National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units, 6930-6973 [05-2308]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6930-6973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2308]



[[Page 6929]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum 
Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and 
Sulfur Recovery Units; Final Rule and Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 6930]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0033; AD-FRL-7969-9]
RIN 2060-AK51


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming 
Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On April 11, 2002, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA), the EPA issued national emission standards to control 
hazardous air pollutants emitted from catalytic cracking units, 
catalytic reforming units, and sulfur recovery units at petroleum 
refineries. This action promulgates amendments to several sections of 
the existing standards. The amendments will change the affected source 
designations and add new compliance options for catalytic reforming 
units that use different types of emission control systems, new 
monitoring alternatives for catalytic cracking units and catalytic 
reforming units, and a new procedure for determining the metal or total 
chloride concentration on catalyst particles. The amendments will also 
defer technical requirements for most continuous parameter monitoring 
systems, clarify testing and monitoring requirements, and make 
editorial corrections.

DATES: The final amendments will be effective on April 11, 2005, unless 
we receive significant adverse comments by March 11, 2005, or by March 
28, 2005 if a public hearing is requested. If such comments are 
received, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
indicating which amendments, paragraph, or section will become 
effective and which amendments, paragraph, or section are being 
withdrawn due to adverse comment. Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or 
section of the direct final amendments for which we do not receive 
adverse comment will become effective on April 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0033, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, 
Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0033. 
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information, 
such as copyrighted materials, is not placed on the Internet and will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy form in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0033 (or A-97-36), EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room B102, 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 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert B. Lucas, Emission 
Standards Division (C439-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-0884, fax number (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: lucas.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category                NAICS code\1\   regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................           32411  Petroleum refineries
                                                     that operate
                                                     catalytic cracking
                                                     units, catalytic
                                                     reforming units, or
                                                     sulfur recovery
                                                     units.
Federal government................  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.....  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.


[[Page 6931]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1561 of the 
NESHAP for petroleum refineries: Catalytic cracking units, catalytic 
reforming units, and sulfur recovery units. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's direct final rule amendments will also be 
available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the 
direct final rule amendments will be placed on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the direct final amendments is available only by filing a 
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by April 11, 2005. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 
CAA, only an objection to the final amendments 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 the final amendments may not be 
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by 
the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Comments. We are publishing the amendments as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because we view the amendments as 
noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in 
the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing 
a separate document that will serve as the proposal for the amendments 
contained in this direct final rule in the event that significant 
adverse comments are filed. If we receive any significant adverse 
comments on one or more distinct amendments, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public which 
provisions will become effective and which provisions are being 
withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address all public comments 
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not 
institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Direct Final Rule Amendments
    A. How are we changing the affected source designations?
    B. How are we changing the testing and monitoring requirements 
for catalytic cracking units?
    C. What new procedure is available for determining the metal or 
total chloride concentration on catalyst particles?
    D. What new alternative is available for calculating the 
volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases from catalytic cracking units?
    E. What new monitoring alternative is available for a catalytic 
cracking unit with a wet scrubber if the unit is subject to the new 
source performance standards for petroleum refineries?
    F. How are we clarifying the emission limitations for catalytic 
reforming units?
    G. How are we changing the monitoring requirements for catalytic 
reforming units?
    H. What new options are available for a catalytic reforming unit 
with an internal scrubbing system?
    I. What new options are available for a catalytic reforming unit 
with a different type of control system?
    J. How are we changing the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems?
    K. What corrections are we making?
III. Summary of Non-Air Health, Environmental, Energy, and Cost 
Impacts
IV. 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 & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17762), we issued the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for catalytic cracking 
units (CCU), catalytic reforming units (CRU), and sulfur recovery units 
(SRU) at petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU). The NESHAP 
establish emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted 
from vents on the three types of process units, as well as work 
practice standards for by-pass lines. The NESHAP implement section 
112(d) of the CAA by requiring all petroleum refineries that are major 
sources to meet standards reflecting the application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT).
    After publication of the NESHAP, two industry trade associations 
and various individual refineries raised issues and questions regarding 
the applicability of the NESHAP and the technical requirements for 
installation, operation, and maintenance of continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS). The industry representatives and a control 
technology manufacturer also requested that we clarify the requirements 
for CRU depressurizing and purging, add more compliance provisions for 
CRU with internal scrubbing systems, and include new provisions for CRU 
that use emission control technologies other than scrubbers. The 
industry representatives also requested clarification of various 
performance testing and monitoring provisions. Other questions were 
raised at an implementation workshop held in January 2003. Today's 
direct final rule amendments respond to the issues raised since 
promulgation and will reduce compliance uncertainties, encourage the 
use of new control technologies, and improve understanding of the 
NESHAP requirements.
    In addition, since publication of the NESHAP, we have identified a 
number of minor technical and editorial errors requiring correction. 
Rather than publish a separate notice of corrections, we are including 
those changes along with the amendments.

