Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-04304

Proposed Rule2026-04304

National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations: Technology Review

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 4, 2026

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the marine tank vessel loading operations (MTVLO) source category under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112. The EPA is proposing certain decisions resulting from the Agency's technology review of the MTVLO NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Specifically, the EPA is proposing enhanced flare monitoring requirements, requirements to perform periodic performance testing, electronic reporting provisions, and removal of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemptions.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10559-10577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04304]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207; FRL-11626-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW22

National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations: Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the marine tank vessel loading operations
(MTVLO) source category under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112. The EPA
is proposing certain decisions resulting from the Agency's technology
review of the MTVLO NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Specifically, the EPA is proposing enhanced flare monitoring
requirements, requirements to perform periodic performance testing,
electronic reporting provisions, and removal of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) exemptions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2026. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before April 3, 2026.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before March 8, 2026, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2025-0207, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#07662a6669632a752a6368646c62734762776629606871">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2025-0207 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time (ET), Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending written comments and
additional information

[[Page 10560]]

on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this proposed
rule, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Michael Cantoni III, Mail Drop:
Industrial Processing and Power Division (E143-01), 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5593; and email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5516343b213a3b3c7b183c363d343039153025347b323a23">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dc4ddddc9fdf8efe1e4eee5e8ecffe4e3eacde8fdeca3eae2fb">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If the EPA receives a request for a
public hearing, the Agency will hold a hearing via virtual platform on
March 18, 2026. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a>.
If the EPA receives a request for a public hearing, the Agency will
begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than one
business day after receiving the request. To register to speak at the
virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a> or contact the public
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88c1d8d8ccf8fdeae4e1ebe0ede9fae1e6efc8edf8e9a6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be March 15, 2026. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post
a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have four minutes to provide oral testimony.
The EPA encourages commenters to submit the text of your oral testimony
as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. The EPA will
consider written statements and supporting information submitted during
the comment period with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that the EPA will post updates to any aspect of the
hearing online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a>. While the
EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please
monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-
8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#226b7272665257404e4b414a4743504b4c45624752430c454d54">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine if there are
any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require special accommodations such as audio description,
please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and
describe your needs by March 10, 2026. The EPA may not be able to
arrange accommodations without advance notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207. All documents in the docket are
listed at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The EPA does not place certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, on the internet; this material is publicly
available only as portable document format (PDF) versions accessible
only on EPA computers in the docket office reading room. The public
cannot download certain databases and physical items from the docket
but may request these items by contacting the docket office at (202)
566-1744. The docket office has 10 business days to respond to such
requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available
docket materials are available electronically at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or on EPA computers in the docket office reading
room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-
1742.
Written Comments. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2025-0207. The EPA's policy is that the public docket will contain all
comments received without change and made available online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other
information for which a statute restricts disclosure. Do not submit
electronically to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> any information that you
consider to be CBI or other information for which a statute restricts
disclosure. You should submit this type of information as described in
the Submitting CBI section of this preamble.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. A
written comment must accompany multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.). The EPA considers the written comment to be the official
comment, and it should include discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your email 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
The EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of this proposed
rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an identifier
(e.g., ``C-1, C-2, . . .'') to provide a consistent framework for
effective and efficient provision of comments. Accordingly, we ask that
commenters include the

[[Page 10561]]

corresponding identifier when providing comments relevant to that
comment solicitation. We ask that commenters include the identifier in
either a heading or in the text of each comment (e.g., ``In response to
C-1, . . .'') to make clear which comment solicitation you are
addressing. We emphasize that we are not limiting comment to these
identified areas and encourage you to provide any other comments
relevant to this proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Clearly mark the part or all the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in the Written Comments section of this preamble. If you
submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the
outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain
CBI and note the docket ID. The public docket and the EPA's electronic
public docket will include information not marked as CBI without prior
notice. The EPA will not disclose information marked as CBI except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is by electronic transmittal,
via email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online
file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). You must
send electronic submissions directly to the Office of Clean Air
Programs (OCAP) CBI Office at the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfb0beaeafac80bcbdb69fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email&#160;protected]</a>, and
as described earlier in this preamble, you should include clear CBI
markings and note the docket ID. If you need assistance with submitting
large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email
attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service,
please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee818f9f9e9db18d8c87ae8b9e8fc0898198">[email&#160;protected]</a> to request a file transfer link. If
sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it to
the following address: OCAP Document Control Officer (C404-02), OCAP,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207. You
should double-wrap and clearly mark the mailed CBI material. Any CBI
markings should not show through the outer envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' refers to the EPA. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AVO audible, visual, or olfactory
BACT best available control technology
BPT benefit per ton
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EAV equivalent annualized value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ET Eastern Time
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
LDAR leak detection and repair
LEAN Louisiana Environmental Action Network
LNG liquified natural gas
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MMbbl million barrels
MTVLO marine tank vessel loading operation(s)
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHV net heating value
NHV<INF>cz</INF> combustion zone net heating value
NHV<INF>dil</INF> net heating value dilution
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standard
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OCAP Office of Clean Air Programs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PM<INF>2.5</INF> fine particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ppmv parts per million by volume
psia pounds per square inch absolute
PV present value
RACT reasonably available control technology
RATA relative accuracy test audit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TAC total annualized cost
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USCG United States Coast Guard
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VMT Valdez Marine Terminal
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

Table of Contents

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is this source category, and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
B. What data collection activities did the EPA conduct to
support this action?
C. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
D. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
III. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for those actions?
C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The source category that is the subject of this proposal is
composed of facilities that conduct MTVLO regulated under 40 CFR part
63 subpart Y (also referred to as the MTVLO NESHAP). The

[[Page 10562]]

MTVLO source category covers any facility engaged in the direct loading
of bulk liquids onto marine vessels at marine terminals. The 2022 North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for MTVLO is 4883.
The EPA has identified this NAICS code to indicate types of entities
that this proposed action likely would affect but notes that this
proposed action also may affect facilities classified under other NAICS
codes. The proposed standards, if finalized, would directly apply to
the affected sources. This proposed action would not have a substantial
impact on Federal, State, local, and Tribal entities that own and/or
operate MTVLO. The EPA did not include the MTVLO source category in the
Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final Report,\1\ because the Agency
originally intended to regulate the emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) as well as volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA
section 183(f).\2\ After publication of the initial list of source
categories, the Agency decided to regulate HAP emissions from major
sources of MTVLO facilities under CAA section 112.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992.
\2\ 57 FR 31576 (July 16, 1992).
\3\ 58 FR 60021 (Nov. 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the statutory authority for this action?

CAA sections 112 and 301(a), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
provide the statutory authority for this action. CAA section 112
establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for
emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage
involves establishing technology-based standards that reflect the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or an appropriate
alternative.\4\ The second stage involves evaluating those standards
within eight years to determine whether additional standards are needed
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions.\5\ The EPA
commonly refers to this second stage as the ``residual risk review.''
In addition to the residual risk review, CAA section 112 also requires
the EPA to review the standards every eight years and ``revise as
necessary'' taking into account ``developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies.'' \6\ This review, commonly referred to as the
``technology review,'' is the subject of this proposal. The discussion
that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and
briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(1)-(4).
\5\ Id. 7412(f)(2).
\6\ Id. 7412(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are sources that emit or have the potential to emit
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
that the Administrator determines to be achievable, taking into
consideration cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts. The EPA commonly refers to these standards as
MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum
control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor,'' based on
emission limitations achieved in practice by the best performing
sources.
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA
may set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission
standards. Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may adopt a work practice
standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard if it is ``not
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce
an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or
pollutants.'' \7\ CAA section 112(h)(2) defines the phrase ``not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' to mean any
situation where the Administrator either determines that a HAP or HAPs
``cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to
emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of
such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or
local law'' \8\ or determines that ``the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' \9\ The EPA considers a
measurement to be not ``technologically practicable'' within the
meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) if the majority of the measurements
are below the detection limit. Such measurements raise issues of
questionable reliability, feasibility, and enforceability.
Additionally, the application of measurement methodology in such
situations could be ``not practicable due to . . . economic
limitation'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B), because it
would result in expenditures that produce analytically suspect
measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Id. 7412(h)(1); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875,
883-84 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The EPA may ``adopt[ ] a method to account
for measurement imprecision that has a rational basis in the
correlation between increased emission values and increased testing
precision.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1154-55 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(2)(A).
\9\ Id. 7412(h)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent
than the floor, commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards.\10\
For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows the EPA to set standards
based on generally available control technologies or management
practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Id. 7412(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For categories of major sources and any area source categories
subject to MACT standards, the second stage focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk within eight years
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA conducts this review
concurrently with the initial technology review pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6); the EPA commonly refers to the combined review as the ``risk
and technology review'' (RTR). For categories of area sources subject
to GACT standards, there is no requirement to address residual risk,
but, similar to the major source categories, the technology review is
required every eight years.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Id. 7412(d)(5)-(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every eight years. For this review
(the ``technology review''), the CAA does not require the EPA to
recalculate the MACT floors established in earlier rulemakings. The EPA
may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6).
The EPA also must specify relevant test methods, best practices,
procedures,

