[Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65301-65319]
[DOCID:fr07no06-18]

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

Part III

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

 40 CFR Part 60

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Rackley, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-
0634; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:

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

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

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

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

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

I. Background Information

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

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

B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?

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

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

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

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

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Request for Comments

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

1. Drill and Tap Repair Attempts

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

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

2. Leak Detection and Repair for Connectors

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

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

V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

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

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

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

A. What are the impacts for SOCMI process units?

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. What are the economic impacts?

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements in the existing rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and
GGG). The information collection requirements in this proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1854.05 for
the consolidation of all ICRs related to rule that apply to the SOCMI,
including 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and EPA ICR number 0983.09 for 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGG.
    The information to be collected for the proposed amendments to 40
CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG are based on recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR part
60, subpart A, which are mandatory for all operators subject to new
source performance standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG
would require sources to maintain records of leaking open-ended lines,
instrument calibration activities, all instrument readings, the results
of weekly pump inspections, and information about possible flow in
lines that bypass control devices. Additionally, the sources would be
required to include information about leaking open-ended lines and flow
in bypass lines in semi-annual compliance reports.
    The annual projected burden for EPA ICR number 1854.05 (40 CFR part
60, subpart VV) to owners and operators of affected sources subject to
the final rule is estimated to be 1,999,723 labor-hours per year, with
a total annual cost of $95.3 million per year. The hour burden is based
on an estimated 199.6 hours per response on a semi-annual basis by
3,349 respondents.
    The annual projected burden for EPA ICR number 0983.06 (40 CFR part
60, subpart GGG) to owners and operators of affected sources subject to
the final rule is estimated to be 8,317 labor-hours per year. The hour
burden is based on an estimated 82 hours per response on a semi-annual
basis by 49 respondents.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB controls numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after November 7, 2006, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 7,
2006. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
according to Small Business Administration size standards by the NAICS
category of the owning entity; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. For
the SOCMI, a small business ranges from less than 500 employees to less
than 1,000 employees, depending on the NAICS code. For petroleum
refiners, a small business has no more than 1,500 employees and a crude
oil distillation capacity of no more than 125,000 barrels per calendar
day.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    An economic impacts analysis was performed to compare the control
costs associated with producing a product at petroleum refineries and
various types of SOCMI facilities to the average value of shipments
from such facilities. In all cases, the costs are small relative to
facility sales figures. Thus, any price increases or loss of profit
would be quite small. While the distribution of costs to small entities
is unknown, no significant impact is expected for facilities of any
size. For more information on the results of the analysis of small
entity impacts, please refer to the economic impact analysis in the
docket.
    Although the proposed NSPS would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on small
entities. In the proposed amendments, the Agency is applying the
minimum level of control and the minimum level of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to affected sources allowed by the CAA.
This provision should reduce the size of small entity impacts. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to the proposed amendments.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart VV--[Amended]

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

Sec.  60.480  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

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

Sec.  60.481  Definitions.

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

Sec.  60.482-1  Standards: General.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  60.482-3  Standards: Compressors.

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

Sec.  60.482-5  Standards: Sampling connection systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  60.482-9  Standards: Delay of repair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  60.484  [Amended]

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

Sec.  60.485  Test methods and procedures.

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

Sec.  60.486  Recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

Sec.  60.487  Reporting requirements.

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

Subpart GGG--[Amended]

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

Sec.  60.590  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

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

Sec.  60.591  Definitions.

* * * * *