§63.1413. Compliance demonstration procedures. — Inbound Citations

(2) Amino/phenolic resin. Process unit (APPU) means a collection of equipment assembled and connected by hardpiping or ductwork used to process raw materials and to manufacture an amino/phenolic resin as its primary product. This collection of equipment includes unit operations; process vents; storage vessels, as determined in § 63.1400(h); and the equipment that is subject to the equipment leak provisions as specified in § 63.1410. Utilities, lines and equipment not containing process fluids, and other non-process lines, such as heating and cooling systems which do not combine their materials with those in the processes they serve, are not part of the amino/phenolic resin process unit. An amino/phenolic resin process unit consists of more than one unit operation.

Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that are regulated under § 63.1404 or §§ 63.1409 through 63.1411 of this subpart.

Batch cycle means the operational step or steps, from start to finish, that occur as part of a batch unit operation.

Batch emission episode means a discrete emission venting episode associated with a single batch unit operation. Multiple batch emission episodes may occur from a single batch unit operation.

Batch mode means the discontinuous bulk movement of material through a unit operation. Mass, temperature, concentration, and other properties may vary with time. For a unit operation operated in a batch mode (i.e., batch unit operation), the addition of material and withdrawal of material do not typically occur simultaneously.

Batch process vent means a process vent from a batch unit operation within an affected source. Batch process vents are either reactor batch process vents or non-reactor batch process vents.

Batch unit operation means a unit operation operated in a batch mode.

Block means the time period that comprises a single batch cycle.

Combustion device burner means a device designed to mix and ignite fuel and air to provide a flame to heat and oxidize waste organic vapors in a combustion device.

Continuous mode means the continuous movement of material through a unit operation. Mass, temperature, concentration, and other properties typically approach steady-state conditions. For a unit operation operated in a continuous mode (i.e., continuous unit operation), the simultaneous addition of raw material and withdrawal of product is typical.

Continuous process vent means a process vent from a continuous unit operation within an affected source. Process vents that are serving as control devices are not subject to additional control requirements.

Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 15 minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in § 63.1416(c) or (h).

Continuous recorder means a data recording device that either records an instantaneous data value at least once every 15 minutes or records 1 hour or more frequent block average values.

Continuous unit operation means a unit operation operated in a continuous mode.

Control device means any combustion device, recovery device, or recapture device. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, incinerators, flares, boilers, and process heaters. For continuous process vents, recapture devices are considered control devices but recovery devices are not considered control devices. Condensers operating as process condensers are not considered control devices. For a condenser that sometimes operates as a process condenser to be considered a control device, it shall not be operating as a process condenser for a given batch emission episode, and it shall recycle of the recovered material within the process.

Control technology means any process modification or use of equipment that reduces organic HAP emissions. Examples include, but are not limited to, product reformulation to reduce solvent content and/or use, batch cycle time reduction to reduce the duration of emissions, reduction of nitrogen purge rate, and the lowering of process condenser coolant temperatures.

Controlled organic HAP emissions means the quantity of organic HAP discharged to the atmosphere from a control device.

Emission point means an individual continuous process vent, batch process vent, aggregate batch vent stream, storage vessel, equipment leak, or heat exchange system.

Equipment means , for the purposes of the provisions in § 63.1410, each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system in organic HAP service; and any control devices or systems required by § 63.1410. For purposes of this subpart, surge control vessels and bottom receivers are not equipment for purposes of regulating equipment leak emissions. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers are regulated as non-reactor batch process vents for the purposes of this subpart.

Equipment leak means emissions of organic HAP from a pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, or instrumentation system that either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight of total organic HAP.

Existing process unit means any process unit that is not a new process unit.

Flexible operations process unit means a process unit that periodically manufactures different chemical products, polymers, or resins by alternating raw materials or operating conditions. These units are also referred to as campaign plants or blocked operations.

Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to any flaking or drying operations.

Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through cooling water system (e.g., river or pond water) designed and intended to operate to not allow contact between the cooling medium and process fluid or gases (i.e., a noncontact system). A heat exchange system may include more than one heat exchanger and may include recirculating or once-through cooling systems.

Highest-HAP recipe for a product means the recipe of the product with the highest total mass of organic HAP charged to the reactor during the production of a single batch of product.

Initial start-up means the first time a new or reconstructed affected source begins production, or, for equipment added or changed, the first time the equipment is put into operation. Initial start-up does not include operation solely for testing equipment. Initial start-up does not include subsequent start-ups of an affected source or portion thereof following malfunctions or shutdowns, or following changes in product for flexible operation process units, or following recharging of equipment in batch operation. Further, for purposes of §§ 63.1401 and 63.1410, initial start-up does not include subsequent start-ups of affected sources or portions thereof following malfunctions or process unit shutdowns.