II. Summary of the Direct Final Rule Amendments

A. How Are We Changing the Affected Source Designations?

    One of the issues raised by the industry representatives concerns 
the language in 40 CFR 63.1562 where we identified the affected sources 
as each CCU that regenerates catalyst, each CRU that regenerates 
catalyst, and each SRU and the tail gas treatment unit serving it. In 
designating the affected source as the unit rather than the vent or 
group of vents on the unit (as originally proposed), we inadvertently 
made the NESHAP more stringent for some facilities, and these 
facilities did not have an opportunity to comment on the change. 
Therefore, we are revising the designation of affected sources to be

[[Page 6932]]

more consistent with the rule as proposed. The direct final rule 
amendments define the process unit affected sources as:
     The process vent or group of process vents on fluidized 
CCU units that is associated with regeneration of the catalyst used in 
the unit (i.e., the catalyst regeneration flue gas vent).
     The process vent or group of process vents on CRU 
(including but not limited to semi-regenerative, cyclic, or continuous 
processes), that is associated with regeneration of the catalyst used 
in the unit. This affected source includes vents that are used during 
the unit depressurization, purging, coke burn, and catalyst 
rejuvenation.
     The process vent or group of process vents on Claus or 
other types of sulfur recovery plant units or the tail gas treatment 
units serving sulfur recovery plants that is associated with sulfur 
recovery.

B. How Are We Changing the Testing and Monitoring Requirements for 
Catalytic Cracking Units?

    The initial compliance provisions in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(1) require 
the owner or operator to install, operate, and maintain a CPMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1572 and Table 3 to subpart 
UUU. Facilities that are not subject to the new source performance 
standards (NSPS) for petroleum refineries and that elect to meet the 
particulate matter (PM) or nickel (Ni) limit in the NESHAP are required 
to monitor the gas flow rate to a wet scrubber. After promulgation, 
industry representatives recommended that we revise the CCU monitoring 
requirements to allow gas flow rate measurements before or after the 
control device. The direct final rule amendments revise the 
requirements in Table 3 to subpart UUU to allow measurement of the gas 
flow rate entering or exiting the control device. This change will 
improve implementation of the NESHAP and avoid unnecessary costs of 
changing current practices. The direct final rule amendments also 
revise the footnotes to Tables 3 and 7 to subpart UUU to change the 
citation for the alternative method for determining gas flow rate from 
40 CFR 63.1573(a) to 40 CFR 63.1573(a)(1) to accommodate the new 
alternative for calculating the volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases 
when computing the PM emissions rate.
    The initial compliance provisions in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(2) require 
the owner or operator to conduct a performance test for certain CCU 
according to the requirements in Table 4 to subpart UUU. After 
promulgation, industry representatives recommended that we delete the 
sampling rate requirements cited for EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A). According to the commenters, the sampling rate requirement 
is unnecessary because the method already includes appropriate sampling 
requirements. We agree and have deleted the 0.028 dry standard cubic 
meters per minute (dscm/min)/0.74 dry standard cubic feet per minute 
(dscf/min) sampling rate requirement from Table 4 to subpart UUU.

C. What New Procedure Is Available for Determining the Metal or Total 
Chloride Concentration on Catalyst Particles?

    The owner or operator of a CCU subject to a Ni limit for inorganic 
HAP emissions must determine the equilibrium catalyst (E-cat) Ni 
concentration value during the initial performance test and at frequent 
intervals afterward for monitoring requirements. Several methods are 
currently used within the industry for this purpose and are referenced 
in the NESHAP, as well as any alternative method satisfactory to the 
Administrator. Industry experts and vendors recommended that the NESHAP 
allow a new procedure that was not fully developed at the time the 
NESHAP were promulgated. The direct final rule amendments add the new 
procedure, ``Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles 
(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)'' to appendix A of subpart UUU. This 
procedure can be used to analyze catalyst particles (Ni compounds and 
total chlorides) from CCU, CRU, and other processes specified within 
EPA regulations. The direct final rule amendments revise Table 4 to 
subpart UUU to reference the new procedure.

D. What New Alternative is Available for Calculating the Volumetric 
Flow Rate of Exhaust Gases From Catalytic Cracking Units?

