
[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 55669-55692]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-15]                         


[[Page 55669]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 9 and 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum 
Refineries; Final Rule


[[Page 55670]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; FRL-8972-4]
RIN 2060-AO55

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the national emission standards for 
petroleum refineries to add maximum achievable control technology 
standards for heat exchange systems. This action also amends the 
general provisions cross-reference table and corrects section 
references.

DATES: The final amendments are effective on October 28, 2009. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final 
rule amendments is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of October 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 
business information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Lucas, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-0884; fax number (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: 
lucas.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum 
Refineries and Changes Since Proposal
    A. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we 
promulgating pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)?
    B. What other revisions and clarifications are we making?
    C. What is the compliance schedule for the final amendments?
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Heat Exchange Systems
    B. General Provisions Applicability
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS \1\ code          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  324110...........  Petroleum refineries
                                                    located at a major
                                                    source that are
                                                    subject to 40 CFR
                                                    part 63, subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR 63.640 of subpart CC (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries). If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
contact either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA 
regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 
Provisions).

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

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

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by December 28, 2009. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a mechanism for us to 
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an 
objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise 
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds 
for such objection

[[Page 55671]]

arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 
3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 
2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. 
After EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for 
us to promulgate national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit 
or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or 
more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more 
per year, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and 
are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements. 
See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT 
floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources). In developing MACT, we must also consider control options 
that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    We published the final MACT standards for petroleum refineries (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC) on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43620). These 
standards are commonly referred to as the ``Refinery MACT 1'' standards 
because certain process vents were excluded from this source category 
and subsequently regulated under a second MACT standard specific to 
these petroleum refinery process vents (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, 
referred to as ``Refinery MACT 2'').
    In developing this rule, we first issued an advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on March 29, 2007. The purpose of the ANPR, 
which covered the sources subject to the Refinery MACT 1 rule and other 
source categories, was to solicit additional emissions data and any 
corrections to the data we already had. We issued an initial proposed 
rule for the petroleum refineries subject to the Refinery MACT 1 on 
September 4, 2007, and held a public hearing in Houston, Texas, on 
November 27, 2007. In response to public comments on the initial 
proposal, we collected additional information and revised our analysis 
of the MACT floor. Based on the results of these additional analyses, 
we issued a supplemental proposal on November 10, 2008, that 
established a new MACT floor for heat exchange systems. A public 
hearing for the supplemental proposal was held in Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina, on November 25, 2008. We are now taking final 
action to establish standards for heat exchange systems in the Refinery 
MACT 1 standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and to update and amend 
Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We were also required by a Consent Decree to consider and 
address the application of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A to the existing Refinery MACT 1 rule (subpart 
CC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries and 
Changes Since Proposal

A. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we promulgating 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)?

    On September 4, 2007, we proposed, under CAA section 112(d)(2), two 
options for work practice standards for cooling towers: Option 1 was 
proposed based on our initial assessment of the MACT floor and Option 2 
was a beyond-the-floor option. These options would require the owner or 
operator of a new or existing source to monitor for leaks in the 
cooling tower return lines from heat exchangers in organic HAP service 
(i.e., lines that contain or contact fluids with 5 percent by weight or 
greater of total organic HAP listed in Table 1 of the rule) and, where 
leaks are detected, to repair such leaks within a specified period of 
time.
    On November 10, 2008, we issued a supplemental proposal that 
significantly modified the proposed monitoring methods, leak 
definitions, and corrective action timeframe based on a revised MACT 
floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. In the supplemental proposal, we 
also redefined the requirements in terms of heat exchange systems to 
include the heat exchangers, for which corrective actions are targeted, 
as part of the source and to specifically address once-through cooling 
systems.
    After considering public comments, for purposes of establishing 
MACT under CAA section 112(d)(2), we have selected the MACT floor 
requirements specified in the supplemental proposal for heat exchange 
systems in organic HAP service at petroleum refineries. We rejected the 
beyond-the-floor option because it is not cost-effective.
    Under these selected requirements, owners and operators of heat 
exchange systems that are in organic HAP service at new and existing 
sources are required to conduct monthly sampling and analyses using the 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) Modified El Paso 
Method, Revision Number One, dated January 2003.\2\ For existing 
sources, a leak is defined as 6.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv) 
total strippable volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the stripping gas 
collected via the Modified El Paso Method. For new sources, a leak is 
defined as 3.1 ppmv total strippable VOC collected via the Modified El 
Paso Method. The amendments require the repair of leaks in heat 
exchangers in organic HAP service within 45 days of the sampling event 
in which the leak is detected, unless a delay in repair is allowed. 
Delay in repair of the leak is allowed until the next shutdown if the 
repair of the leak requires the process unit served by the leaking heat 
exchanger to be shut down and the total strippable VOC concentration is 
less than 62 ppmv. Delay in repair of the leak is also allowed for up 
to 120 days

[[Page 55672]]

if the total strippable VOC concentration is less than 62 ppmv and if 
critical parts or personnel are not available. The owner or operator is 
required to continue monthly monitoring and to repair the heat 
exchanger within 30 days if sampling results show that the leak exceeds 
62 ppmv total strippable VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling 
Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sampling for leaks can be done for individual or combined heat 
exchangers. For heat exchange systems including a cooling tower, 
sampling can be conducted at the combined cooling tower inlet water 
location. Similarly, for once-through heat exchange systems, the 
sampling can be conducted after the heat exchanger water is combined 
and prior to discharge where it will be open to atmosphere. For both 
cooling tower and once-through heat exchange systems, sampling can be 
conducted at individual heat exchangers in the return or ``exit'' lines 
(i.e., water lines returning the water from the heat exchangers to the 
cooling tower or to the discharge point). That is, if the cooling tower 
or once-through system services multiple heat exchangers, the owner or 
operator may elect to monitor only the heat exchangers ``in organic HAP 
service'' or monitor at branch points that combine several heat 
exchanger exit lines, or monitor at the combined stream for the entire 
system. If a leak is detected (the measured VOC concentration exceeds 
the applicable leak definition) at the combined cooling tower inlet or 
once-through system, the owner or operator may either fix the leak 
(reduce the VOC concentration to less than the applicable leak 
definition) or sample heat exchanger exit lines for combinations of 
heat exchanger exit lines or sample each heat exchanger ``in organic 
HAP service'' as necessary to document that the leak is not originating 
from a heat exchanger ``in organic HAP service.'' If a leak is detected 
in an individual heat exchanger ``in organic HAP service,'' that leak 
must be repaired.
    All new or existing refineries with a heat exchange system ``in 
organic HAP service'' are required to maintain records of all heat 
exchangers and which of those heat exchangers are in organic HAP 
service, the cooling towers and once-through systems associated with 
heat exchangers in organic HAP service, monthly monitoring results, and 
information for any delays in repair of a leak.
    These requirements will apply to sources on a continuous basis, 
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). As 
provided in the response to comments below, properly operating heat 
exchangers will not leak HAP into the cooling water, so HAP will not be 
emitted from the cooling tower or once-through discharges. It is only 
when they malfunction (i.e., there are leaks) that there may be HAP 
emissions. The MACT standard for heat exchange units addresses these 
emissions. Furthermore, there are no HAP emissions associated with 
start-up and shutdown.
    The requirements outlined above are based on the MACT floor 
determination. We evaluated the following beyond-the-floor options: 
having a leak definition of 3.1 ppmv for existing sources (beyond-the-
floor option for existing sources) and requiring continuous monitoring 
(beyond-the-floor options for both new and existing sources). As 
described in our supplemental proposal, we determined that these 
beyond-the-floor options were not cost-effective and concluded that 
MACT was the floor level of control.
    The final MACT requirements for heat exchange systems will reduce 
HAP emissions by 630 tons per year (ton/yr). The final requirements for 
heat exchange systems will also reduce VOC emissions by 4,100 ton/yr. 
Reducing VOC emissions may provide the added benefit of reducing 
ambient concentrations of ozone and may reduce fine particulate matter. 
The annualized nationwide cost impacts of these final standards for 
heat exchange systems are estimated to be $3.0 million. Our economic 
analysis indicates that this cost will have little impact on the price 
and output of petroleum products.

B. What other revisions and clarifications are we making?

    As proposed, we are amending 40 CFR 63.650(a) of subpart CC to 
replace ``gasoline loading racks'' with ``Group 1 gasoline loading 
racks'' to clarify the applicability of the requirements. Furthermore, 
as we proposed on November 10, 2008, we are also finalizing proposed 
amendments to the cross-references to subparts R and Y of 40 CFR part 
63 in the rule text and in Tables 4 and 5 of subpart CC because 
subparts R and Y were amended and the revised cross-references clarify 
the requirements of subpart CC.
    We are finalizing amendments to Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CC (General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC) to bring the table 
up-to-date with requirements of the General Provisions that have been 
amended since this table was created, to correct cross-references, and 
to incorporate additional sections of the General Provisions that are 
necessary to implement other subparts that are cross-referenced by this 
rule. With respect to the exemption from emission standards during 
periods of SSM in the General Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and 
(h)), we note that on December 19, 2008, in a decision addressing a 
challenge to the 2002, 2004, and 2006 amendments to those provisions, 
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 
SSM exemption. Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 02-1135).
    The CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) MACT standard we are promulgating 
today for heat exchange systems is not implicated by that decision 
because it does not rely on or reference the provisions of the vacated 
rule and because the MACT standard applies at all times. We are 
amending Table 6 to clarify that the MACT standard for heat exchange 
systems applies at all times.
    We are still evaluating the recent court decision. At this time, we 
are not making any additional changes to Table 6 with respect to the 
SSM provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We have completed our 
initial assessment of the General Provisions and their application to 
subpart CC of part 63. The recent court decision requires further 
analysis, and we are currently evaluating how to address SSM events for 
Refinery MACT 1 sources in light of the court decision.
    We are also finalizing amendments to Table 1 and Table 7 to delete 
methyl ethyl ketone (also known as 2-butanone) from the HAP listed in 
those tables because methyl ethyl ketone has been delisted as a HAP. We 
are finalizing amendments to clarify the applicability sections by 
changing general references to ``the promulgation date'' to specify the 
actual promulgation date of the original subpart CC of part 63. 
Finally, we are also finalizing amendments to clarify how owners and 
operators should comply with overlapping standards for equipment leaks.

C. What is the compliance schedule for the final amendments?

    The final amendments to the Refinery MACT 1 rule will be effective 
on October 28, 2009. Under section 112(i)(1) of the CAA, any new 
facility must comply upon startup or on the effective date of the rule, 
whichever is later. For purposes of determining compliance with these 
amendments, a new source is a source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 4, 2007 (the initial date of proposal 
for these regulations). Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
112(1)(3), the owner or operator of an existing source (including an 
existing source for these amendments that is currently subject to 1995 
Refinery MACT 1 standards for new sources) must comply with the heat 
exchange system requirements no later than

[[Page 55673]]

October 29, 2012. The basis for the 3-year compliance period is set 
forth below in our responses to comment.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    This preamble and the document ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries: Background 
Information for Final Standards for Heat Exchange Systems--Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses'' (``Response to Comments'') located in 
the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146) include only comment 
summaries and responses to issues related to heat exchange systems and 
other clarifying amendments. The major comments on those issues and our 
responses are summarized in the following sections. A summary of the 
remainder of the comments and responses related to those issues can be 
found in the Response to Comments document.
    Comments regarding other issues raised as a result of the proposed 
and supplemental proposed rules are not included in this preamble or 
the Response to Comments document; they will be addressed, as 
appropriate, in future rulemakings addressing the residual risk and 
technology reviews for Refinery MACT 1.

