parameters that it will monitor, and
the parameter ranges, in order to maintain a TRE index value greater
than 1.0. Another example is under Sec. 65.162(e) of subpart G, which
applies to sources who are directed under Sec. 65.154(c)(2) or
Sec. 65.155(c)(1) to set unique monitoring parameters, or who request
under Sec. 65.156(e) approval to monitor a different parameter than
those listed in relevant monitoring requirements of subpart G of the
CAR.
If this second type of change were established for the first time
through the permit revision process, EPA would consider it to be a
significant change in monitoring under the meaning of criterion (2) of
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A), since the source has significant discretion in
establishing not only the parameter to be monitored, but the methods
that are used in making that judgment. Establishing these kinds of
monitoring requirements in the permit is similar to permit
streamlining, equivalent SIP requirements, and other changes that
involve significant judgment discussed above. In White Paper #2, EPA
indicated that streamlining could be accomplished as part of the
initial permit application or as a significant permit revision, both of
which provide for EPA review of streamlined requirements. The current
part 70 requires that equivalent SIP limits established in the permit
must follow initial issuance, renewal, or significant permit revision
procedures [See Sec. 70.6(a)(1)(iii)].
If, however, EPA has approved unique or different monitoring
requirements prior to the permit revision taking place, as may be the
case under the CAR, EPA would consider the significant permit revision
procedure to be unnecessary. For example, if EPA has approved a request
to use alternative monitoring or recordkeeping procedures under
Sec. 65.7(b) and (c) of subpart A or Sec. 65.162(d) of subpart G
procedures, the source has no discretion but to comply with those
alternative requirements once the Agency has granted approval.
Consequently, the absence of discretion justifies the minor permit
revision process, rather than the significant permit revision
procedures.
Note that under the proposed changes to part 70 (60 FR 45529,
August 31, 1995), incorporation of new requirements such as the CAR may
be allowed under the proposed ``notice-only'' provisions, in which EPA
and public review is not required, if the permit is incorporating
previously-adopted requirements and if source-specific requirements are
not being established through the permit. Incorporation either of
provisions adopted in the CAR rule, or of source-specific requirements
proposed by the source and approved by EPA after promulgation of
today's rule (provided the permit process was not the vehicle for EPA
approval) would likely be eligible for notice-only procedures under the
concept outlined in the 1995 proposal. If EPA adopts the notice-only
procedures, the procedures would be available once the State in which
the source is located had incorporated the revised procedure into its
permit program. Until then, the current part 70 permit procedures apply
as outlined above.

IX. Extension of the Consolidation to Include the State
Implementation Plan

The EPA recognizes that States have developed and incorporated into
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) rules and requirements that affect
many of the same emission units also subject to the referencing
subparts being consolidated in today's proposal. Those regulations
typically include reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
other requirements designed for attainment and maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Hence, even upon final
promulgation of the CAR, in many areas SOCMI sources implementing the
CAR still could remain subject to two separate sets of requirements--
the CAR and State and federally-enforceable RACT requirements.
Reduction of compliance burdens through consolidation of regulatory
requirements could be greatly enhanced by expanding the benefits of
today's proposal to address federally enforceable SIP requirements that
apply to SOCMI sources.
In an effort to facilitate burden reduction for sources subject to
state specific SIP requirements, EPA is proposing three actions. First,
EPA is proposing to pre-approve the CAR as meeting the RACT requirement
of the Act. Thus, with respect to SIPs that expressly allow for the
approval of alternatives to existing RACT requirements by the State and
EPA, additional EPA action will not be needed prior to implementation
of the CAR by a specific source. The source will still need State
approval of the CAR for that source prior to implementation. This pre-
approval, discussed further below, would expedite the consolidation of
the RACT requirement with other applicable requirements through
implementation of the CAR since no additional EPA action would be
necessary prior to implementation of the CAR. Second, based on EPA's
proposal to pre-approve the CAR as meeting RACT, EPA is proposing a
streamlined process for review and approval of SIP submittals that
incorporate the CAR requirements. This action will expedite the process
for incorporating into the SIP the CAR for purposes of complying with
RACT requirements, particularly in states where the SIP does not
already allow for the use of approved alternatives. Finally, EPA is
recognizing the use of the title V permitting process as a mechanism
through which the streamlining of overlapping requirements stemming
from the SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP programs can be accomplished. Below,
each of these mechanisms for expanding the benefits of the CAR
rulemaking to encompass SIP requirements is discussed. First, however,
a description of RACT and EPA's basis for pre-approving the CAR as RACT
is provided.

A. Pre-Approval of the CAR as Meeting the Clean Air Act Reasonably
Available Control Technology Requirement

For purposes of defining RACT, EPA has historically issued control
techniques guidelines (CTGs). These CTGs are not regulatory in nature,
but rather establish a presumptive norm for RACT. In other words, the
CTGs, which are issued after an opportunity for public input, establish
one or more methods of control or emission reduction levels that EPA
deems as RACT-level control for certain operations. In developing the
CTGs, EPA provides the scientific and technical documentation to
support these controls as a RACT level of control. In developing RACT
rules to be incorporated into a federally-approved SIP, a State can
adopt the methods of

