CAA section 112(d)(6), including the technical feasibility, potential
emission reductions and cost effectiveness. The commenters state that
the EPA failed to provide new data or rationale showing that the
definition of ``seal'' is needed for compliance assurance or to relieve
regulatory uncertainty, relying only on enforcement inspections
referenced in the 2007 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV rulemaking in which
monitoring OELs was determined to not be cost effective and was not the
best demonstrated technology (BDT). Another commenter states that the
EPA did not provide any data specific to the OSWRO source category for
OELs, and the data that were provided did not include the concentration
detected, whether the measurements were for HAP or VOCs, or what
standardization chemicals were used. One commenter states that the
existence of leaks from OELs is low and notes that while the EPA did
not request information to support monitoring of OELs, the commenter
referred to a monitoring study its member performed for OELs showing
that less than 1 percent of OELs were leaking at rates of 500 ppm or
greater. Another commenter states that the EPA's proposed definition
for a ``seal'' is actually a new loophole that would exempt leaks from
OELs below 500 ppm from the standards. The commenter contends this
definition is another type of exemption similar to the SSM exemption
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
found unlawful, and the EPA should not finalize the definition as
proposed.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are
imposing a new emissions limit for OELs. As discussed in the preamble
for the proposed rule and summarized above, the existing OSWRO NESHAP
already requires the open end of OELs to be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve that shall ``seal the open end.'' In
response to compliance uncertainty for owners and operators, we are
amending 40 CFR 63.691(b) to clarify that, for the purpose of complying
with the requirements of subpart H or subpart V, as applicable,\9\ OELs
are ``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when
instrument monitoring of the OEL conducted according to Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
This is consistent with how we have interpreted the term ``seal''
during inspections and, contrary to the commenters' assertions, is not
a new requirement. As demonstrated by the data provided in the docket
and the commenter's data showing that about 1 percent of all OELs are
leaking, OELs are not uniformly operating in a ``sealed'' manner by
keeping emissions below the 500 ppm threshold. The commenters have not
identified a reason to conclude that the OEL data provided in the
docket are not representative of the OSWRO source category. With this
clarification, the EPA is removing any ambiguity regarding what
constitutes a ``sealed'' OEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and IV.B of this
preamble, we are removing the option from subpart DD to comply with
40 CFR part 61, subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The compliance date for
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the final
amendments, and new sources must comply immediately upon the
effective date of the final amendments, or upon startup, whichever
is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that clarifying the
meaning of ``seal'' creates a new loophole for OELs. As discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule and elsewhere in this document, we
are clarifying an existing requirement that OELs be sealed.
iii. PRDs
    Comment: Several commenters state or suggest that PRDs are safety
devices, and these requirements will ask plant operators to choose
between safety and committing a violation. Two of these commenters
claim that this position is in direct contrast to the General Duty
provisions, which state that, ``at all times, the owner or operator
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions . . .'' Two other commenters state that the
proposed rule would require that PRD emissions be vented to a control
device, which could reduce the effectiveness of PRD by not allowing
over-pressure from the tank or process unit to vent quickly enough to
prevent damage. One commenter asserts that an OSHA Process Safety
Management Review would indicate that venting a PRD to a control device
would create an unacceptable risk. Further, one commenter argues that
the requirements will assign the same level

of importance to minor releases as to significant releases that require
immediate attention, which will divert resources from critical safety
tasks.
    One commenter states that the proposed PRD monitoring requirements
will predetermine the imposition of systems that safety experts may
deem unnecessary, and the placement of such systems, including
monitoring, should rather be determined during a process hazards
analysis, which is specific to each situation and is implemented for
the explicit purpose of protecting life and property. Another commenter
also argues that process safety professionals should make risk-based
decisions, and asserts that the proposed requirements do not recognize
the variations that exist between different types of systems and that
choices must be made for each individual system considering site
conditions. The commenter asserts that the management requirements for
PRDs should have a wide variety of options depending on the character
of the discharge. The commenter states that the industry's success in
preventing accidents has lead the EPA to wrongly assume that it is easy
to anticipate and prevent all circumstances that may cause an over-
pressurization event.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are forcing
plant operators to choose between safety and committing a violation. We
recognize that industry has stated that they believe releases from PRDs
sometimes occur in order to protect systems from failures that could
endanger worker safety and the systems that the PRDs are designed to
protect. The PRD requirements were established with the recognition
that emission releases to the atmosphere from these devices occur only
in the event of unplanned and unpredictable events. When PRD releases
are due to malfunctions, the EPA would determine an appropriate
response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the
source to minimize emissions, including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. This approach is consistent with the General Duty provisions
and is designed to minimize emissions while recognizing that these
events may be unavoidable even in a well-designed and maintained
system.
    We disagree with the comment that minor releases will divert
attention and resources away from critical safety tasks. These releases
are associated with malfunction events that would require immediate
corrective action and have the potential to emit large quantities of
HAP. In addition, while the owner or operator must follow the PRD
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each release to the
atmosphere, these tasks can be completed after the release has occurred
and should not interfere with any actions needed to ensure process and
system safety. Further, we note that the rule does not require PRDs to
be vented to control devices, as suggested by a commenter; however, a
facility owner or operator may choose to vent PRDs to control devices.
We also note that the commenters did not provide data or information in
support of their speculation that venting a PRD to a control device
would reduce the effectiveness of the PRD or that a safety hazard would
be created.
    Regarding the comments that the PRD monitoring requirements will
dictate the types of systems used at facilities, we note that, as
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the requirements for PRD
monitoring provide a wide latitude in the type of monitoring system
used, which may be chosen by the facility owner or operator, providing
that the basic requirements for the system are met.
    Comment: Several commenters state that the EPA added the PRD
requirements without regard to the CAA section 112 MACT development
process and without providing the legal justification, adequate record
basis or technical justification. Two of these commenters add that they
do not believe that the EPA has a legal obligation nor the discretion
to promulgate the proposed PRD provisions because the PRD monitoring
and reporting requirements were not derived from the technology
reviews, in response to any residual risks detected, or the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's
invalidation of the SSM provisions in the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions. Two commenters suggest that these revisions should be
evaluated as part of the technology review, and the EPA should analyze
the technical feasibility, potential emissions reductions and cost
effectiveness of the revisions.
    Several commenters argue that the EPA provided no data to support
the claim that a large number of releases occur and may emit large
quantities of HAP, or to support the contention that releases are not
being identified. One commenter asserts that PRD releases are rare, and
that the EPA's data from PRD episodes at California South Coast
refineries, which resulted in large emissions, does not apply to
chemical operations. Another commenter notes that at its facility, PRD
releases are infrequent events that last for 1 or 2 seconds and states
that the proposed PRD provisions are not warranted. One commenter
states that the industry already quantifies and reports releases
through the use of pressure monitoring and other types of process
controls that are also implemented to maintain stable operation. The
commenter asserts that the EPA is establishing a numeric standard of
zero that is based on the premise that most relief devices do not
release, which fails to acknowledge the differences between systems.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts),
and such standards must contain compliance assurance provisions to make
sure that they are practicably enforceable. Nothing in the CAA or its
legislative history suggests that the EPA is prohibited from reviewing
and revising MACT standards and their compliance assurance provisions,
except as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f)
reviews or an action taken in response to a ruling by a Court. The
amendments being finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission
standards for which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead,
they prohibit releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in off-site material
service that are not appropriate for exemption from emission standards
following the 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and impose additional
monitoring requirements to address potential releases.
    In light of, and consistent with, the Sierra Club v. EPA ruling,
the EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption in the OSWRO MACT standards
and requiring that the standards apply at all times, including during
periods of SSM. In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-
caused pressure releases to the atmosphere to conform with the
reasoning of the Court's ruling, the final rule adds a provision
stating that releases of HAP listed in Table 1 of subpart DD directly
to the atmosphere from PRDs in off-site material service are
prohibited. To prohibit these malfunction-caused releases, it is not
necessary for us to set an emission standard that is based on a MACT
floor or beyond-the-floor analysis; indeed, the EPA has consistently
explained that we are not required to take malfunctions into account in
setting standards or to devise standards that apply specifically to
malfunction-caused emissions, such as PRD releases that cause HAP
emissions only during malfunctions. The final rule requires that
sources

monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of detecting and recording
the time and duration of each pressure release, and the final rule
provides owners and operators flexibility to either install a monitor
on the PRD or to use equipment and operations they already have in
place if they are sufficient to detect and indicate pressure releases
to the atmosphere. The rule also establishes requirements that these
release indicators be capable of immediately notifying operators that a
release is occurring, so that HAP emissions from these releases can be
mitigated as soon as possible. Additionally, the final rule requires
reporting of PRD releases to the atmosphere to ensure that these
releases will be reported nationally.
    Contrary to some commenters' assertions that the EPA did not
provide data to support the claim that a large number of PRD releases
occur and may emit large quantities of HAP, a report by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) containing such data was
referenced and made available with the proposed rule in the memorandum,
Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for the Off-site
Waste and Recovery Operations Source Category, available in the docket
for this action. The referenced report shows that releases from PRDs
occur randomly and the emissions can only be approximated, but that
large quantities of emissions may be released. Based on the SCAQMD
analysis of refinery PRD reports of PRD releases from nine facilities
in its district, there were eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that
were estimated to release greater than 2,000 lbs of emissions to the
atmosphere, and eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were
estimated to release between 500 and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the
atmosphere. The SCAQMD analysis focuses on VOC emissions (which would
include organic HAP emissions) from refineries and marine terminals,
and information provided by the commenter also suggests the SCAQMD
analysis results are similar to results from another analysis for PRDs
at chemical production facilities.\10\ Additionally, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality Emission Event Reporting Database
is populated with Emission Event Reports from both the refinery and
chemical sectors where the reason for the report was due to a PRD
release. This database also shows that PRD releases do occur and that
the quantity of emissions varies and can be large. While there may be
differences in PRD systems and emissions, we continue to believe the
requirements proposed and being finalized for the OSWRO NESHAP in this
action are necessary to address the otherwise unregulated HAP emissions
releases from PRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The commenter stated that ``DuPont experience is that PRD
releases are rare; DuPont has provided data through ACC to EPA.''
ACC's comments referred to a study submitted with its comments for
another rulemaking. We located and reviewed this study, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0041, in which the data provided
by DuPont is summarized with other data supplied by ACC member
companies. Both the data provided by ACC and the SCAQMD showed just
over 1 percent of the PRDs had a release. The data provided by ACC
showed over 20 percent of PRD releases were over 500 pounds and the
SCAQMD data showed that approximately 38 percent of the PRD releases
were over 500 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters suggest certain types of PRDs should be
excluded from the PRD requirements because they have a low potential to
emit large quantities of HAP. These commenters specifically state that
PRDs in liquid service should be excluded from these requirements. For
PRDs with little potential for loss to the atmosphere, the commenters
suggest that the EPA set a reporting threshold value equal to the
reportable quantity (RQ) values in Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and/or Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). One commenter asserts that
the PRD provisions should exclude PRDs in less than 5-percent VOHAP
service. The commenter also suggests that the OSWRO MACT should refer
to Table 9 of subpart G (VOHAPs) instead of Table 1 of subpart DD,
should exclude ethylene glycol from Table 1 of subpart DD, or should
exclude heavy liquids from the definition of a PRD.
    This commenter states that the exclusion for PRDs discharged to a
drain system that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.689 is not
useful, and states that the EPA provides no cost justification or
assessment of potential emission reductions of this alternative
requirement. The commenter asserts that hard-piping discharge to a
closed sewer system is neither feasible nor safe in many situations,
and suggests that the EPA require only that liquids be sent for on-site
or off-site treatment, which would be consistent with the Chemical
Manufacturing Area Source standard (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV).
This commenter and another commenter state that, to be consistent with
the HON, PRDs that are routed to a fuel gas system should be exempted
in 40 CFR 63.691(c)(4).
    Response: We generally do not agree with the commenters'
suggestions to add an exclusion from the PRD requirements for PRDs that
emit smaller amounts of HAP. Regarding PRDs in liquid service,
equipment is in liquid service when it contains or contacts off-site
material that is liquid at operating conditions, and for processes that
are under pressure, the liquid may escape as a gas or vapor when
released to the atmosphere. For these reasons, we continue to believe
PRDs in liquid service, as well as those in gas/vapor service, should
be subject to the PRD requirements. We note that the OSWRO NESHAP
provides that only PRDs that contain or contact off-site material
having a total HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent by
weight and that are intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a
calendar year in off-site material service are subject to these
requirements (see 40 CFR 63.680(c)(3)). We also disagree with the
suggestion that the OSWRO MACT refer to Table 9 of subpart G rather
than Table 1 of subpart DD for HAPs regulated by the PRD provisions.
All of the provisions of the OSWRO NESHAP apply to the chemicals listed
in Table 1 of subpart DD, and we do not find that an exception should
be made for PRDs to exclude any chemicals with relatively lower
volatility from these requirements.
    We disagree with the commenter that the provisions that exclude
PRDs that are routed to a drain system meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 63.689 from the PRD release and monitoring requirements is an
alternate requirement. This provision acknowledges that such equipment
would not have uncontrolled HAP emission releases directly to the
atmosphere, and therefore the PRD release management and monitoring
provisions should not apply, but it does not require that any equipment
be routed to such a drain system. We also note that the chemical
manufacturing area source standard does not have pressure release
management or monitoring requirements, and the standards in that rule
are not applicable to the OSWRO NESHAP. The EPA agrees with commenters'
suggestion to exclude PRDs that release to a fuel gas system from the
PRD monitoring provisions, and we have revised the final rule to
reflect this change.
    Comment: One commenter requests that the EPA clarify the meaning of
PRDs in light liquid versus gas/vapor service. The commenter notes that
most facilities subject to the OSWRO MACT operate fixed roof storage
tanks that must be operated with a void space at