A. Heat Exchange Systems

    On November 10, 2008, we issued a supplemental proposal with our 
revised MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. In general, the 
comments received on the cooling tower requirements initially proposed 
on September 4, 2007, either have been addressed through the 
supplemental proposal or are not applicable to the final standards 
(e.g., clarifications to monitoring methods no longer required). Any 
general comments regarding cooling tower requirements received on the 
initial proposal that are still applicable are summarized in the 
Response to Comments document located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0146). Significant comments received on the supplemental 
proposal are addressed in this section.
1. MACT Floor for Heat Exchange Systems
    Comment: A few commenters noted that the leak definition proposed 
for new heat exchange systems of 3.1 ppmv has not been ``demonstrated 
in practice.'' One commenter stated that the leak definition of 3.1 
ppmv was developed by the State of Texas from the AP-42 emission 
factor. The commenter stated that only one cooling tower is operating 
under a permit with that limit (the other cooling towers are under 
construction), and this cooling tower has only recently begun 
operating, so there is no significant experience operating with the 
identified new source limit or applying it to the range of operations 
and ages of exchangers in a typical refinery. The commenter asserted 
that some heat exchangers and heat exchange systems are difficult to 
control, and different leak definitions are appropriate for different 
situations within an individual refinery, so a set of requirements must 
be demonstrated to be workable on multiple heat exchange systems of 
varying services and ages before that set of requirements can be 
considered ``demonstrated in practice.'' Another commenter stated that 
there is no demonstration that there is technology that can be applied 
to new sources that improves the emission performance of these systems 
when considered across the operating life of the facilities. Both 
commenters recommended setting the new source and existing source 
requirements equivalent at 6.2 ppmv. (One of the commenters noted that 
EPA's analysis shows that the next best controlled source has a limit 
of 5 ppmv, but the commenter noted that there is not much difference 
between the reductions achieved by a leak definition of 5 ppmv and a 
leak definition of 6.2, and 5 ppmv is not cost-effective. The commenter 
urged EPA to review cooling towers and heat exchange systems under CAA 
sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) and consider factors such as cost 
rather than developing a standard under CAA section 112(d)(2).)
    One commenter noted that in the State of Texas, if a particular 
cooling tower cannot meet its normal leak definition of 80 parts per 
billion by weight (ppbw) VOC in the water, the State allows that source 
to set a leak definition of up to 150 ppbw VOC in the water. For 
flexibility when dealing with continuous small seepage or situations 
where the particular HAP or VOC present are not completely stripped by 
the cooling tower, the commenter suggested that in any 1-year period, 
if monitoring shows three leaks above 6.2 ppmv, but below 12 ppmv, EPA 
should allow that source to set a new leak definition of 12 ppmv.
    Commenters stated that the leak definition of 6.2 ppmv VOC in the 
stripping gas is not stringent enough. One commenter noted that during 
cooling tower leak investigations conducted by the City of Houston and 
TCEQ, a potential leak measured at 2 ppm required sampling by summa 
canister to confirm the leak, and EPA's regulation should be at least 
that stringent. The commenter stated that a stringent leak threshold of 
2 ppm will ensure that small leaks are found and repaired quickly, 
especially since the TCEQ leak threshold is 50 parts per billion by 
volume (ppbv).
    Several commenters supported using the Modified El Paso Method to 
detect leaks but suggested that cooling towers that have higher 
recirculation flow rates should have lower leak definitions than 
cooling towers with lower flows because the large cooling towers will 
have higher mass emissions at the same leak concentration.
    Commenters stated that EPA failed to consider the TCEQ Highly 
Reactive VOC (HRVOC) rule in establishing the MACT floor. The 
commenters believe the HRVOC rule is applicable to several refinery 
cooling towers, requires continuous monitoring, and it has a more 
stringent leak definition and leak repair schedule. One commenter also 
cited a California refinery that is required to install and operate a 
continuous hydrocarbon analyzer and repair leaks above an agreed 
threshold.
    Response: The TCEQ El Paso Method has been demonstrated at numerous 
refineries and other similar sources as an effective means of 
identifying leaks in heat exchange systems. The method has been used 
extensively for over 20 years. As suggested by some commenters, the 
detection limit of the El Paso Method is generally less than 2 ppmv, so 
leaks of 3.1 ppmv are quantifiable. Ongoing monitoring at refineries 
indicates that, when no leaks are present or after repairs are made, El 
Paso monitoring is able to detect leaks well below this leak threshold. 
As such, the monitoring method and the corrective action measures have 
been adequately demonstrated.
    In criticizing our new source leak definition of 3.1 ppmv, the 
commenter recognizes that heat exchangers connected to one refinery 
cooling tower are subject to a monitoring program with a leak 
definition of 3.1 ppmv. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA provides that new 
source MACT cannot be less stringent than ``the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.'' The 
commenter's concern that the facility has only recently begun operation 
and that there is not ``significant'' experience with the leak 
definition of 3.1 ppmv does not change the fact that this level is 
being achieved in practice and thus is the appropriate new source MACT 
floor. To the extent that the commenter suggests that the cooling 
towers meeting this limit are different and thus is presumably arguing 
that they must be subcategorized, the

[[Page 55674]]

commenter failed to submit any data supporting such a claim. As one 
commenter suggested, we cannot set the new source limit at 6.2 ppmv 
because we are establishing these requirements under CAA section 
112(d)(2), and we cannot consider cost in setting the MACT floor. The 
requirements for heat exchange systems are appropriately developed 
under CAA section 112(d)(2) because a MACT standard had not been 
previously developed for this emissions source.
    One commenter noted that the TCEQ allows some discretion in setting 
the total strippable VOC concentration limit or altering the limit 
based on the performance history of the cooling tower. We do recognize 
that the cooling tower leak definitions for total strippable VOC 
required in Texas refinery permits varied from 40 ppbw (or 3.1 ppmv) to 
280 ppbw (22 ppmv), including within this range leak definitions at 60 
ppbw, 80 ppbw, 150 ppbw, and 180 ppbw, but the 6th percentile facility 
had a leak definition of 80 ppbw, or 6.2 ppmv total strippable organics 
as methane. While some permits issued by TCEQ contain language that 
allows an alteration request or a permit amendment application, as the 
commenter noted, the permit issued for the 6th percentile cooling tower 
did not include this type of permit condition. As we cannot establish a 
requirement less stringent than the MACT floor, we do not provide a 12 
ppmv leak definition under any circumstances.
    Most of the commenters requesting lower leak definitions appear to 
misunderstand the stringency of the requirements for heat exchange 
systems included in the supplemental proposal. Based on the liquid and 
air flow rates specified in the TCEQ El Paso Method, and with the VOC 
measurements made as methane as required in the State permits and the 
supplemental proposal, a 3.1 ppmv VOC concentration in the gas stream 
from the El Paso stripping column is equivalent to 40 ppbw of 
strippable VOC (as methane) in the cooling water. The 6.2 ppmv leak 
threshold translates to a strippable VOC (as methane) in the cooling 
water of 80 ppbw.
    The TCEQ HRVOC rule sets an action level that is 50 ppbw in the 
cooling water, not 50 ppbv in the stripping air as the commenter 
suggested. As such, the TCEQ HRVOC rule action level is actually 
slightly less stringent than the leak definition in the new source MACT 
requirements. Furthermore, the 50 ppbw threshold only triggers 
calculations of emissions, and not necessarily corrective action. 
Therefore, we disagree with commenters that suggest the HRVOC rule 
requirements are more stringent than the new or existing MACT floor 
requirements we established.
    In our supplemental proposal, we specifically looked at lowering 
the leak definition for existing sources from 6.2 ppmv to 3.1 ppmv as 
part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, and determined that this was not 
cost-effective. Incrementally reducing the leak definition to 2 ppmv 
would be even less cost-effective than the option we evaluated. 
Furthermore, it would result in negligible additional emissions 
reductions, and it is very near the limit of detection of the El Paso 
Method. Therefore, we reject the option of setting the leak definition 
at 2 ppmv for new or existing sources because it is not cost-effective.
    The commenter requesting different leak definitions for different-
sized cooling towers is essentially asking for less control for small 
cooling towers (i.e., an effective leak definition greater than 6.2 
ppmv) and more control for larger cooling towers (i.e., an effective 
leak definition less than 6.2 ppmv, and in some cases less than 3.1 
ppmv). In our review of permits, we found no basis for subcategorizing 
the cooling towers by different recirculation rates. In addition, the 
suggested approach is inconsistent with the MACT floor requirements we 
identified for heat exchange systems.
    We also disagree with the comments that claim we did not consider 
the HRVOC rule in our decision-making process. We found that most 
cooling towers that are subject to the HRVOC rule are associated with 
ethylene production units, and not refinery process units. As we 
specifically collected recent permit requirements for Texas refineries, 
to the extent there might be refinery cooling towers subject to the 
HRVOC rule, those requirements were considered in the development of 
the MACT floor. As explained above, we also disagree with the 
commenter's characterization of the stringency of the HRVOC rule in 
comparison with the new and existing MACT floors.
    Our analysis indicated that repair provisions were more important 
in reducing heat exchange system emissions than using continuous 
monitoring. Contrary to the commenter's supposition, there are no 
repair schedules within the HRVOC cooling tower requirements. The 
commenter actually referenced the repair provisions for fugitive 
process equipment leaks (valves and pumps), which are not applicable to 
cooling towers. In the HRVOC rule, the action level is not a leak 
definition; rather, the leak definition is used to trigger more 
frequent monitoring for emission estimation and not specific repair 
requirements. In the HRVOC rules, facilities with cooling towers must 
meet an annual and an hourly site-wide HRVOC emissions cap. The hourly 
cap is quite high, and would not require any heat exchanger leaks to be 
repaired; the annual cap would tend to drive heat exchanger repairs. A 
medium-sized 30,000 gallon per minute cooling tower with a leak of 
1,000 ppbw total VOC containing 20 percent HRVOC (as defined in the 
Texas rule) would have to repair within 45 days under the MACT floor 
requirements of this rule, but would not necessarily have to repair in 
45 days to comply with the HRVOC rule, which sets a site-wide cap of 10 
ton/yr (45 days of emissions would release 1.6 tons of HRVOC, under 
this scenario).
    While different scenarios can be devised, the stringency of the 
Texas HRVOC rule is not as easy to categorize as the commenters 
suggest, and it could result in less emission reductions than the 
proposed new or existing source MACT floors.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertion, we also reviewed and 
evaluated the permit requirements for the cited California refinery, 
and the permit was included in the docket. The permit, dated April 17, 
2008, included a provision for a continuous monitor to be installed at 
a future date, to be determined, and the planned monitor was not being 
used at the time of our review. Additionally, based on the cooling 
tower's recirculation rate and the permitted VOC daily emission rate, 
the apparent action level (also not yet determined) is likely to be 
much higher than the leak definition for existing source MACT floors. 
In the cooling tower memorandum, we only summarized the information 
from the top-ranked cooling towers; the cooling tower at this 
California refinery was not included in the memorandum because, based 
on actual permit conditions, this cooling tower is not among the top-
performing 12 percent of cooling towers.
    While continuous monitoring was not used by the top-performing 
cooling towers, and, therefore, is not part of the floor requirements, 
we did evaluate requiring continuous monitoring in our beyond-the-floor 
analysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this option exceeded half 
a million dollars per ton of HAP reduced, and, therefore, we did not 
require continuous monitoring as the standard. Rather, we adopted the 
floor as the MACT standard.

[[Page 55675]]

    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for heat exchange systems are unnecessarily 
burdensome, go far beyond the requirements for the MACT floor, and 
should be revised. For the Notice of Compliance Status, the commenter 
noted that ``heat exchange systems'' are an artifact of the regulation, 
do not normally have specific names, and will change from time to time, 
so the requirement to identify the heat exchange systems that are 
subject to the requirements of this subpart should be changed to a list 
of cooling towers that serve any heat exchange system or systems in 
organic HAP service. For periodic reports, the commenter stated that: 
(1) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service will change over 
time, so the requirement to report that number should be deleted; (2) 
the requirement to report the number of heat exchange systems in HAP 
service found to be leaking should be changed to a request to identify 
exchangers found to be leaking; (3) the requirement to report the 
number of leaks in Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(iii) duplicates the requirement 
in Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(ii); (4) Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(iii) should not 
require the reporting of measurements below the leak definition and 
should only ask for a summary of the leaks identified during the 
reporting period; (5) each 6-month period will include a lot of leaks, 
so there is no need to report the date of every leak (a record should 
be sufficient); (6) Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(v) should be revised to reflect 
all delays and to address situations when a leak is detected in one 
reporting period and repaired in the next; and (7) reporting the 
estimate of VOC emissions for delay of repair should only be required 
when the delay of repair option was invoked. For recordkeeping, the 
commenter stated that: (1) Calculating the requested information for 
each heat exchanger in a refinery will take an estimated 40 hours per 
refinery and must be repeated every year; these burdens were not 
included in the information collection request (ICR) burden estimate 
and do not add value for exchangers that will not be monitored due to 
low HAP content, that do not contact HAP, or would not leak into the 
cooling water; (2) although sources will need a record of which heat 
exchange systems include exchangers in organic HAP service to comply 
with the monitoring requirements, identification of all heat exchangers 
is not necessary; and (3) the information requested in Sec.  
63.655(i)(4)(iii)(E) is sometimes available for whole cooling towers 
but not readily available for heat exchange exit lines or cooling tower 
return lines. The commenter stated that temporary heat exchangers and 
sample coolers should be excluded from these recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.
    Response: We reviewed the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
identified by the commenter. We do not see how the heat exchange system 
will be as variable as the commenter suggested. We have revised the 
definition of heat exchange system to clarify our intent. We also: (1) 
Amended Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(v) to more clearly indicate that all delayed 
repairs must be included and that delays may occur across reporting 
periods; (2) amended the reporting requirements in Sec.  
63.655(g)(9)(vi) to clarify that leak emission estimates are only 
required for an actual delay of repair; and (3) clarified in Sec.  
63.655(g)(9)(vi) that the flow rate is for the location where the 
monitoring occurs. It is anticipated that facilities will monitor at 
locations where the flow rate is known based on pump curves, heat 
balance calculations, or other engineering methods. A continuous flow 
monitor is not required, but a flow rate at the monitoring location is 
needed to assess the potential mass emissions associated with a leak. 
For the other comments, we find that the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are needed to document compliance with the rule. 
Specifically, identifying heat exchangers and heat exchange systems 
that are in organic HAP service, maintaining monitoring results, and 
reporting the date a leak is identified and repaired is essential for 
demonstrating compliance with the monitoring requirements.
2. Applicability Issues
    Comment: One commenter supported changing the affected source from 
``cooling towers'' to ``heat exchange systems,'' noting that it allows 
the facilities flexibility in monthly monitoring, leak tracking, and 
determining best sampling locations. Other commenters stated that 
Refinery MACT 1 should only apply to heat exchange systems that are 
part of cooling tower systems and should not apply to once-through 
cooling water systems. The commenters suggested that the supporting 
documentation indicates that only cooling tower heat exchange systems 
were evaluated, and, if EPA wants to finalize requirements for once-
through cooling water systems, the requirements must be properly 
evaluated and the analyses provided for comment. One commenter stated 
that the emissions from once-through cooling systems are fundamentally 
different than systems with cooling towers since once-through systems 
do not have the air contact and stripping properties of cooling towers, 
and, as a result, a cost analysis of the two systems would show 
considerably different costs. The commenter also noted that the 
monitoring and repair techniques employed for the once-through systems 
are different than the monitoring for cooling tower systems, and these 
techniques should be evaluated for best demonstrated control technology 
(BDT) if once-through cooling systems are included in the rule. One 
commenter noted that, as proposed, the heat exchange system 
requirements apply to systems where the pressure gradient would not 
allow leakage into the cooling water. The commenter noted that these 
systems do not need monitoring, and a pressure gradient threshold of 35 
kilopascals (kPa) should be included in the definition of ``heat 
exchange system'' to exempt these types of systems from Refinery MACT 
1. Finally, the commenter stated that including the term ``cooling 
tower'' in the definition of ``heat exchange system'' could lead to 
confusion over the monitoring location requirements.
    Response: EPA has developed MACT standards, such as the Hazardous 
Organic NESHAP (HON) and Ethylene MACT, for heat exchange systems, and 
these standards include once-through cooling water systems. Generally, 
the HON and Ethylene MACT standards allow alternative surrogate means 
of compliance that are equivalent to those standards. We considered and 
rejected these alternatives in the development of the requirements that 
we proposed for heat exchange systems and that we are now finalizing 
because the HON and Ethylene MACT standards are less stringent than our 
floor. We are not aware of any means of surrogate monitoring that would 
achieve identification of leaks equivalent to the floor level of 
monitoring required for refinery heat exchange systems.
    We believe that control of once-through heat exchanger cooling 
systems is appropriate for several reasons, as outlined below. First, 
emissions of volatile HAP such as benzene occur readily from open water 
sources, which is why the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the 
Refinery MACT 1 wastewater provisions require wastewater streams with 
benzene (as a surrogate for volatile HAP) to be covered and controlled 
until an appropriate treatment process is used to recover or destroy 
the benzene. While the stripping process may not be as fast as in a 
cooling tower, the once-through cooling