    The initial compliance provisions in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4) require 
the owner or operator of a CCU subject to the PM limit in the NSPS for 
petroleum refineries to compute the PM emission rate using Equation 1 
of 40 CFR 63.1564. This calculation requires measurement of the 
volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator 
(``Qr''). The direct final rule amendments revise the 
definition of ``Qr'' to refer to a new alternative procedure 
in 40 CFR 63.1573(a)(2) that can be used to determine the volumetric 
flow rate of exhaust gas. This procedure can be used by plants that 
have a gas analyzer installed in the catalytic cracking regenerator 
exhaust vent prior to the addition of air or other gas streams. The new 
alternative allows measurement of the flow rate after an electrostatic 
precipitator, but requires measurement of the flow rate before a carbon 
monoxide boiler.

E. What New Monitoring Alternative is Available for a Catalytic 
Cracking Unit With a Wet Scrubber if the Unit Is Subject to the New 
Source Performance Standards for Petroleum Refineries?

    The NSPS for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) 
require a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) for a fluidized 
CCU to demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity limit in 40 
CFR 60.102(a)(2). Subpart UUU requires facilities that are already 
subject to the NSPS to meet the NSPS requirements, including the 
opacity limit and COMS requirements.
    Technical experience has shown that COMS are not feasible for wet 
scrubber PM control systems. We have already acknowledged the technical 
problems associated with the use of COMS on wet scrubbers by requiring 
other monitoring methods (CPMS for pressure drop and liquid-to-gas 
ratio). However, these requirements apply under other compliance 
options and not to CCU already subject to the NSPS.
    Some facilities with CCU subject to the NSPS use wet scrubbers to 
meet the PM limit and already have alternative monitoring requirements 
approved under the NSPS. For these reasons, one industry representative 
requested that the NESHAP accept alternative monitoring requirements 
that have already been approved under the NSPS. Therefore, we are 
adding a new paragraph (f) to 40 CFR 63.1573 to provide for use of the 
approved alternative under subpart UUU.
    Monitoring alternatives for CCU subject to the NSPS that have 
already been approved may not meet the criteria for MACT standards. For 
example, the alternative may not include provisions for demonstrating 
continuous compliance such as meeting an operating limit, collecting 
and reducing monitoring data, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. 
While we cannot automatically approve an alternative that we have not 
seen, we see no reason to require a second formal approval process for 
the same control system and emission limit. To this end, we have added 
procedures for requesting alternative requirements specific to this 
situation.
    We are requiring that an owner or operator submit a copy of the 
approved alternative monitoring method in the notification of 
compliance status (or

[[Page 6933]]

before), along with a brief description of the continuous monitoring 
system, the applicable operating limit, and the continuous compliance 
requirements. We will contact you within 30 calendar days after 
receipt, to tell you if the alternative is approved. This alternative 
does not eliminate your responsibility to comply with the opacity 
limit, which would remain applicable for enforcement purposes. This 
option is not available to facilities that elect to comply with the 
NSPS requirements in subpart UUU. These facilities must request an 
alternative monitoring method under the procedures in 40 CFR 63.8(f).