Inprocess recycling means a recycling operation in which recovered material is used by a unit operation within the same affected source. It is not necessary for recovered material to be used by the unit operation from which they were recovered.

Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining of process fluid from components in the APPU into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of portions of the APPU for repair. The generation of wastewater from the routine rinsing or washing of equipment in batch operation between batches is not maintenance wastewater for the purposes of this subpart.

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment, or failure of a process to operate in a normal or usual manner, or opening of a safety device which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.

Maximum representative operating conditions means, for purposes of testing or measurements required by § 63.1413, those conditions which reflect the highest organic HAP emissions reasonably expected to be vented to the control device or emitted to the atmosphere. For affected sources that produce the same product(s) using multiple recipes, the production of the highest-HAP recipe is reflective of maximum representative operating conditions.

Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by the total organic HAP in the stored liquid at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the liquid storage temperature for liquids stored above or below the ambient temperature, or at the local maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for liquids stored at the ambient temperature, as determined:

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(d) Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

(1) The Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 12 months prior to the compliance date. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved. For new affected sources, the Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction required by § 63.5(d), as specified on Table 1 of this subpart. Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.

(2) A request for an extension for compliance, as specified in § 63.1401(d), may be submitted in the Precompliance Report. The request for a compliance extension will include the data outlined in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D), as required in § 63.1401(d)(1).

(3) The alternative monitoring parameter information required in paragraph (j) of this section shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report if, for any emission point, the owner or operator of an affected source seeks to comply through the use of a control technique other than those for which monitoring parameters are specified in this subpart or seeks to comply by monitoring a different parameter than those specified in this subpart.

(4) If the affected source seeks to comply using alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information requested in paragraph (d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section in the Precompliance Report:

(i) The owner or operator shall submit notification of the intent to use the provisions specified in paragraph (k) of this section; or

(ii) The owner or operator shall submit a request for approval to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping provisions as specified in paragraph (k) of this section.

(5) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use alternative controls to comply with the provisions of this subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem the alternative controls to be equivalent to the controls required by the standard under the procedures outlined in § 63.6(g).

(6) If a request for approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C), is being made, the information required by § 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(B) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(7) If an owner or operator elects to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii), or will be establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3), the following information shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report:

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(ii) If the procedures in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) are to be used, a description of how performance test data will be used shall be included.

(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(9) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(10) The procedure for a control device controlling less than 1 ton per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be submitted, as specified in § 63.1415(a)(2). Such a procedure shall meet the requirements specified in § 63.1415(a)(2).

(11) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in a supplement to the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved.

(i) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to clarify or modify information previously submitted.

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(3) As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

(i) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level and include the additional information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for trays and a packed column scrubber:

(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays; and

(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed section.

(ii) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser shall be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP concentration.

(iii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.

(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(v) For an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 C, the design evaluation shall document that these conditions exist.

(vi) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, the design evaluation shall address the following characteristics, depending on the type of control device:

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, shall consider the vent stream flow rate, and shall establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate and shall establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, shall establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time, and shall describe the method and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.

(i) The daily average value, batch cycle daily average, or block average shall be calculated as the average of all parameter values recorded during the operating day, or batch cycle, as appropriate, except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. For batch process vents, only parameter values recorded during those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, in the batch cycle that the owner or operator has selected to control in order to comply shall be used to calculate the average. The calculated average shall cover a 24-hour period if operation is continuous, or the number of hours of operation per operating day if operation is not continuous for daily average values or batch cycle daily average values. The calculated average shall cover the entire period of the batch cycle for block average values. As specified in § 63.1413(a)(4)(i)(C)(3), the owner or operator shall provide the information needed to calculate batch cycle daily averages for operating days that include partial batch cycles.

(d) Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

(1) The Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 12 months prior to the compliance date. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved. For new affected sources, the Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction required by § 63.5(d), as specified on Table 1 of this subpart. Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.

(2) A request for an extension for compliance, as specified in § 63.1401(d), may be submitted in the Precompliance Report. The request for a compliance extension will include the data outlined in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D), as required in § 63.1401(d)(1).

(3) The alternative monitoring parameter information required in paragraph (j) of this section shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report if, for any emission point, the owner or operator of an affected source seeks to comply through the use of a control technique other than those for which monitoring parameters are specified in this subpart or seeks to comply by monitoring a different parameter than those specified in this subpart.