[[Page 55676]]

water will have a much longer exposure to the atmosphere than a system 
with a cooling tower. Thus, while the emissions may occur over a longer 
time period (over a larger area), all available scientific evidence and 
fate modeling studies of open water systems leads us to conclude that 
essentially all volatile HAP will be released into the atmosphere. As 
such, we see no reason why HAP leaks from heat exchange systems into 
once-through cooling water should be treated any differently than HAP 
leaks from heat exchange systems that have cooling towers.
    Second, in conducting the MACT floor analysis for heat exchange 
systems presented in the supplemental proposal, we assumed that once-
through cooling waters were included and that emissions from the once-
through systems would be similar to those with recirculation of cooling 
waters. In reviewing the permits that formed the basis of the MACT 
floor analysis, we found that the majority did not indicate whether the 
system was once-through or recirculating. However, we note that some 
permits included text for monitoring of ``cooling towers'' and 
``cooling tower water'' and some specified monitoring for ``heat 
exchanger system cooling water.'' The latter permits would appear to 
include once-through systems. Based on review of multiple references, 
the use of once-through cooling water in the petroleum refinery 
industry has been declining over the last 40 years, and is now a very 
small subset of the heat exchanger water systems. One reference 
indicated that a sample of facilities surveyed back in 1967 showed that 
only 5 percent of petroleum refineries were still using once-through 
cooling.\3\ No more recent data could be found on how many refineries 
use once-through systems. A more recent study on once-through cooling 
systems for cogeneration facilities indicated that approximately 11 
percent of non-utility plants that cogenerated power use once-through 
cooling; the 123 non-utility facilities included pulp and paper, 
chemical, iron and steel, aluminum, and petroleum refining 
industries.\4\ Of the 123 facilities in the survey, four were confirmed 
petroleum refineries and three of these four sources provided a 
response to the survey. None of the three reported that once-through 
cooling systems were used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Gibbons, DC. The Economic Value of Water. Published by 
Resources for the Future. 1986.
    \4\ Veil, J., M. Pruder, D. Littleton, and D. Moses. ``Cooling 
Water Use Patterns at U.S. Nonutility Electric Generating 
Facilities.'' Environmental Science and Policy. 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hypothetically, if we assumed that there were additional once-
through cooling systems that were not included in our MACT floor 
analysis, we could assume that approximately 5 to 11 percent of the 
total cooling systems were once-through. The original number of cooling 
tower systems included in the MACT floor analysis was 520. If we assume 
that 5 to 11 percent of the cooling systems are once-through systems, 
then the total hypothetical number of cooling systems could range from 
547 to 584 cooling systems. The MACT floor for these cooling systems 
would be based on the average emissions limitations achieved by the top 
12 percent of cooling systems; the 6th percentile would be represented 
by the 33rd and the 35th cooling systems, respectively, for the 
hypothetical total number of cooling systems estimated to be 547 and 
584. There would be no change in the MACT floor for existing sources 
for this hypothetical case. The MACT floor would be identical to the 
requirements in the supplemental proposal, i.e., the 33rd and 35th 
ranked cooling systems have requirements to implement corrective action 
and heat exchange leak repairs when the strippable total VOC 
concentration in stripped air exceeds 6.2 ppmv. The owner or operator 
must identify the leaking heat exchanger, and repair at the earliest 
opportunity and no later than the next scheduled shutdown.
    To the extent the commenters are suggesting that once-through 
systems should be treated as a separate subcategory, they have provided 
no information to support that subcategorization is appropriate.
    We agree with the commenter and have clarified in Sec.  
63.654(b)(1) that the requirements do not apply to heat exchange 
systems where the minimum water-side pressure is 35 kPa greater than 
the maximum process-side pressure. We have also revised the definition 
of ``heat exchange system'' to identify the equipment that is included 
for closed-loop recirculation systems (systems with cooling towers), to 
identify the equipment that is included in the once-through systems, 
and to clarify that once-through systems are also regulated. 
Furthermore, definitions are provided for ``cooling tower return line'' 
and ``heat exchanger exit line'' to clarify the appropriate sampling 
locations. Sampling at either location is allowed; for once-through 
cooling systems, sampling is allowed at an aggregated location as long 
as it is before exposure to the atmosphere. To clarify this 
requirement, we have modified the definition of ``heat exchange exit 
line'' to be ``the cooling water line from the exit of one or more heat 
exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat exchangers) to either 
the entrance of the cooling tower return line or prior to exposure to 
the atmosphere, whichever occurs first.''
3. Compliance Schedule for Heat Exchange Systems
    Comment: Several commenters supported the originally proposed 
compliance date of 3 years and 90 days. One commenter noted that the 
reference to 90 days in CAA section 112(f)(4) has been misread by some 
to limit compliance time, but since it is expected that installation of 
controls necessitates a longer time to comply, the waiver provisions 
should only be considered if EPA set a compliance deadline less than 3 
years. Some commenters noted that 18 months should be sufficient for 
all new requirements, as industry is already familiar with many of the 
processes to be controlled and are already regulating these emissions.
    Several commenters addressed the compliance dates relative to the 
supplemental proposal. For new sources, commenters noted that these 
requirements will be promulgated only 2 months after they were proposed 
in the supplemental proposal, which is inadequate time in which to have 
monitors purchased and operating. The commenters asserted that EPA 
should provide 1 year for new sources to comply with the standards.
    Commenters specifically noted that although many Texas refiners are 
currently familiar with the monitoring methods required for heat 
exchange systems, it took years for them to gain that familiarity, and 
it will take time for other refiners to learn to perform the methods 
efficiently. One commenter noted that when monitoring begins, there 
will be an initial period in which multiple repairs are necessary, some 
of which may require shutdowns. The commenters recommended that EPA 
provide the full 3 years provided by the CAA for compliance with heat 
exchange system requirements; this additional time would allow refiners 
to become familiar with the monitoring method and to complete initial 
repairs during already scheduled shutdowns and turnarounds. Conversely, 
several commenters stated that the cooling tower standards should be 
implemented in 1 year rather than progressively over 3 years as 
proposed in the supplemental proposal. Another commenter stated that 
the 18-month compliance schedule for heat exchange systems in the 
supplemental proposal is preferable to

[[Page 55677]]

the 3-year (and 90 days) compliance schedule in the original proposal.
    Response: As an initial matter, we note that the originally 
proposed compliance schedule (i.e., 3 years and 90 days) should not 
have included the additional 90 days. Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA 
provides that existing sources must comply within ``3 years after the 
effective date'' of the standard. With respect to the 18-month 
compliance timeframe specified in our supplemental proposal, we agree 
that the commenters have made valid points supporting adoption of a 3-
year compliance period instead. The comments that many refineries do 
not have experience with the TCEQ El Paso Method is supported by our 
review of cooling tower requirements for different States. We believe 
that some sources will need up to the full 3 years allowed under CAA 
section 112(i)(3) based on the estimated length of time required for 
refiners to survey the heat exchangers, identify those in organic HAP 
service, install the necessary sampling ports, purchase the Modified El 
Paso sampling system, familiarize themselves with the test method, and 
provide training to their employees. In addition, refiners will need to 
take steps to be prepared to repair leaking heat exchange systems. This 
includes performing initial sampling to identify heat exchangers that 
are prone to leakage or are in critical service, identify means to 
isolate or repair heat exchangers online, and to order and stock 
necessary equipment and spare parts.
    With respect to new source requirements, the CAA specifies that 
such sources must comply upon start-up or the date of publication of 
the final rule, whichever is later. We note that, based on the 
definition of an affected source in the Refinery MACT 1 rule, a 
construction project significant enough to trigger the new source 
provisions is likely to take years to complete, and that any source 
undertaking such project has been on notice since our initial proposal 
that cooling tower monitoring (or heat exchange system monitoring) 
would be required.
4. Delay of Repair Provisions
    Comment: Commenters noted that the new source delay of repair 
standards are based on cooling towers that are not yet operational, so 
those permit conditions are not ``achieved in practice.'' The 
commenters argued that it takes time after startup of new facilities to 
determine if new, previously untested requirements are achievable or 
whether permit modifications are needed; it is also unknown if Texas 
will allow deviations from permit conditions and under what conditions 
for heat exchange system repairs. The commenters stated that the new 
source delay of repair standards must instead be based on ``Repair and 
Delay 2'' as described in Table 1 of EPA's supporting memorandum (which 
the commenter thought were the requirements for the existing source 
floor).
    One commenter supported the 45-day repair allowance and delay of 
repair allowances. Another commenter stated that the maximum delay of 
repair should be 60 days because refineries already have 18 months to 
comply. Some commenters expressed concern that EPA proposed to disallow 
delay of repair for leaks above 62 ppmv after 3 years and noted that 
EPA has not demonstrated the rationale for removing that allowance. One 
commenter stated that EPA needs to address the situation in which 
multiple small leaks occur at multiple heat exchangers and the 
cumulative effect at the cooling tower return line is a leak above 62 
ppmv. The commenters stated that unplanned shutdowns are expensive and 
disruptive, but would be necessary when repair is infeasible without a 
shutdown. One commenter requested that EPA allow owners and operators 
to request delay of repair on a case-by-case basis when justified.
    Response: The supplemental proposed MACT floor for both new and 
existing sources is repair within 45 days for leaks of 62 ppmv or 
greater. In establishing the floor, we found that the no delay of 
repairs requirement for large leaks has been implemented and required 
for 35 cooling towers at numerous facilities. Also, both the top-ranked 
and 6th percentile cooling tower had identical requirements excluding 
large leaks from delay of repair. As such, this requirement has been 
implemented and has been adequately demonstrated and it establishes the 
minimum floor requirement. In the supplemental proposal, we proposed to 
allow delay of repair for large leaks for the 18 month phase-in of the 
repair requirements, which correspond to the ``Repair and Delay 2'' 
provisions cited by the commenter. However, we have concluded that 
these temporary delay of repair provisions were not equivalent to the 
requirements for the MACT floor for existing heat exchange systems, 
which is why they were only temporary provisions in the supplemental 
proposal. Additionally, the 3-year compliance timeframe in the final 
rule will allow facilities sufficient time to resolve these initial 
problems. As discussed previously, we are now implementing all heat 
exchange system requirements for existing sources on the same 3-year 
schedule. Upon implementation of the required monitoring provisions, it 
is anticipated that leaks will be identified well before they become 
large. Thus, while delay of repairs are allowed for small leaks, it is 
the refinery owner or operator's responsibility to order necessary 
parts and schedule a repair before the leak exceeds the 62 ppmv 
threshold. Negligence on the part of the owner or operator regarding 
this responsibility is not a reasonable justification for providing 
delay of repair provisions for large leaks. Consistent with the 
requirements that apply to the units which provided the basis for the 
MACT floor, any leak greater than 62 ppmv that is not repaired in the 
timelines provided in the rule is a deviation of the standard and 
subject to enforcement actions at the discretion of the Agency or 
permitting authority.
5. Monitoring Alternatives
    Comment: Commenters noted that the concentration of heavy organic 
HAP and water soluble HAP can build up in recirculating cooling tower 
systems, and since the El Paso Method involves more vigorous stripping 
than occurs in a cooling tower, monitoring might falsely indicate a 
leak. The commenters suggested that, as an alternative, sources should 
be allowed to use methods they are presently using, including testing 
the inlet water to a heat exchange system and using the difference 
between the outlet and the inlet to determine if the leak definition is 
exceeded. One commenter noted that if once-through cooling systems 
continue to be considered affected facilities by EPA, it is important 
for the requirements to consider the baseline of HAP (or surrogate VOC) 
emissions in the inlet to the system so that facilities are only 
responsible for assessing any ``increase'' in the pollutant attributed 
to the operating facility, not pollutants in the water basin upstream 
of the facility. Another commenter requested that EPA allow owners or 
operators to demonstrate that another monitoring method such as a 
continuous emission monitoring system or parameter monitoring is 
equivalent to the monitoring methods specified for heat exchange 
systems. One commenter requested that EPA continue to allow the method 
originally proposed as well as a relatively new analytical method for 
early detection developed by Baker Petrolite. Another commenter stated 
that the El Paso Method measures VOC in the air, and EPA should allow 
any monitoring method that has adequate sensitivity to measure 80 ppbw 
of