F. How Are we Clarifying the Emission Limitations for Catalytic 
Reforming Units?

    The requirements for organic HAP emissions in 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) 
state that the CRU emissions and operating limits in Tables 15 and 16 
to subpart UUU apply to emissions from process vents that occur during 
depressuring and purging operations. The NESHAP specify in 40 CFR 
63.1566(a)(4) that the limits do not apply to depressurizing and 
purging operations when the reactor vent pressure is 5 pounds per 
square inch (psig) or less. Applicable process vents include those used 
during unit depressurization, purging, coke burn, catalyst 
rejuvenation, and reduction or activation purge. Industry 
representatives noted the current language is unclear as to whether the 
limits apply only to the initial depressurization cycle or include 
subsequent depressuring and purging cycles when the reactor pressure is 
greater than 5 psig. In response, we are amending 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) 
to clarify our intent regarding the control of organic HAP emissions 
from CRU depressurizing and purging.
    Our intent in the NESHAP was that the organic HAP requirements 
apply to the initial depressuring and catalyst purging operations that 
occur prior to coke burn-off. Organic HAP emissions are expected during 
the initial depressurization and catalyst purge cycles. No additional 
organic HAP emission controls are used during coke burn-off, beyond the 
combustion process inherent during this process, and our data indicate 
there are minimal organic emissions from coke burn-off and subsequent 
CRU regeneration cycle purges.
    Industry representatives suggested that we limit the applicability 
of the emissions limit to only the initial depressuring and first 
nitrogen purge. We do expect that, after some number of purges, the HAP 
concentration in the purge may be less than the required outlet HAP 
concentration from a combustion control device. Under the NESHAP, all 
purges greater than 5 psig go to a combustion control device (or 
equivalent combustion device), regardless of the HAP concentration in 
the affected stream.
    Initially, we attempted to specify the number of purges to be 
controlled because the organic HAP emissions would generally be very 
low beyond the first or second purge. However, our information 
indicates that the purging processes vary widely (e.g., different 
systems use different purge gases, different purge temperatures, and 
different amounts of purge gas per unit of catalyst). Consequently, 
specifying the number of purges that must be controlled does not 
necessarily reflect a performance level. Additionally, recent data show 
that, for some CRU purge conditions, subsequent purges after the 
initial nitrogen purge may contain substantial amounts of benzene--on 
the order of 100 parts per million by volume (ppmv), which translates 
to emissions of about 1 ton per year (tpy). For other process purging 
conditions, however, subsequent purges have very low levels of HAP. We 
concluded that mandating specific purging conditions would reduce 
operator flexibility and would make compliance, for certain CRU 
processes, to be technically infeasible. We decided, therefore, to 
clarify that uncontrolled purging operations greater than 5 psig are 
acceptable if the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration is less than 
the currently required outlet concentration of a combustion control 
device (i.e., less than 20 ppmv), and to provide compliance options for 
these purges.
    Furthermore, the background information supporting the performance 
achievable by a combustion control device indicates that the 20 ppmv 
emissions limit was established ``by compound exit concentration'' 
rather than by a specified indicator of TOC, such as propane. As the 
primary HAP of concern from these CRU depressuring and purging vents is 
benzene, it is more appropriate to establish the 20 ppmv emission limit 
as hexane (i.e., a C6 hydrocarbon) rather than as propane. 
We are, therefore, changing the CRU TOC concentration requirements 
(which are used as a surrogate for organic HAP) to 20 ppmv TOC or 
nonmethane TOC (dry basis as hexane), corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 
This applies to both the concentration limit for the control device and 
the concentration limit for emissions discharged directly to the 
atmosphere.
    This approach adds compliance options for ``uncontrolled'' purging 
cycles that are greater than 5 psig and less than 20 ppmv TOC (dry 
basis as hexane). First, the purging conditions used by the plant to 
remove organic HAP from the CRU catalyst during controlled purges prior 
to direct release to the atmosphere must be specified in the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. An initial performance test is 
conducted on the first directly released catalyst purge (following the 
purging conditions specified in the plan) to demonstrate that the 
purges specified in the plan effectively achieve the required emission 
limit. Subsequently, adherence to the purging procedures as specified 
in the plan is used to demonstrate continuous compliance.
    Industry representatives also requested that we clarify the 
emission limits for organic HAP emissions from CRU in 40 CFR 63.1567(a) 
to indicate which limits apply when different reactors in the CRU are 
regenerated in separate regeneration systems. The direct final rule 
amendments state that, in this case, the emission limits in Table 22 to 
subpart UUU apply to each separate regeneration system. The direct 
final rule amendments also clarify that the TOC outlet concentration 
limit is 20 ppmv dry basis as hexane.
    In response to industry comments, we expanded the number of test 
methods that can be use to measure organic HAP emissions. For the 98 
percent mass emission reduction standard, you can use EPA Method 25 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to directly measure nonmethane TOC as 
carbon or the combination of EPA Methods 25A and 18 in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, to determine nonmethane TOC emissions. If the outlet TOC 
concentration is expected to be less than 50 ppmv (as carbon), you can 
use EPA Method 25A to measure the TOC concentration as hexane. For the 
20 ppmv concentration limit, you can measure the TOC concentration 
using EPA Method 25A or determine the nonmethane TOC concentration 
using the combination of Methods 25A and 18. We made changes to the 
equations in 40 CFR 63.1564 and relevant tables to make these 
distinctions. We also added a definition of ``nonmethane TOC'' to 40 
CFR 63.1579.
    The direct final rule amendments also clarify the inorganic HAP 
emission and operating limits to indicate that the requirements apply 
to each applicable CRU process vent during coke burn-off and catalyst 
rejuvenation. In response to industry comments, we are also changing 
the compliance equations in

[[Page 6934]]

40 CFR 63.1567 to allow for hydrogen chloride (HCl) measurements below 
detectable limits of the method after correction for oxygen content.