[[Page 57788]]

control specified in the CTG or establish other methods of control. To
the extent the State relies on the control methods specified in the
CTG, EPA will not undertake further analysis in determining that the
State has established RACT-level of control for those sources. However,
if a State elects to require other types of control, the State must
provide the relevant scientific and technical information to
demonstrate that the selected controls meet the underlying statutory
RACT requirement.
Currently, EPA has issued six CTGs, shown in table 4, applicable to
emission points at sources covered by the CAR. Pursuant to section
182(b)(2)(B) of the Act, States were required to submit RACT rules by
November 15, 1992 for emission sources whose CTGs were issued prior to
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Therefore, RACT rules for petroleum
liquids in fixed roof and external floating roof tanks; manufacture of
high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene resins; SOCMI
and polymer manufacturing equipment leaks; and SOCMI air oxidation
processes were due by November 15, 1992. For emission sources covered
by CTG's issued after the 1990 Amendments, the EPA was required to
establish a submittal date, pursuant to section 182(b)(2)(A) of the
Act. The RACT rules for SOCMI distillation and reactor processes were
required to be submitted by March 23, 1995, as stated in the Federal
Register notice (59 FR 13717, March 23, 1994) announcing the submittal
due date.

Table 4.--Control Techniques Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids
in Fixed-Roof Tanks, EPA-450/2-77-036, December 1977.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in
External Floating Roof Tanks, EPA-450/2-78-047, December 1978.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound emissions from Manufacture of High-
Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins, EPA-450/3-
83-008, November 1983.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic
Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment, EPA-450/3-83-006, March
1984.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/
3-84-015, December 1984.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes
and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/4-91-031, August 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

After State adoption, control measures are submitted to EPA for
approval into the federally-enforceable SIP. Hence, once a State-
enforceable measure is approved into the SIP, it becomes enforceable as
a federal requirement.
In order to establish that provisions in the CAR are at least as
stringent as RACT, it is necessary to understand the basis for RACT and
the standards that constitute the CAR. The general requirement for RACT
in nonattainment areas is found in section 172(c)(1) of the Act.
Section 182 (a)(2)(A) and (b)(2) provide more specific requirements for
stationary sources that emit volatile organic compound (VOC). The EPA
has defined RACT as ``. . . the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility'' (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979). These are
control techniques that are widely used that can be readily applied to
existing sources without unreasonable burden.
The ``reasonably'' available control technology reflected in SIP
levels can be contrasted with the generally more stringent bases for
the new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) which comprise the CAR.
The NSPS, which apply to newly constructed stationary sources that emit
criteria pollutants, are based on ``. . . the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated,'' (CAA section 111(a)(1)) or best demonstrated
technology (BDT). This presumably (but not necessarily) higher level of
control than RACT (which generally is developed for existing sources)
can be justified for new, modified, or reconstructed sources, because
such controls can be incorporated into the design of the source prior
to construction, modification, or reconstruction, making it more
technically and economically feasible than for existing sources that
can have prohibitive design constraints or costs.
Prior to the 1990 Amendments, for NESHAP, the Act required the
Administrator to ``. . . establish any such standard at the level which
in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air pollutant.'' 42 U.S.C.
7412(b)(1)(B). Although EPA policy has evolved over the years regarding
the interpretation of this wording, it was generally accepted that the
basis for the standards established would reflect at least the basis
analogous to that established for NSPS, i.e. ``best controls''
considering the impacts.
The Act, as amended in 1990, provides that NESHAP must ``. . .
require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions . . . that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable . . .'', or
maximum achievable control technology (MACT), for short. The Act
112(d)(2). This basis is very similar to that for NSPS, as is evidenced
by the statutory wording, and again generally reflects control at least
as stringent as, if not more than, RACT.
The statutory language for setting NSPS and NESHAP clearly mandate
a basis for those standards no less stringent, and conceivably more
stringent, than that for RACT. An examination of the CTGs that apply to
SOCMI reveal that the NSPS and NESHAP that form the basis for today's
proposed CAR are all at least as stringent as the corresponding RACT
requirements contained in the CTG's, especially since most of the CAR
is based on the HON, which is the NESHAP applicable to the SOCMI.
In addition to the appropriate stringency qualifications, the CAR
will be established through regulation, thus it is appropriate to
augment the CTG's, which were issued after public notice and comment,
with the CAR. Therefore, since EPA believes that the CAR is at least as
stringent as the RACT established in the CTG and since this action
fulfills the procedural requirements for establishing RACT, EPA is
proposing to pre-approve the CAR as RACT.

[[Page 57789]]