[[Page 55678]]

strippable VOC in the water or for a surrogate that can be correlated 
to strippable VOC and can be measured at a level that would indicate a 
leak of 80 ppbw of strippable VOC in the water for a particular heat 
exchange system. This monitoring flexibility would be helpful to 
confirm El Paso results as well as more efficient for sources that are 
required to conduct other types of monitoring by their State or local 
agency or for compliance with another Federal regulation (such as the 
HON).
    Response: We acknowledge that some refineries have specific 
monitoring systems in-place and that the use of these monitoring 
systems would ease the burden on the refinery owner or operator. 
However, we are not aware of any practical alternatives that we can 
specify that provide an equivalent measure of strippable organics. Nor 
have any of the commenters provided evidence that a specific 
alternative method would result in an equivalent measure. For example, 
we have reviewed the ``method for early detection developed by Baker 
Petrolite'' and found that the detection level for most individual 
compounds is much higher than the total strippable VOC concentrations 
that define a leak for the MACT floor facility. That is, this method 
would not be able to identify small to medium-sized leaks that would be 
identified and would be required to be fixed by the MACT requirements 
for heat exchange systems.
    Although we expect the El Paso column to mimic the stripping that 
occurs in the cooling tower, the amount of stripping that occurs in the 
cooling tower is dependent on the design and operation of the cooling 
tower. Moreover, the purpose for the use of the El Paso Method is to 
detect leaks in heat exchange systems, not to estimate emissions. 
Consequently, we do not believe that analytical methods based on the 
measurement of single constituents or that employ inlet/outlet cooling 
tower water sampling are equivalent to the El Paso Method for 
determining strippable VOC. That is, these alternative methods would 
not result in the same corrective action thresholds as the prescribed 
monitoring technique.
    The commenters have provided no evidence that a build-up of heavy 
organics would cause a heat exchange system to exceed a leak definition 
of 6.2 ppmv total strippable VOC, nor have they provided compelling 
evidence that such a leak would not result in any air emissions. While 
we agree that the relative stripping efficiency of a given cooling 
tower will not necessarily match the stripping efficiency of the El 
Paso stripping column, it is unreasonable to conclude that the cooling 
tower will have no HAP emissions. Furthermore, the majority of HAP 
included in Table 1 are volatile. Thus, for a heat exchange system that 
is ``in HAP service,'' we believe it is appropriate to initiate 
corrective action if the leak threshold is exceeded because that 
corrective action will result in reduced HAP emissions.
    As stated previously, the goal of the heat exchange system 
provisions is to identify and fix leaks at the heat exchanger to reduce 
subsequent emissions of HAP. For once-through cooling systems, we 
believe it is unlikely that the strippable organics concentration in 
the inlet water would exceed the leak threshold. Further, the 
commenters have provided no evidence that the fresh water feed for a 
once-through heat exchange system could contain enough strippable 
organics to cause a heat exchange system to exceed a leak definition of 
6.2 ppmv total strippable VOC. Therefore, we have not provided any 
alternative leak detection procedure for once-through heat exchangers.
    Comment: Commenters supported allowing the facility to demonstrate 
that a leak is not in a heat exchanger that is in HAP service. One 
commenter stated that if VOC testing indicates a leak in a heat 
exchange system, the facility should be allowed to speciate the 
compounds in the leak to determine if the leak is a HAP leak. Another 
commenter agreed, noting that proposed Sec.  63.654(e) requires 
monitoring of every individual exchanger in organic HAP service in a 
heat exchange system in order to prove that the leak is not from an 
exchanger in organic HAP service. The commenter stated that this 
requirement is very costly and recommended three alternatives: (1) The 
owner or operator should be allowed to determine the species in the 
process or processes served by the cooling tower to determine if the 
process is in HAP service; (2) the owner or operator should be allowed 
to speciate the sample from the cooling tower return line to determine 
the leaking heat exchanger; and (3) the owner or operator should be 
allowed to sample groups of heat exchangers rather than each individual 
heat exchanger.
    One commenter noted that the supplemental proposal appears to only 
allow sampling at the outlet of each heat exchanger or at the inlet to 
a cooling tower, but it is often preferred to sample at branch points 
in cooling tower return piping for several reasons: (1) Only a 
particular branch has exchangers in HAP service; (2) it is easier to 
identify the source of any leak that does occur; or (3) a particular 
cooling tower is shared among administrative units and compliance is 
more readily achieved if each unit is responsible for its own heat 
exchangers. The commenter also noted that the language is inconsistent 
with the definition of ``heat exchange system,'' which can be any 
number of exchangers, not just one exchanger or all exchangers in a 
particular cooling water loop. The commenter suggested revisions to the 
definition of ``cooling tower return line'' to clarify the requirement.
    Response: The purpose for the rule is to find and fix leaks for 
heat exchange systems in organic HAP service. If a leak is detected at 
a cooling tower return line or in a once-through system, the owner/
operator can find and fix the leak by any means possible, including the 
means specified by the commenters. If, however, the owner/operator does 
not want to fix the leak because they believe that the leak is caused 
by heat exchangers that are not in organic HAP service, the only way to 
definitively prove that is to test the individual or groups of heat 
exchangers in organic HAP service that make up the system in which a 
leak has been detected.
    The Texas permit data and TCEQ El Paso Method is based on 
strippable VOC. We found that this is an appropriate surrogate for HAP 
emissions for cooling towers that are in HAP service. A refinery may 
use speciation of the El Paso column stripping air or other methods at 
their discretion to determine the location of the leak. However, we 
cannot provide, based on the MACT floor requirements, an alternative 
action level that defines a HAP leak as opposed to a VOC leak, as the 
commenter proposes.
    We have made minor adjustments to the final standards to allow our 
intended outcome of alternative 3, as described by the commenter. 
Specifically, we have clarified the definition of heat exchanger exit 
line to include water lines from ``one or more heat exchangers.'' This 
clarification is intended to allow monitoring using the Modified El 
Paso Method from each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in 
organic HAP service upstream of the cooling tower return line. For 
example, if three process units are served by one heat exchange system 
and multiple heat exchangers are grouped by process unit and the three 
return lines combine before the main cooling tower return line, then 
the owner or operator may choose to measure each of the three return 
lines associated with a process unit in organic HAP service. If 
monitoring at those points results in concentrations less

[[Page 55679]]

than the leak definition, then no repair is necessary.
6. Impact Estimates for Cooling Towers
    Comment: Several commenters argued that EPA's estimates of baseline 
emissions were based on faulty and unsupported premises. One commenter 
stated that the model cooling tower sizes understate the emissions 
because the average flow rate is a factor of 2 less than in a study 
performed by the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention 
(GHASP). One commenter said the emissions are understated because they 
do not include HAP emissions from SSM events. Two commenters questioned 
the use of TCEQ inventory data. One commenter stated that the TCEQ 
inventory appears to be biased low for HAP when compared to the Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI) reported releases (on a plant-wide basis). The 
other commenter suggested that EPA mistakenly assumed the TCEQ data 
were based on controlled emission factors in projecting the baseline 
emissions ranging from 352 to 2,300 ton/yr because of the guidance 
provided in the 2006 TCEQ inventory guidelines for cooling towers. The 
commenter also cited a report by URS Corporation where two high rate 
leaks were identified as evidence that the baseline emission rates were 
too low.
    Two commenters stated that the cooling tower impacts do not account 
for the maximum emissions allowed under the proposed MACT standard. 
According to the commenters, the cooling tower impacts assume 50 
percent of leaks are fixed as soon as possible rather than the 45 days 
allowed in the proposed rule, and they do not account for permitted 
delay of repair for up to 120 days. Also, the commenters stated that 
the EPA did not justify the 50 percent assumption for delay of repair 
and should assume all refineries will delay repair.
    Two commenters also cited variability in the emissions from cooling 
towers as a concern. One commenter stated that the use of a single 
average HAP content for the cooling tower emissions estimates does not 
consider the range of potential HAP concentrations. Another commenter 
questioned the use of 2004 TCEQ inventory data by comparing the 2004 
TCEQ inventory for selected refineries with TCEQ data for 2005 and 
2006, which showed that the quantity and composition of emissions is 
variable from year to year. According to this commenter, EPA failed to 
account for this variability or provide rationale as to why the 2004 
emissions data are representative, and, therefore, the analysis fails 
to capture all refinery emissions and is unlawful.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that state that the 
cooling tower emissions were understated or otherwise not properly 
characterized when developing the impact estimates. With respect to the 
cooling tower sizes, the GHASP study includes refineries and chemical 
plants, and the data are skewed by several large cooling towers, which 
we believe are associated with petrochemical (ethylene) plants and not 
refineries. Eliminating the three largest cooling towers of the 54 
cooling towers in the GHASP dataset brings the data (which include only 
the Houston area, which has larger than average-sized refineries) in 
reasonable agreement with the projected size-distribution of cooling 
towers (the mean cooling tower recirculation rate in the GHASP data is 
reduced from a factor of 200 percent to a factor of 50 percent above 
the mean flow rate in our impacts analysis). The TCEQ emissions data 
and the AP-42 emission factors are the best available data by which to 
estimate cooling tower emissions. The TRI does not provide emissions 
breakdown by source, so it is impossible to determine what emissions in 
the TRI are associated with cooling towers.
    We specifically consider SSM emissions in the cooling tower 
impacts. Heat exchanger leaks that result in cooling tower emissions 
are a type of malfunction. If the units operate as designed, there 
would be no emissions from the cooling towers. No additional emissions 
are expected specific to cooling towers during startup or shutdown 
events. The requirements for monitoring and repairing heat exchange 
systems directly address malfunction emissions.
    We also note that selected short-term emissions from selected heat 
exchanger leaks are not indicative of the average long-term emissions 
that are appropriate for estimating chronic effects or life-time cancer 
incidence. Not all heat exchange systems leak every year, and the leaks 
that do occur do not last all year long. Note also that two of the 
``leaks'' identified in the cited study were comparable to the 
controlled AP-42 emission factor. Our impact estimates directly account 
for the fact that some heat exchangers do not have leaks at all, some 
have small leaks, and some have large leaks. We compared emission 
estimates using a variety of methods and determined that the baseline 
and controlled emission estimates were as accurate and unbiased as we 
could develop.
    The commenters also incorrectly characterized our emission 
estimates with respect to repair times. For cooling towers that were 
assumed to be repaired as soon as possible, we used the full 45-day 
repair allowance plus 15 days (one-half the monitoring frequency) for 
estimating the duration of the leak. Leaks may occur any time between 
monitoring events, but 15 days provides the best estimate of the 
average leak duration prior to identifying the leak. Once a refinery 
owner or operator measures a leak and identifies its source, they will 
also know what actions are needed to reduce the leak. In some 
instances, the refinery owner or operator will find that the cost of 
repairing the leak is easily offset by the recovery of the leaking 
product or process stream. In these cases, the refinery owner or 
operator will elect to repair the leak rather than delay repair. While 
data are limited, our best engineering estimate is that roughly 50 
percent of leaks will be repaired within the first 45 days simply 
because it is economical to do so. For the 50 percent of leaks for 
which repair is delayed, 120 days was used as the duration of the leak 
when estimating the emissions from these units.
    With respect to the TCEQ data, we are confident that the controlled 
AP-42 emission factors were generally used. Public comments were 
received on the original proposal requesting that corrections be made 
to the emissions data for the highest emitting cooling towers in the 
TCEQ dataset because the uncontrolled AP-42 emission factor had been 
incorrectly used, and that the controlled AP-42 emission factor should 
be used. We also note that TCEQ's 2006 guidance on use of AP-42 
emission factors cited by the commenter came out well after the 2004 
inventory was developed, so its use was not possible. Finally we note 
that, if the TCEQ inventory estimates were based on uncontrolled 
emission factors, then the 352 ton/yr projection from the TCEQ data 
would be the upper-end of the range, which would make the baseline 
emission estimate lower, not higher.
    Finally, while leaks from heat exchangers that give rise to cooling 
tower emissions are inherently random and variable, our analysis was 
specifically designed to provide an estimate of the long-term (life-
time) exposure from cooling tower emissions. Assuming that all leaks 
come from a specific unit with high HAP content, that all leaks are 
big, and that all repairs will be delayed provides a completely 
unrealistic picture of long-term emissions. When assessing short-term 
exposure, we multiplied our long-term emissions by a factor of 10, 
which