G. How Are we Changing the Monitoring Requirements for Catalytic 
Reforming Units?

    The NESHAP allow plants to measure and record the pH of the water 
(or scrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber at least once an hour as an 
alternative to a pH CPMS. After promulgation, industry representatives 
recommended that we allow alkalinity measurements as an alternative to 
pH. Alkalinity measurements are more reliable because they give the 
actual acid content of the water (or scrubbing liquid) while pH 
measurements indicate only how much (more or less) acid is needed. We 
agree and have changed 40 CFR 63.1573(b) to allow plants to measure and 
record the alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the 
wet scrubber at least once an hour during coke burn-off and catalyst 
rejuvenation using titration as an alternative to a CPMS. We have also 
changed Tables 23, 24, 25, and 28 to subpart UUU to include the 
alternative for alkalinity measurements. In response to industry 
comments, we have also allowed the pH alternative to apply to CRU 
meeting the HCl percent reduction standard.
    The NESHAP allow plants to measure the catalytic regenerator 
exhaust gas flow rate from a CCU as an approved alternative to a CPMS 
if the unit does not introduce any other gas streams into the catalyst 
regeneration vent (i.e., complete combustion units with no additional 
combustion devices). In response to industry comments, we have expanded 
the alternative in 40 CFR 63.1573(a) to apply to CRU that operate as a 
constant pressure system during the coke burn and rejuvenation cycles.
    After promulgation, industry representatives recommended that we 
also expand the CRU monitoring requirements to allow gas flow rate 
measurements before or after the control device. We agree and have 
changed Tables 24 and 25 of subpart UUU accordingly.
    In response to questions raised at implementation workshops for 
plant personnel, we have added provisions to the performance test 
requirements for CRU to reflect differences among semi-regenerative, 
cyclic, and continuous processes. The direct final rule amendments 
require plants to test semi-regenerative and cyclic units during the 
coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation cycle. However, the tests 
cannot be done during the first hour or the last 6 hours of the cycle 
for a semi-regenerative unit, or during the first hour or the last 2 
hours of the cycle for a cyclic regeneration unit. Plants must conduct 
the performance test for a continuous regeneration unit no sooner than 
3 days after the process unit or control system startup.

H. What New Options Are Available For a Catalytic Reforming Unit With 
an Internal Scrubbing System?

    Industry representatives expressed concern that the NESHAP do not 
contain provisions allowing a CRU with an internal scrubbing system to 
meet the percent reduction standard instead of the concentration limit 
for HCl emissions.
    The direct final rule amendments change the rule language related 
to the HCl emissions limits (and other provisions) by removing the 
phrase ``using a control device.'' These changes allow CRU with an 
internal scrubbing system or alternative emissions reduction technique 
to meet either the percent reduction standard or concentration limit. 
To improve understanding of the NESHAP, we have added a definition for 
``internal scrubbing system.'' The direct final rule amendments also 
add provisions to Tables 23 through 28 to subpart UUU for CRU with an 
internal scrubbing system meeting the HCl percent reduction standard 
and CRU with a fixed-bed or moving-bed gas-solid adsorption system.
    The direct final rule amendments establish operating limits and 
compliance provisions specific to CRU with an internal scrubbing system 
meeting the HCl percent reduction standard. The operating limits 
require plants to maintain the daily average pH or alkalinity of the 
water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system and 
the daily average liquid-to-gas ratio at or above the limit established 
during the performance test. Plants must conduct performance tests to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable HCl emission 
standard and to establish operating limits. Performance test procedures 
are given for each type of system. To demonstrate continuous 
compliance, plants must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to monitor 
during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation, the daily average pH or 
alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal 
scrubbing system, and the daily average liquid-to-gas ratio. Plants may 
use pH strips as an approved alternative to a pH CPMS, or discrete 
titration as an alternative to a CPMS for alkalinity.