[[Page 10563]]

or protocols and recordkeeping requirements for standards promulgated
under CAA section 112.\12\ Further, CAA section 301(a) provides that
``[t]he Administrator is authorized to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his functions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 42 U.S.C. 7414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA first promulgated MACT standards for the MTVLO source
category in 1995.\13\ The EPA completed the RTR of the MTVLO NESHAP in
2011.\14\ In October 2020, several environmental advocacy organizations
filed a citizen suit under CAA section 304, alleging, inter alia, that
the EPA failed to conduct mandatory CAA section 112(d)(6) technology
reviews for multiple source categories and seeking the court to compel
the EPA to complete those reviews.\15\ To resolve the litigation, the
EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree.\16\ This action
satisfies the Agency's obligation to issue a proposed rule pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) as a step towards finalizing the results of the
technology review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 60 FR 48399 (Sept. 19, 1995) (codified at 40 CFR part 63
subpart Y).
\14\ 76 FR 22595 (Apr. 21, 2011).
\15\ Envt'l Integrity Project et al. v. Regan, No. 1:20-cv-
03119-TNM (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2020; as amended Jan. 8, 2021).
\16\ Id., Order Approving Consent Decree (entered Aug. 24,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAA section 183(f) requires the Administrator, within two years of
November 15, 1990, and in consultation with the Secretary of the
Department in which the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is operating,
to ``promulgate standards applicable to the emission of VOCs and any
other air pollutant from loading and unloading of tank vessels'' as
defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101 ``which the Administrator finds causes, or
contributes to, air pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'' \17\ CAA section 183(f) further
requires that these standards apply ``reasonably available control
technology [(RACT)], considering costs, any non-air quality benefits,
environmental impacts, energy requirements, and safety factors
associated with alternative control techniques'' and that ``[t]o the
extent practicable such standards shall apply to loading and unloading
facilities and not to tank vessels.'' As part of the 1995 rulemaking,
the EPA promulgated RACT standards under CAA section 183(f) to limit
emissions of VOC from new and existing MTVLO sources.\18\ The MTVLO
NESHAP includes monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are applicable both to sources subject to MACT
emission standards for organic HAP and sources subject to RACT emission
standards for VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f).
\18\ 60 FR 48399 (Sept. 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the EPA's primary rulemaking objective is to complete the
technology review required by CAA section 112(d)(6) the Agency
recognizes the efficiencies in codifying the MACT and RACT standards
from the 1995 final rule in a single regulation (i.e., 40 CFR part 63
subpart Y). Thus, some of the revisions proposed in this action would
also apply to RACT sources regulated by CAA section 183(f). For
example, as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review, the
EPA is proposing revisions to MTVLO monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the MTVLO NESHAP to ensure
sources are meeting the required standards at all times. Considering
the overlap of regulatory language between the RACT and MACT standards
for control device monitoring in the MTVLO NESHAP, and considering that
all existing sources subject to RACT standards are major sources of HAP
subject to the MACT standards in the MTVLO NESHAP, the EPA is proposing
that these revisions apply to sources subject to RACT standards under
CAA section 183(f). In developing this proposed rule, the EPA consulted
with the USCG, as CAA section 183(f) requires. Meetings between the EPA
and the USCG involved discussions on pertinent issues for the MTVLO
NESHAP technology review. The EPA met with the USCG on June 4 and
September 2, 2025. A memorandum from each consultation meeting is in
the docket for this action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to the docket, an electronic copy of this action is
available on the internet. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a
summary of this rule may be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207. Following signature by the
Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a>. Following publication
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63 subpart Y proposed in this
action is in the docket.\20\ Following signature by the EPA
Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of this document to
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/marine-vessel-loading-operations-national-emission-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. What is this source category, and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?

The subject of this proposal is the MTVLO source category,
regulated under 40 CFR part 63 subpart Y. As promulgated in 1995 and
further amended, the MTVLO NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from the
direct loading of bulk liquids from marine vessels at marine
terminals.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 60 FR 48388 (Sept. 19, 1995); 68 FR 37334 (June 23, 2003);
71 FR 20446 (Apr. 20, 2006); 76 FR 22566 (Apr. 21, 2011); 79 FR
11228 (Feb. 27, 2014); 80 FR 75178 (Dec. 1, 2015); 85 FR 73854 (Nov.
19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The source category includes sources that directly emit HAP
generated or displaced from the marine vessel's cargo tank when loading
bulk liquids containing HAP onto marine tank vessels, including vapor
collection and control systems, but does not include storage tanks and
leaking equipment associated with liquid terminal unloading or
ballasting operations.\22\ Nor does this source category regulate
emissions from offshore vessel-to-vessel bulk liquid transfer
operations (i.e., lightering operations).\23\ In the 1995 MTVLO NESHAP
final rule, the EPA removed unloading operations and ballasting from
the source category in response to public comments.\24\ The 1995 MTVLO
NESHAP rulemaking established specific MACT and RACT standards designed
to reduce VOC and HAP emissions (see section III.A.2). Under the MTVLO
NESHAP, facilities were required to monitor performance of the control
technology installed to achieve the required emission reductions for
the appropriate standard. The 1995 final rule also included reporting
and recordkeeping requirements to assure compliance with the
promulgated standards.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 60 FR 48391 (Sept. 19, 1995).
\23\ 58 FR 60021 (Nov. 12, 1993).
\24\ 60 FR 48391 (Sep. 19, 1995).
\25\ 60 FR 38389 (Sept. 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the April 2011 RTR, the EPA re-adopted the existing MACT
standards for MTVLO based on its determination that the 1995 MACT
standards reduced risk to an acceptable level, provided an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, and

[[Page 10564]]

prevented adverse environmental effects.\26\ The EPA also added
submerged loading standards for two subcategories of MTVLO as detailed
in Table 1: (1) existing MTVLO facilities that are major sources of HAP
emissions and that have emissions less than 10 tpy of any individual
HAP or 25 tpy of aggregate HAP considering only MTVLO emissions; and
(2) existing offshore loading terminals.\27\ As part of the 2011 RTR,
the EPA identified 152 MTVLO facilities in operation and subject to the
MVTLO NESHAP, based on the 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 76 FR 22566, 22571 (Apr. 21, 2011); see also id. at 22575
(finding lifetime cancer risk to the individual most exposed to
emissions from MTVLO was less than 100-in-1 million and that the
cancer incidence and number of people with cancer risk over 1-in-1
million were low).
\27\ 76 FR 22571 (Apr. 21, 2011).
\28\ 76 FR 22566 (Apr. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the current technology review, the EPA identified
approximately 190 facilities in operation and subject to the MTVLO
NESHAP. The list of facilities is in the document titled List of
Facilities Subject to the MTVLO NESHAP, which is in the docket for this
action.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What data collection activities did the EPA conduct to support this
action?

The EPA used several data sources to identify facilities that are
subject to the MTVLO NESHAP. The EPA reviewed the facility list
underlying the 2011 RTR and evaluated whether the listed facilities
were still operational. Additionally, the EPA evaluated sources from
the 2020 Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) RTR rulemaking to
identify sources co-located with MTVLO facilities.\30\ The EPA also
reviewed air emissions permits issued by State regulatory agencies and
electronic reports submitted through the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) to develop the final facility list. The EPA
excluded facilities subject to the marine vessel loading requirements
under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Petroleum Refineries, as these sources are part of the petroleum
refinery source category.\31\ In developing this action, the EPA
reviewed the RACT/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse and regulatory documents
addressing similar sources published since the 1995 MVTLO NESHAP.
Additionally, the EPA reviewed the Army Corps of Engineers' Waterborne
Commerce of the United States Statistics Report and used data from that
report in developing this proposal action.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ 85 FR 40740 (July 7, 2020).
\31\ 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC.
\32\ United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers,
Institute for Water Resources. (2023). Waterborne Commerce of the
United States Parts 1-4 (Report No. IWR-WCUS-23-1 through -4):
<a href="https://ndclibrary.sec.usace.army.mil/searchResults?series=Waterborne%20Commerce%20of%20the%20United%20States">https://ndclibrary.sec.usace.army.mil/searchResults?series=Waterborne%20Commerce%20of%20the%20United%20States</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What other relevant background information and data are available?