B. EPA Approval of the CAR as an Alternative Compliance Measure for the
State Implementation Plan

The EPA is aware that some State SIPs provide for the use of
alternative emission limitations, control technologies, or monitoring
methods for purposes of complying with the applicable SIP requirement.
Use of such alternatives generally requires the prior approval of both
EPA and the State to ensure that the alternative is equivalent to the
method currently approved into the SIP. The EPA is proposing, based on
its pre-approval of the CAR as meeting RACT, that where a SIP allows
sources to adopt alternative means of control after approval by the
State and EPA, no additional EPA approval will be required prior to the
source implementing the CAR. In other words, EPA is proposing that a
determination in the final CAR rule that the CAR is RACT for the
relevant sources, will fulfill the EPA approval requirement in SIPs for
adoption of alternative means of complying with a SIP-approved RACT
requirement.1 Therefore, if--in accordance with an
alternative measures provision in an approved SIP--a source applied to
a State, seeking to implement the CAR rather than the current SIP-
approved RACT measures, the State could approve the use of the CAR as
an alternative means of compliance and further EPA approval would not
be necessary for the source to implement the CAR. In these cases--where
the SIP expressly provides for the approval of alternative measures--
this pre-approval should provide an expedited mechanism for using the
CAR to consolidate SIP and Federal emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ EPA's pre-approval only applies if the State is approving
the CAR as federally-promulgated. If the State wishes to approve an
alternative that differs from the approved federal CAR, these
streamlined procedures would not apply. Rather a full SIP revision
request would be needed. However, as noted in section C., below, EPA
might be able to use the direct final process in processing some SIP
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, through this proposed action, EPA is not and cannot revise
any specific SIP to include the CAR. Where a SIP allows approval of
alternative means of compliance, the source must still receive State
approval, consistent with the terms in the SIP, in order to use the CAR
as an alternative means of compliance. Independent State approval is
necessary because the State has retained the authority to determine
whether alternative means of control meet the State-adopted RACT
requirements. States have the authority under section 116 of the Clean
Air Act to establish controls that exceed RACT. Therefore, although EPA
is proposing that the CAR is at least equivalent to the presumptive
RACT requirement in the existing CTGs, the State must have the
opportunity to determine whether the CAR is an appropriate alternative
to the measures that were adopted by the State and approved into the
SIP. This determination is critical since a State may have adopted
tighter means of control for purposes of attaining the NAAQS or meeting
some other applicable requirement of the CAA (for example, 15 percent
VOC reduction requirement).
For cases in which the SIP requirements are more stringent than the
CAR as it would apply to specific sources, EPA recognizes that use of
the CAR as an alternative to the SIP may jeopardize achievement or
maintenance of the NAAQS. In those cases, EPA expects that the State
would disapprove use of the CAR as an alternative means of compliance
with the SIP.
In determining whether the CAR can be used as an alternative to the
SIP, the State must consider whether the CAR requires control to an
equal or higher degree than the emission limitations of the SIP.
Because EPA, through this rulemaking, is establishing the compliance
measures (monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) which correspond to
a particular control option as sufficient to assure compliance with the
presumptive RACT emission limitation, EPA believes that it will not be
necessary for a State to compare the particular compliance measures of
the SIP to the CAR in order to approve the CAR as an alternative if the
State has adopted the presumptive measures that were provided in the
CTG. Rather, the State may choose to restrict its review to the
sufficiency of the control measures and emission limitations in the
CAR, in order to provide for greater use of the burden reductions
inherent in the compliance measures of today's proposed CAR.
The EPA believes that there will be few, if any, instances in which
the CAR would serve to relax a previously applicable SIP requirement.
However, since there may be limited cases where that could occur, EPA
is seeking comment on whether a more rigorous SIP review process should
be required in those few instances. Therefore, EPA is seeking comment
on whether the State should be required to submit through the formal
SIP revision process any state approval of the CAR where the CAR
provides for fewer emission reductions than the previously-approved
SIP.
Although a source may implement the CAR upon State approval, EPA is
also proposing that the State subsequently submit the CAR for official
incorporation into the SIP. The EPA is proposing that the State could
make this submission through letter notice.2 This process
will serve to ensure that the applicable control requirement, i.e., the
CAR, is reflected in the SIP. Without this process, the SIP would
continue to indicate that the source was subject to the previously
approved RACT limit. The letter notice will ensure that EPA is informed
about the applicable SIP requirements for sources and will allow the
Agency to fulfill its obligation to provide that information to the
public (See for example The Act 110(h), 42 USC 7410(h)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For further information on the letter notice process, see 55
FR 5829, February 16, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since, at this point the incorporation of the CAR into the SIP will
merely be a technical revision, EPA believes that letter notice is an
acceptable procedure. Under the letter notice procedures, the State
submits the revision by letter to EPA upon State approval of the CAR
for a specific source or group of sources. The EPA would not need to
undertake a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking process to
incorporate the revision into the SIP. Rather, the regional office
would notify the State and the source by letter that the SIP was being
revised to reflect the submission. Periodically, each EPA Regional
office would publish a notice in the Federal Register to notify the
public of the SIP revisions that had been made. Furthermore, at that
time, EPA would ensure that the federally-approved SIP reflected the
CAR as the alternative means of compliance for the relevant source(s).
The EPA seeks comment on the validity and usefulness of this
approach to extend consolidation of regulatory requirements to include
SIP requirements.

C. Expedited State Implementation Plan Approvals for Incorporation of
the CAR as a Reasonably Available Control Technology Compliance Option

In many cases the SIP explicitly provides an exclusive means of
compliance with RACT. This exclusivity would preclude the use of the
process proposed above since the SIP does not allow for an alternative
means of compliance. In such cases, the State may utilize other options
to address overlapping requirements between the SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP
programs. One approach which the State could take would be to revise
the regulations which form the basis of the SIP, either to include
boilerplate

[[Page 57790]]

provisions for approved alternatives or to explicitly incorporate the
CAR as a means of complying with RACT. EPA is proposing the use of
measures described below in order to ensure that this SIP revision
process would work quickly and effectively so that the CAR may be
utilized as quickly as possible as a compliance tool.
Because EPA is proposing to determine through this action that the
CAR is at least equivalent to presumptive RACT, EPA believes that there
will be little need for public comment on a case-by-case basis as SIPs
are revised to incorporate the federally-enacted CAR as an alternative
means of compliance. However, it will be necessary for some States to
revise their SIPs to include the CAR for this purpose. Therefore, such
States would need to submit the CAR to EPA as a SIP revision. For
States that submit the CAR, as finalized in the federal rules, EPA is
proposing to use letter notice procedures to revise the SIP to
incorporate the CAR. (Again, EPA seeks comment on whether a different
process should be used where the CAR would relax the previously-
approved SIP requirement.) However, if a State submits a rule that
differs from that established through the final federal rulemaking on
the CAR, EPA would need to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures in order to provide an opportunity for public participation.
Although EPA believes notice-and-comment rulemaking would be needed
if the State-adopted rule differs from the federally-enacted CAR, in
some instances, EPA might be able to utilize the existing ``direct
final'' method of rulemaking in order to significantly expedite the
rulemaking process. Under such a procedure, EPA publishes a proposed
and final action simultaneously indicating that if no adverse comments
are received, the final action will be effective 60 days following
publication. If adverse comments are received, EPA will withdraw the
final action, address the comments and subsequently publish a new final
action in light of the comments received.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ For further information on the direct final process, see 59
FR 24054, May 10, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Streamlining of Overlapping State Implementation Plan, New Source
Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Requirements in the Title V Permitting Process