the top that consists of vapors from the tank and may also include a
nitrogen blanket. The commenter asserts that the determination of the
service type should be based on the contents of the tank (i.e., liquid)
and not the location where the PRD is installed, which will always be
at the top of the tank in contact with vapors in the void space. The
commenter asserts that if these types of tanks are considered to be in
gas/vapor service, then there can be no PRDs on fixed roof tanks that
operate in liquid service.
    Response: The OSWRO NESHAP directs facility owners/operators to
comply with the equipment leak requirements of the HON, which contains
different requirements for various components depending upon the type
of fluid (whether gas or liquid) that flows through (e.g., contains or
contacts) the components. The basis for these different requirements is
data collected from petroleum refineries, which indicate that emission
rates of equipment leak sources decrease as the vapor pressure
(volatility) of the process fluid decreases. For the HON, three classes
of volatility were established based on the petroleum refinery data and
the potential for emissions through equipment leaks; these include gas/
vapor service, light-liquid service and heavy-liquid service. The
proposed OSWRO definition stated that in gas/vapor service means that a
piece of equipment in off-site material service contains a gas or vapor
at operating conditions. To clarify our intent and avoid any confusion
as to whether PRDs with a flow of gas or vapor through the device are
``in gas/vapor service,'' we are revising the definition to state that
in gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a gas or vapor at operating
conditions. With this revision, it should be clear that a PRD in off-
site material service on the roof of a tank containing liquid, but
which only contacts gas/vapor itself and does not contact liquid, would
be in gas/vapor service. For consistency, we also are revising the
definition of ``in light liquid service'' to include equipment that
contains or contacts liquid.
    Comment: One commenter states that the EPA revised the Tank Level 1
control requirements in 40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(i) and (iii)(B) to preclude
routine venting of PRD by excluding 40 CFR 63.902(c)(2) and (3);
however, the commenter notes that this revision would also preclude the
operation of conservation vents on Level 1 tanks. The commenter
suggests that the EPA remove the exclusion or amend the provision to
allow for the operation of conservation vents.
    Response: We agree that conservation vents should be allowed to
operate on Level 1 tanks, and, while we do not believe these would meet
the definition of a PRD, we have revised the text of the final rule at
40 CFR 63.684(c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) to clarify that the use of these devices
is permitted.
iv. Other Comments
    Comment: One commenter states that the EPA should provide an
exemption in 40 CFR 63.693(b)(9) to the performance testing or design
evaluation requirements for combustion devices if a unit has been
issued a final or interim status RCRA permit, since performance tests
are required to obtain such a permit.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the combustion
units required to obtain a RCRA permit would have conducted performance
tests under those provisions which satisfy the performance test
requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP and that separate or additional
performance testing would not be necessary. We have therefore added a
provision to the final rule that excludes combustion devices that have
been issued a RCRA permit from the OSWRO NESHAP performance test
requirements.
    Comment: One commenter states that the OSWRO provisions should more
clearly indicate that facilities subject to onsite wastewater
provisions under other CAA MACT regulations should not also be required
to comply with the OSWRO NESHAP. The commenter references the
applicability provisions that exclude certain types of waste subject to
other MACT rules in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v), and states that the
exclusion is limited to SOCMI. The commenter suggests removing
paragraphs 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B) to broaden the exclusion
to wastewater sources subject to any other subpart in 40 CFR part 63.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the exclusion of
certain types of waste in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) should not be limited
to SOCMI and has revised the regulatory text to exempt waste that is
transferred from a facility at which management of the waste has
complied with the air emission control standards for process wastewater
specified by another subpart in 40 CFR part 63.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other
changes to the OSWRO NESHAP?
    For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed
rule, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic
reporting; routine maintenance; OELs; safety devices, pressure tanks,
bypasses and PRDs; performance test method clarifications and
alternative methods; and other clarifications and corrections.
    For the reasons provided above, we are making the revisions,
clarifications and corrections noted in section IV.D.2 in the final
rule.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that there are 56 major source OSWRO facilities. Based
on available permit information, seven facilities are known to be
exempt from most of the rule requirements due to the low HAP content of
the off-site waste they receive or because they comply instead with 40
CFR part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are
not expected to be affected by the final rule revisions. These
facilities are only required to document that the total annual quantity
of the HAP contained in the off-site material received at the plant
site is less than 1 megagram per year, and they are not subject to any
other emissions limits or monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. We are not aware of any new OSWRO facilities that are
expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and requiring facilities in the OSWRO
source category to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, including
connector monitoring. Our revised estimate of the HAP emission
reduction for this change is approximately 185 tpy.
    For tanks, we are finalizing requirements for tanks of certain
sizes and containing materials above certain vapor pressures to use
Level 2 controls. Our revised estimate of the HAP emission reduction
for this change is approximately 26 tpy.
    We do not anticipate any HAP emission reduction from our
clarification of the rule provision ``seal the open end'' (in the
context of OELs), clarification of the scope of the routine maintenance
provisions, or requirement to electronically report the results of
emissions testing.
    For the revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM, including
monitoring of PRDs in off-site material service, we were not able to
quantify the

possible emission reductions, so none are included in our assessment of
air quality impacts.
    Therefore, the estimated total HAP emission reductions for the
final standards for the OSWRO source category are estimated to be 211
tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and requiring facilities in the OSWRO
source category to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H (including
connector monitoring). We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be
$2.1 million and the annualized costs to be $664,000.
    For tanks, we are requiring tanks of certain sizes and containing
materials above certain vapor pressures to use Level 2 controls. We
estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $139,000 and the annualized
costs to be $192,000.
    We do not anticipate any quantifiable capital or annualized costs
for our definition of ``seal'' (in the context of OELs), clarification
of the scope of the routine maintenance provisions and requirement to
electronically report the results of emissions testing.
    For the requirement to install and operate monitors on PRDs, we
estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $1.9 million and the
annualized costs to be $270,000. Therefore, the total capital costs for
the final amendments for the OSWRO source category are approximately
$4.1 million and the total annualized costs are approximately $1.1
million.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with a
regulation and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to that regulation. Total annualized costs for the final
amendments are estimated to be about $1.1 million. The average
annualized cost per facility is estimated to be about $23,000. Without
detailed industry data, it is not possible to conduct a complete
quantitative analysis of economic impacts. However, prior analyses
suggest the impacts of these final amendments will be minimal. The
Economic Impact Analysis for the final OSWRO NESHAP \11\ found that
demand for off-site waste services was highly inelastic. This means
that suppliers are predominantly able to pass along cost increases to
consumers through higher prices with little, if any, decrease in the
quantity of service demanded. While we do not have specific information
on prices charged or the quantity of services provided, company
revenues are a function of both these factors. The cost-to-sales ratio
is less than 1 quarter of 1 percent for all of the 27 firms included in
this analysis, suggesting any increase in price will be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA. June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the benefits?

    We have estimated that this action will achieve HAP emissions
reduction of 211 tpy. The final standards will result in significant
reductions in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and will
reduce the actual and potential cancer risks and non-cancer health
effects due to emissions of HAP from this source category, as discussed
in the proposal preamble (79 FR 37869-37870). We have not quantified
the monetary benefits associated with these reductions; however, these
avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and
reduced negative health effects associate with exposure to air
pollution of these emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in
the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the
integration of environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking
efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of
analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during
the development of a rule.
    Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a
proximity analysis for OSWRO facilities prior to proposal to identify
any overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous
populations. This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of
sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources.
We have revised this analysis to include four additional OSWRO
facilities that the EPA learned about after proposal.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations.
Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP increase the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing
emissions from equipment leaks and tanks and do not cause any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority, low income or
indigenous populations. Further details concerning this analysis are
presented in the memorandum titled, Updated Environmental Justice
Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations RTR, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the
proximity analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and
children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source
Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule and the Updated Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations RTR documents and are available in the docket
for this action.
    The results of the proximity analysis show that the average
percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to OSWRO
is similar to the percentage of the national population in this age
group. The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of
the population 17 years old and younger from the national average
indicates a 7-percent over-representation near OSWRO facilities.
Consistent with the EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to
Children, we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for
the OSWRO source category considering risk to infants and children.\12\
Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two
primary routes: Either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via
ingestion or dermal contact with various media that have been
contaminated with the emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the
possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults to toxic
chemicals, including chemical carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our inhalation risk assessment, several carcinogens emitted by
facilities in this source category have a mutagenic mode of action. For
these compounds,