This action includes proposed amendments to the current flare
requirements in the MTVLO NESHAP. In proposing these amendments, the
EPA relied on certain technical reports and memoranda developed for
flares used as air pollution control devices in the Petroleum Refinery
Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards
rulemaking (``2015 Refineries Rule'').\33\ For the sake of completeness
and for the public's convenience, the EPA has included the most
relevant, flare-related technical support documents from the 2015
Refineries Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.\34\ Notably, the
document titled Technology Review for National Emission Standards for
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations lists all documents the EPA used
to inform the flare provisions in the 2015 Refineries Rule, and is in
the current action's docket. Additional information related to the
promulgation and subsequent amendments of the NESHAP is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ 80 FR 75178 (Dec. 1, 2015); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682.
\34\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

When conducting a technology review, the EPA primarily focuses on
identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that have occurred since the Agency last
promulgated MACT standards or amendments. Where the EPA identifies such
developments, the Agency analyzes technical feasibility, estimated
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. The EPA
also considers the emission reductions associated with the potential
application of each development. This analysis informs the Agency's
decision whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards.
In addition, the EPA considers the appropriateness of applying controls
to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise,
the EPA considers any of the following to be a ``development'': \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See Nat'l Ass'n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 1,
11 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding EPA's interpretation of what is
considered ``developments'' under CAA section 112(d)(6) and
deferring to the EPA's methodology and balancing decisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
<bullet> Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
<bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
<bullet> Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
<bullet> Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that the EPA considered during the original promulgation
or in previous updates to the NESHAP, the Agency reviews a variety of
data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or
controls. Pursuant to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit in LEAN, the EPA also reviews the available data to
determine if there are any unregulated emissions of HAP within the
source category and evaluates this data for use in developing new
emission standards. The LEAN decision requires the EPA to address
regulatory gaps, such as missing MACT standards for listed air toxics
with known emissions from the source category.\36\ See sections II.B
and II.C of this preamble for information on the specific data sources
that the EPA reviewed as part of the technology review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ LEAN, 955 F.3d 1088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

The EPA evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control

[[Page 10565]]

technologies since promulgation of the original MACT standards and the
subsequent RTR consistent with CAA section 112(d)(6) and as noted in
section II.D of this preamble. As noted in section I.B of this
preamble, the MTVLO NESHAP also contains RACT standards for the control
of VOC from gasoline and crude oil MTVLO. Based on available
information, all facilities subject to the RACT standards are also
subject to the MACT standards. The memorandum titled Technology Review
for National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations summarizes the Agency's technology review and is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Applicability Thresholds and Submerged Loading
Standards
The MACT standards apply to major sources of HAP emissions. For
``onshore'' existing sources, the MTVLO NESHAP requires loading
emission controls for facilities that are major sources of HAP
emissions and that have emissions above 10 tpy of any individual HAP or
25 tpy of aggregate HAP considering only the MTVLO emissions (i.e., the
``10 or 25 ton'' emissions threshold).\38\ As part of the 2011 RTR, the
EPA established a submerged fill loading standard for sources below the
``10 or 25 ton'' emissions threshold, in accordance with the MACT floor
level of control,\39\ and consistent with standards set in place by the
USCG.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ In this preamble, the term ``onshore'' refers to terminals
that do not meet the definition of ``offshore terminal'' as defined
in 40 CFR 63.561. Thus, the term ``onshore'' refers to a terminal
with all loading berths less than 0.81 km (0.5 miles) from the
shore.
\39\ 77 FR 22571 (Apr. 21, 2011); 40 CFR 63.560(a)(4).
\40\ 46 CFR 153.282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the EPA conducted an analysis of MTVLO sources that would
have emissions below the ``10 or 25 ton'' emissions threshold to
determine if applying controls to smaller MTVLO would be cost-
effective. Based on our analysis, given the low emissions reductions
that could be achieved from these sources and the costs associated with
additional controls, we are proposing that it is not necessary to amend
the requirements under the technology review. We note that the cost
effectiveness of implementing additional controls for smaller
facilities exceeds $15,000 per ton of organic HAP reduced, which is
above the range the EPA generally considers cost effective for organic
HAP.\41\ Based on this analysis, the EPA determined that the current
``10 or 25 ton'' HAP emissions applicability threshold is reasonable,
and the Agency proposes that no revision to this applicability
provision is necessary under the technology review. The EPA solicits
comment on its technical evaluation of the MACT applicability
thresholds and proposal to maintain the current ``10 or 25 ton''
standards for onshore existing sources (C-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ For example, in the 2020 Ethylene Production NESHAP RTR,
the EPA stated, ``[g]enerally, for organic HAP, we consider a cost
effectiveness of $10,000/ton or more to be near the upper end of
what the EPA has traditionally considered to be cost effective for
control for these particular type of HAP.'' 85 FR 40396 (July 6,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the current MACT standards do not apply to commodities with
a vapor pressure less than 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)
at standard conditions.\42\ As the USCG already requires marine cargo
tanks to meet submerged loading control requirements at 46 CFR 153.282,
the EPA assessed whether it would be reasonable to lower this vapor
pressure threshold for all materials loaded and whether the Agency
should require additional controls beyond submerged loading. Although
the EPA found that sources generally would not need more control device
capacity, sources would incur additional operational costs (e.g.,
increased fuel for thermal oxidizers) to control these low vapor
pressure streams and the result would be limited emission reductions.
The incremental cost effectiveness for eliminating the 1.5 psia vapor
pressure exemption generally exceeded $100,000 per ton of additional
HAP removed. The EPA concluded that these costs were not reasonable and
thus is proposing no revisions to the vapor pressure exemption. The EPA
solicits comment on its proposal to maintain the 40 CFR 63.560(d)(1)
exemption provision for commodities with vapor pressure less than 1.5
psia (C-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ 40 CFR 63.560(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the EPA is not proposing to revise the applicability
thresholds, the Agency is proposing to clarify the emission estimation
procedures in 40 CFR 63.565(l) to ensure that all controls for reducing
HAP emissions from MTVLO facilities have federally enforceable
operating limits. The MACT provisions in the MTVLO NESHAP only apply to
major sources of HAP emissions. MTVLO facilities that use controls to
get below the major source emission limits can apply for a synthetic
minor permit, provided the control provisions are federally
enforceable. The current provisions in 40 CFR 63.565(l) are unclear,
and a source could interpret the provisions to allow controls to
achieve emissions under 10 and 25 tons without any federally
enforceable limits on the continuous operation of the controls. The EPA
finds that facilities with pre-controlled emissions of 10- or 25-tons
HAP should comply with the control provisions in the MTVLO NESHAP or
have enforceable, permitted control requirements to ensure emissions
remain below 10- and 25-tons HAP at all times. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to add the word ``permitted'' to the last sentence in 40 CFR
63.565(l) so that the sentence applies to test data or techniques ``. .
. for permitted operating conditions at the source'' (emphasis added).
The EPA is proposing this revision to ensure that permitted,
enforceable control requirements are the sole method for reducing
potential emissions when ``considering controls.''
The EPA is also proposing to remove the word ``actual'' in the
first sentence of the definitions of ``Source(s) with emissions less
than 10 and 25 tons'' and ``Source(s) with emissions of 10 or 25
tons.'' \43\ These definitions reference the calculation methodology in
40 CFR 63.565(l), which the EPA is proposing to limit to permitted
operating conditions. Because the word ``actual'' could be construed to
include emission reductions from controls that are not federally
enforceable, the Agency is proposing to remove the word ``actual'' from
these definitions, consistent with the proposed revision to 40 CFR
63.565(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ 40 CFR 63.561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the EPA is proposing to revise paragraph 40 CFR
63.567(j)(3), regarding the submission of annual HAP control efficiency
reports, to require identification of the monitoring parameter(s) used
and ensure the source continuously maintains HAP control efficiency
while loading a regulated commodity. This revision provides a means to
ensure the source is continuously operating the control device in a
manner consistent with the performance test or other emission
estimation methods used under 40 CFR 63.565(l). The EPA solicits
comments on the number of sources that use controls to achieve
emissions less than 10- and 25-tons HAP and whether the rule should
require these control requirements to be permitted or otherwise
federally enforceable (C-3).
The EPA also requests comment on the proposals to clarify the
emission estimation procedures in 40 CFR 63.565(l), the reporting
requirement in 40 CFR 63.567(j)(3) to consider only

[[Page 10566]]

``permitted'' controls, and the definitions of ``source(s) with
emissions less than 10 and 25 tons'' and ``source(s) with emissions of
10 or 25 tons,'' (C-4).
2. Assessment of Control Requirements
The MTVLO NESHAP includes three subcategories: ``onshore''
terminals, offshore terminals, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Corporation's Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT). The MTVLO NESHAP includes
``new'' and ``existing'' MACT standards for both onshore and offshore
terminals, depending on the quantity of loading emissions. The MACT
control requirements in the MTVLO NESHAP for displaced vapors include
submerged fill operations and control efficiencies that range from 95
percent for new offshore facilities to 98 percent for new onshore
facilities. Table 1 details the MTVLO standards for both MACT and RACT
applicable facilities. The table presents RACT applicability thresholds
in units of million barrels (MMbbl) and vapor concentrations in units
of parts per million by volume (ppmv).

Table 1--Summary of Current MTVLO NESHAP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability HAP and/or VOC control
Standard Source type Location threshold Applicable commodities standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT.......................... New................... Onshore............... Major source \1\.... >=1.5 psia............. Vapor Collection and (98
percent or Vapor
Balancing).
MACT.......................... New................... Offshore.............. Major source \1\.... >=1.5 psia............. Vapor Collection and (95
percent or Vapor
Balancing).
MACT.......................... Existing.............. Onshore............... >=10 or 25 tons \2\. >=1.5 psia............. Vapor Collection and (97
percent or Vapor
Balancing).
MACT.......................... Existing.............. Onshore............... <10 or 25 tons \2\.. >=1.5 psia............. Submerged Loading.
MACT.......................... Existing.............. Offshore.............. >=10 or 25 tons \2\. >=1.5 psia............. Submerged Loading.
MACT.......................... Existing.............. Offshore.............. <10 or 25 tons \2\.. >=1.5 psia............. Submerged Loading.
RACT.......................... ...................... Onshore............... >=10 MMbbl or 200 >=1.5 psia............. Vapor Collection and (98
MMbbl \3\. percent using a
combustion device or 95
percent vapor recovery
or 1,000 ppmv VOC during
gasoline loading or
Vapor Balancing).
MACT and RACT................. VMT \4\............... Onshore............... N/A................. >=1.5 psia............. Vapor Collection and 98
percent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Major source of HAP emissions as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.
\2\ Major sources of HAP; however, the ``10 or 25 tons'' refers to the individual or aggregate HAP emissions threshold considering only the MTVLO
emissions at a facility.
\3\ Source(s) having aggregate MTVLO at all loading berths of 10 MMbbl or more of gasoline annually or 200 MMbbl or more of crude oil annually.
\4\ Standards specific to the VMT source, as defined in 40 CFR 63.561.