In addition to undertaking rulemaking to revise the SIP, or as an
option to that approach, the State may wish to take advantage of the
title V permitting process as a mechanism for addressing overlapping
requirements. The process by which this may be accomplished is
discussed in detail in EPA guidance entitled, ``White Paper Number 2
For Improved Title V Implementation,'' issued on March 5, 1996.
The White Paper Number 2 describes how a source may propose
streamlining to distill or ``streamline'' multiple overlapping
requirements into one set that will assure compliance with all
requirements. According to the guidance, multiple emissions limits
applying to an emission unit may be streamlined into one limit if that
limit is at least as stringent as the most stringent limit. If no one
requirement is clearly more stringent than the others, the applicant
may synthesize the conditions of all the applicable requirements into a
single new permit term that will assure compliance with all
requirements. The streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements would generally be those associated with the most
stringent emissions limit, providing they would assure compliance to
the same extent as any subsumed monitoring. Thus, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed
limits would not be required where the source implements the
streamlined approach.
It is important to emphasize that while streamlining may be
initiated by either the applicant or the permitting authority, it can
only be implemented where the permit applicant consents to its use.

X. Summary of Benefits and Other Impacts

The CAR contains a number of significant benefits to all parties;
in fact, regulatory improvement benefitting all is the main purpose of
the CAR, as described earlier in the discussion on goals and
objectives. Many of the same benefits and features of the CAR help all
the parties equally, while some are more beneficial to others. The
benefits and improvements of the CAR are individually discussed in
detail in section VI of this preamble. The most significant benefits
afforded by the CAR include:
<bullet> Requirements in 3 different parts and 16 different
subparts have been brought together into 1 set of requirements in a
single part;
<bullet> Structure of the rule is designed with the ``end-user'' in
mind;
<bullet> Monitoring requirements for equipment leaks have been
greatly reduced and simplified; and
<bullet> Data handling burden has been greatly reduced due to
requirements to keep only the most recent 3 hours of CPMS monitoring
data.
The recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the CAR
reflects a substantial reduction in burden hours as compared to the
referencing subparts. EPA has assessed the recordkeeping and reporting
burden for the CAR and estimates a net reduction in burden of about
1700 hours per year for a representative chemical plant with 3 process
units opting to use the CAR. Burden reduction is a function of the size
and complexity of a plant site and will therefore vary for individual
plant sites.
In addition, it is expected that the CAR will provide improved
compliance and resource savings. By having a clearer, simpler, smaller,
consistent set of rules, both industry and enforcement agencies will
know better what is expected, and can concentrate on implementing and
complying with the requirements instead of trying to understand
provisions of several different rules. Because the rules can be much
more easily implemented, there will be better compliance. By the same
token, when the regulations are more easily implemented, with resulting
better compliance, there will be less enforcement action and
litigation, saving resources of both enforcement agencies and industry.

XI. Additional Amendments to Equipment Leak Referencing Subparts

Today's action includes some additional amendments to 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V that are not necessitated
by proposal of the CAR. Rather, these amendments are being proposed in
order to clarify some specific provisions and to incorporate some
provisions for safety consistent with the HON equipment leak provisions
that have been amended several times in recent years. Today's proposed
amendments would incorporate these same improvements into 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. The rationale for all of
the proposed amendments remains the same as it was for amending the
HON. Discussion of these HON amendments is found in preambles to the
proposed amendments (59 FR 48175, September 20, 1994; 60 FR 18020,
April 10, 1995; 61 FR 31435, June 20, 1996; and 62 FR 2721, January 17,
1997). The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V consist of the following changes.

[[Page 57791]]

A. Closed-vent Systems and Control Devices

The language in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V defining CVS would be changed from ``systems * * * composed
of piping'' to ``systems * * * composed of hard-piping [or] ductwork.''
Definitions of ``hard-piping'' and ``ductwork,'' taken from the HON,
would be added to both 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V to accommodate the amended definition of CVS. Definitions
distinguishing between hard-piping and ductwork allow for a distinction
to be made between the applicable inspection requirements.
The inspection requirements for CVS hard-piping and ductwork have
been clarified in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V to be consistent with 40
CFR part 60, subpart VV and the HON. Closed-vent system ductwork must
be inspected initially and annually thereafter using Test Method 21;
CVS hard-piping must be inspected initially using Test Method 21, and
then visually inspected annually thereafter. Prior to these amendments,
there was no clear distinction made in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V
between ductwork and hard-piping inspection requirements, and all
conveyance systems had to be inspected annually using Method 21.
However, EPA recognizes that systems constructed of hard-piping are
extremely unlikely to leak, and therefore, annual Method 21 inspections
are unnecessary for hard-piping. Further discussion about the
inspection requirements for CVS ductwork versus CVS hard-piping is
included in the Federal Register notice proposing this amendment for 40
CFR part 60, subpart VV (59 FR 36155, July 15, 1994) and in the Federal
Register notice issuing the final HON (59 FR 19447, April 22, 1994).
The definitions of CVS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V would also be modified for consistency with the HON
to include systems that are routed back to a process. Similarly,
provisions in both subparts that require a control device for pumps,
compressors, or pressure relief devices would be amended to allow
routing to a fuel gas system or routing back to a process in lieu of
routing through a CVS to a control device.