[[Page 55680]]

effectively accounts for the variability in emissions cited by the 
commenters.
    Comment: One commenter stated that cooling tower emission 
reductions are estimated by EPA to be 4 to 10 percent, but the GHASP 
Report 2006 shows reductions on the order of 90 percent. As such, the 
commenter suggested that the emission and emission reduction estimates 
are unreasonable and conclusions drawn from the emission estimates are 
unreliable.
    Response: The analysis includes all emission sources covered under 
the Refinery MACT 1 regulation. If, at baseline, cooling towers 
represent only 5 percent of a refineries HAP emissions, a 90-percent 
reduction in cooling tower emissions would only result in a 4.5-percent 
reduction in the nationwide baseline HAP emissions from refineries. The 
cooling tower impact memo (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0143) 
indicates that the proposed MACT requirements for cooling towers will 
result in an 82-percent reduction in VOC and HAP emissions from cooling 
towers, which is in reasonable agreement with the reduction estimates 
in the GHASP Report 2006.

B. General Provisions Applicability

    Comment: One commenter supported the revisions to Table 6 of 
Refinery MACT 1 in the supplemental proposal but had a few suggested 
revisions. First, the commenter noted that EPA proposed that Sec. Sec.  
63.5(d)(1)(iii), (2), and (3)(ii) apply to Refinery MACT 1. The 
commenter stated that this change would require owners and operators to 
include considerable emission and control information in requests to 
construct or reconstruct, and this information has not previously been 
required. In particular, the commenter noted that the proposal to 
require measured emission data in the Notice of Compliance Status 
required by Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(iii) would be very costly, and the 
permitting authority is the best party to identify where testing is 
required to confirm mass emission limitations are being met. The 
commenter recommended that EPA not finalize this proposed requirement; 
if finalized, the requirements should only apply to construction or 
reconstruction that commenced after September 7, 2007.
    Second, the commenter stated that Sec.  63.8(b)(2), which EPA 
proposed should apply to Refinery MACT 1, specifies monitoring location 
requirements that may conflict with existing monitoring locations. If 
owners or operators do not already have monitors in locations that 
comply with Sec.  63.8(b)(2), they could be out of compliance on the 
date these requirements are finalized. The commenter noted that EPA has 
not evaluated the impacts of these efforts, and no additional 
compliance time has been provided, so EPA should not finalize this 
proposal.
    Finally, the commenter noted that EPA proposed to require Refinery 
MACT 1 sources to comply with Sec. Sec.  63.1(b)(3) and 63.10(b)(3), 
which require owners and operators to keep ``negative'' records. The 
commenter stated that these records serve no purpose and have not been 
kept in the past.
    Response: We have reviewed the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A) and Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1 as included in the 
supplemental proposal, and we have determined that the emission 
estimates in Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) and the emission measurements in 
Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(iii) are not necessary. Given the types of emission 
sources affected by Refinery MACT 1, estimating the emissions ``* * * 
in units and averaging times specified by the relevant standard'' is 
not relevant for most of the sources. The permitting authority has a 
right to require HAP emission estimates for Refinery MACT 1 process 
units, but the permitting authority has discretion on what emission 
estimates are needed. Paragraph 63.5(d)(1)(iii) is unworkable for most 
Refinery MACT 1 emission sources as these sources do not lend 
themselves to direct emission measurements. However, the information 
required under Sec.  63.5(d)(2) and (3) is reasonable and necessary 
information needed by permitting agencies and we are including these 
requirements from the General Provisions in Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1 
in the final amendments.
    Paragraph 63.8(b)(2) provides specific guidelines and options for 
monitoring when emissions from two or more affected sources are 
combined before being released into the air. While Refinery MACT 1 does 
specify locations to conduct monitoring, it does not address instances 
where multiple emission sources are combined. We find that Sec.  
63.8(b)(2) provides useful guidance that does not contradict or 
otherwise alter the monitoring locations specified in Refinery MACT 1. 
As such, we are specifying in Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1 that Sec.  
63.8(b)(2) applies.
    We agree with the commenter that Sec. Sec.  63.1(b)(3) and 
63.10(b)(3) should not apply because the records required in these 
sections apply to applicability determinations that have long been 
completed and the records required under these sections would no longer 
need to be retained because they would be over 5 years old. 
Furthermore, the amendments specify the records needed for the new heat 
exchange system requirements specified under these sections are not 
necessary.

V. Summary of Impacts

    The total capital investment cost of the final amendments is 
estimated at $16 million. The total annualized cost of the controls 
required by the final amendments is expected to be $3.0 million, which 
includes $2.2 million credit for recovery of lost product and the 
annualized cost of capital. The final amendments will achieve a 
nationwide HAP emission reduction of about 630 ton/yr with a concurrent 
reduction in VOC emissions of about 4,100 ton/yr. Table 1 of this 
preamble summarizes the cost and emission reduction impacts of the 
final standards.

                                              Table 1--Nationwide Impacts of Heat Exchange System Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total
                                                           Total capital    annualized        Product          Total       HAP emission        Cost-
                     Affected source                      investment  ($   cost without      recovery       annualized      reductions     effectiveness
                                                             million)       recovery ($      credit ($       costs ($        (ton/yr)       ($/ton HAP)
                                                                             million)        million)       million/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange systems...................................              16             5.2           (2.2)             3.0             630           4,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55681]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in the final amendments include 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions for cooling towers. 
Owners or operators of cooling towers must conduct monthly monitoring 
of each heat exchanger to identify and repair leaks. Records of 
monitoring and repair data also must be kept. All respondents must 
submit one-time notifications and semiannual compliance reports.
    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
needed by EPA and delegated authorities to determine that compliance 
has been achieved. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 
final rule are based on the information collection requirements in the 
part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are 
mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is safeguarded 
according to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 13,647 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $1,048,783 for one new refinery and 153 existing 
refineries. The average annual reporting burden is 2,825.72 labor hours 
for 154 total annual responses; the average annual burden per response 
is 18.35 hours. Responses include Notifications of Compliance Status 
for cooling towers at new and existing refineries and semiannual 
compliance reports containing information on cooling towers at new and 
existing refineries. Capital/startup costs are estimated at 
$16,306,000. The operation and maintenance costs associated with the 
final rule amendments are estimated at $61,711. Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. EPA is 
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR control 
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information 
requirements contained in this final rule. This amendment updates the 
table to list the information collection requirements being promulgated 
today as amendments to the NESHAP for petroleum refineries.
    EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated 
table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's 
regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The 
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the 
OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR 
satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (a firm having no more than 1,500 
employees); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our 
economic impact analysis, the amendments will result in a nationwide 
net annualized cost of about $3.0 million, which includes a credit of 
about $2.2 million per year from reductions in product losses. Of the 
24 small entities that would incur annualized costs as a result of the 
final amendments, annualized costs for each of them are below 0.02 
percent of revenues; therefore, no adverse economic impacts are 
expected for any small entity. Thus, the costs associated with the 
final amendments will not result in any ``significant'' adverse 
economic impact for any small or large entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one 
year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, these amendments result in 
nationwide costs of $3.0 million per year for the private sector. Thus, 
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The final 
amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and 
impose no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The final amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
would

[[Page 55682]]

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments add 
control and performance demonstration requirements. They do not modify 
existing responsibilities or create new responsibilities among EPA 
Regional offices, States, or local enforcement agencies. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final amendments.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The final 
amendments will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on 
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 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the 
final amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy effects 
because they result in overall savings due to product recovery.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA has decided to 
use ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination 
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources,'' Revision 
Number One, dated January 2003, and will incorporate the method by 
reference (see 40 CFR 63.14). This method is available at http://
www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-
12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf, or from the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, 
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number (512) 239-0028. This method was 
chosen because it is an effective means to determine leaks from heat 
exchangers and it is the method used in the best performing facilities. 
This TCEQ method utilizes a dynamic or flow-through system for air 
stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the resultant off-gases 
for VOC using a common flame ionization detector analyzer. While direct 
water analyses, such as purge and trap analyses of water samples 
utilizing gas chromatography and/or mass spectrometry techniques, have 
been shown to be effective for cooling tower measurements of heavier 
molecular weight organic compounds with relatively high boiling points, 
it has been determined that this approach may be ineffective for 
capture and measurement of VOC with lower boiling points, such as 
ethylene, propylene, 1,3-butadiene, and butenes. The VOC with a low 
molecular weight and boiling point are generally lost in the sample 
collection step of purge/trap type analyses. Consequently, this TCEQ 
air stripping method is used for cooling tower and other applicable 
water matrix emission measurements of VOC with boiling points below 140 
[deg]F.
    Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in 
the final rule and amendments.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    This rulemaking will achieve significant reductions of HAP 
emissions from cooling towers located at petroleum refineries. Exposure 
to HAP emissions raises concerns regarding environmental health for the 
United States population in general, including the minority populations 
and low-income populations that are the focus of the Environmental 
Justice Executive Order.
    The emission reductions from the new standards finalized in the 
petroleum refinery rule will have beneficial effects on communities in 
proximity to petroleum refineries, including low-income and minority 
communities. For example, the new standards for cooling towers will 
reduce air toxics emissions from petroleum refineries by 630 tons and 
VOC emissions by 4,100 tons annually.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, 
the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller

[[Page 55683]]

General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be 
effective on October 28, 2009.

List of Subject for 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

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

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 135, et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 
1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 
CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 
300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-
2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857, et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 
7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. The table in Section 9.1 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for 63.654 under the heading ``National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for 63.655 in numerical order under the indicated 
heading to read as follows:


Sec.  9.1  OMB Approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                             Categories \3\

                                * * * * *
63.655..................................................       2060-0340

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
4. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (n) The following material is available from the Texas Commission 
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, 
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number (512) 239-0028 or at http://
www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-
12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf:
    (1) ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 
Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.654(c)(1) and (g)(4)(i) of subpart CC of this part.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart CC--[Amended]

0
5. Section 63.640 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7);
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(8);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, and (e)(2)(iii);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, and (f)(5);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2);
0
j. Revising paragraph (h)(4);
0
k. Adding paragraph (h)(6);
0
l. Revising paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), (k)(2)(iii), and 
the first sentence in paragraph (k)(2)(vi);
0
m. Revising paragraphs (l) introductory text, and (l)(2)(i), the first 
sentence in paragraph (l)(2)(ii), the first sentence in paragraph 
(l)(3) introductory text, paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii), the 
first sentence in paragraph (l)(3)(vi), and the first sentence in 
paragraph (l)(3)(vii); and
0
n. Revising paragraph (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.640  Applicability and designation of affected source.

    (a) This subpart applies to petroleum refining process units and to 
related emissions points that are specified in paragraphs (c)(5) 
through (c)(8) of this section that are located at a plant site and 
that meet the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The determination of applicability of this subpart to petroleum 
refining process units that are designed and operated as flexible 
operation units shall be reported as specified in Sec.  
63.655(h)(6)(i).
    (c) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source shall 
comprise all emissions points, in combination, listed in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section that are located at a single 
refinery plant site.
* * * * *
    (6) All marine vessel loading operations located at a petroleum 
refinery meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the 
applicability criteria of subpart Y, Sec.  63.560;
    (7) All storage vessels and equipment leaks associated with a bulk 
gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station classified under 
Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 located within a 
contiguous area and under common control with a refinery meeting the 
criteria in paragraph (a) of this section; and
    (8) All heat exchange systems associated with petroleum refining 
process units meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and 
which are in organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) service as defined 
in this subpart.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of a storage vessel constructed on or 
before August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section to determine whether a 
storage vessel is part of a source to which this subpart applies. The 
owner or operator of a storage vessel constructed after August 18, 
1994, shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1), 
(e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) of this section to determine whether a 
storage vessel is part of a source to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) If the predominant use of a storage vessel varies from year 
to year, then the applicability of this subpart shall be determined 
based on the utilization of that storage vessel during the year 
preceding August 18, 1995.