As part of conducting the technology review in accordance with CAA
section 112(d)(6), the EPA reviewed Federal and State rules, conducted
a review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, and assessed
international best practices applicable to MTVLO and MTVLO sources.
The EPA identified no new technologies for emissions control
relevant to the MTVLO source category. However, we evaluated whether
improved control device performance and/or cost effectiveness would
support the conclusion that amendments are ``necessary'' pursuant to
the technology review. Based on the cost estimates for improving
control device performance, the EPA has determined that a marginal
control efficiency improvement would likely result in the replacement
of existing controls is unreasonable for these sources. As such, the
EPA proposes it is not necessary to revise the control standards for
vapors displaced during MTVLO. The EPA also evaluated more frequent
performance testing related to non-flare controls, as discussed in
section III.B.5 of this preamble, and improvements to flare monitoring
requirements, as discussed in section III.B.6 of this preamble. The EPA
solicits comment on whether there are control technology developments
that the EPA should consider in the EPA's technology review of the
MTVLO NESHAP (C-5).
3. Evaluation of Equipment Leak Monitoring Requirements
The MTVLO NESHAP has standards for monitoring vapor collection
systems and control devices to detect leaks and ensure effective
routing of vapors to the control device. Owners or operators must
conduct annual monitoring using EPA Method 21 and must repair leaks
with emissions above a concentration of 10,000 ppmv. Additionally, if
at other times an owner or operator identifies a potential leak by
audible, visual, or olfactory (AVO) or other detection method, the
owners or operator must monitor the potential leak using EPA Method 21
and repair the leak if the monitored concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmv.
The rule has no direct equipment leak ``standard'' (i.e., no provisions
in 40 CFR 63.562) and does not require monitoring for leaks from liquid
components (e.g., pumps, valves, or connections associated with liquid
loading lines). The USCG regulations require leak observations at the
connection to the ship's cargo fill line, essentially a form of AVO
requirements for a portion of the liquid components.
The EPA evaluated a variety of leak detection and repair (LDAR)
program requirements, which included adding liquid components to the
LDAR program, lowering the leak definition from 10,000 ppmv to 500
ppmv, and conducting more frequent monitoring surveys (semiannual or
quarterly monitoring). The EPA used a Monte Carlo model to randomly
initiate modeled leaks from individual equipment components present at
MTVLO facilities and to estimate the emissions that occur under the
various monitoring alternatives that the Agency evaluated. The EPA
found that the most cost-effective option assessed was the addition of
monitoring requirements for liquid components; however, the incremental
cost effectiveness of this option compared to the current provisions
exceeds $18,000 per ton of HAP reduced. Additionally, for the
approximately 190 facilities subject to the rule, the EPA expects that
revisions to the standards would result in

[[Page 10567]]

minimal reductions in HAP emissions nationwide (between 4 and 7.4 tpy).
Therefore, the EPA concludes that including liquid components or
revising the leak definition or frequency of EPA Method 21 monitoring
is not necessary pursuant to the technology review. For more
information on the Monte Carlo model, modeling assumptions, and cost
analysis used to assess alternative equipment LDAR programs, see the
memorandum titled Technology Review for National Emission Standards for
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations available in the docket for this
rulemaking.\44\ The EPA solicits comment on whether the Agency should
revise equipment leak provisions to include liquid components, revise
the leak definition, or revise the monitoring frequency (C-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the EPA is not proposing standards for equipment leaks within
40 CFR 63.562, the Agency identified several gaps in the compliance
provisions at 40 CFR 63.563(c) that warrant clarification.
First, the annual EPA Method 21 monitoring requirement of the vapor
collection systems and control devices does not specify that owners or
operators at an MVTLO facility must conduct monitoring when actively
loading regulated materials (commodities with vapor pressure above 1.5
psia) into marine vessel cargo tanks. However, for EPA Method 21 to
effectively detect leaks from the vapor collection system or from a
control device, monitoring must occur when the systems and devices are
actively loading. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to clarify that
owners or operators must conduct the annual EPA Method 21 monitoring
during active loading of materials subject to control requirements in
40 CFR 63.562(b), (c), or (d).
Second, the repair requirements in the MTVLO NESHAP only indicate
the timing for a ``first effort of repair'' and do not specify a
timeline for completing the repair if the ``first effort of repair'' is
unsuccessful. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise this wording to
require leak repair within 15 days of identification or prior to the
next loading operation, whichever is later. The EPA is also proposing
that the owner or operator must verify the repair by re-monitoring the
component using the method by which the leak was identified, consistent
with LDAR programs in other NESHAP.\45\ The EPA solicits comment on the
proposed clarifications that EPA Method 21 owners or operators must
conduct monitoring when actively loading regulated material and must
conduct repair and verify the repair by re-monitoring rather than
solely attempt repair (C-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See, e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subparts H and UU (definition of
``repaired'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, at some new offshore loading terminals, ships are moored
by anchoring buoys in open water rather than mooring at the facility's
dock. Vapor lines at these offshore loading terminals may be underwater
or may float on the water surface. Offshore loading terminals that load
ships moored by anchoring buoys have indicated that EPA Method 21 is
infeasible on these underwater or floating vapor lines. EPA Method 21
is commonly applied to valves, connectors, flanges, or open-ended lines
and not to flexible tubing commonly used for offshore loading. Also,
some of the tubing may be underwater. Thus, the use of EPA Method 21 to
find leaks in the piping and connectors that are underwater or in the
water (with portions of the tubing and connectors in the water) is not
technically feasible. Owners or operators can use AVO methods to
identify leaks for fully or partially submerged piping or connectors.
However, the current rule requires EPA Method 21 monitoring of leaks,
identified via AVO methods, to confirm the leak exceeds a 10,000 ppmv
concentration. This requirement is technically infeasible for vapor
lines in the water. It also adds burden to MTVLO owners and operators
since most AVO-detected leaks will need to be fixed and the additional
EPA Method 21 monitoring is not needed to find the leak.
Based on our review of the monitoring requirements for vapor
collection systems and control devices, the EPA is proposing to exempt
certain piping and connections from the annual EPA Method 21 monitoring
requirement. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to exempt piping and
equipment components that are underwater or floating in the water from
EPA Method 21 monitoring and to allow the use of AVO methods for this
equipment. Additionally, consistent with other equipment leak
provisions, such as those in 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVb, the EPA is
proposing to exempt piping and equipment components that require
elevating inspecting personnel more than two meters above a support
surface (i.e., difficult-to-monitor components) from EPA Method 21
monitoring requirements. Instead, the EPA is proposing that owners or
operators must monitor these equipment components, to the extent
practicable, using AVO methods. To implement this revision, the EPA is
also proposing to revise the definition of ``leak'' to include liquid
or gaseous releases from vapor collection systems and control devices
identified by AVO, or any other method, as a leak. Additionally, the
EPA is proposing that owners and operators must repair any leaks
identified using AVO, thereby eliminating the EPA Method 21 monitoring
requirement for AVO-detected leaks. The EPA solicits comment on the
proposed revisions to allow AVO monitoring for vapor lines that may be
underwater or may float on the water surface, to allow AVO monitoring
for difficult-to-monitor equipment components, and to eliminate the EPA
Method 21 monitoring requirement for AVO-detected leaks (C-8).

B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for
those actions?