B. Sampling Connection Systems

The HON provisions on the treatment of purge material would be
added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. The
added provisions would allow three additional control options for purge
materials. These options include: (1) sending purge material to a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), if it
contains hazardous waste; (2) sending purge material to a facility
permitted by a State to handle municipal or industrial solid waste, if
it is not hazardous waste; or (3) sending the purge material to a waste
management unit that is complying with the group 1 wastewater
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
When EPA amended the HON with these three additional control
options, the option to send purge material to a waste management unit
that is complying with the HON Group 1 wastewater provisions included
an exemption for streams that do not contain any organic HAP listed on
table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. This exemption is not included in
the proposed amendments for 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR part
61, subpart V. These two subparts address VOC, and benzene and vinyl
chloride, respectively.
Table 9 was created to help define organic HAP of regulatory
concern for the HON wastewater provisions. It therefore does not serve
as an appropriate basis for exemption from VOC controls under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV. Many regulated VOC are not HAP, and they have
never been assessed for inclusion in table 9. No satisfactory
substitute for table 9 exists for VOC. Moreover, table 9 is not an
appropriate basis for exemption under 40 CFR part 61, subpart V because
subpart V applies to streams containing benzene or vinyl chloride, and
table 9 lists both of these compounds.
The EPA is not including the exemption because the circumstances
associated with purge material in wastewater streams are not the same
in these cases as were present with the HON amendment. For more
discussion on how table 9 was developed see the Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions from Process Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry--Background Information for Final Standards,
Volume 2B: Comments on Wastewater (EPA-453/R-94-003b) section 3.2 The
control options allowed in the proposed amendment meet the intent of
the sampling connection system provisions, which is to ensure that
purged material is captured and either returned to a process or
destroyed, and offers additional compliance flexibility.
The HON definition of ``sampling connection systems'' would also be
added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V.
Prior to this proposed amendment, neither subpart included a definition
of this term. The addition would be made for clarity and would not
effect the requirements in either subpart.

C. Standards for Control Devices and Recovery Systems

Provisions for recovery devices and enclosed combustion devices in
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V would be
amended to allow an exit concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) as an alternative to the 95 percent control efficiency
requirement. The 20 ppmv alternative standard was added to the HON
provisions (61 FR 43698, August 26, 1996). The use of this option is
provided for cases where there would be large amounts of dilution air,
such as enclosed vented processes. The EPA considers the 20 ppmv
alternative standards to be a reasonable design concentration for
circumstances covered by these two subparts. For low concentration
streams, it is difficult to obtain the 95 percent removal that is
required. A 20 ppmv outlet concentration is obtainable for these
streams. In addition, EPA reiterates that this proposed alternative
standard will be allowed only in the cases where circumvention by
dilution can reasonably be detected.

D. Safety Considerations

Several amendments made to the HON equipment leak provisions for
safety reasons (60 FR 18073, April 10, 1995) are being proposed for 40
CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. These amendments
are being proposed for safety reasons and for consistency among
equipment leak rules; they would exempt equipment from particular
requirements (for example, inspections) if the required activity may
pose a safety hazard. Use of these proposed exemptions will be strictly
limited to equipment for which a real need could be reasonably argued.
Pumps would be exempt from monthly monitoring and weekly visual
inspection requirements if such monitoring or inspection is unsafe. The
owner or operator must maintain a written plan for monitoring and
inspecting these pumps as frequently as possible under safe conditions.
The associated recordkeeping requirements for inspection and monitoring
would be amended accordingly.
Pressure relief devices equipped with a rupture disc upstream of
the pressure relief device would be exempt from the requirement to
operate with no detectable emissions. Owners and operators would have
to replace these rupture discs as soon as is practical and

[[Page 57792]]

no later than 5 days after each pressure release.
Open-ended valves and lines would be exempt from the requirement to
be closed or sealed if they are part of an emergency shutdown system,
or if the open-ended valve or line contains material that would
autocatalytically polymerize or cause a safety hazard if capped or
sealed.
Any parts of a closed-vent system that are designated by the owner
or operator as unsafe to inspect would be exempt from requirements for
initial and annual inspection and monitoring. The owner or operator
would have to maintain records of equipment so designated and a written
plan for inspecting this equipment as often as possible under safe
conditions.
Parts of a CVS that cannot be inspected without elevating the
inspector more than 2 meters above a support surface could be
designated difficult to inspect and thereby exempt from inspection and
monitoring requirements. Equipment designated difficult to inspect must
be part of a modified or reconstructed process unit or the owner or
operator must designate no more than 3 percent of the CVS equipment
difficult to inspect. Additionally, the owner or operator must maintain
a written plan for inspecting the equipment at least every 5 years.