I. What New Options Are Available For a Catalytic Reforming Unit With a 
Different Type of Control System?

    Industry representatives and technology vendors expressed concern 
that the NESHAP do not include compliance provisions for continuous CRU 
that may use process modifications, pollution prevention control 
techniques, or alternative control systems other than internal or 
external (add-on) wet scrubbers to comply with the emission 
limitations. A refinery process design firm provided data indicating 
that gas-solid adsorption systems can meet the HCl emission limitations 
for CRU. The system also acted as a pollution prevention technique by 
reducing the total amount of chloriding agent needed during catalyst 
regeneration. The direct final rule amendments add provisions to 
accommodate these control scenarios. The new provisions improve the 
NESHAP by encouraging the use of new technologies that meet the MACT 
level of control.
    Plants with a fixed-bed gas-adsorption system must meet two 
operating limits during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation:
     The daily average temperature of the gas entering or 
exiting the adsorption system must not exceed the limit established 
during the performance test; and
     The HCl concentration in the adsorption system exhaust gas 
must not exceed the limit established during the performance test.
    Plants must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance and to establish operating limits. To demonstrate continuous 
compliance, plants must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to monitor 
the daily average temperature of the gas entering or exiting the 
adsorption system. In addition, plants must monitor HCl during coke 
burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation using a colormetric tube sampling 
system to measure the concentration in the adsorption system exhaust 
and at a point within the adsorbent bed not to exceed 90 percent of the 
total length of the bed. If the HCl concentration at the sampling 
location with the adsorption bed exceeds the operating limit, plants 
must follow the procedures in their operation and maintenance plan. 
These procedures must require, at a minimum, that plants remeasure the 
HCl concentration at both the adsorption system exhaust and at the 
sampling location within the adsorbent bed and replace the sorbent 
material in the bed before the next regeneration cycle if the HCl

[[Page 6935]]

concentration at either location is above the operating limit.
    The direct final rule amendments also establish operating limits 
and compliance provisions for CRU with moving-bed gas-solid adsorption 
systems. The operating limits are:
     The daily average temperature of the gas entering or 
exiting the adsorption system must not exceed the limit established 
during the performance test;
     The weekly average chloride level on the sorbent entering 
the adsorption system must not exceed the design or manufacturer's 
recommended limit (1.35 weight percent for the ChlorsorbTM 
system); and
     The weekly average chloride level on the sorbent exiting 
the adsorption system must not exceed the design or manufacturer's 
recommended limit (1.8 weight percent for the ChlorsorbTM 
system).
    Plants must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance and to establish an operating limit for the daily average 
gas temperature. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants must 
monitor the daily average gas temperature using a CPMS. To demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the operating limits for chloride level, 
plants must collect and analyze samples of the sorbent entering and 
exiting the system for total chloride concentration using the new 
procedure, ``Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles 
(Instrument Analyzer Procedure)'' in appendix A of these direct final 
amendments or the specified methods in EPA Publication No. SW-846, 
``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' 
(Revision 5, April 1998). Plants must determine and record the weekly 
chloride content and maintain the weekly average chloride content below 
the design operating limits.

J. How Are We Changing The Requirements For Continuous Parameter 
Monitoring Systems?

    The technical specifications for CPMS in Table 41 to subpart UUU 
were added to the NESHAP after proposal based on provisions we have 
included in other NESHAP. We included these provisions to ensure that 
CPMS are installed, calibrated, and operated in a manner that would 
yield accurate and reliable information on the performance of control 
devices. Industry representatives objected to the inclusion of such 
detailed requirements after proposal with no opportunity to comment on 
the provisions.
    We have decided not to include the performance specifications for 
CPMS in the rule at this time. As discussed in the preamble to the 
Generic MACT NESHAP amendments (67 FR 46260, July 12, 2002), we are 
currently developing Performance Specification (PS-17) for CPMS and 
quality assurance procedures that will apply to all sources subject to 
NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. A proposed rule for these specifications 
is expected to be available in 2005. This approach will avoid the 
possibility that the specifications ultimately issued for all NESHAP 
differ significantly from those in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.
    The NESHAP state that each CPMS must be installed, operated, and 
maintained according to the requirements in Table 41 of subpart UUU and 
in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's or other written 
procedures that provide adequate assurance that the equipment will 
monitor accurately. The amendments remove the reference to Table 41 
from 40 CFR 63.1572(c) for those CPMS that will be covered by PS-17 and 
quality assurance procedures. Until PS-17 is available, facilities must 
install, operate, and maintain CPMS in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's or other written procedures that provide adequate 
assurance that the equipment will monitor accurately.
    Table 41 to subpart UUU also contains requirements for pH strips 
and colormetric sampling systems. These requirements were added to the 
NESHAP in response to comments and are not expected to be covered by 
the new PS-17 and quality assurance procedures. Consequently, we have 
not removed these requirements from the table.