[[Page 55684]]

This determination shall be reported as specified in Sec.  
63.655(h)(6)(ii).
    (f) The owner or operator of a distillation unit constructed on or 
before August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this section to determine whether a 
miscellaneous process vent from a distillation unit is part of a source 
to which this subpart applies. The owner or operator of a distillation 
unit constructed after August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this section to 
determine whether a miscellaneous process vent from a distillation unit 
is part of a source to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (5) If the predominant use of a distillation unit varies from year 
to year, then the applicability of this subpart shall be determined 
based on the utilization of that distillation unit during the year 
preceding August 18, 1995. This determination shall be reported as 
specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(6)(iii).
* * * * *
    (h) Except as provided in paragraphs (k), (l), or (m) of this 
section, sources subject to this subpart are required to achieve 
compliance on or before the dates specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (h)(6) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (iv) of this 
section, new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
July 14, 1994, shall be in compliance with this subpart upon initial 
startup or August 18, 1995, whichever is later.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Heat exchange systems at new sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after August 18, 1995, but before 
September 4, 2007, shall comply with the existing source requirements 
for heat exchange systems specified in Sec.  63.654 no later than 
October 29, 2012.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) Heat exchange systems at new sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after September 4, 2007, shall be in 
compliance with the new source requirements in Sec.  63.654 upon 
initial startup or October 28, 2009, whichever is later.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(3) through (h)(6) of this 
section, existing sources shall be in compliance with this subpart no 
later than August 18, 1998, except as provided in Sec.  63.6(c)(5) of 
subpart A of this part, or unless an extension has been granted by the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  63.6(i) of subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
    (4) Existing Group 1 floating roof storage vessels shall be in 
compliance with Sec.  63.646 of this subpart at the first degassing and 
cleaning activity after August 18, 1998, or August 18, 2005, whichever 
is first.
* * * * *
    (6) Heat exchange systems at an existing source shall be in 
compliance with the existing source standards in Sec.  63.654 no later 
than October 29, 2012.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) The reconstructed source, addition, or change shall be in 
compliance with the new source requirements upon initial startup of the 
reconstructed source or by August 18, 1995, whichever is later; and
    (2) * * *
    (i) The application for approval of construction or reconstruction 
shall be submitted as soon as practical before the construction or 
reconstruction is planned to commence (but it need not be sooner than 
November 16, 1995);
    (ii) The Notification of Compliance Status report as required by 
Sec.  63.655(f) for a new source, addition, or change;
    (iii) Periodic Reports and other reports as required by Sec.  
63.655(g) and (h);
* * * * *
    (vi) Reports and notifications required by Sec.  63.428(b), (c), 
(g)(1), (h)(1) through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * *
* * * * *
    (l) If an additional petroleum refining process unit is added to a 
plant site or if a miscellaneous process vent, storage vessel, gasoline 
loading rack, marine tank vessel loading operation, or heat exchange 
system that meets the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this 
section is added to an existing petroleum refinery or if another 
deliberate operational process change creating an additional Group 1 
emissions point(s) (as defined in Sec.  63.641) is made to an existing 
petroleum refining process unit, and if the addition or process change 
is not subject to the new source requirements as determined according 
to paragraphs (i) or (j) of this section, the requirements in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section shall apply. Examples of 
process changes include, but are not limited to, changes in production 
capacity, or feed or raw material where the change requires 
construction or physical alteration of the existing equipment or 
catalyst type, or whenever there is replacement, removal, or addition 
of recovery equipment. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (m) 
of this section, process changes do not include: Process upsets, 
unintentional temporary process changes, and changes that are within 
the equipment configuration and operating conditions documented in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report required by Sec.  63.655(f).
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If a petroleum refining process unit is added to a plant site 
or an emission point(s) is added to any existing petroleum refining 
process unit, the added emission point(s) shall be in compliance upon 
initial startup of any added petroleum refining process unit or 
emission point(s) or by August 18, 1998, whichever is later.
    (ii) If a deliberate operational process change to an existing 
petroleum refining process unit causes a Group 2 emission point to 
become a Group 1 emission point (as defined in Sec.  63.641), the owner 
or operator shall be in compliance upon initial startup or by August 
18, 1998, whichever is later, unless the owner or operator demonstrates 
to the Administrator that achieving compliance will take longer than 
making the change.* * *
    (3) The owner or operator of a petroleum refining process unit or 
of a storage vessel, miscellaneous process vent, wastewater stream, 
gasoline loading rack, marine tank vessel loading operation, or heat 
exchange system meeting the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) 
of this section that is added to a plant site and is subject to the 
requirements for existing sources shall comply with the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements that are applicable to existing sources 
including, but not limited to, the reports listed in paragraphs 
(l)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section.* * *
    (i) The Notification of Compliance Status report as required by 
Sec.  63.655(f) for the emission points that were added or changed;
    (ii) Periodic Reports and other reports as required by Sec.  
63.655(g) and (h);
* * * * *
    (vi) Reports and notifications required by Sec.  63.428(b), (c), 
(g)(1), (h)(1) through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * *
    (vii) Reports and notifications required by Sec. Sec.  63.565 and 
63.567 of subpart Y. * * *
* * * * *
    (p) Overlap of subpart CC with other regulations for equipment 
leaks.
    (1) After the compliance dates specified in paragraph (h) of this 
section, equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR parts 60 and 61 standards promulgated before

[[Page 55685]]

September 4, 2007, are required to comply only with the provisions 
specified in this subpart.
    (2) Equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, are required to comply only with the 
provisions specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.641 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Cooling tower,'' 
``Cooling tower return line,'' ``Heat exchange system,'' and ``Heat 
exchanger exit line''; and
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Continuous record'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.641  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or 
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 
hour and recorded at the frequency specified in Sec.  63.655(i).
* * * * *
    Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove the heat 
absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by transferring the heat 
to the atmosphere using natural or mechanical draft.
    Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines at the 
inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
    Heat exchange system means a device or series of devices used to 
transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional direct 
contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact heat 
exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system 
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the 
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers 
that are serviced by that cooling tower, and all water lines to and 
from the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat exchange 
system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual 
process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). 
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation 
of a wastewater.
    Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from the exit 
of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat 
exchangers) to either the entrance of the cooling tower return line or 
prior to exposure to the atmosphere, in, as an example, a once-through 
cooling system, whichever occurs first.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (k)(1) and (l)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.642  General standards.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator using this compliance approach shall also 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.655 as applicable.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) Comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.652, 63.653, and 
63.655, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.644 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.644  Monitoring provisions for miscellaneous process vents.

* * * * *
    (b) An owner or operator of a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent 
may request approval to monitor parameters other than those listed in 
paragraph (a) of this section. The request shall be submitted according 
to the procedures specified in Sec.  63.655(h). Approval shall be 
requested if the owner or operator:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that 
determines whether a vent stream flow is present at least once every 
hour. Records shall be generated as specified in Sec.  63.655(h) and 
(i). The flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any 
bypass line that could divert the vent stream away from the control 
device to the atmosphere; or
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall establish a range that ensures 
compliance with the emissions standard for each parameter monitored 
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. In order to establish the 
range, the information required in Sec.  63.655(f)(3) shall be 
submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report.
    (e) Each owner or operator of a control device subject to the 
monitoring provisions of this section shall operate the control device 
in a manner consistent with the minimum and/or maximum operating 
parameter value or procedure required to be monitored under paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section. Operation of the control device in a 
manner that constitutes a period of excess emissions, as defined in 
Sec.  63.655(g)(6), or failure to perform procedures required by this 
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission 
standard of this subpart.

0
9. Section 63.645 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.645  Test methods and procedures for miscellaneous process 
vents.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Where the recalculated TOC emission rate is greater than 33 
kilograms per day for an existing source or greater than 6.8 kilograms 
per day for a new source, the owner or operator shall submit a report 
as specified in Sec.  63.655(f), (g), or (h) and shall comply with the 
appropriate provisions in Sec.  63.643 by the dates specified in Sec.  
63.640.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.646 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.646  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) An owner or operator may use good engineering judgment or test 
results to determine the stored liquid weight percent total organic HAP 
for purposes of group determination. Data, assumptions, and procedures 
used in the determination shall be documented.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.650 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows.


Sec.  63.650  Gasoline loading rack provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this 
section, each owner or operator of a Group 1 gasoline loading rack 
classified under Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 located 
within a contiguous area and under common control with a petroleum 
refinery shall comply with subpart R, Sec. Sec.  63.421, 63.422(a) 
through (c) and (e), 63.425(a) through (c) and (i), 63.425(e) through 
(h), 63.427(a) and (b), and 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) through (3), 
and (k).
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.651 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.651  Marine tank vessel loading operation provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section, each

[[Page 55686]]

owner or operator of a marine tank vessel loading operation located at 
a petroleum refinery shall comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.560 through 63.568.
* * * * *
    (c) The notification reports under Sec.  63.567(b) are not 
required.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.652 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(5);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(1); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (l)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.652  Emissions averaging provisions.

    (a) This section applies to owners or operators of existing sources 
who seek to comply with the emission standard in Sec.  63.642(g) by 
using emissions averaging according to Sec.  63.642(l) rather than 
following the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.643 through 63.647, and 
Sec. Sec.  63.650 and 63.651. Existing marine tank vessel loading 
operations located at the Valdez Marine Terminal source may not comply 
with the standard by using emissions averaging.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Record and report quarterly and annual credits and debits in 
the Periodic Reports as specified in Sec.  63.655(g)(8). Every fourth 
Periodic Report shall include a certification of compliance with the 
emissions averaging provisions as required by Sec.  63.655(g)(8)(iii).
    (f) * * *
    (3) For emission points for which continuous monitors are used, 
periods of excess emissions as defined in Sec.  63.655(g)(6)(i). * * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) The percent reduction for a control device shall be measured 
according to the procedures and test methods specified in Sec.  
63.565(d) of subpart Y. * * *
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of excess 
emissions in the Periodic Reports as required in Sec.  63.655(g)(6).
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.653 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2)(vii) introductory 
text, and (d)(2)(viii)(G) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.653  Monitoring, recordkeeping, and implementation plan for 
emissions averaging.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) If an emission point in an emissions average is controlled 
using a pollution prevention measure or a device or technique for which 
no monitoring parameters or inspection procedures are specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.643 through 63.647 and Sec. Sec.  63.650 and 63.651, the 
owner or operator shall establish a site-specific monitoring parameter 
and shall submit the information specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(4) in the 
Implementation Plan.
    (b) Records of all information required to calculate emission 
debits and credits and records required by Sec.  63.655 shall be 
retained for 5 years.
    (c) Notifications of Compliance Status report, Periodic Reports, 
and other reports shall be submitted as required by Sec.  63.655.
    (d) Each owner or operator of an existing source who elects to 
comply with Sec.  63.655(g) and (h) by using emissions averaging for 
any emission points shall submit an Implementation Plan.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) The information specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(4) for:
* * * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (G) For each pollution prevention measure, treatment process, or 
control device used to reduce air emissions of organic HAP from 
wastewater and for which no monitoring parameters or inspection 
procedures are specified in Sec.  63.647, the information specified in 
Sec.  63.655(h)(4) shall be included in the Implementation Plan.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  63.654 and 63.655  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.655 and 
63.656]

0
15. Sections 63.654 and 63.655 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.655 
and 63.656.

0
16. Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.654  Heat exchange systems.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the owner 
or operator of a heat exchange system that meets the criteria in Sec.  
63.640(c)(8) must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c) 
through (g) of this section.
    (b) A heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in 
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section if it meets any one of the 
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of this section.
    (1) All heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service within the 
heat exchange system that either:
    (i) Operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water side at 
least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the process 
side; or
    (ii) Employ an intervening cooling fluid, containing less than 5 
percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, 
between the process and the cooling water. This intervening fluid must 
serve to isolate the cooling water from the process fluid and must not 
be sent through a cooling tower or discharged. For purposes of this 
section, discharge does not include emptying for maintenance purposes.
    (2) The heat exchange system cools process fluids that contain less 
than 5 percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart 
(i.e., the heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers 
that are in organic HAP service as defined in this subpart).
    (c) The owner or operator must perform monthly monitoring to 
identify leaks of total strippable volatile organic compound (VOC) from 
each heat exchange system subject to the requirements of this subpart 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Collect and analyze a sample from each cooling tower return 
line prior to exposure to air for each heat exchange system in organic 
HAP service or from each heat exchanger exit line for each heat 
exchanger or group of heat exchangers in organic HAP service within 
that heat exchange system to determine the total strippable VOC 
concentration (as methane) from the air stripping testing system using 
``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision 
Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 
Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). 
The owner or operator of a once-through heat exchange system may elect 
to also monitor monthly (in addition to monitoring each heat exchanger 
exit line) the fresh water feed line prior to any heat exchanger to 
determine the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) prior to 
the heat exchange system using the Modified El Paso Method.