XII. Solicitation of Specific Comments

The Administrator solicits comments on all aspects of this
proposal. Comments on specific technical features of the rule are
solicited in section VI of this preamble as each topic is discussed.
These technical features include:
<bullet> The introduction of halogen scrubbers for NSPS process
vents;
<bullet> The validity and usefulness of the CAR's implementation
mechanism;
<bullet> The EPA's proposed policy for delegation to States; and
<bullet> The CAR's provisions requiring correction to 3 percent
oxygen for all combustion device concentration measurements.
The Administrator specifically requests comments on the usefulness
of incorporating two features into the rule. First, should tables
citing the provisions of the referencing subparts that still apply to
owners and operators complying with the CAR be added to the CAR? And
second, should a subgrouping program similar to that established for
valve equipment leak monitoring [see Sec. 65.106(b)(4)] be created for
connector equipment leak monitoring?
In this section, the Administrator is also specifically requesting
comments on the overall effectiveness of the proposed rule. Commenters
should provide any available data and rationale to support their
comments on each topic.
The Administrator specifically requests comments on how well the
proposed rule meets the President's objectives of rule consolidation.
The stated goal of the rule is articulated in the March 16, 1995 White
House papers entitled, ``Reinventing Environmental Regulation,'' as
follows:

EPA will work with key industries, beginning with the chemical
industry, to eliminate conflicting and overlapping Federal air
compliance requirements. Deleting duplicative and confusing
requirements will result in increased understanding by industry
about emission limits and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and will reduce compliance costs--with no measurable
loss of environmental protection. Subsequently, consolidation for
other media will be undertaken, based on experience gained with air
rules.

The successes of this pilot project for the chemical industry should be
measured against the 10 principles for reinventing environmental
regulation, which were listed in the President's March 16 policy, as
follows:

1. Protecting public health and the environment are important
national goals, and individuals, businesses and government must take
responsibility for the impact of their actions.
2. Regulation must be designed to achieve environmental goals in
a manner that minimizes costs to individuals, businesses, and other
levels of government.
3. Environmental regulations must be performance-based,
providing maximum flexibility in the means of achieving our
environmental goals, but requiring accountability for the results.
4. Preventing pollution, not just controlling or cleaning it up,
is preferred.
5. Market incentives should be used to achieve environmental
goals, whenever appropriate.
6. Environmental regulation should be based on the best science
and economies, subject to expert and public scrutiny, and grounded
in values Americans share.
7. Government regulations must be understandable to those who
are affected by them.
8. Decision making should be collaborative, not adversarial, and
decision makers must inform and involve those who must live with the
decisions.
9. Federal, State, tribal and local governments must work as
partners to achieve common environmental goals, with non-Federal
partners taking the lead when appropriate.
10. No citizen should be subjected to unjust or disproportionate
environmental impacts.

The CAR addresses several of these principles (numbers 1, 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, and 9). Comments are requested on the following topics to
evaluate how well the CAR embraces these principles and to identify
specific changes that could be made to improve the benefits of
consolidation.
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to provide an end-user friendly
structure to regulatory requirements. Would you want to see this
structure repeated in future rulemakings? What could have been done
better?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to update, clarify, and eliminate
ambiguity in the regulatory requirements. Was this goal accomplished?
What specific improvements could be made?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to provide for improved
environmental results by clarifying and simplifying the set of
regulations. Do you believe that the proposed rule will improve the
level of compliance?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to reduce the overall regulatory
compliance burden. The goal was to achieve burden reduction for all
parties: EPA, the states, the public, and the regulated community. Will
the proposed rule reduce burden? What further improvements can be made?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to have a single, consolidated
set of requirements for the SOCMI Industry. Is the proposed single rule
an improvement?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to reduce the amount of
regulatory information that stakeholders must review to determine
regulatory requirements in the SOCMI Industry. Has this goal been met?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to reduce the complexities of
overlapping regulations among different Federal air programs. How well
has this goal been met? What improvements could be made?
<bullet> One intent of the CAR is to provide a linear logic in
proceeding through the regulatory requirements; i.e., start at the
beginning of a rule and work your way as far into the regulation as is
appropriate for the emission point. For example, if a section of the
regulation does not apply to the emissions unit then everything
necessary for achieving compliance should be identified at that
regulation location and with no need to go deeper into the regulation
to make sure that there is not an imbedded requirement (for example, a
reporting requirement located near the end of a rule related to an
exemption contained in an earlier section). How well was this goal met?
<bullet> The CAR constitutes a substantial re-organization of
massive amounts of regulatory information. Underlying regulatory intent
was intended to be

[[Page 57793]]

retained except where noted in this preamble. Has the reorganization of
the information implied a change in substantive requirements or
compliance expectations that has not been explicitly identified?
<bullet> The CAR is optional at the choice of the SOCMI owner/
operator as an alternative compliance program for existing rules. Are
the requirements for opting into CAR compliance and opting out of CAR
compliance clear?

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the
requirements in the proposed regulation in accordance with section
307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the
proposed regulation should contact EPA at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited
to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written
statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-96-01. A verbatim
transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours at the EPA's Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center in Washington, DC (see
ADDRESSES section of the preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in these proposed rules
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1854.01) and copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740.
Information is required to ensure compliance with the provisions of
the proposed rules. If the relevant information were collected less
frequently, the EPA would not be reasonably assured that a source is in
compliance with the proposed rules. In addition, the EPA's authority to
take administrative action would be reduced significantly.
The proposed rules would require that facility owners or operators
retain records for a period of at least five years, which exceeds the
three year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR
1320.6. The five year retention period is consistent with the
provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, and with the
five year records retention requirement in the operating permit program
under Title V of the CAA.
All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B,
Confidentiality of Business Information. See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 3999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979. Even where
the EPA has determined that data received in response to an ICR is
eligible for confidential treatment under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, the
EPA may nonetheless disclose the information if it is ``relevant in any
proceeding'' under the statute [42 U.S.C. 7414(C); 40 CFR 2.301(g)].
The information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 108.
Information to be reported consists of emission data and other
information that are not of a sensitive nature. No sensitive personal
or proprietary data are being collected.
The estimated annual average hour burden for CAR is about 6,600
hours per respondent. The estimated annual average cost of this burden
is about $255,000 for each of the estimated 100 (projected)
respondents.
Reports are required on a semi-annual basis and as required, as in
the case of startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICRs to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in
any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning
the ICR's between 30 and 60 days after October 28, 1998, a comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
November 27, 1998. The final rules will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.

D. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;

[[Page 57794]]

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Therefore, the
proposed regulation presented in this notice was submitted to the OMB
for review as required. Any written comments from the OMB to EPA and
any written EPA response to those comments will be included in the
Docket listed at the beginning of this notice in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA),
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency contends that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule
would not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small
entities because it is an optional compliance method and does not
introduce any new requirements. Sources, including small entities, may
choose to comply with the proposed rule if they determine that it would
be beneficial to do so.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for the proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these rules do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rules are not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The EPA has determined that these rules contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. No small government entities have been identified that
have involvement with these source categories and, as such, are not
covered by the regulatory requirements of the proposed regulations.

G. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved States
and local governments in the development of this rule. State and local
air pollution control associations participated in the regulatory
development and have provided regulatory review.

H. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, the EPA must consider the use of ``voluntary
consensus standards,'' if available and applicable, when implementing
policies and programs, unless it would be ``inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' The intent of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act is to reduce the costs to the
private and public sectors by requiring federal agencies to draw upon
any existing, suitable technical standards used in commerce or
industry.
A ``voluntary consensus standard'' is a technical standard
developed or adopted by a legitimate standards-developing organization.
The Act defines ``technical standards'' as ``performance-based or
design-specific technical specifications and related management systems
practices.'' A legitimate standards-developing organization must
produce standards by consensus and observe principles of due process,
openness, and balance of interests. Examples of organizations that are
regarded as legitimate standards-developing organizations include the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), American Petroleum Institute (API), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE).
The technical standards proposed with this notice are standards
that have been proposed and promulgated under other rulemakings for
similar source control applicability and compliance determinations.
Since today's proposal does not involve the establishment or
modification of technical standards, the requirements of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act do not apply.

J. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive order
12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the
rule has a

[[Page 57795]]

disproportionate effect of children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environment health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve
decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children.

K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemical manufacturing, Intergovernmental
relations, Volatile organic compounds, Hazardous substances, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference.

40 CFR Part 61

40 CFR Part 63

40 CFR Part 65

Dated: September 28, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

For the reasons cited in the preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 and to add 40 CFR
part 65 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601 and
7602.

Subpart Ka--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

2. Section 60.110a is amended by revising paragraph (a), and adding
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.110a Applicability and designation of affected facility.

(a) Affected facility. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, the affected facility to which this subpart applies is each
storage vessel with a storage capacity greater than 151,416 liters
(40,000 gallons) that is used to store petroleum liquids for which
construction is commenced after May 18, 1978.
* * * * *
(c) Alternative means of compliance--SOCMI CAR unit basis. Owners
or operators may choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C to
satisfy the requirements of Secs. 60.112a through 60.114a, as provided
in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, for all storage vessels that
are subject to this subpart that store petroleum liquids that, as
stored, have a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than
10.3 kPa (1.5 psia), and that are part of a SOCMI CAR unit. A SOCMI CAR
unit is defined in 40 CFR 65.2 of subpart A. Other provisions applying
to owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65 are
provided in 40 CFR 65.1 of subpart A.
(d) Alternative means of compliance--affected source basis. Owners
or operators may choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C to
satisfy the requirements of Secs. 60.112a through 60.114a, as provided
in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, for any storage vessels that
are subject to this subpart that store petroleum liquids that, as
stored, have a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than
10.3 kPa (1.5 psia), and that are not part of a SOCMI CAR unit, but are
located at the same plant site as a SOCMI CAR unit that is complying
with 40 CFR part 65. A SOCMI CAR unit is defined in 40 CFR 65.2 of
subpart A. Other provisions applying to owners or operators who choose
to comply with 40 CFR part 65 are provided in 40 CFR 65.1 of subpart A.
(e) Part 60 subpart A. Owners or operators who choose to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C, as provided in paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section, must also comply with Secs. 60.1, 60.2, 60.5, 60.6,
60.14, 60.15, 60.16, and 60.7 (a)(1) and (a)(4) of subpart A for those
storage vessels. All sections and paragraphs of subpart A of this part
that are not mentioned in this paragraph do not apply to owners or
operators of storage vessels complying with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C,
except that provisions required to be met prior to implementing 40 CFR
part 65 remain in effect. Owners and operators who choose to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C, must comply with 40 CFR part 65,
subpart A.
(f) Comply on a SOCMI CAR unit basis. When choosing to comply with
any subpart of 40 CFR part 65 for any equipment, process vent, loading
rack (transfer rack) or storage vessel in a SOCMI CAR unit, owners or
operators must also comply with all applicable

[[Page 57796]]

subparts of 40 CFR part 65 for all equipment, process vents, loading
racks (transfer racks) or storage vessels that are within the SOCMI CAR
unit, that are subject to a CAR referencing subpart, and that are
eligible to comply with the CAR. A SOCMI CAR unit and the CAR
referencing subparts are defined in 40 CFR 65.2 of subpart A.
3. Section 60.115a is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) as
follows:

Sec. 60.115a Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of each storage vessel equipped with a
vapor recovery and return or disposal system in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 60.112a(a)(3) and (b), or a closed vent system and
control device meeting the specifications of 40 CFR 65.42(b)(4),
(b)(5), (c)(1), or (c)(2).