we applied the age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) described in the
EPA's Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-
Life Exposure to Carcinogens.\13\ This adjustment has the effect of
increasing the estimated lifetime risks for these pollutants by a
factor of 1.6. For one group of these chemicals with a mutagenic mode
of action, POM, only a small fraction of the total emissions were
reported as individual compounds. The EPA expresses carcinogenic
potency of POM relative to the carcinogenic potency of benzo[a]pyrene,
based on evidence that carcinogenic POM have the same mutagenic mode of
action as does benzo[a]pyrene. The EPA's Science Policy Council
recommends applying the ADAF to all carcinogenic compounds for which
risk estimates are based on potency relative to benzo[a]pyrene.
Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene-equivalent
mass portion of all POM mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F.
March 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we
assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children.
Childrens' exposures are expected to differ from exposures of adults
due to differences in body weights, ingestion rates, dietary
preferences and other factors. It is important, therefore, to evaluate
the contribution of exposures during childhood to total lifetime risk
using appropriate exposure factor values, applying ADAF as appropriate.
The EPA developed a health protective exposure scenario whereby the
receptor, at various lifestages, receives ingestion exposure via both
the farm food chain and the fish ingestion pathways. The analysis
revealed that fish ingestion is the dominant exposure pathway across
all age groups for several pollutants, including POM. For POM, the
farm-food-chain also is a major route of exposure, with beef and dairy
contributing significantly to the lifetime average daily dose.
Preliminary calculations of estimated dermal exposure and risk from
these pollutants showed that the dermal exposure route is not a
significant risk pathway relative to ingestion exposures.
    Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that
the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of HAP by over
200 tpy, will lead to reduced risk to children and infants.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1717.11. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
notifications, reports and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (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 agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents/affected entities: OSWRO facilities that store, treat,
recycle, reprocess, or dispose of wastes containing organic chemical
compounds.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 49.
    Frequency of response: Semiannual.
    Total estimated burden: 49,118 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4.1 million (per year), includes $1.2
million annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are
businesses that can be classified as small firms using the SBA size
standards for their respective industries. The agency has determined
that of the 27 firms that own the 49 facilities in the OSWRO source
category, four firms, or 15 percent, can be classified as small firms.
Based on the sales test screening methodology, all four firms will
experience minimal impact, or a cost-to-sales ratio of 1 percent or
less. Details of this analysis are presented in the memo, Economic
Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Off-site Waste and
Recovery Operations Source Category, which is available in the docket
for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or on
the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. There are no OSWRO facilities that are owned or
operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the: Residual Risk Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations Source Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule document, which is available in the docket
for this action, and are discussed in section V.G of this preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
add EPA Methods 2F and 2G to the list of methods allowed to determine
process vent stream gas volumetric flow rate. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) were identified for these methods. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing provisions to allow EPA Method 3A as an
alternative to EPA Method 3B for determining the oxygen concentration
to use in oxygen correction equations. While the EPA identified several
candidate VCS for this method (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME
B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-
95 (2013), ASTM D6522-00 (2011), and CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999)) as
being potentially applicable, the agency decided not to use them. The
use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy
considerations. The EPA also is finalizing requirements to use EPA
Method 25A to determine compliance with the control device percent
reduction requirement, if the owner or operator chooses to measure
total organic content. While the EPA identified two candidate VCS (ISO
14965:2000(E), EN 12619 (1999)) as being potentially applicable, we are
not including either standard in this final rule. The use of these VCS
would not be practical due to the limited measurement ranges of these
methods. (For more detail, see the document titled, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for NESHAP: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 40
CFR part 63, subpart DD in the docket for this final rule.) The EPA
solicited comments on VCS and invited the public to identify
potentially-applicable VCS, but no comments were received regarding
this aspect of the rule.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it increases the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. The results of this
evaluation are contained in the memorandum titled, Updated
Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
RTR, which is available in the docket for this action, and are
discussed in section V.F of this preamble.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 26, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FROM OFF-SITE WASTE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS

0
2. Section 63.680 is amended by:

0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v) introductory text and (e)(1) and (2);
and

0
b. Adding paragraph (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.680  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Waste that is transferred from a chemical manufacturing plant
or other facility for which the owner or operator of the facility from
which the waste is transferred has complied with the provisions of the
air emission control standards for process wastewater specified by
another subpart of this part. This exemption does not apply to a source
which complies with another subpart of this part by transferring its
wastewater off-site for control.
* * * * *
    (e) * * * (1) Existing sources. The owner or operator of an
affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction before
October 13, 1994, must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart on or before the date specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii),
or (iii) of this section as applicable to the affected source.
    (i) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994 and receives off-site material
for the first time before February 1, 2000, the owner or operator of
this affected source must achieve compliance with the provisions of the
subpart (except Sec. Sec.  63.685(b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) on or before February 1, 2000 unless an
extension has been granted by the Administrator as provided in Sec.
63.6(i). These existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
the tank requirements of Sec.  63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015, the
equipment leak requirements of Sec.  63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015, and the
pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.691(c)(3)(i)
and (ii) 3 years after the publication date of the final amendments on
March 18, 2015.
    (ii) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994, but receives off-site material
for the first

time on or after February 1, 2000, but before March 18, 2015, the owner
or operator of the affected source must achieve compliance with the
provisions of this subpart (except Sec. Sec.  63.685(b)(1)(ii),
63.691(b)(2), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first date that
the affected source begins to manage off-site material. These existing
affected sources shall be in compliance with the tank requirements of
Sec.  63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the publication date of the final
amendments on March 18, 2015, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments
on March 18, 2015, and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec.  63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015.
    (iii) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994, but receives off-site material
for the first time on or after March 18, 2015, the owner or operator of
the affected source must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart (except Sec. Sec.  63.685 (b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first date that the affected source
begins to manage off-site material. These existing affected sources
shall be in compliance with the tank requirements of Sec.
63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the publication date of the final
amendments on March 18, 2015, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments
on March 18, 2015, and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec.  63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015.
    (2) New sources. The owner or operator of an affected source for
which construction or reconstruction commences on or after October 13,
1994, must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart
(except Sec. Sec.  63.685(b)(2), 63.691(b)(2), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and
(ii)) on or before July 1, 1996, or upon initial startup of operations,
whichever date is later as provided in 40 CFR 63.6(b). New affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 13,
1994, but on or before July 2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the
tank requirements of Sec.  63.685(b)(2) 2 years after the publication
date of the final amendments, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments,
and the pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the effective date of the final
amendments. New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after July 2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the tank
requirements of Sec.  63.685(b)(2), the equipment leak requirements of
Sec.  63.691(b)(2), and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec.  63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) upon initial startup or
by the effective date of the final amendments, whichever is later.
* * * * *
    (g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment, if
the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable
to such items of equipment.

0
3. Section 63.681 is amended by:

0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Bypass'', ``In gas/
vapor service'', ``In heavy liquid service'', ``In light liquid
service'', ``In liquid service'', ``Pressure release'', and ``Pressure
relief device or valve'';

0
b. Revising the definitions of ``Point-of-treatment'' and ``Process
vent''; and

0
c. Removing the definition of ``Safety device''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.681  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream
to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission
control device.
* * * * *
    In gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a gas or vapor at operating
conditions.
    In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service is not in gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service.
    In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a liquid that meets the following
conditions:
    (1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic compounds is
greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 [deg]C;
    (2) The total concentration of the pure organic compounds
constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20
[deg]C is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total
process stream; and
    (3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. Note to In light
liquid service: Vapor pressures may be determined by the methods
described in 40 CFR 60.485(e)(1). In liquid service means that a piece
of equipment in off-site material service is not in gas/vapor service.
* * * * *
    Point-of-treatment means a point after the treated material exits
the treatment process but before the first point downstream of the
treatment process exit where the organic constituents in the treated
material have the potential to volatilize and be released to the
atmosphere. For the purpose of applying this definition to this
subpart, the first point downstream of the treatment process exit is
not a fugitive emission point due to an equipment leak from any of the
following equipment components: Pumps, compressors, valves, connectors,
instrumentation systems, or pressure relief devices.
    Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period.
    Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per
square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
    Process vent means an open-ended pipe, stack, or duct through which
a gas stream containing HAP is continuously or intermittently
discharged to the atmosphere from any of the processes listed in Sec.
63.680(c)(2)(i) through (vi). For the purpose of this subpart, a
process vent is none of the following: a pressure relief device; an
open-ended line or other vent that is subject to the equipment leak
control requirements under Sec.  63.691; or a stack or other vent that
is used to exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, process
heater, incinerator, or other combustion device.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.683 is amended by:

0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and

0
b. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.683  Standards: General.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator determines before placing off-site
material in the process equipment associated with the process vent that
the average VOHAP concentration of the off-site material is less than
500 ppmw at the point-of-delivery. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (f) In addition to the cases listed in Sec.  63.695(e)(4),
deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(6) of this section.
    (1) Any instance in which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but
not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit or work practice
standard.
    (2) When a performance test indicates that emissions of a pollutant
in Table 1 to this subpart are exceeding the emission standard for the
pollutant specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (3) When the average value of a monitored operating parameter,
based on the data averaging period for compliance specified in Sec.
63.695, does not meet the operating limit specified in Sec.  63.693.
    (4) When an affected source discharges directly into the atmosphere
from any of the sources specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
    (i) A pressure relief device, as defined in Sec.  63.681.
    (ii) A bypass, as defined in Sec.  63.681.
    (5) Any instance in which the affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
term or condition specified in paragraph (f)(5)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
    (i) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart.
    (ii) Any term or condition relating to compliance with this subpart
that is included in the operating permit for an affected source to
obtain such a permit.
    (6) Any failure to collect required data, except for periods of
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).

0
5. Section 63.684 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(5) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(v); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.684  Standards: Off-site material treatment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Incineration. The treatment process must destroy the HAP
contained in the off-site material stream using one of the combustion
devices specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (v) An incinerator, boiler, or industrial furnace for which the
owner or operator has submitted a Notification of Compliance under
Sec. Sec.  63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) and complies with the requirements
of subpart EEE of this part at all times (including times when non-
hazardous waste is being burned).
* * * * *
    (h) The Administrator may at any time conduct or require that the
owner or operator conduct testing necessary to demonstrate that a
treatment process is achieving the applicable performance requirements
of this section. The testing shall be conducted in accordance with the
applicable requirements of this section. The Administrator may elect to
have an authorized representative observe testing conducted by the
owner or operator.

0
6. Section 63.685 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), and (2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(i) and (iii)(B), (g)(2), (h)(3),
(i) introductory text; and
0
d. Removing paragraph (i)(3) and redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as
paragraph (i)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.685  Standards: Tanks.

* * * * *
    (b) According to the date an affected source commenced construction
or reconstruction and the date an affected source receives off-site
material for the first time as established in Sec.  63.680(e)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator shall control air emissions from
each tank subject to this section in accordance with either paragraph
(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (1)(i) For a tank that is part of an existing affected source but
the tank is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in
Sec.  63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls
as specified for the tank by Table 3 of this subpart based on the off-
site material maximum HAP vapor pressure and the tank's design
capacity. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 3 to use Tank Level 1 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or operator
shall control air emissions from a tank required by Table 3 to use Tank
Level 2 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section.
    (ii) For a tank that is part of an existing affected source but the
tank is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in Sec.
63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls
as specified for the tank by Table 4 of this subpart based on the off-
site material maximum HAP vapor pressure and the tank's design
capacity. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 4 to use Tank Level 1 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or operator
shall control air emissions from a tank required by Table 4 to use Tank
Level 2 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section.
    (2) For a tank that is part of a new affected source but the tank
is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in Sec.
63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level

1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls as specified for the tank by Table
5 of this subpart based on the off-site material maximum HAP vapor
pressure and the tank's design capacity. The owner or operator shall
control air emissions from a tank required by Table 5 to use Tank Level
1 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 5 to use Tank Level 2 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall determine the maximum HAP vapor
pressure for an off-site material to be managed in the tank using Tank
Level 1 controls before the first time the off-site material is placed
in the tank. The maximum HAP vapor pressure shall be determined using
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.694(j). Thereafter, the owner or
operator shall perform a new determination whenever changes to the off-
site material managed in the tank could potentially cause the maximum
HAP vapor pressure to increase to a level that is equal to or greater
than the maximum HAP vapor pressure limit for the tank design capacity
category specified in Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this subpart, as
applicable to the tank.
    (2) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the tank in
accordance with the provisions specified in subpart OO of this part--
National Emission Standards for Tanks--Level 1, except that Sec.
63.902(c)(2) and (3) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) At all other times, air emissions from the tank must be
controlled in accordance with the provisions specified in subpart OO of
this part--National Emission Standards for Tanks--Level 1, with the
exceptions specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) Where Sec.  63.902(c)(2) provides an exception for a spring-
loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type
of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere, only a
conservation vent shall be eligible for the exception for the purposes
of this subpart.
    (2) Section 63.902(c)(3) shall not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Whenever an off-site material is in the tank, the fixed roof
shall be installed with each closure device secured in the closed
position and the vapor headspace underneath the fixed roof vented to
the control device except that venting to the control device is not
required, and opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof
is allowed at the following times:
    (i) To provide access to the tank for performing routine
inspection, maintenance, or other activities needed for normal
operations. Examples of such activities include those times when a
worker needs to open a port to sample liquid in the tank, or when a
worker needs to open a hatch to maintain or repair equipment. Following
completion of the activity, the owner or operator shall promptly secure
the closure device in the closed position or reinstall the cover, as
applicable, to the tank.
    (ii) To remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom
of the tank.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) Whenever an off-site material is in the tank, the tank shall be
operated as a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere except
at those times when purging of inerts from the tank is required and the
purge stream is routed to a closed-vent system and control device
designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.693.
    (i) The owner or operator who elects to control air emissions by
using an enclosure vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed
combustion control device shall meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.686 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.686  Standards: Oil-water and organic water separators.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A floating roof in accordance with all applicable provisions
specified in subpart VV of this part--National Emission Standards for
Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators, except that
Sec. Sec.  63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not
apply for the purposes of this subpart. For portions of the separator
where it is infeasible to install and operate a floating roof, such as
over a weir mechanism, the owner or operator shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) A fixed-roof that is vented through a closed-vent system to a
control device in accordance with all applicable provisions specified
in subpart VV of this part--National Emission Standards for Oil-Water
Separators and Organic-Water Separators, except that Sec. Sec.
63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
    (3) A pressurized separator that operates as a closed system in
accordance with all applicable provisions specified in subpart VV of
this part--National Emission Standards for Oil-Water Separators and
Organic-Water Separators, except that Sec. Sec.  63.1043(c)(2),
63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for the purposes of
this subpart.