[[Page 55687]]

    (2) For a heat exchange system at an existing source, a leak is a 
total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 
6.2 ppmv or greater. For a heat exchange system at a new source, a leak 
is a total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) in the stripping 
gas of 3.1 ppmv or greater.
    (d) If a leak is detected, the owner or operator must repair the 
leak to reduce the measured concentration to below the applicable 
action level as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after 
identifying the leak, except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of 
this section. Actions that can be taken to achieve repair include but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as 
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
    (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
    (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process 
fluid;
    (4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
    (5) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise removing the leaking heat 
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
    (e) If the owner or operator detects a leak when monitoring a 
cooling tower return line under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 
owner or operator may conduct additional monitoring to identify leaks 
of total strippable VOC emissions using Modified El Paso Method from 
each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in organic HAP service 
associated with the heat exchange system for which the leak was 
detected. If the additional monitoring shows that the total strippable 
VOC concentration in the stripped air at the heat exchanger exit line 
for each heat exchanger in organic HAP service is less than 6.2 ppmv 
for existing sources or less than 3.1 ppmv for new sources, the heat 
exchange system is excluded from repair requirements in paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (f) The owner or operator may delay the repair of a leaking heat 
exchanger when one of the conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) 
of this section is met. The owner or operator must determine if a delay 
of repair is necessary as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 
days after first identifying the leak.
    (1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and 
the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) is initially and 
remains less than 62 ppmv for all monthly monitoring periods during the 
delay of repair, the owner or operator may delay repair until the next 
scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange system. If, during subsequent 
monthly monitoring, the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) 
is 62 ppmv or greater, the owner or operator must repair the leak 
within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the leak was equal to 
or exceeded 62 ppmv total strippable VOC (as methane), except as 
provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (2) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not 
available and the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) is 
initially and remains less than 62 ppmv for all monthly monitoring 
periods during the delay of repair, the owner or operator may delay the 
repair for a maximum of 120 calendar days. The owner or operator must 
demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel were not 
available. If, during subsequent monthly monitoring, the total 
strippable VOC concentration (as methane) is 62 ppmv or greater, the 
owner or operator must repair the leak within 30 days of the monitoring 
event in which the leak was equal to or exceeded 62 ppmv total 
strippable VOC (as methane).
    (g) To delay the repair under paragraph (f) of this section, the 
owner or operator must record the information in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (g)(4) of this section.
    (1) The reason(s) for delaying repair.
    (2) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical.
    (3) The date and concentration of the leak as first identified and 
the results of all subsequent monthly monitoring events during the 
delay of repair.
    (4) An estimate of the potential emissions from the leaking heat 
exchange system or heat exchanger following the procedures in 
paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Determine the total strippable VOC concentration in the cooling 
water, in parts per million by weight (ppmw), using equation 7-1 from 
``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision 
Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 
Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), 
based on the total strippable concentration in the stripped air, ppmv, 
from monitoring.
    (ii) Calculate the VOC emissions for the leaking heat exchange 
system or heat exchanger by multiplying the VOC concentration in the 
cooling water, ppmw, by the flow rate of the cooling water from the 
leaking tower or heat exchanger and by the expected duration of the 
delay.

0
17. Newly redesignated Sec.  63.655 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(vi);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text and (g)(8)(ii)(C);
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(9);
0
h. Redesignating existing paragraph (i)(4) as (i)(5); and
0
i. Adding paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows.


Sec.  63.655  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Each owner or operator subject to the gasoline loading rack 
provisions in Sec.  63.650 shall comply with the recordkeeping and 
reporting provisions in Sec.  63.428 (b) and (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) 
through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart R.* * *
    (c) Each owner or operator subject to the marine tank vessel 
loading operation standards in Sec.  63.651 shall comply with the 
recordkeeping and reporting provisions in Sec.  63.567(a) and Sec.  
63.567(c) through (k) of subpart Y.* * *
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The Notification of Compliance Status report shall include the 
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vi) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (vi) For each heat exchange system, identification of the heat 
exchange systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (g) The owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall 
submit Periodic Reports no later than 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period when any of the compliance exceptions specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section or paragraph (g)(9) of 
this section occur. The first 6-month period shall begin on the date 
the Notification of Compliance Status report is required to be 
submitted. A Periodic Report is not required if none of the compliance 
exceptions identified in paragraph (g)(1) through (6) of this section 
or paragraph (g)(9) of this section occurred during the 6-month period 
unless emissions averaging is utilized. Quarterly reports must be 
submitted for emission points included in emission averages, as 
provided in

[[Page 55688]]

paragraph (g)(8) of this section. An owner or operator may submit 
reports required by other regulations in place of or as part of the 
Periodic Report required by this paragraph if the reports contain the 
information required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (9) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) The information required to be reported by Sec.  63.567(e)(4) 
and (j)(3) of subpart Y for each marine tank vessel loading operation 
included in an emissions average, unless the information has already 
been submitted in a separate report;
* * * * *
    (9) For heat exchange systems, Periodic Reports must include the 
following information:
    (i) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service.
    (ii) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service found to be 
leaking.
    (iii) A summary of the monitoring data that indicate a leak, 
including the number of leaks determined to be equal to or greater than 
the leak definitions specified in Sec.  63.654(c)(2);
    (iv) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the 
source of the leak was identified, and the date of repair;
    (v) If applicable, a summary of each delayed repair, including the 
original date and reason for the delay and the date of repair, if 
repaired during the reporting period; and
    (vi) If applicable, an estimate of VOC emissions for each delayed 
repair over the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a heat exchange system subject to the 
monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654 shall comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
    (i) Identification of all heat exchangers at the facility and the 
average annual HAP concentration of process fluid or intervening 
cooling fluid estimated when developing the Notification of Compliance 
Status report.
    (ii) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are in 
organic HAP service. For each heat exchange system that is subject to 
this subpart, this must include identification of all heat exchangers 
within each heat exchange system, identification of the individual heat 
exchangers in organic HAP service within each heat exchange system, 
and, for closed-loop recirculation systems, the cooling tower included 
in each heat exchange system.
    (iii) Results of the following monitoring data for each monthly 
monitoring event:
    (A) Date/time of event.
    (B) Barometric pressure.
    (C) El Paso air stripping apparatus water flow (ml/min) and air 
flow, ml/min, and air temperature, [deg]C.
    (D) FID reading (ppmv).
    (E) Heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return line flow 
at the El Paso monitoring location, gal/min.
    (F) Calibration information identified in Section 5.4.2 of the 
Modified El Paso Method, incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14(n).
    (iv) The date when a leak was identified and the date when the heat 
exchanger was repaired or taken out of service.
    (vi) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the schedule 
for completing the repair, and the estimate of potential emissions for 
the delay of repair.
* * * * *

0
18. Newly redesignated Sec.  63.656 is amended by revising the first 
sentence of paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.656  Implementation and enforcement.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.640, 63.642(g) through (l), 63.643, 63.646 through 63.652, and 
63.654. * * *
* * * * *

0
19. Tables 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the appendix to subpart CC are revised 
and footnotes d, f, and g to table 10 are revised to read as follows:

Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63--Tables

                    Table 1--Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Chemical name                          CAS No.\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene....................................................        71432
Biphenyl...................................................        92524
Butadiene (1,3)............................................       106990
Carbon disulfide...........................................        75150
Carbonyl sulfide...........................................       463581
Cresol (mixed isomers \b\).................................      1319773
Cresol (m-)................................................       108394
Cresol (o-)................................................        95487
Cresol (p-)................................................       106445
Cumene.....................................................        98828
Dibromoethane (1,2) (ethylene dibromide)...................       106934
Dichloroethane (1,2).......................................       107062
Diethanolamine.............................................       111422
Ethylbenzene...............................................       100414
Ethylene glycol............................................       107211
Hexane.....................................................       110543
Methanol...................................................        67561
Methyl isobutyl ketone (hexone)............................       108101
Methyl tert butyl ether....................................      1634044
Naphthalene................................................        91203
Phenol.....................................................       108952
Toluene....................................................       108883
Trimethylpentane (2,2,4)...................................       540841
Xylene (mixed isomers \b\).................................      1330207
xylene (m-)................................................       108383
xylene (o-)................................................        95476
xylene (p-)................................................       106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CAS number = Chemical Abstract Service registry number assigned to
  specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds.
\b\ Isomer means all structural arrangements for the same number of
  atoms of each element and does not mean salts, esters, or derivatives.

* * * * *

     Table 4--Gasoline Distribution Emission Point Recordkeeping and
                        Reporting Requirements a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (section of
         subpart Y)                Description             Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.428(b) or (k)............  Records of test
                               results for each
                               gasoline cargo tank
                               loaded at the
                               facility.
63.428(c)...................  Continuous
                               monitoring data
                               recordkeeping
                               requirements.
63.428(g)(1)................  Semiannual report     Required to be
                               loading rack          submitted with the
                               information.          Periodic Report
                                                     required under 40
                                                     CFR part 63,
                                                     subpart CC.
63.428(h)(1) through (h)(3).  Excess emissions      Required to be
                               report loading rack   submitted with the
                               information.          Periodic Report
                                                     required under 40
                                                     CFR part 63,
                                                     subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table does not include all the requirements delineated under
  the referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific
  requirements.


[[Page 55689]]


  Table 5--Marine Vessel Loading Operations Recordkeeping and Reporting
                             Requirements a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (section of
         subpart Y)                Description             Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.562(e)(2)................  Operation and
                               maintenance plan
                               for control
                               equipment and
                               monitoring
                               equipment.
63.565(a)...................  Performance test/     The information
                               site test plan.       required under this
                                                     paragraph is to be
                                                     submitted with the
                                                     Notification of
                                                     Compliance Status
                                                     report required
                                                     under 40 CFR part
                                                     63, subpart CC.
63.565(b)...................  Performance test
                               data requirements.
63.567(a)...................  General Provisions
                               (subpart A)
                               applicability.
63.567(c)...................  Request for
                               extension of
                               compliance.
63.567(d)...................  Flare recordkeeping
                               requirements.
63.567(e)...................  Summary report and    The information
                               excess emissions      required under this
                               and monitoring        paragraph is to be
                               system performance    submitted with the
                               report requirements.  Periodic Report
                                                     required under 40
                                                     CFR part 63,
                                                     subpart CC.
63.567(f)...................  Vapor collection
                               system engineering
                               report.
63.567(g)...................  Vent system valve
                               bypass
                               recordkeeping
                               requirements.
63.567(h)...................  Marine vessel vapor-
                               tightness
                               documentation.
63.567(i)...................  Documentation file
                               maintenance.
63.567(j)...................  Emission estimation
                               reporting and
                               recordkeeping
                               procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table does not include all the requirements delineated under
  the referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific
  requirements.


                            Table 6--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Reference                           Applies to subpart CC                 Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(2).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(3).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(4).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(5).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.1(a)(6).........................................  Yes..........................  Except the correct mail drop
                                                                                     (MD) number is C404-04.
63.1(a)(7)-63.1(a)(9)..............................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.1(a)(10)........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(11)........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(a)(12)........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(b)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(b)(2).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.1(b)(3).........................................  No...........................
63.1(c)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.1(c)(2).........................................  No...........................  Area sources are not subject
                                                                                     to subpart CC.
63.1(c)(3)-63.1(c)(4)..............................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.1(c)(5).........................................  Yes..........................  Except that sources are not
                                                                                     required to submit
                                                                                     notifications overridden by
                                                                                     this table.
63.1(d)............................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.1(e)............................................  No...........................  No CAA section 112(j)
                                                                                     standard applies to the
                                                                                     affected sources under
                                                                                     subpart CC.
63.2...............................................  Yes..........................  Sec.   63.641 of subpart CC
                                                                                     specifies that if the same
                                                                                     term is defined in subparts
                                                                                     A and CC, it shall have the
                                                                                     meaning given in subpart
                                                                                     CC.
63.3...............................................  Yes..........................
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2)..............................  Yes..........................
63.4(a)(3)-63.4(a)(5)..............................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.4(b)............................................  Yes..........................
63.4(c)............................................  Yes..........................
63.5(a)............................................  Yes..........................
63.5(b)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.5(b)(2).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.5(b)(3).........................................  Yes..........................
63.5(b)(4).........................................  Yes..........................  Except the cross-reference
                                                                                     to Sec.   63.9(b) is
                                                                                     changed to Sec.
                                                                                     63.9(b)(4) and (5). Subpart
                                                                                     CC overrides Sec.   63.9
                                                                                     (b)(2).
63.5(b)(5).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.5(b)(6).........................................  Yes..........................
63.5(c)............................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.5(d)(1)(i)......................................  Yes..........................  Except that the application
                                                                                     shall be submitted as soon
                                                                                     as practicable before
                                                                                     startup, but no later than
                                                                                     90 days after the
                                                                                     promulgation date of
                                                                                     subpart CC if the
                                                                                     construction or
                                                                                     reconstruction had
                                                                                     commenced and initial
                                                                                     startup had not occurred
                                                                                     before the promulgation of
                                                                                     subpart CC.
63.5(d)(1)(ii).....................................  Yes..........................  Except that for affected
                                                                                     sources subject to subpart
                                                                                     CC, emission estimates
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) are not
                                                                                     required.
63.5(d)(1)(iii)....................................  No...........................  Subpart CC Sec.   63.655(f)
                                                                                     specifies Notification of
                                                                                     Compliance Status report
                                                                                     requirements.
63.5(d)(2).........................................  Yes..........................
63.5(d)(3).........................................  Yes..........................