(4) If the affected source seeks to comply using alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information requested in paragraph (d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section in the Precompliance Report:

(i) The owner or operator shall submit notification of the intent to use the provisions specified in paragraph (k) of this section; or

(ii) The owner or operator shall submit a request for approval to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping provisions as specified in paragraph (k) of this section.

(5) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use alternative controls to comply with the provisions of this subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem the alternative controls to be equivalent to the controls required by the standard under the procedures outlined in § 63.6(g).

(6) If a request for approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C), is being made, the information required by § 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(B) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(7) If an owner or operator elects to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii), or will be establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3), the following information shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report:

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(ii) If the procedures in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) are to be used, a description of how performance test data will be used shall be included.

(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(9) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(10) The procedure for a control device controlling less than 1 ton per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be submitted, as specified in § 63.1415(a)(2). Such a procedure shall meet the requirements specified in § 63.1415(a)(2).

(11) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in a supplement to the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved.

(i) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to clarify or modify information previously submitted.

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(A) For an incinerator, non-combustion control device, or other control technology, the percent reduction of organic HAP achieved for emissions vented to the control device or control technology, as determined using the procedures specified in § 63.1413(e)(1);

(2) A site-specific test plan shall be submitted no later than 90 days before the planned date for a performance test. Unless the Administrator requests changes to the site-specific test plan within 45 days after its receipt, the site-specific test plan shall be deemed approved. The test plan shall include a description of the planned test and rationale for why the planned performance test will provide adequate and representative results for demonstrating the performance of the control device. If required by § 63.1413(e)(1) or § 63.1414(d)(5), the test plan shall include an emission profile and rationale for why the selected test period is representative.

(iv) Initial compliance with the percent reduction standards specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) and § 63.1407(a)(2)(ii) and (3)(ii) is achieved when the owner or operator demonstrates, following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, that the required percent reduction is achieved.

(iv) Initial compliance with the percent reduction standards specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) and § 63.1407(a)(2)(ii) and (3)(ii) is achieved when the owner or operator demonstrates, following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, that the required percent reduction is achieved.

(iv) Initial compliance with the percent reduction standards specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) and § 63.1407(a)(2)(ii) and (3)(ii) is achieved when the owner or operator demonstrates, following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, that the required percent reduction is achieved.

(ii) If a batch process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction requirements of § 63.1406(a)(1)(ii) or § 63.1407(a)(2)(ii), records documenting the batch cycle percent reduction or overall percent reduction, as appropriate, as specified in § 63.1413(e)(1)(iii).

(iv) For batch process vents, the required information shall include a definition of each batch cycle that requires the control of one or more batch emission episodes during the cycle, as specified in §§ 63.1413(e)(1)(iii) and 63.1416(c)(2)(ii).

(iii) The percent reduction for the batch cycle for an individual reactor batch process vent and the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source shall be determined using Equation 1 of this section and the control device efficiencies specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. All information used to calculate the batch cycle percent reduction for an individual reactor batch process vent, including a definition of the batch cycle identifying all batch emission episodes, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). All information used to calculate the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, including a list of all batch emission episodes from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). This information shall include identification of those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, selected for control. This information shall include estimates of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions for those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, that are not selected for control, determined as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D) or (E) of this section.

(A) When conducting a performance test, the control efficiency of the control device shall be determined following the procedures in § 63.1414(b)(4).

(B) For combustion control devices listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section and for flares, the control efficiency in Equation 1 of this section shall be 98 percent.

(C) If a performance test is not required, the control efficiency shall be based on the design evaluation specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.

(D) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(f)(6), to emit less than 10 tons per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, the owner or operator may use in Equation 1 of this section the emissions determined using engineering assessment or may determine organic HAP emissions using any of the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(E) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(d)(6), to emit 10 tons per year or greater of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, organic HAP emissions shall be estimated following the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(F) Owners or operators designating a condenser, sometimes operated as a process condenser, as a control device shall conduct inprocess recycling and follow the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.1416(d)(1)(vi).

(iii) The percent reduction for the batch cycle for an individual reactor batch process vent and the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source shall be determined using Equation 1 of this section and the control device efficiencies specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. All information used to calculate the batch cycle percent reduction for an individual reactor batch process vent, including a definition of the batch cycle identifying all batch emission episodes, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). All information used to calculate the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, including a list of all batch emission episodes from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). This information shall include identification of those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, selected for control. This information shall include estimates of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions for those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, that are not selected for control, determined as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D) or (E) of this section.