K. What Corrections Are We Making?

    We are correcting numbering errors and citations in several 
sections of the NESHAP. We are also amending the rule to correct 
publication errors in various tables.
    We are correcting a unit conversion error in Tables 1 through 3 to 
subpart UUU. These tables cite the incremental PM emission rate for 
discharged gases that pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler 
in which auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel is 
burned as 43.0 grams per Megajoule of heat input attributable to the 
liquid or solid fossil fuel. The corrected value is 43.0 grams per 
Gigajoule; no change is being made to the English unit equivalent limit 
(0.10 pound per million British thermal units). We are making several 
minor corrections to these tables to ensure that both limits are cited 
consistently and accurately.
    We are correcting Table 5 to subpart UUU to list the proper test 
methods required for PM performance tests for metal HAP emissions. The 
amended table requires EPA Method 5B or 5F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 
to determine PM emissions and associated moisture content for a unit 
without a wet scrubber; EPA Method 5B is required to determine PM 
emissions and associated moisture content for a unit with a wet 
scrubber.
    We are correcting Table 6 to subpart UUU to specify the use of 
Equation 1 (the proper equation for calculation of coke burn-off) 
rather than Equation 2.
    We are correcting Table 18 to subpart UUU to correct a 
typographical error in a cross reference to certain requirements for 
flares in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
    We are correcting Tables 31, 33, and 34 to subpart UUU to clarify 
the monitoring and compliance requirements for a sulfur recovery unit 
subject to the TRS limit. Under this option, the owner or operator may 
use a TRS continuous emission monitoring system or CPMS, and the 
continuous compliance requirements depend on the type of monitoring 
system. The direct final rule amendments separate the requirements 
according to the type of monitoring system and clarify that compliance 
is based on a 12-hour rolling average like the NSPS requirements.
    We also are clarifying our comment in the explanation column of 
Table 44 for the citation 40 CFR 63.6(i), which allows facilities to 
request a 1-year extension of compliance if necessary to install 
controls. We are revising the table to state that the extension of 
compliance under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4) is not applicable to a facility that 
installs catalytic cracking feed hydrotreating and receives an extended 
compliance date under 40 CFR 63.1563(c). We are also revising Table 44 
to subpart UUU to change the citation to 40 CFR 63.9(b)(3) to indicate 
its current reserved status under the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63).

III. Summary of Non-Air Health, Environmental, Energy, and Cost Impacts

    The NESHAP will reduce emissions of many HAP emitted from the 
affected sources at petroleum refineries, including particulate metals, 
organics, and reduced sulfur compounds. When fully implemented, we 
estimate that HAP emissions will be reduced by nearly 11,000 tpy. 
Emissions of other pollutants such as volatile organic

[[Page 6936]]

compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide 
will be reduced by about 60,000 tpy.
    There will not be any adverse non-air health, environmental, 
energy, cost (or economic) impacts as a result of the direct final rule 
amendments because no new requirements are imposed on any facility. The 
new option for CRU will allow for the use of new control technology to 
meet the HCl emission limitations, which may reduce the costs and 
energy impacts of add-on controls.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in 
standards that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the direct final rule amendments are 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive 
Order 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The direct final rule amendments consist primarily of new compliance 
options, clarifications, and corrections to the NESHAP that impose no 
new information collection requirements on industry or EPA. However, 
the OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements 
in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0554, EPA Information Collection 
Request (ICR) number 1844.02. A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be 
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data 
sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the direct final 
rule amendments.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations 
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's direct final rule 
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact 
of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility 
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may conclude that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 
otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities 
subject to the rule.
    There will be a positive impact on small entities because the 
direct final rule amendments add new compliance provisions to increase 
flexibility, decrease unnecessary costs, and make clarifying changes to 
improve implementation of the NESHAP. These changes are voluntary and 
do not impose new costs. We have, therefore, concluded that today's 
direct final rule amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all 
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments

[[Page 6937]]

to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA 
regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the direct final rule amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, 
or the private sector in any 1 year. No new costs are attributable to 
the direct final rule amendments. Thus, today's direct final rule 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the direct final rule 
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Thus, the direct final rule amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (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 direct final rule amendments do not have federalism 
implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because State and local governments do not own or operate any sources 
that would be subject to the direct final rule amendments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the direct final rule 
amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' The direct final rule amendments do 
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, 
because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to 
the direct final rule amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to the direct final rule amendments.