In addition to the proposed amendments described earlier in this
preamble, the EPA is proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. As
part of the 2011 RTR, the EPA revised the SSM provisions of the MTVLO
NESHAP to ensure they were consistent with the D.C. Circuit's
interpretation of emission standards provisions in Sierra Club v.
EPA,\46\ and to include an affirmative defense provision related to the
availability of penalties.\47\ The EPA intended the 2011 final rule to
remove all exemptions for periods of SSM in the MTVLO NESHAP but has
since identified additional provisions addressing SSM periods that
provide exemptions from CAA section 112 standards. Consistent with the
2008 Sierra Club decision, the EPA is proposing to remove both the
maintenance allowance provisions and the penalty-related affirmative
defense provisions in the MTVLO NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing to
require electronic reporting, improve performance testing and
monitoring requirements, improve flare monitoring requirements, update
cross-references, and clarify certain applicability provisions. We
discuss our proposed changes and related analyses later in this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\47\ 76 FR 22566 (Apr. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SSM and Maintenance Provisions
First, the EPA is proposing to clarify the general duty clause at
40 CFR 63.562(e) by revising this paragraph title from ``Operation and
maintenance requirements for air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment

[[Page 10568]]

for affected sources'' to ``General duty requirements'' to confirm that
the general duty requirements apply more broadly to the source (MTVLO
terminal) and not only to the control device and monitoring equipment.
Second, the EPA is proposing that the general duty requirement applies
at all times, including when a marine tank vessel is at the terminal
and when no active loading operations are occurring. Some facilities
vent or purge MTVLO cargo tanks prior to connecting to control for
loading. The EPA considers these displaced vapors, which could
otherwise be routed to controls, to be inconsistent with the general
duty requirement to minimize emissions. The EPA is also proposing
revisions to 40 CFR 63.562(e)(1), (2), (3)(ii) and (iii), and (4) to
clarify when owners and operators follow the procedures in the
operation and maintenance plan, ``variances'' to the operating limits
are deviations rather than variances from the emission limitations. The
operation and maintenance plan should minimize these deviations and
include the implementation of corrective actions to prevent
reoccurrence. The current operation and maintenance plan requirements
include provisions similar to the SSM exemption language that the D.C.
Circuit found inconsistent with the statute in Sierra Club. The EPA
solicits comment on the proposed revisions to clarify the general duty
requirements for MTVLO terminals (C-9).
As part of the 2011 MTVLO NESHAP RTR, the EPA included provisions
allowing sources to assert an affirmative defense to civil penalties
for violations caused by malfunctions.\48\ Under these provisions, if a
source could demonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding
that the source met the regulatory criteria for raising an affirmative
defense, the court or the EPA would not assess civil penalties.
However, in 2014, the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA vacated such a
penalty-focused affirmative defense provision in another CAA section
112 regulation.\49\ The Court found that the EPA lacked authority to
establish such an affirmative defense provision for private civil suits
because CAA section 304(a) vests authority over private suits in the
Federal courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court found that ``[a]s
the language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are `appropriate,' '' and
that this determination ``is a job for the courts, not EPA.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ 76 FR 22574 (Apr. 21, 2011); 40 CFR 63.561, 63.562(e)(7).
\49\ 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating affirmative
defense provisions in the CAA section 112 rule establishing emission
standards for Portland cement kilns).
\50\ Id. at 1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since NRDC, the EPA has been removing such penalty-related
affirmative defense provisions from CAA section 112 rules.\51\ Here,
the EPA is proposing to remove the affirmative defense at 40 CFR
63.562(e)(7), the definition of ``affirmative defense'' in 40 CFR
63.561 and any references to these provisions from the MTVLO NESHAP as
of the effective date of the final amendments. If a source is unable to
comply with emissions standards because of a malfunction, the EPA may
use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as
appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, courts have the
discretion to consider any defense raised in an EPA or citizen
enforcement action and to determine whether penalties are
appropriate.\52\ The same is true for the presiding officer in the
EPA's administrative enforcement actions.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 80 FR 72789 (Sept. 20,
2015); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, 81
FR 63112 (Sept. 14, 2016).
\52\ Cf. NRDC, 749 F.3d at 1064 (arguments that violation was
caused by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts
in future civil cases when the issue arises).
\53\ Although NRDC does not address the EPA's authority to
establish an affirmative defense to penalties in administrative
enforcement actions, we are not including such an affirmative
defense in the proposed rule. As explained above, such an
affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. See CAA
section 113(e), 42 U.S.C. 7413(e) (requiring both the Administrator
and the court to take specified criteria into account when assessing
penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA has long interpreted CAA section 112 as not requiring the
Agency to factor emissions that occur during periods of malfunction
into the development of CAA section 112 standards. In 2016, the D.C.
Circuit upheld this reading in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA.\54\ The EPA's
reasoning related to the difficulties in determining an appropriate
numerical standard that would reflect the MACT standard required by CAA
section 112 and the immense variation that would result if the EPA
included conditions during a malfunction in the standard-setting
process. The court agreed, finding that any such standard would be too
broad and meaningless with respect to the intent of CAA section 112
MACT standards. Thus, during periods of malfunction, the EPA generally
requires compliance with the otherwise applicable standard for normal
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ 830 F.3d 579, 606-10 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (stating that CAA
section 112 ``permits the EPA to ignore malfunctions in its
standard-setting and account for them instead through its regulatory
discretion'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set different
standards for malfunctions, we have the discretion to do so where
certain criteria are met. Under CAA section 112(h), the Administrator
may promulgate a ``design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof'' to apply in lieu of an emission
standard if the Administrator determines (1) that ``it is not feasible
. . . to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' for the relevant
pollutant and (2) that the design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard (or combination thereof) is consistent with the
provisions of CAA section 112(d) or (f).\55\ If the Administrator
promulgates a design or equipment standard under CAA section 112(h)(1),
the standard must include ``such requirements as will assure the proper
operation and maintenance of any such element of design or equipment.''
\56\ Thus, the EPA may consider whether circumstances warrant setting
work practice standards for a particular type of malfunction to
minimize emissions. The EPA solicits comment on whether circumstances
warrant setting work practice standards for periods of malfunction at
MTVLO consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(h) (C-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1), 7412(h)(2) (defining the phrase ``not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'').
\56\ Id. 7412(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, on September 5, 2025, the D.C. Circuit held in SSM
Litigation Group v. EPA that although the EPA has no authority under
the CAA to ``create a regulatory `defense' that limits the remedial
authority granted by Congress to the Federal courts,'' a ``complete
affirmative defense, like the one at issue [in that case], is
permissible because it relates to the antecedent question of liability
and therefore does not impinge on the judiciary's authority to award
`appropriate civil penalties.' '' \57\ Although the affirmative defense
provision that the EPA is now proposing to remove is not a ``complete''
affirmative defense (i.e., the affirmative defense provision only
pertains to civil penalties), the EPA requests comment on whether and
how we should address affirmative defense provisions within this and
other new source performance standard (NSPS) or NESHAP in response to
the SSM Litigation Group

[[Page 10569]]

decision (C-11). Due to the timing of the D.C. Circuit's decision in
SSM Litigation Group and the Agency's consent decree deadline to issue
this proposed action, the EPA may address the impacts of the SSM
Litigation Group decision on this NESHAP in an appropriate future
action but will consider all comments received on this issue in
reaching a final decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ 150 F.4th 593, 599 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting CAA section
304(a), 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA previously proposed to remove the affirmative defense
provisions from the MTVLO NESHAP as part of a proposed rule titled
Removal of Affirmative Defense Provisions from Specified New Source
Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants.\58\ The EPA now proposes to remove these provisions as
part of this action. The EPA will only consider comments submitted to
the docket for this action and will not consider comments previously
submitted on the prior proposal.\59\ The EPA solicits comment on this
proposal to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the MTVLO
NESHAP (C-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ 89 FR 52425 (June 24, 2024).
\59\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0078. The EPA intends to take
appropriate final action on the remainder of that proposed rule in a
separate action at the appropriate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the EPA is proposing to remove the maintenance allowance
provisions provided in 40 CFR 63.562(b)(6), (c)(6), and (d)(2)(ii)(B).
As explained in the original 1995 rulemaking, the EPA included
maintenance allowances as a variance to the emission standard during
repairs, and to allow facilities to have additional time beyond the
compliance deadline to meet the applicable standards.\60\ These
provisions are inconsistent with the CAA as interpreted by the D.C.
Circuit in Sierra Club. The EPA is proposing to remove these provisions
to ensure the consistent use of controls and application of a CAA
section 112 standard at all times. Consistent with the removal of the
maintenance allowance provisions, the EPA is proposing to remove the
definition of ``maintenance allowance'' in 40 CFR 63.561. The EPA
considered the possibility of prescribing specific work practice
standards as a potential replacement for the maintenance allowance
provisions under 40 CFR 63.562(b)(6), (c)(6), and (d)(2)(ii)(B). CAA
section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work
practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the provisions
of CAA section 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of
the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard.
However, the EPA was unable to identify specific work practice
standards that would allow operation to continue consistently with
Sierra Club. The EPA is soliciting comment on the removal of
maintenance allowance provisions for MTVLO (C-13). The EPA also is
soliciting comment on potential work practice standards that could be
implemented in lieu of the applicable emission standards during periods
of maintenance (C-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ See Federal Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations--Technical
Support Document for Final Standards: Summary of Public Comments and
Responses, Sec. 2.6.1, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the MTVLO NESHAP submit electronic copies of required
notifications and reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using CEDRI. The memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, describes the electronic data
submission process and is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The 2011 MTVLO NESHAP RTR included requirements that affected
sources electronically submit performance test results collected using
test methods that are compatible with the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) to the EPA's CDX by using the ERT or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet.\61\ In this proposal, the EPA is making minor
updates to the electronic reporting language for performance tests to
reflect the current electronic reporting process (e.g., all methods are
now compatible with the ERT). Similar to performance test results, the
EPA proposes to add language that would require submitting continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) performance evaluation results in
the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file
consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website.\62\ Electronic files
consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website must accompany all
the information required by 40 CFR 63.7(g)(2) in PDF format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ 76 FR 22566 (Apr. 21, 2011).
\62\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Last updated
September 2, 2025). Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT): <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For periodic reports, the proposed rule would require that owners
and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this
report is in the docket for this action.\63\ The EPA specifically
requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the
template (C-15). The proposed rule would require that owners and
operators submit all other notifications and reports as a PDF upload in
CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ See Part_63_Subpart_Y_63.567(o)_Periodic_Report, available
at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, keep with current trends in data availability and
transparency, further assist in the protection of public health and the
environment, and improve compliance by facilitating the ability of
regulated entities to demonstrate compliance with requirements.
Further, the electronic submittal of reports facilitates the ability of
the EPA and delegated State, local, Tribal, and territorial air
agencies to assess and determine compliance and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. For more information on the benefits of electronic
reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, referenced earlier in this
section.
To facilitate electronic reporting, the EPA proposes to specify
several reporting elements commonly included in periodic reports that
are not always directly required in the regulatory text (like facility
name, address, contact person information, period covered by the
report). Specifying these reporting elements provides a clear and
distinct reference for all reporting elements included in the reporting
form, which improves transparency and clarity for the requirements in
each report. Affected sources can easily copy most of these data
elements into subsequent reporting forms or save the form as a template
with these data elements populated, thus minimizing burden to
reporters.
Additionally, the EPA proposes that periodic reporting occur
semiannually.