0
8. Section 63.687 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.687  Standards: Surface impoundments.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A floating membrane cover in accordance with the applicable
provisions specified in subpart QQ of this part--National Emission
Standards for Surface Impoundments, except that Sec. Sec.  63.942(c)(2)
and (3) and 63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the purposes of this
subpart; or
    (2) A cover that is vented through a closed-vent system to a
control device in accordance with all applicable provisions specified
in subpart QQ of this part--National Emission Standards for Surface
Impoundments, except that Sec. Sec.  63.942(c)(2) and (3) and
63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
0
9. Section 63.688 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii),
and (3)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.688  Standards: Containers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the container
in accordance with the standards for Container Level 1 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for
Containers, except that Sec. Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (ii) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, an owner or operator may choose to control
air emissions from the container in accordance with the standards for
either Container Level 2 controls or Container Level 3 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for

Containers, except that Sec. Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the container
in accordance with the standards for Container Level 2 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for
Containers, except that Sec. Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.689 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.689  Standards: Transfer systems.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Whenever an off-site material is in the transfer system, the
cover shall be installed with each closure device secured in the closed
position, except the opening of closure devices or removal of the cover
is allowed to provide access to the transfer system for performing
routine inspection, maintenance, repair, or other activities needed for
normal operations. Examples of such activities include those times when
a worker needs to open a hatch or remove the cover to repair conveyance
equipment mounted under the cover or to clear a blockage of material
inside the system. Following completion of the activity, the owner or
operator shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed
position or reinstall the cover, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.691 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.691  Standards: Equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (b) According to the date an affected source commenced construction
or reconstruction and the date an affected source receives off-site
material for the first time, as established in Sec.  63.680(e)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator shall control the HAP emitted from
equipment leaks in accordance with the applicable provisions specified
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1)(i) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from
equipment leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec.  61.241 through 61.247 in
40 CFR part 61, subpart V--National Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks, with the difference noted in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv) of
this section for the purposes of this subpart; or
    (ii) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from equipment
leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.161 through 63.182 in subpart H
of this part--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Equipment Leaks, with the differences noted in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for the purposes of
this subpart.
    (iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(a)(2) or the requirements of Sec.
63.167(a)(2), the open end is sealed when instrument monitoring of the
open-ended valve or line conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
    (iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(d) or the requirements of Sec.
63.167(d), open-ended valves or lines in an emergency shutdown system
which are designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset and that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR 61.242-6(a),
(b), and (c) or Sec.  63.167(a), (b), and (c) must comply with the
requirements in Sec.  63.693(c)(2).
    (2) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from equipment
leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.161 through 63.183 in subpart H
of this part--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks, with the differences noted in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for the purposes of
this subpart.
    (i) For each valve in gas/vapor or in light liquid service, as
defined in Sec.  63.681, that is part of an affected source under this
subpart, an instrument reading that defines a leak is 500 ppm or
greater as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) For each pump in light liquid service, as defined in Sec.
63.681, that is part of an affected source under this subpart, an
instrument reading that defines a leak is 1,000 ppm or greater as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Repair is not
required unless an instrument reading of 2,000 ppm or greater is
detected.
    (iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of Sec.  63.167(a)(2), the open end is sealed when
instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or line conducted
according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no
readings of 500 ppm or greater.
    (iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of Sec.  63.167(d), open-ended valves or lines in an
emergency shutdown system which are designed to open automatically in
the event of a process upset and that are exempt from the requirements
in Sec.  63.167(a), (b), and (c) must comply with the requirements in
Sec.  63.693(c)(2).
    (v) For the purposes of this subpart, the pressure relief device
requirements of Sec.  63.691(c) of this subpart rather than those of
Sec.  63.165 or of 40 CFR 61.242-4, as applicable, shall apply. The
pressure relief device requirements of Sec.  63.691(c)(3) and (4) apply
in addition to the requirements of Sec.  63.169 or of 40 CFR 61.242-8,
as applicable, for pressure relief devices in liquid service.
    (c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the owner or operator must comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section for pressure relief devices in off-site material service.
    (1) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in gas/vapor service with an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as detected by
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
gas/vapor service, the owner or operator must comply with either
paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section following a pressure
release, as applicable.
    (i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, the pressure relief device shall be returned to a
condition indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release device returns to
off-site material service following a pressure release, except as
provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (ii) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a
rupture disk, except as provided in Sec.  63.171, install a replacement
disk as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure release.
    (3) Pressure release management. Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart may not be discharged directly to the atmosphere from pressure
relief devices in off-site material service, and according to the date
an affected source commenced construction or reconstruction and the
date an affected source receives off-site

material for the first time, as established in Sec.  63.680(e)(1)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in off-site material service.
    (i) The owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device in
off-site material service with a device(s) or use a monitoring system.
The device or monitoring system may be either specific to the pressure
release device itself or may be associated with the process system or
piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the atmosphere.
Examples of these types of devices or monitoring systems include, but
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure
monitor, or parametric monitoring system. The devices or monitoring
systems must be capable of meeting the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Identifying the pressure release;
    (B) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (C) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring.
    (ii) If any pressure relief device in off-site material service
releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release
event, the owner or operator must calculate the quantity of HAP listed
in Table 1 of this subpart released during each pressure release event
and report this quantity as required in Sec.  63.697(b)(5).
Calculations may be based on data from the pressure relief device
monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter monitoring
data and process knowledge.
    (4) Pressure relief devices routed to a drain system, fuel gas
system, process or control device. If a pressure relief device in off-
site material service is designed and operated to route all pressure
releases through a closed vent system to a drain system, fuel gas
system, process or control device, paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section do not apply. The fuel gas system or closed vent system
and the process or control device (if applicable) must meet the
requirements of Sec.  63.693. The drain system (if applicable) must
meet the requirements of Sec.  63.689.

0
12. Section 63.693 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (8), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)
introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(B), and (f)(2)
introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v) and (g)(2)(i); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.693  Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank
through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to
comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.685(b)(1), (2), or (3), the
control device must be operating except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The control device may only be bypassed for the purpose of
performing planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or
control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be
performed during periods that tank emissions are vented to the control
device.
    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
* * * * *
    (8) In the case when an owner or operator chooses to use a design
analysis to demonstrate compliance of a control device with the
applicable performance requirements specified in this section as
provided for in paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section, the
Administrator may require that the design analysis be revised or
amended by the owner or operator to correct any deficiencies identified
by the Administrator. If the owner or operator and the Administrator do
not agree on the acceptability of using the design analysis (including
any changes required by the Administrator) to demonstrate that the
control device achieves the applicable performance requirements, then
the disagreement must be resolved using the results of a performance
test conducted by the owner or operator in accordance with the
requirements of Sec.  63.694(l). The Administrator may choose to have
an authorized representative observe the performance test conducted by
the owner or operator. Should the results of this performance test not
agree with the determination of control device performance based on the
design analysis, then the results of the performance test will be used
to establish compliance with this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) A closed-vent system that is designed to operate at a pressure
below atmospheric pressure. The system shall be equipped with at least
one pressure gauge or other pressure measurement device that can be
read from a readily accessible location to verify that negative
pressure is being maintained in the closed-vent system when the control
device is operating.
    (2) In situations when the closed-vent system includes bypass
devices that could be used to divert a vent stream from the closed-vent
system to the atmosphere at a point upstream of the control device
inlet, each bypass device must be equipped with either a flow indicator
as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section or a seal or
locking device as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section,
except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (iii) Equipment needed for safety reasons, including low leg
drains, open-ended valves and lines not in emergency shutdown systems,
and pressure relief devices subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.691(c) are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) To achieve a total incinerator outlet concentration for the
TOC, less methane and ethane, of less than or equal to 20 ppmv on a dry
basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) To achieve a total incinerator outlet concentration for the
HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, of less than or equal to 20
ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (2) The owner or operator must demonstrate that the vapor
incinerator achieves the performance requirements in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section by conducting either a performance test as specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section or a design analysis as specified
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, except as provided for in
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test or design analysis if the incinerator has been issued a final
permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40
CFR part 264, subpart O, or has certified compliance with the interim
status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart O.
    (g) * * *