(A) When conducting a performance test, the control efficiency of the control device shall be determined following the procedures in § 63.1414(b)(4).

(B) For combustion control devices listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section and for flares, the control efficiency in Equation 1 of this section shall be 98 percent.

(C) If a performance test is not required, the control efficiency shall be based on the design evaluation specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.

(D) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(f)(6), to emit less than 10 tons per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, the owner or operator may use in Equation 1 of this section the emissions determined using engineering assessment or may determine organic HAP emissions using any of the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(E) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(d)(6), to emit 10 tons per year or greater of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, organic HAP emissions shall be estimated following the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(F) Owners or operators designating a condenser, sometimes operated as a process condenser, as a control device shall conduct inprocess recycling and follow the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.1416(d)(1)(vi).

(iii) The percent reduction for the batch cycle for an individual reactor batch process vent and the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source shall be determined using Equation 1 of this section and the control device efficiencies specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. All information used to calculate the batch cycle percent reduction for an individual reactor batch process vent, including a definition of the batch cycle identifying all batch emission episodes, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). All information used to calculate the overall percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, including a list of all batch emission episodes from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the affected source, shall be recorded as specified in § 63.1416 (d)(1)(ii). This information shall include identification of those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, selected for control. This information shall include estimates of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions for those batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, that are not selected for control, determined as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D) or (E) of this section.

(A) When conducting a performance test, the control efficiency of the control device shall be determined following the procedures in § 63.1414(b)(4).

(B) For combustion control devices listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section and for flares, the control efficiency in Equation 1 of this section shall be 98 percent.

(C) If a performance test is not required, the control efficiency shall be based on the design evaluation specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.

(D) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(f)(6), to emit less than 10 tons per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, the owner or operator may use in Equation 1 of this section the emissions determined using engineering assessment or may determine organic HAP emissions using any of the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(E) For batch process vents estimated through engineering assessment, as described in § 63.1414(d)(6), to emit 10 tons per year or greater of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, organic HAP emissions shall be estimated following the procedures specified in § 63.1414(d).

(F) Owners or operators designating a condenser, sometimes operated as a process condenser, as a control device shall conduct inprocess recycling and follow the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.1416(d)(1)(vi).

(A) Results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(e)(2).

(d) Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

(1) The Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 12 months prior to the compliance date. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved. For new affected sources, the Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction required by § 63.5(d), as specified on Table 1 of this subpart. Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.

(2) A request for an extension for compliance, as specified in § 63.1401(d), may be submitted in the Precompliance Report. The request for a compliance extension will include the data outlined in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D), as required in § 63.1401(d)(1).

(3) The alternative monitoring parameter information required in paragraph (j) of this section shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report if, for any emission point, the owner or operator of an affected source seeks to comply through the use of a control technique other than those for which monitoring parameters are specified in this subpart or seeks to comply by monitoring a different parameter than those specified in this subpart.

(4) If the affected source seeks to comply using alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information requested in paragraph (d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section in the Precompliance Report:

(i) The owner or operator shall submit notification of the intent to use the provisions specified in paragraph (k) of this section; or

(ii) The owner or operator shall submit a request for approval to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping provisions as specified in paragraph (k) of this section.

(5) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use alternative controls to comply with the provisions of this subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem the alternative controls to be equivalent to the controls required by the standard under the procedures outlined in § 63.6(g).

(6) If a request for approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C), is being made, the information required by § 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(B) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(7) If an owner or operator elects to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii), or will be establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3), the following information shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report:

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(ii) If the procedures in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) are to be used, a description of how performance test data will be used shall be included.

(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(9) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(10) The procedure for a control device controlling less than 1 ton per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be submitted, as specified in § 63.1415(a)(2). Such a procedure shall meet the requirements specified in § 63.1415(a)(2).

(11) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in a supplement to the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved.

(i) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to clarify or modify information previously submitted.

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(iii) If an owner or operator is demonstrating compliance using the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2)(ii), the monthly value of the site-specific emission limit.

(6) When complying with the alternative standard, as specified in § 63.1413(f), the owner or operator shall use a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) instrument following Method PS-15, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.

(i) If a batch process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standard specified in § 63.1406(b) or § 63.1407(b), results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(f).