[[Page 10570]]

Currently, the MTVLO NESHAP includes provisions to allow facilities to
request annual reporting after meeting certain conditions. This is
inconsistent with the general provisions codified at 40 CFR part 63
subpart A, which establish a default semiannual reporting frequency and
only allow requests for reduced reporting frequency in cases that
require quarterly periodic reports. Further, the NESHAP currently
exempts owners and operators from reporting exceedances if the
exceedances occur for less than five percent of the operating time,
which is also inconsistent with the general provisions. Table 1 in 40
CFR 63.650 indicates that 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3)(vi) applies. There is no
allowance in the general provisions to forego submittal of the summary
report based on the duration of exceedances. In fact, the summary
report is always required, and the duration of excess emissions and
downtime determines when a facility must submit a full excess emissions
report. Therefore, the EPA proposes to remove this allowance and to
require that each periodic report includes a clear indication of
whether there were deviations during the reporting period. If
deviations occur, the EPA would require facilities provide information
to identify the exceeded operating limit, the time and duration of the
deviation, the cause of the deviation, and the taken corrective action
or adopted preventative measures.
To better transition from the current ``excess emission reports''
to semiannual electronic reporting, the EPA proposes to sunset the
provisions addressing summary reports and excess emissions and
monitoring system performance reports in 40 CFR 63.567(e) and the
malfunction reporting in 40 CFR 63.567(m) within 180 days of the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. On or after 180
days of the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, the
EPA proposes that owners and operators must meet the new reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.567(o). The reporting requirements in 40 CFR
63.567(o) include information similar to that previously required, as
well as reporting elements to improve transparency and clarity for
electronic reporting and additional reporting elements based on other
proposed revisions, such as reporting elements associated with the
enhanced flare monitoring requirements discussed in section III.B.6 of
this preamble.
The EPA solicits comment on its proposal to require electronic
reporting and the revisions made to the reporting requirements to
facilitate electronic reporting and directly report deviations (C-16).
3. Cross-Reference Updates
General Provisions Table. Table 1 to 40 CFR 60.560 provides an
applicability crosswalk of the part 63 general provisions (40 CFR part
63 subpart A) to the MTVLO NESHAP. Since the EPA last reviewed table 1
to 40 CFR 60.560, the EPA has reserved or eliminated some sections of
the general provisions (if they were at the end of a series of
paragraphs). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise numerous table
entries that currently indicate ``yes'' as the applicability to ``no''
for sections that are now reserved. The EPA is also proposing to remove
table entry lines for sections that no longer exist in the general
provisions. For numerous entries, the EPA indicates the general
provisions section does not apply because the MTVLO NESHAP does not
include opacity monitoring standards. The EPA is proposing to add a
comment for several similar entries in table 1 to 40 CFR 60.560 to
explain in a consistent manner that these sections do not apply because
``[n]o opacity monitoring is required under subpart Y.''
In addition to these straightforward updates, the EPA notes that
the current table 1 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(g)(2) indicated ``no'' for
the applicability with a comment marking the section as reserved. The
provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(g)(2) now include reporting elements
necessary for performance test reports. After reviewing these reporting
elements, the EPA proposes to revise the ``no'' for applicability for
40 CFR 63.7(g)(2) to ``yes'' because the Agency deems these reporting
elements to be reasonable and necessary for inclusion in the
performance test report to understand the source being tested, the test
methods used, and the operating conditions during the performance test.
Other Cross-Reference Revisions. In our review of the MTVLO NESHAP,
the EPA also noted that 40 CFR 63.563(a)(3) referenced 33 CFR 154.814
for operating pressure requirements for the marine tank vessel's vapor
collection system. The cross-referenced requirements no longer exist.
The EPA reviewed the former requirements and found that these
requirements now reside in 33 CFR 154.2103. Therefore, the EPA proposes
to replace the outdated cross-reference to 33 CFR 154.814 with
reference to 33 CFR 154.2103.
The EPA solicits comment on its proposal to update cross-references
in table 1 to 40 CFR 63.560 to account for part 63 general provisions
revisions and to update the cross-reference for operating pressure
requirements in 40 CFR 63.653(a)(3) (C-17).
4. Clarifications Regarding the Applicability and Designation of
Affected Source
In reviewing the exemptions in 40 CFR 63.560(d), the EPA notes that
the exclusion in paragraph (d)(6), which involves the applicability of
existing offshore loading terminals, is broader than other provisions.
Most of the other exclusions include the phrase ``pertaining to . . .''
that helps focus the exemption, whereas the exclusion in paragraph
(d)(6) does not contain that phrase. The EPA notes that the RACT
standards do not differentiate between new and existing sources, so the
Agency considers this requirement under 40 CFR 63.560(d)(6) to apply
specifically to MACT standards. Therefore, the EPA proposes to clarify
that the exclusion in 40 CFR 63.560(d)(6) pertains to the MACT
standards in 40 CFR 63.562(b). Also, because the VMT source is a
standalone affected source with site-specific MACT and RACT standards,
the EPA proposes to correct the language in paragraphs 40 CFR 63.560(a)
and (b).
The EPA also seeks to clarify the applicability of the RACT
provisions to offshore terminals. In the preamble to the 1995 final
rule, the EPA explained: ``Since most of the other comments noted that
the significantly higher costs and poor cost effectiveness shown by
these sources . . . would make control requirements unreasonable for
these offshore terminals, the Agency determined that the requirements
for controls at offshore RACT terminals would not be consistent with
the requirements for the technology to be `reasonable.' '' \64\
Therefore, the EPA proposes to clarify in the regulatory text,
consistent with the 1995 final rule preamble, that the RACT provisions
do not apply to offshore loading terminals. The EPA solicits comment on
this proposed clarification for the applicability of the MACT and RACT
standards to offshore loading terminals (C-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ 60 FR 48393 (Sept. 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA has received inquiries about the applicability of the MTVLO
NESHAP to liquified natural gas (LNG) loading terminals. The EPA
expects that LNG terminals are exempt under the provision in 40 CFR
63.560(d)(5). The EPA notes that the provision under 40 CFR
63.560(d)(5) is specific to ``loading berths that only transfer liquids
containing organic HAP as impurities, as that term is defined in 40 CFR
63.561.'' The EPA expects that a loading berth used for LNG is
specialized for

[[Page 10571]]