    (1) * * *
    (v) Introduce the vent stream to a boiler or process heater for
which the owner or operator either has been issued a final permit under
40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H; or has certified compliance with the interim status
requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has submitted a
Notification of Compliance under Sec. Sec.  63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d)
and complies with the requirements of subpart EEE of this part at all
times (including times when non-hazardous waste is being burned).
    (2) * * *
    (i) If an owner or operator chooses to comply with the performance
specifications in either paragraph (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with the
applicable performance specifications by conducting either a
performance test as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) of this section
or a design analysis as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) of this
section, except as provided for in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (C) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test or design analysis if the boiler or process heater has been issued
a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has certified compliance with the
interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.694 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iv),
(f)(1), (i)(1), (j)(3), (k)(3), (l) introductory text, (l)(2), (l)(3)
introductory text, (l)(3)(i), (l)(3)(ii)(B), (l)(4) introductory text,
(l)(4)(i), (l)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), (l)(4)(iii)(A), and (m)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.694  Testing methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) In the event that the Administrator and the owner or operator
disagree on a determination of the average VOHAP concentration for an
off-site material stream using knowledge, then the results from a
determination of VOHAP concentration using direct measurement as
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be used to
establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
The Administrator may perform or require that the owner or operator
perform this determination using direct measurement.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The actual HAP mass removal rate (MR) shall be determined based
on results for a minimum of three consecutive runs. The sampling time
for each run shall be at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) The actual HAP mass removal rate (MRbio) shall be
determined based on results for a minimum of three consecutive runs.
The sampling time for each run shall be at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Use of knowledge to determine the maximum HAP vapor pressure of
the off-site material. Documentation shall be prepared and recorded
that presents the information used as the basis for the owner's or
operator's knowledge that the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the off-
site material is less than the maximum vapor pressure limit listed in
Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this subpart for the applicable tank
design capacity category. Examples of information that may be used
include: the off-site material is generated by a process for which at
other locations it previously has been determined by direct measurement
that the off-site material maximum HAP vapor pressure is less than the
maximum vapor pressure limit for the appropriate tank design capacity
category. In the event that the Administrator and the owner or operator
disagree on a determination of the maximum HAP vapor pressure for an
off-site material stream using knowledge, then the results from a
determination of HAP vapor pressure using direct measurement as
specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall be used to
establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
The Administrator may perform or require that the owner or operator
perform this determination using direct measurement.
    (k) * * *
    (3) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument response
factor criteria in section 8.1.1 of Method 21 shall be for the weighted
average composition of the organic constituents in the material placed
in the unit at the time of monitoring, not for each individual organic
constituent.
* * * * *
    (l) Control device performance test procedures. Performance tests
shall be based on representative performance (i.e., performance based
on normal operating conditions) and shall exclude periods of startup
and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. The owner or
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate.
    (3) To determine compliance with the control device percent
reduction requirement, the owner or operator shall use Method 18 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A to measure the HAP in Table 1 of this subpart
or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to measure TOC. Method 18
may be used to measure methane and ethane, and the measured
concentration may be subtracted from the Method 25A measurement.
Alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 in appendix A of
this part may be used. The following procedures shall be used to
calculate percent reduction efficiency:
    (i) A minimum of three sample runs must be performed. The minimum
sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour. For Method 18, either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) When the TOC mass rate is calculated, the average concentration
reading (minus methane and ethane) measured by Method 25A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A shall be used in the equation in paragraph
(l)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) To determine compliance with the enclosed combustion device
total HAP concentration limit of this subpart, the owner or operator
shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to measure the total
HAP in Table 1 of this subpart or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A to measure TOC. Method 18 may be used to measure

methane and ethane and the measured concentration may be subtracted
from the Method 25A measurement. Alternatively, any other method or
data that has been validated according to Method 301 in appendix A of
this part, may be used. The following procedures shall be used to
calculate parts per million by volume concentration, corrected to 3
percent oxygen:
    (i) A minimum of three sample runs must be performed. The minimum
sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour. For Method 18, either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the average
concentration readings provided by Method 25 A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, minus the concentration of methane and ethane.
    (B) The total HAP concentration (CHAP) shall be computed
according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR15.000

where:
CHAP = Total concentration of HAP compounds listed in
Table 1 of this subpart, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cij = Concentration of sample components j of sample i,
dry basis, parts per million by volume.
n = Number of components in the sample.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.

    (iii) * * *
    (A) The emission rate correction factor or excess air, integrated
sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration
(%O2dry). Alternatively, the owner or operator may use
Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to determine the oxygen
concentration. The samples shall be collected during the same time that
the samples are collected for determining TOC concentration or total
HAP concentration.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller
than 0.10 meter in diameter. For vents smaller than 0.10 meter in
diameter, sample at the center of the vent.
    (3) Process vent stream gas volumetric flow rate must be determined
using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.695 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(4) and (5); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (e)(6) and (7).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.695  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate all monitoring system components according to Sec. Sec.  63.8,
63.684(e), 63.693(d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3), and (h)(3), and
paragraph (a)(5) of this section and perform the inspection and
monitoring procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section.
* * * * *
    (5)(i) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments), the owner or operator must operate the continuous
monitoring system at all times the affected source is operating. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator is
required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as practicable.
    (ii) The owner or operator may not use data recorded during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or
control activities in calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. The owner or operator must use all the data collected
during all other required data collection periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system. The
owner or operator must report any periods for which the monitoring
system failed to collect required data.
* * * * *
    (e) Control device monitoring requirements. For each control device
required under Sec.  63.693 to be monitored in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph (e), the owner or operator must ensure
that each control device operates properly by monitoring the control
device in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) A deviation for a given control device is determined to have
occurred when the monitoring data or lack of monitoring data result in
any one of the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii)
of this section being met. When multiple operating parameters are
monitored for the same control device and during the same operating day
more than one of these operating parameters meets a deviation criterion
specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, then a
single deviation is determined to have occurred for the control device
for that operating day.
    (i) A deviation occurs when the daily average value of a monitored
operating parameter is less than the minimum operating parameter limit
(or, if applicable, greater than the maximum operating parameter limit)
established for the operating parameter in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
    (ii) A deviation occurs when the period of control device operation
is 4 hours or greater in an operating day and the monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data for at least 75 percent
of the operating hours. Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute
a valid hour of data if measured values are unavailable for any of the
15-minute periods within the hour.
    (iii) A deviation occurs when the period of control device
operation is less than 4 hours in an operating day and more than 1 of
the hours during the period does not constitute a valid hour of data
due to insufficient monitoring data. Monitoring data are insufficient
to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values are unavailable
for any of the 15-minute periods within the hour.
    (5) For each deviation, except when the deviation occurs during
periods of non-operation of the unit or the process that is vented to
the control device (resulting in cessation of HAP emissions to which
the monitoring applies), the owner or operator shall be deemed to have
failed to have applied control in a manner that achieves the required
operating parameter limits. Failure to achieve the required operating

parameter limits is a violation of this standard.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.696 is amended by revising paragraph (h) and adding
paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.696  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) An owner or operator shall record the malfunction information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the
date, time and duration of the failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.683(e) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service, keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5)
of this section, as applicable.
    (1) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that the owner or operator elects to route emissions through a closed-
vent system to a control device, process or drain system under the
provisions in Sec.  63.691(c)(4).
    (2) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that do not consist of or include a rupture disk, subject to the
provisions in Sec.  63.691(c)(2)(i).
    (3) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions in Sec.
63.691(c)(2)(ii).
    (4) The dates and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release for each pressure
relief device subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.691(c)(2)(i). The
results of each monitoring event shall include:
    (i) The measured background level.
    (ii) The maximum instrument reading measured at each pressure
relief device.
    (5) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec.  63.691(c)(3), keep records of each pressure release to
the atmosphere, including the following information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure release and the calculations used
for determining this quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (j) (1) For pressure tank closure devices, as specified in Sec.
63.685(h)(2), keep records of each release to the atmosphere, including
the information specified in paragraphs (j)(3) though (7) of this
section.
    (2) For each closed vent system that includes bypass devices that
could divert a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec.  63.693(c)(2), and each open-ended
valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open
automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in Sec.
63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242-6(d), keep records of each release to the
atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs (j)(3)
though (9) of this section.
    (3) The source, nature, and cause of the release.
    (4) The date, time, and duration of the release.
    (5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the calculations used for
determining this quantity.
    (6) The actions taken to prevent this release.
    (7) The measures adopted to prevent future such release.
    (8) Hourly records of whether the bypass flow indicator specified
under Sec.  63.693(c)(2) was operating and whether a diversion was
detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times
of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device
or the flow indicator is not operating.
    (9) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec.
63.693(c)(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 mechanism has been done, and shall record the
duration 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 broken.