[[Page 55690]]


63.5(d)(4).........................................  Yes..........................
63.5(e)............................................  Yes..........................
63.5(f)............................................  Yes..........................
63.6(a)............................................  Yes..........................
63.6(b)(1)-63.6(b)(5)..............................  No...........................  Subpart CC specifies
                                                                                     compliance dates and
                                                                                     notifications for sources
                                                                                     subject to subpart CC.
63.6(b)(6).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(b)(7).........................................  Yes..........................
63.6(c)(1)-63.6(c)(2)..............................  No...........................  Sec.   63.640 of subpart CC
                                                                                     specifies the compliance
                                                                                     date.
63.6(c)(3)-63.6(c)(4)..............................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(c)(5).........................................  Yes..........................  ............................
63.6(d)............................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(e)(1).........................................  Yes..........................  Except the startup,
                                                                                     shutdown, or malfunction
                                                                                     plan does not apply to
                                                                                     Group 2 emission points
                                                                                     that are not part of an
                                                                                     emissions averaging
                                                                                     group.\b\
63.6(e)(2).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(e)(3)(i)......................................  Yes..........................  Except the startup,
                                                                                     shutdown, or malfunction
                                                                                     plan does not apply to
                                                                                     Group 2 emission points
                                                                                     that are not part of an
                                                                                     emissions averaging
                                                                                     group.\b\
63.6(e)(3)(ii).....................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(e)(3)(iii)-63.6(e)(3)(ix).....................  Yes..........................  Except the reports specified
                                                                                     in Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iv) do
                                                                                     not need to be reported
                                                                                     within 2 and 7 days of
                                                                                     commencing and completing
                                                                                     the action, respectively,
                                                                                     but must be included in the
                                                                                     next periodic report.
63.6 (f)(1)........................................  Yes..........................  Except for the heat exchange
                                                                                     system standards, which
                                                                                     apply at all times.
63.6(f)(2) and (3).................................  Yes..........................  Except the phrase ``as
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.7(c)'' in Sec.
                                                                                     63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D) does not
                                                                                     apply because subpart CC
                                                                                     does not require a site-
                                                                                     specific test plan.
63.6(g)............................................  Yes..........................
63.6(h)(1) and 63.6(h)(2)..........................  Yes..........................  Except Sec.
                                                                                     63.6(h)(2)(ii), which is
                                                                                     reserved.
63.6(h)(3).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.6(h)(4).........................................  No...........................  Notification of visible
                                                                                     emission test not required
                                                                                     in subpart CC.
63.6(h)(5).........................................  No...........................  Visible emission
                                                                                     requirements and timing is
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.645(i) of subpart CC.
63.6(h)(6).........................................  Yes..........................
63.6(h)(7).........................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     opacity standards.
63.6(h)(8).........................................  Yes..........................
63.6(h)(9).........................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     opacity standards.
63.6(i)............................................  Yes..........................  Except for Sec.
                                                                                     63.6(i)(15), which is
                                                                                     reserved.
63.6(j)............................................  Yes..........................
63.7(a)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.7(a)(2).........................................  Yes..........................  Except test results must be
                                                                                     submitted in the
                                                                                     Notification of Compliance
                                                                                     Status report due 150 days
                                                                                     after compliance date, as
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(f) of subpart CC.
63.7(a)(3).........................................  Yes..........................
63.7(a)(4).........................................  Yes..........................
63.7(b)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC requires
                                                                                     notification of performance
                                                                                     test at least 30 days
                                                                                     (rather than 60 days) prior
                                                                                     to the performance test.
63.7(c)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     a site-specific test plan.
63.7(d)............................................  Yes..........................
63.7(e)(1).........................................  Yes..........................  Except the performance test
                                                                                     must be conducted at the
                                                                                     maximum representative
                                                                                     capacity as specified in
                                                                                     Sec.   63.642(d)(3) of
                                                                                     subpart CC.
63.7(e)(2)-63.7(e)(4)..............................  Yes..........................
63.7(f)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC specifies
                                                                                     applicable methods and
                                                                                     provides alternatives
                                                                                     without additional
                                                                                     notification or approval.
63.7(g)............................................  No...........................  Performance test reporting
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(f).
63.7(h)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.7(h)(2).........................................  Yes..........................
63.7(h)(3).........................................  Yes..........................  Yes, except site-specific
                                                                                     test plans shall not be
                                                                                     required, and where Sec.
                                                                                     63.7(g)(3) specifies
                                                                                     submittal by the date the
                                                                                     site-specific test plan is
                                                                                     due, the date shall be 90
                                                                                     days prior to the
                                                                                     Notification of Compliance
                                                                                     Status report in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(f).
63.7(h)(4)(i)......................................  Yes..........................
63.7(h)(4)(ii).....................................  No...........................  Site-specific test plans are
                                                                                     not required in subpart CC.
63.7(h)(4)(iii) and (iv)...........................  Yes..........................
63.7(h)(5).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(a)............................................  Yes..........................  Except Sec.   63.8(a)(3),
                                                                                     which is reserved.
63.8(b)............................................  Yes..........................
63.8(c)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(c)(2).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(c)(3).........................................  Yes..........................  Except that verification of
                                                                                     operational status shall,
                                                                                     at a minimum, include
                                                                                     completion of the
                                                                                     manufacturer's written
                                                                                     specifications or
                                                                                     recommendations for
                                                                                     installation, operation,
                                                                                     and calibration of the
                                                                                     system or other written
                                                                                     procedures that provide
                                                                                     adequate assurance that the
                                                                                     equipment would monitor
                                                                                     accurately.
63.8(c)(4).........................................  Yes..........................  Except Subpart CC specifies
                                                                                     the monitoring cycle
                                                                                     frequency specified in Sec.
                                                                                       63.8(c)(4)(ii) is ``once
                                                                                     every hour rather'' than
                                                                                     ``for each successive 15-
                                                                                     minute period.''
63.8(c)(5)-63.8(c)(8)..............................  No...........................

[[Page 55691]]


63.8(d)............................................  No...........................
63.8(e)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     performance evaluations;
                                                                                     however, this shall not
                                                                                     abrogate the
                                                                                     Administrator's authority
                                                                                     to require performance
                                                                                     evaluation under section
                                                                                     114 of the Clean Air Act.
63.8(f)(1).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(f)(2).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(f)(3).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(f)(4)(i)......................................  No...........................  Timeframe for submitting
                                                                                     request is specified in
                                                                                     Sec.   63.655(h)(5)(i) of
                                                                                     subpart CC.
63.8(f)(4)(ii).....................................  Yes..........................
63.8(f)(4)(iii)....................................  No...........................  Timeframe for submitting
                                                                                     request is specified in
                                                                                     Sec.   63.655(h)(5)(i) of
                                                                                     subpart CC.
63.8(f)(5).........................................  Yes..........................
63.8(f)(6).........................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     continuous emission
                                                                                     monitors.
63.8(g)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC specifies data
                                                                                     reduction procedures in
                                                                                     Sec.   63.655(i)(3).
63.9(a)............................................  Yes..........................  Except that the owner or
                                                                                     operator does not need to
                                                                                     send a copy of each
                                                                                     notification submitted to
                                                                                     the Regional Office of the
                                                                                     EPA as stated in Sec.
                                                                                     63.9(a)(4)(ii).
63.9(b)(1).........................................  Yes..........................  Except the notification of
                                                                                     compliance status report
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(f) of subpart CC may
                                                                                     also serve as the initial
                                                                                     compliance notification
                                                                                     required in Sec.
                                                                                     63.9(b)(1)(iii).
63.9(b)(2).........................................  No...........................  A separate Initial
                                                                                     Notification report is not
                                                                                     required under subpart CC.
63.9(b)(3).........................................  No...........................  Reserved.
63.9(b)(4).........................................  Yes..........................  Except for subparagraphs
                                                                                     Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(ii)
                                                                                     through (iv), which are
                                                                                     reserved.
63.9(b)(5).........................................  Yes..........................
63.9(c)............................................  Yes..........................
63.9(d)............................................  Yes..........................
63.9(e)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC requires
                                                                                     notification of performance
                                                                                     test at least 30 days
                                                                                     (rather than 60 days) prior
                                                                                     to the performance test and
                                                                                     does not require a site-
                                                                                     specific test plan.
63.9(f)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC does not require
                                                                                     advanced notification of
                                                                                     visible emissions test.
63.9(g)............................................  No...........................
63.9(h)............................................  No...........................  Subpart CC Sec.   63.655(f)
                                                                                     specifies Notification of
                                                                                     Compliance Status report
                                                                                     requirements.
63.9(i)............................................  Yes..........................
63.9(j)............................................  No...........................
63.10(a)...........................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(1)........................................  No...........................  Sec.   63.644(d) of subpart
                                                                                     CC specifies record
                                                                                     retention requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(iii)...................................  No...........................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(v).....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(vii)...................................  No...........................
63.10(b)(2)(viii)..................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(ix)....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(x).....................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(xi)....................................  No...........................
63.10(b)(2)(xii)...................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..................................  No...........................
63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...................................  Yes..........................
63.10(b)(3)........................................  No...........................
63.10(c)(1)-63.10(c)(6)............................  No...........................
63.10(c)(7) and 63.10(c)(8)........................  Yes..........................
63.10(c)(9)-63.10(c)(15)...........................  No...........................
63.10(d)(1)........................................  Yes..........................
63.10(d)(2)........................................  No...........................  Sec.   63.655(f) of subpart
                                                                                     CC specifies performance
                                                                                     test reporting.
63.10(d)(3)........................................  No...........................  Results of visible emissions
                                                                                     test are included in
                                                                                     Compliance Status Report as
                                                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(f).
63.10(d)(4)........................................  Yes..........................
63.10(d)(5)(i).....................................  Yes\b\.......................  Except that reports required
                                                                                     by Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)
                                                                                     may be submitted at the
                                                                                     same time as periodic
                                                                                     reports specified in Sec.
                                                                                     63.655(g) of subpart CC.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)....................................  Yes..........................  Except that actions taken
                                                                                     during a startup, shutdown,
                                                                                     or malfunction that are not
                                                                                     consistent with the
                                                                                     startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                     malfunction plan and that
                                                                                     cause the source to exceed
                                                                                     any applicable emission
                                                                                     limitation do not need to
                                                                                     be reported within 2 and 7
                                                                                     days of commencing and
                                                                                     completing the action,
                                                                                     respectively, but must be
                                                                                     included in the next
                                                                                     periodic report.
63.10(e)...........................................  No...........................
63.10(f)...........................................  Yes..........................
63.11-63.16........................................  Yes..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail
  (e.g., by fax or courier). Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not required.
\b\ The plan, and any records or reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction do not apply to Group 2 emission
  points that are not part of an emissions averaging group.


[[Page 55692]]


     Table 7--Fraction Measured (FM), Fraction Emitted (FE), and Fraction Removed (FR) for HAP Compounds in
                                               Wastewater Streams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Chemical name                     CAS No.\a\          Fm              Fe              Fr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.........................................           71432            1.00            0.80            0.99
Biphenyl........................................           92524            0.86            0.45            0.99
Butadiene (1,3).................................          106990            1.00            0.98            0.99
Carbon disulfide................................           75150            1.00            0.92            0.99
Cumene..........................................           98828            1.00            0.88            0.99
Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene dichloride).....          107062            1.00            0.64            0.99
Ethylbenzene....................................          100414            1.00            0.83            0.99
Hexane..........................................          110543            1.00            1.00            0.99
Methanol........................................           67561            0.85            0.17            0.31
Methyl isobutyl ketone (hexone).................          108101            0.98            0.53            0.99
Methyl tert butyl ether.........................         1634044            1.00            0.57            0.99
Naphthalene.....................................           91203            0.99            0.51            0.99
Trimethylpentane (2,2,4)........................          540841            1.00            1.00            0.99
xylene (m-).....................................          108383            1.00            0.82            0.99
xylene (o-).....................................           95476            1.00            0.79            0.99
xylene (p-).....................................          106423            1.00            0.82            0.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers,
  or mixtures of compounds.

* * * * *

Table 10--Miscellaneous Process Vents--Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements for Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction 
of Total Organic HAP Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts per Million by 
Volume

* * * * *
    \d\ NCS = Notification of Compliance Status Report described in 
Sec.  63.655.
* * * * *
    \f\ When a period of excess emission is caused by insufficient 
monitoring data, as described in Sec.  63.655(g)(6)(i)(C) or (D), 
the duration of the period when monitoring data were not collected 
shall be included in the Periodic Report.
    \g\ PR = Periodic Reports described in Sec.  63.655(g).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-25454 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