loading LNG and would meet this exemption without revisions to the
rule. The EPA requests comment on the need to further clarify the rule
applicability related to LNG and whether the exemption in 40 CFR
63.560(d)(5) should refer to the commodity rather than the loading
berth (C-19).
5. Performance Testing
As part of the EPA's review of the requirements of the MTVLO
NESHAP, the Agency noted that the rule only requires an initial
performance test. It is common for the control efficiency of control
devices to degrade over time, and periodic performance testing provides
a means to update operating parameters and ensure compliance as the
control devices age. Therefore, the EPA evaluated requiring periodic
performance tests at a minimum frequency of once every 60 calendar
months. The EPA estimates that the average control efficiency of
regularly tested control devices is 98 percent and that the average
control efficiency of devices not periodically tested is 95 percent.
Costs per test are estimated at approximately $25,200, with annualized
costs of $6,230 considering one performance test over a 5-year period,
in 2023 dollars. The EPA assumes the periodic testing would generally
lead to higher temperature operating limits. The EPA estimates the
annual cost of maintaining the higher temperature operating limits at
$1,640 per combustion device. The Agency expects that complying with
revised operating limits would entail minimal additional costs for
vapor recovery devices. For control devices that use a VOC CEMS, the
EPA proposes to require annual relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) to
maintain the accuracy of CEMS. The EPA estimates the annual costs of
RATA at approximately $19,000. The EPA estimates the average cost
effectiveness of the periodic performance test and annual RATA
requirements at $7,520 per ton HAP reduced. Based on the analysis of
the costs of conducting the performance test and the expected
improvement in control device performance over time, the EPA determined
that a periodic testing requirement and annual RATA requirement is
reasonable. Therefore, the EPA proposes to require periodic performance
tests at least once every 60 calendar months and annual RATAs for VOC
CEMS. For more detail regarding this assessment, see the memorandum
Technology Review for National Emission Standards for Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations in docket for this rulemaking.\65\ The EPA
solicits comment on the proposed requirement to conduct periodic
performance tests at least once every 60 calendar months and the
proposed requirement to conduct annual RATAs (C-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Flare Monitoring Provisions
The EPA evaluated monitoring requirements to ensure that flares
meet the desired minimum control efficiency at all times. Since the
previous technology review of the MTVLO NESHAP, the EPA has promulgated
numerous standards that include new operating limits and monitoring
requirements to ensure flares achieve the MACT level of control at all
times, starting with the amendments in the 2015 Refineries Rule.\66\
The current MTVLO NESHAP requires that an owner or operator using
flares demonstrate initial compliance of those devices with the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b), but the MTVLO NESHAP does not require
ongoing monitoring. The general provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b)(1)
require ``[o]wners or operators using flares to comply with the
provisions of this part shall monitor these control devices to assure
that they are operated and maintained in conformance with their
designs'' and state that ``[a]pplicable subparts will provide
provisions stating how owners or operators using flares shall monitor
these control devices.'' The EPA believes that the lack of ongoing
monitoring requirements in the MTVLO NESHAP conflicts with this general
provision requirement. Further, the EPA believes that the general
provision requirements are insufficient for ensuring high destruction
efficiencies for assisted flares and understands that most flares at
MTVLO use assist air or steam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC; 80 FR 75178 (Dec. 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2015 Refineries Rule requires operating limits and monitoring
requirements for the following: continuous pilot or flame, visible
emissions, maximum flare tip velocity, flare gas flow rate, combustion
zone net heating value (NHV<INF>cz</INF>), and, for perimeter air-
assisted flares, net heating value dilution (NHV<INF>dil</INF>)
parameter. Additionally, MTVLO facilities co-located with petroleum
refineries already must comply with the improved monitoring
requirements.
Consistent with the impact analysis conducted for the 2015
Refineries Rule, the EPA assumed that the average control efficiency of
MTVLO flares, which are subject only to pilot flame monitoring, would
achieve a baseline control device efficiency of approximately 94
percent. The EPA also assumed that those MTVLO flares meeting the
operating limits for flares in the 2015 Refineries Rule would achieve
at least 98 percent control. Costs to comply with the 2015 Refineries
Rule monitoring provisions can vary widely, depending on whether an
owner or operator needs continuous net heating value (NHV) monitoring
or can use a sampling demonstration for waste gas streams with
consistent composition or a fixed minimum NHV. Because MTVLO facilities
often load a consistent slate of products and because the control
requirements only apply when loading liquids with a vapor pressure of
1.5 psia or greater, the EPA expects most MTVLO facilities are able to
conduct a sampling demonstration and use the fixed, minimum NHV from
the demonstration rather than install continuous NHV monitors. Also,
the EPA expects liquid loading volumes to provide a reasonable measure
of the waste gas flow rate from the MTVLO facilities, so waste gas flow
monitors would not generally be required. Across all flares used at
MTVLO facilities, the EPA estimates the average cost effectiveness of
applying the 2015 Refineries Rule's enhanced flare monitoring
provisions to the MTVLO source category to be $8,150 per ton of HAP
reduced. For more detail regarding this assessment, see the memorandum
Technology Review for National Emission Standards for Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations in the docket for this action.\67\ Based on
the EPA's analysis of the monitoring costs and the expected improvement
in control device performance, the Agency finds the enhanced flare
monitoring provisions to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA understands that some flares MTVLO facilities use to
control emissions may be subject to a 95 percent (offshore) or 97
percent (existing onshore) control standard. The EPA developed enhanced
flare monitoring provisions from the 2015 Refineries Rule to meet a 98
percent control efficiency. Enhanced flare monitoring requirements
appear to be necessary because the current provisions in the MTVLO
NESHAP do not ensure that these flares consistently meet the required
control efficiencies. The EPA notes that flare performance often drops
dramatically below the target operating limits, so there is not a
significant difference in operating limits to ensure 97 percent control
efficiency versus 98 percent control efficiency. The 2015

[[Page 10572]]

Refineries Rule applied these enhanced monitoring provisions to all
flares at the refinery, including those MTVLO flares at petroleum
refineries that cross-reference into the MTVLO NESHAP and are subject
to a 95, 97, and 98 percent control efficiency requirements under 40
CFR 63.651(e). Therefore, the EPA proposes to require that flares used
to comply with the MTVLO control requirements meet the operating limits
in 40 CFR 63.670 and the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.671, with
some minor revisions as discussed in the following paragraphs. The EPA
also proposes to sunset the flare performance test requirement at 40
CFR 63.565(e) and to add specific flare recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.567(o) and (p), consistent with those in the
2015 Refineries Rule and with the proposed flare monitoring
requirements. The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to the
flare monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, consistent with those
included in the 2015 Refineries Rule (C-21).
The EPA proposes revisions to the 14-day grab sampling provisions
in 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6)(i)(D) to allow fewer days for collecting samples
but to maintain the 14-grab sample requirement. The intent of the 14
samples is to assess the variability of NHV during the low NHV
commodity loading scenario to account for these factors. Although the
EPA expects the loaded commodity to drive the lowest NHV, the Agency
also expects that the NHV will vary somewhat with temperature and with
the fill level of the cargo tank. The time that a MVTLO facility needs
to load a marine vessel depends on the size of the vessel and can vary
from several hours to a week or more. Considering the typical time
needed to load a marine tank vessel, the EPA proposes that MVTLO
facility owners and operators collect samples at intervals of no less
than 60 minutes apart. This will allow the collection of 14 grab
samples over a few days but will cover a range of temperatures during
the sampling day(s) and different loading liquid levels in the marine
vessel's cargo tank. Thus, the EPA expects this sampling schedule would
maintain the same level of variability in the samples as expected over
a 14-day period. Therefore, the EPA proposes to include in the MTVLO
flare requirements at 40 CFR 63.563(b)(5) a provision to allow the
collection of 14 grab samples over fewer days, provided at least 60
minutes run between the collection of each grab sample. This provision
will reduce the burden of the sampling demonstration while still
accounting for changes in NHV due to temperature and other loading
conditions. The EPA solicits comment on its proposal for allowing
hourly grab samples rather than daily grab samples to determine the
consistent or minimum NHV of the flare gas (C-22).
The EPA also proposes to include in the MTVLO flare requirements at
40 CFR 63.563(b)(5) a provision to allow use of the cumulative liquid
loading rate as an alternative to monitoring the waste gas flow rate.
The EPA expects the MTVLO vapor collection system to operate at low
pressures and the flow rate of displaced vapors by the MTVLO facility
to be equal to the liquid filling rate. The EPA finalized a similar
provision for gasoline loading racks in the gasoline distribution
NSPS.\68\ The Agency considers this a reasonable alternative for MTVLO
sources because of similarities in the processes and operating
pressures. The EPA solicits comment on its proposal for allowing the
MTVLO source to use volumetric liquid loading rate as a proxy for the
flare gas flow rate (C-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ 40 CFR part 60 subpart XXa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Compliance Provisions
As part of this review, the EPA noted several inconsistencies in
the compliance provisions that the Agency is proposing to address.
First, the EPA believes that the temperature operating limits required
for condensers and refrigeration units in 40 CFR 63.653(b)(7)(ii) and
(iii) are ineffectual and technically unsound. For carbon adsorption
units, the temperature operating limit must be ``no more than 10
percent or 5.6 [degrees Celsius] [deg]C (10 [degrees Fahrenheit]
[deg]F) above the baseline carbon bed temperature, whichever is less
stringent.'' For condensers, refrigeration units, and combustion
devices (except for flares), the temperature operating limit must be
``no more than 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F) below the baseline temperature.''
The EPA suspects that the temperature operating limit provisions for
condensers and refrigeration units incorrectly uses the combustion
device temperature requirement in the provision rather than the carbon
adsorber temperature requirement, which would better represent
condensers and refrigeration units and provide stronger compliance
assurance with the emissions standard. For example, a condenser/
refrigeration unit that operated at 35 [deg]F during the performance
test would not have comparable emissions reductions to a unit operated
at 80 [deg]F, as the amount of VOC that remain uncondensed in the gas
stream at 80 [deg]F is much greater than at 35 [deg]F. However, the
current provisions in 40 CFR 63.653(b)(7)(ii) and (iii) that allow a 28
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) variance in the condenser/refrigeration unit's
operating temperature would allow a condenser/refrigeration unit that
operated at 35 [deg]F during the performance test to continuously
operate at 80 [deg]F after the performance test. To correct this
suspected error, the EPA proposes to revise the temperature requirement
for condensers/refrigeration units in 40 CFR 63.653(b)(7)(ii) to be no
more than 10 percent or 5.6 [deg]C (10 [deg]F) above the baseline
temperature, consistent with the requirement for carbon adsorption
units. The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to the
temperature operating limit provisions for condensers and refrigeration
units (C-24).
Second, the EPA proposes to sunset the provisions that allow owners
and operators to use manufacturer's recommendations to set baseline
operating temperatures. First, the EPA finds that the MTVLO NESHAP
provisions that allow operation at 50 [deg]F below the manufacturer's
recommended minimum operating temperature do not ensure that the
control device operates at least as high as the manufacturer's
recommended minimum temperature. As such, there is no guarantee, even
from the manufacturer, that operation at the allowed baseline
temperature will meet the required MACT/RACT control efficiencies.
Second, as noted in section III.B.5 of this preamble, the EPA proposes
periodic performance tests as a means to update operating limits and
ensure compliance as the control device ages. Using the manufacturer's
recommended minimum operating temperature limit undermines the purpose
of using the periodic performance tests to adjust the control device
operating limits, as necessary, based on actual performance of the
control device as it ages and begins to degrade. Therefore, the EPA
proposes that owners and operators can no longer use the provision in
40 CFR 63.565(f)(2), which allows the use of manufacturer's recommended
minimum (or maximum) temperature to set baseline temperature for any
performance tests conducted after the effective date of the final rule.
The EPA proposes to add ``, if applicable'' in the definition of
``baseline operating parameter'' and in paragraphs 40 CFR
63.563(b)(4)(ii), 63.564(e)(3), and (h)(1) when referencing the
manufacturer's recommended minimum temperature, consistent with the
proposed sunsetting of these provisions. The EPA requests