0
16. Section 63.697 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) and (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) and (4); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.697  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must comply with the notification requirements specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the reporting requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.691(c), the owner or operator
must submit the information listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section in the notification of compliance status required under Sec.
63.9(h) within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for
pressure relief device monitoring.
    (ii) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information
to be recorded under Sec.  63.696(i)(5)(ii) through (iii) (i.e., the
duration of the pressure release and the methodology and calculations
for determining the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
emitted during the pressure release).
* * * * *
    (3) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by
this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the
performance test according to the manner specified by either paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or operator
must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is
confidential business information (CBI) must submit a

complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Road, Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI
omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph (a)(3)(i).
    (ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 60.4.
    (b) * * *
    (3) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
    (4) A summary report specified in Sec.  63.10(e)(3) shall be
submitted on a semiannual basis (i.e., once every 6-month period). The
summary report must include a description of all deviations as defined
in Sec. Sec.  63.683(f) and 63.695(e) that have occurred during the 6-
month reporting period. For each deviation caused when the daily
average value of a monitored operating parameter is less than the
minimum operating parameter limit (or, if applicable, greater than the
maximum operating parameter limit), the report must include the daily
average values of the monitored parameter, the applicable operating
parameter limit, and the date and duration of the period that the
deviation occurred. For each deviation caused by lack of monitoring
data, the report must include the date and duration of period when the
monitoring data were not collected and the reason why the data were not
collected.
    (5) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec.  63.691(c), Periodic Reports must include the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec.  63.691(c), report the results of all monitoring
conducted within the reporting period.
    (ii) For pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service subject to
Sec.  63.691(c)(2)(i), report any instrument reading of 500 ppm above
background or greater, if detected more than 5 days after the pressure
release.
    (iii) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec.  63.691(c)(3), report each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure release and the method used for
determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (6) Pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation report. The
owner or operator must submit to the Administrator the information
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iv) of this section when any of the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section are
met.
    (i) Any pressure tank closure device, as specified in Sec.
63.685(h)(2), has released to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Any closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could
divert a vent a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec.  63.693(c)(2), has released directly
to the atmosphere.
    (iii) Any open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system
which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset, as specified in Sec.  63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242-6(d), has
released directly to the atmosphere.
    (iv) The pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation report
must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(A)
through (E) of this section.
    (A) The source, nature and cause of the release.
    (B) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the method used for determining
this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such releases.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.698 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.698  Implementation and enforcement.

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
Tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of
this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of alternatives to the electronic reporting
requirements in Sec.  63.697(a)(3).

0
18. Table 2 to subpart DD of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(13) and 63.1(a)(14);
0
b. Revising entries 63.1(b)(2), 63.1(c)(3), and 63.1(c)(4);
0
c. Removing entry 63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(3);
0
d. Adding entries 63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2) and 63.4(a)(3);
0
e. Revising entries 63.4(a)(5), 63.5(a)(1), 63.5(b)(5), 63.6(b)(3), and
63.6(b)(4);
0
f. Removing entry 63.6(e);
0
g. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii),
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
0
h. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1);
0
i. Adding entry 63.7(a)(4);
0
j. Revising entries 63.7(b), 63.7(c), 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(f),
63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.9(e), 63.9(g), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii),
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v);
0
k. Removing entry 63.10(c);
0
l. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(6), 63.10(c)(7)-(8), and 63.10(c)(9)-
(15);
0
m. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 63.10(d)(5)(ii);
0
n. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5);
0
o. Removing entry 63.10(e);
0
p. Adding entries 63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2), 63.10(e)(3), and
63.10(e)(4); and
0
q. Adding entry 63.16.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Applicability of Paragraphs in Subpart A of This Part 63--General Provisions
                                                  to Subpart DD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subpart A  reference               Applies to Subpart DD                    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(b)(2)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(c)(3)..............................  No                           Reserved.
63.1(c)(4)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2)...................  Yes
63.4(a)(3)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(5)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(a)(1)..............................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(b)(5)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(b)(3)..............................  No
63.6(b)(4)..............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(e)(1)(i)...........................  No                           See Sec.   63.683(e) for general duty
                                                                        requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..........................  No
63.6(e)(1)(iii).........................  Yes
63.6(e)(2)..............................  No                           Reserved.
63.6(e)(3)..............................  No
63.6(f)(1)..............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(a)(4)..............................  Yes
63.7(b).................................  Yes
63.7(c).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(e)(1)..............................  No                           See Sec.   63.694(l).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(f).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.8(c)(1)(iii).........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(e).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(g).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(b)(2)(i)..........................  No
63.10(b)(2)(ii).........................  No                           See Sec.   63.696(h) for recordkeeping of
                                                                        (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing
                                                                        of affected source or equipment, and an
                                                                        estimate of the volume of each regulated
                                                                        pollutant emitted over the standard; and
                                                                        (3) actions to minimize emissions and
                                                                        correct the failure.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)........................  Yes                          .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv).........................  No                           .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(v)..........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(c)(1)-(6).........................  No                           .........................................
63.10(c)(7)-(8).........................  Yes                          .........................................
63.10(c)(9)-(15)........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(5).............................  No                           See Sec.   63.697(b)(3) for reporting of
                                                                        malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2).................  No
63.10(e)(3).............................  Yes
63.10(e)(4).............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.16...................................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
19. Table 3 to subpart DD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

   Table 3 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at
     Existing Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Maximum HAP vapor
 Tank design capacity (cubic  pressure of off-site
           meters)             material managed in   Tank control level
                               tank  (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 75  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 m\3\.                         pressure less than
                               76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 75  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2, except that
 m\3\.                         pressure equal to     fixed roof tanks
                               or greater than       equipped with an
                               76.6 kPa.             internal floating
                                                     roof and tanks
                                                     equipped with an
                                                     external floating
                                                     roof as provided
                                                     for in Sec.
                                                     63.685(d)(1) and
                                                     (2) shall not be
                                                     used.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 75 m\3\ and      pressure less than
 less than 151 m\3\.           27.6 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than
                               27.6 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 151 m\3\.        pressure less than
                               5.2 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than 5.2
                               kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
20. Table 4 to subpart DD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

   Table 4 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at
    Existing Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Maximum HAP vapor
 Tank design capacity (cubic  pressure of off-site
           meters)             material managed in   Tank control level
                               tank  (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 75  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 m\3\.                         pressure less than
                               76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 75  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2, except that
 m\3\.                         pressure equal to     fixed roof tanks
                               or greater than       equipped with an
                               76.6 kPa.             internal floating
                                                     roof and tanks
                                                     equipped with an
                                                     external floating
                                                     roof as provided
                                                     for in Sec.
                                                     63.685(d)(1) and
                                                     (2) shall not be
                                                     used.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 75 m\3\ and      pressure less than
 less than 151 m\3\.           13.1 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than
                               13.1 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 151 m\3\.        pressure less than
                               5.2 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than 5.2
                               kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
21. Table 5 is added to subpart DD of part 63 to read as follows:

 Table 5 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at New
           Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Maximum HAP vapor
 Tank design capacity (cubic  pressure of off-site
           meters)             material managed in   Tank control level
                               tank  (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------