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

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

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

    The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Sec.  12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in the 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The direct final rule amendments include a new procedure, 
``Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles 
(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).'' This procedure was developed in 
consultation with industry experts and equipment vendors for the 
purpose of determining the metal or total chloride concentration on 
catalyst particles. This new procedure was not fully developed at the 
time the NESHAP were issued and reflects current practices used by many 
plants within the industry. The new procedure is not mandatory; plants 
also may use one of several existing EPA methods in ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication 
SW-846, Revision 5, April 1998) or an alternative method satisfactory 
to the Administrator.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted a search to identify 
voluntary consensus standards for use in determining the metal or total 
chloride concentration on catalyst particles. This search identified 
one voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D7085-04, ``Standard Guide for 
Determination of Chemical Elements in Fluid Catalytic Cracking 
Catalysts by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF).'' This method 
contains detailed sample preparation procedures that may be a useful 
supplement to the instrumental method included in the direct final rule 
amendments. However, we have not adopted ASTM D7085-04 as an 
alternative to the instrumental method because the method does not 
include equivalent procedures for determining zero and calibration 
drift, instrument energy calibration, and calibration accuracy, or 
specific quality assurance procedures for analyzing calibration 
standards or catalyst samples.

J. 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller

[[Page 6938]]

General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). The direct final rule amendments will be effective on 
April 11, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 1, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart UUU--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 63.1562 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1562  What parts of my plant are covered by this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The process vent or group of process vents on fluidized 
catalytic cracking units that are associated with regeneration of the 
catalyst used in the unit (i.e., the catalyst regeneration flue gas 
vent).
    (2) The process vent or group of process vents on catalytic 
reforming units (including but not limited to semi-regenerative, 
cyclic, or continuous processes) that are associated with regeneration 
of the catalyst used in the unit. This affected source includes vents 
that are used during the unit depressurization, purging, coke burn, and 
catalyst rejuvenation.
    (3) The process vent or group of process vents on Claus or other 
types of sulfur recovery plant units or the tail gas treatment units 
serving sulfur recovery plants, that are associated with sulfur 
recovery.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.1564(b)(4) is amended by revising the definition of the 
symbol ``Qr'' for Equation 1 of to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1564  What are my requirements for metal HAP emissions from 
catalytic cracking units?

* * * * *

Qr = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from catalyst 
regenerator before adding air or gas streams. Example: You may measure 
upstream or downstream of an electrostatic precipitator, but you must 
measure upstream of a carbon monoxide boiler, dscm/min (dscf/min). You 
may use the alternative in either Sec.  63.1573(a)(1) or (a)(2), as 
applicable, to calculate Qr;

* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1566 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(3);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i) introductory text;
0
c. Revising the definitions of the symbols ``E'' and ``Mc'' 
in Equation 1 of paragraph (b)(4)(i);
0
d. Revising Equation 2 of paragraph (b)(4)(i);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(4)(ii);
0
f. Revising Equation 4 in the newly designated paragraph (b)(4)(ii); 
and
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9) as (b)(5) through 
(b)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1566  What are my requirements for organic HAP emissions from 
catalytic reforming units?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) You can elect to meet a TOC or nonmethane TOC percent 
reduction standard or concentration limit, whichever is less stringent 
(Option 2).
* * * * *
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the 
emission limitations in Tables 15 and 16 of this subpart apply to 
emissions from catalytic reforming unit process vents associated with 
initial catalyst depressuring and catalyst purging operations that 
occur prior to the coke burn-off cycle. The emission limitations in 
Tables 15 and 16 of this subpart do not apply to the coke burn-off, 
catalyst rejuvenation, reduction or activation vents, or to the control 
systems used for these vents.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) If you elect the percent reduction standard under Option 2, 
calculate the emission rate of nonmethane TOC using Equation 1 of this 
section (if you use Method 25) or Equation 2 of this section (if you 
use Method 25A or Methods 25A and 18), then calculate the mass emission 
reduction using Equation 3 of this section as follows:
* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09FE05.000


Where:
E = Emission rate of nonmethane TOC in the vent stream, kilograms-C per 
hour;
* * * * *

Mc = Mass concentration of total gaseous nonmethane organic 
(as carbon) as measured and calculated using Method 25 in appendix A to 
part 60 of this chapter, mg/dscm; and
* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09FE05.001


Where:
K5 = Constant, 1.8 x 10-\4\ (parts per million) 
-\1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (gram-C per gram-
mole-hexane) (kilogram per gram) (minutes per hour), where the standard 
temperature (standard cubic meter) is at 20 degrees C (uses 72g-C/
g.mole hexane);
C TOC = Concentration of TOC on a dry basis in ppmv as 
hexane as measured by Method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter;
C methane = Concentration of methane on a dry basis in ppmv 
as measured by Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. If 
the concentration of methane is not determined, assume C 
methane equals zero; and
Q s = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard cubic meters per 
minute, at a temperature of 20 degrees C. * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09FE05.002


Where:
CNMTOC, 3[percnt]O2