Subpart Kb--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

4. Section 60.110b is amended by adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g),
(h), (i), and (j) as follows:

Sec. 60.110b Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
(e) Alternative means of compliance--SOCMI CAR unit basis. Owners
or operators may choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C to
satisfy the requirements of Secs. 60.112b through 60.117b, as provided
in paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this section, for all storage
vessels that are subject to this subpart that meet the specifications
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section, and that are part of a
SOCMI CAR unit. When choosing to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C,
as provided in paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this section, the
monitoring requirements of Sec. 60.116b(c), (e), (f)(1), and (g) remain
in effect. A SOCMI CAR unit is defined in 40 CFR 65.2, subpart A. Other
provisions applying to owners or operators who choose to comply with 40
CFR part 65 are provided in 40 CFR 65.1 of subpart A.
(1) A storage vessel with a design capacity greater than or equal
to 151 m3 containing a VOL that, as stored, has a maximum
true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa, or
(2) A storage vessel with a design capacity greater than 75 m
3 but less than 151 m 3 containing a VOL that, as
stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 27.6
kPa.
(f) Alternative means of compliance--affected source basis. Owners
or operators may choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C to
satisfy the requirements of Secs. 60.112b through 60.117b, as provided
in paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j) of this section, for any storage
vessels that are subject to this subpart, that meet the specifications
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section, and that are not part
of a SOCMI CAR unit, but are located at the same plant site as a SOCMI
CAR unit that is complying with 40 CFR part 65. When choosing to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C, as provided in paragraphs (g), (h), (i)
and (j) of this section, the monitoring requirements of
Sec. 60.116b(c), (e), (f)(1), and (g) remain in effect. A SOCMI CAR
unit is defined in 40 CFR 65.2 of subpart A. Other provisions applying
to owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65 are
provided in 40 CFR 65.1 of subpart A.
(g) Part 60 subpart A. Owners or operators who choose to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C, as provided in paragraphs (e) or (f) of
this section, must also comply with Secs. 60.1, 60.2, 60.5, 60.6,
60.14, 60.15, 60.16, and 60.7(a)(1) and (a)(4) of subpart A for those
storage vessels. All sections and paragraphs of subpart A of this part
that are not mentioned in this paragraph do not apply to owners or
operators of storage vessels complying with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C,
except that provisions required to be met prior to implementing 40 CFR
part 65 remain in effect. Owners and operators who choose to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart C, must comply with 40 CFR part 65,
subpart A.
(h) Comply on a SOCMI CAR unit basis. When choosing to comply with
any subpart of 40 CFR part 65 for any equipment, process vent, loading
rack (transfer rack) or storage vessel in a SOCMI CAR unit, owners or
operators must also comply with all applicable subparts of 40 CFR part
65 for all equipment, process vents, loading racks (transfer racks) or
storage vessels that are within the SOCMI CAR unit, that are subject to
a CAR referencing subpart, and that are eligible to comply with the
CAR. A SOCMI CAR unit and the CAR referencing subparts are defined in
40 CFR 65.2 of subpart A.
(i) Internal Floating roof report. If an owner or operator installs
an internal floating roof and, at initial startup, chooses to comply
with the CAR, as provided in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this section, a
report shall be furnished to the Administrator stating that the control
equipment meets the specifications of 40 CFR 65.43 of subpart C. This
report shall be an attachment to the notification required by 40 CFR
65.5(b) of subpart A.
(j) External Floating roof report. If an owner or operator installs
an external floating roof and, at initial startup, chooses to comply
with the CAR, as provided in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this section, a
report shall be furnished to the Administrator stating that the control
equipment meets the specifications of 40 CFR 65.44 of subpart C. This
report shall be an attachment to the notification required by 40 CFR
65.5(b) of subpart A.
5. Section 60.116b is amended by revising paragraph (g) as follows:

Sec. 60.116b Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
(g) The owner or operator of each vessel equipped with a closed
vent system and control device meeting the specification of
Sec. 60.112b or with emissions reductions equipment as specified in 40
CFR 65.42(b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), or (c) of subpart C is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.

Subpart VV--Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry

6. Section 60.480 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 60.480 Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
(e) Alternative means of compliance. Owners or operators of
equipment that is subject to this subpart may choose to comply with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 65, subpart F to satisfy the requirements of
Secs. 60.482 through 60.487 of this subpart, as provided in paragraphs
(e)(1) and (e)(2). When choosing to comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart
F, as provided in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), the requirements of
Secs. 60.482-1(a), 60.485(d), (e), and (f), and 60.486(i) and (j)
apply. Other provisions applying to an owner or operator who chooses to
comply with 40 CFR part 65 are provided in 40 CFR 65.1 of subpart A.
(1) Part 60 subpart A. Owners or operators who choose to comply
with 40 CFR part 65, subpart F must also comply with Secs. 60.1, 60.2,
60.5, 60.6, 60.14, 60.15, 60.16, and 60.7(a)(1) and (a)(4) of subpart A
of this part for that equipment. All sections and paragraphs of subpart
A of this part that are not mentioned in this paragraph do not apply to
owners or operators of

[[Continued on page 57797]]

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR): Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Related Material

Local Navigation