(B) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the compliance determination required by § 63.1413(g); and

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, if an owner or operator of an affected source uses a flare to comply with any of the requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. When using a flare to comply, the owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to determine percent emission reduction or outlet organic HAP concentration. If a compliance demonstration has been conducted previously for a flare, using the techniques specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, that compliance demonstration may be used to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if either no deliberate process changes have been made since the compliance demonstration, or the results of the compliance demonstration reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(1) Conduct a visible emission test using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(4).

(2) Determine the net heating value of the gas being combusted using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(6).

(3) Determine the exit velocity using the techniques specified in either § 63.11(b)(7)(i) (and § 63.11(b)(7)(iii), where applicable) or § 63.11(b)(8), as appropriate.

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, if an owner or operator of an affected source uses a flare to comply with any of the requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. When using a flare to comply, the owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to determine percent emission reduction or outlet organic HAP concentration. If a compliance demonstration has been conducted previously for a flare, using the techniques specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, that compliance demonstration may be used to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if either no deliberate process changes have been made since the compliance demonstration, or the results of the compliance demonstration reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(1) Conduct a visible emission test using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(4).

(2) Determine the net heating value of the gas being combusted using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(6).

(3) Determine the exit velocity using the techniques specified in either § 63.11(b)(7)(i) (and § 63.11(b)(7)(iii), where applicable) or § 63.11(b)(8), as appropriate.

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, if an owner or operator of an affected source uses a flare to comply with any of the requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. When using a flare to comply, the owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to determine percent emission reduction or outlet organic HAP concentration. If a compliance demonstration has been conducted previously for a flare, using the techniques specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, that compliance demonstration may be used to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if either no deliberate process changes have been made since the compliance demonstration, or the results of the compliance demonstration reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(1) Conduct a visible emission test using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(4).

(2) Determine the net heating value of the gas being combusted using the techniques specified in § 63.11(b)(6).

(3) Determine the exit velocity using the techniques specified in either § 63.11(b)(7)(i) (and § 63.11(b)(7)(iii), where applicable) or § 63.11(b)(8), as appropriate.

(i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(h)(1)(i).

(i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(h)(2)(i).

(iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(3).

(d) Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

(1) The Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 12 months prior to the compliance date. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved. For new affected sources, the Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction required by § 63.5(d), as specified on Table 1 of this subpart. Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.

(2) A request for an extension for compliance, as specified in § 63.1401(d), may be submitted in the Precompliance Report. The request for a compliance extension will include the data outlined in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D), as required in § 63.1401(d)(1).

(3) The alternative monitoring parameter information required in paragraph (j) of this section shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report if, for any emission point, the owner or operator of an affected source seeks to comply through the use of a control technique other than those for which monitoring parameters are specified in this subpart or seeks to comply by monitoring a different parameter than those specified in this subpart.

(4) If the affected source seeks to comply using alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information requested in paragraph (d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section in the Precompliance Report:

(i) The owner or operator shall submit notification of the intent to use the provisions specified in paragraph (k) of this section; or

(ii) The owner or operator shall submit a request for approval to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping provisions as specified in paragraph (k) of this section.

(5) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use alternative controls to comply with the provisions of this subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem the alternative controls to be equivalent to the controls required by the standard under the procedures outlined in § 63.6(g).

(6) If a request for approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C), is being made, the information required by § 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(B) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(7) If an owner or operator elects to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii), or will be establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3), the following information shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report:

(i) Identification of which procedures (i.e., § 63.1413(a)(1)(i) or (ii)) are to be used; and

(ii) If the procedures in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) are to be used, a description of how performance test data will be used shall be included.

(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(9) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

(10) The procedure for a control device controlling less than 1 ton per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be submitted, as specified in § 63.1415(a)(2). Such a procedure shall meet the requirements specified in § 63.1415(a)(2).

(11) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted as specified in paragraph (d)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section. Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted in a supplement to the Precompliance Report within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be deemed approved.

(i) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to clarify or modify information previously submitted.

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(4).

(B) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit, as specified in § 63.1413(i), the individual monthly emission rate data points making up the cumulative average monthly emission rate or the 12-month rolling average monthly emission rate, as appropriate.

(ii) The daily average values, batch cycle daily average values, or block average values of monitored parameters for deviations, as specified in § 63.1413(i), of operating parameters. In addition, the periods and duration of periods when monitoring data were not collected shall be specified.

(B) If there is a deviation from the emission limit, as specified in § 63.1413(i)(1), the individual monthly emission rate data points making up the rolling average monthly emission rate or the 12-month rolling average monthly emission rate, as appropriate.