[[Page 10573]]

comment on the proposal to sunset the use of manufacturer's minimum (or
maximum) temperatures and to require that the baseline temperature rely
on the control device temperature during the performance test (C-25).
Third, the EPA notes that the RACT compliance option of 1,000 ppmv
outlet concentration for gasoline loading is a direct standard, not a
parameter operating limit, and suspects that its application is
inconsistent between control devices. The RACT standards at 40 CFR
60.562(c)(4) state that an ``owner or operator of a source with
throughput of 10 M barrels or 200 M barrels, except the VMT source, may
meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) by reducing gasoline loading
emissions to, at most, 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC concentration.'' The
existing MVTLO NESHAP provides this 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC concentration
RACT alternative for gasoline loading carbon adsorption systems in 40
CFR 63.563(b)(6)(iii) and, with some additions, for condensers/
refrigeration units in 40 CFR 63.563(b)(7)(iii), but the option is not
in the provision for combustion devices (other than flares) or for
absorbers. The EPA understands that this compliance option is not
appropriate for combustion devices because a combustion device will
have significant dilution with combustion air. As such, a 1,000 ppmv
outlet VOC concentration for a combustion device would be significantly
less stringent than for a 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC concentration recovery
device. This may be contrary to the RACT provisions, which require
MTVLO using a combustion device to achieve a 98 percent reduction,
while a recovery device is only required to achieve a 95 percent
reduction. Thus, the EPA agrees that the 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC
concentration alternative should not apply to MTVLO using a combustion
device. However, as currently worded, the alternative in 40 CFR
60.562(c)(4) appears to apply to both provisions in 40 CFR
60.562(c)(3). Therefore, the EPA proposes to clarify in 40 CFR
60.562(c)(4) that this 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC concentration limit is
only available as an alternative to the requirements in 40 CFR
60.562(c)(3) when using a recovery device.
With that proposed clarification, the EPA finds no reason not to
provide this 1,000 ppmv outlet VOC concentration compliance option
equally for all recovery devices. Therefore, the EPA proposes to add
compliance options at 40 CFR 63.563(b)(8)(iii) to allow owners and
operators of absorbers to use this outlet concentration standard, when
it applies. The EPA also proposes to revise the compliance provisions
in 40 CFR 63.563(b)(7)(iii) for condenser/refrigeration units to
parallel the compliance provisions for this alternative provided for
other recovery devices. As previously noted, the temperature operating
limit provided in 40 CFR 63.563(b)(7)(iii) is inappropriate, and the
EPA is proposing to remove this temperature operating limit option for
the 1,000 ppmv VOC compliance alternative.
While the MTVLO NESHAP provides some operational flexibility for
operating parameters used to ensure the source is operating similarly
to when the source conducted the performance test and demonstrated
compliance with the applicable standard, the EPA finds no rationale for
allowing similar flexibility when complying with a direct emissions
limit. The EPA finds the current provisions that allow up to 1,200 ppmv
VOC outlet concentrations for this alternative effectively allows
exceedances of this direct emissions limitation. Therefore, the EPA
proposes to revise the compliance requirements for this optional
standard to require compliance with the 1,000 ppmv limit at all times,
rather than allowing deviations up to 1,200 ppmv. The EPA solicits
comment on the proposed revisions to the 1,000 ppmv VOC outlet
concentration RACT alternative, specific for gasoline loading
operations, to clarify this provision is an alternative only for RACT
facilities using recovery devices and to treat this limit as a direct
emissions limit. The EPA also requests information on the number of
sources currently complying with this 1,000 ppmv VOC outlet
concentration limit (C-26).
In assessing the 1,000 ppmv VOC outlet concentration RACT
alternative in relationship with the MACT requirements, the EPA
investigated whether any facilities could use that alternative. The EPA
expects that terminals meeting the throughput thresholds for RACT
facilities would also be major sources of HAP emissions subject to MACT
requirements. Since the MACT standard for existing onshore sources
require a minimum of 97 percent reduction independent of the control
device, the EPA expects these RACT facilities using a recovery device
would have to comply with the MACT requirements and that the RACT
provisions allowing 95 percent reduction or 1,000 ppmv VOC outlet
concentration would not apply.
The EPA proposes to clarify in 40 CFR 63.560(a)(2) that the MACT
emission standards do not apply below the emissions threshold.
Similarly, the EPA proposes to clarify in 40 CFR 63.560(b)(2) that the
RACT emission standards do not apply below the throughput threshold.
Finally, the EPA proposes to add overlap provisions at 40 CFR 63.560(f)
that directly address cases where MACT and/or RACT provisions apply.
For sources other than the VMT source, the EPA proposes to clarify that
sources subject to both the MACT standards in 40 CFR 63.562(b) and the
RACT standards in 40 CFR 63.562(c), respectively, must comply only with
the most stringent of the applicable requirements. Thus, MTVLO
terminals meeting the applicability requirements for both MACT and RACT
standards would have to comply with the 98 percent control efficiency
requirement when using a combustion device and comply with the 97
percent control efficiency requirement when using a recovery device.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed overlap provisions and
associated clarifications to limit the exclusion of the standards as
provided in 40 CFR 63.560(a)(2) and (b)(2) (C-27).
8. Other Revisions
The EPA proposes several revisions to clarify and provide
consistency in the MTVLO NESHAP requirements:
<bullet> The EPA proposes revisions to 40 CFR 63.560(e) to clarify
the compliance dates for offshore terminals and remove erroneous
references to the VMT source.
<bullet> The EPA proposes revisions to the definition of ``affected
sources'' in 40 CFR 63.561 to more clearly delineate that sources
subject to the submerged loading standards are affected sources under
the MTVLO NESHAP.
<bullet> The EPA proposes to revise the definition of ``marine tank
vessel loading operation'' in 40 CFR 63.561 to clarify that loading
commodities at an offshore loading terminal qualifies as a MTVLO
source.
<bullet> The EPA proposes to add a definition of ``regulated
commodity'' to mean any commodity other than those exempted under 40
CFR 63.560(d)(1) or (5) as a term of convenience for some of the
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
<bullet> The EPA proposes an editorial revision the definition of
``terminal'' in 40 CFR 63.561 to replace ``land or sea based
structure(s)'' with ``land- or sea-based structure(s).''
<bullet> The EPA proposes to add ``captured'' prior to ``HAP
emissions'' in 40 CFR 63.652(b)(3) and (4), consistent with the
phrasing used in 40 CFR 63.652(b)(2).
<bullet> The EPA proposes to replace ``HAP'' with ``VOC'' in 40 CFR
63.562(c)(5) because these are RACT

[[Page 10574]]

provisions that regulate VOC rather than HAP.
<bullet> The EPA proposes to add ``and VOC'' following ``HAP''
because these are both MACT and RACT provisions that regulate both HAP
and VOC vapors from MTVLO sources.
<bullet> The EPA proposes to correct subparagraph cross-references
in 40 CFR 63.562(d)(2)(ii)(B) by replacing references to paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii)(B)(a), (b), or (c) with (d)(2)(ii)(B)(1), (2), or (3),
respectively.
<bullet> The EPA proposes to clarify that the ``cycle'' is the
average duration of the individual performance test runs for the
operating limits based on performance test data.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed editorial revisions and
requests information on other revisions that would improve the clarity
of the rule requirements (C-28).
9. Severability
This proposed action contains several discrete components, which
the EPA views as severable as a practical matter--i.e., they are
functionally independent and if finalized as proposed would operate in
practice independently of the other components. These discrete
components are generally delineated by the section headings within
section III.B of this document. For example, the proposed electronic
reporting provisions, performance testing provisions, and flare
monitoring provisions discussed in sections III.B.2, III.B.5, and
III.B.6 generally function independently of one another. The EPA
invites comment on the severability of this proposed rule, and in
particular whether any components are not functionally independent (C-
29).

C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

Most of the proposed revisions are clarifications and editorial
revisions. The EPA proposes that the compliance date for these
clarifications (i.e., those not specifically addressed below) would be
the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is proposing additional
compliance time for a limited number of proposed revisions. The
following sections provide the proposed compliance dates for revisions
that have a compliance date other than the effective date of the final
rule and our rationale for the proposed compliance dates. The EPA
requests comment on the proposed compliance dates for the proposed
revisions to the MTVLO NESHAP (C-30).
1. Compliance Dates for Electronic Reporting
The EPA proposes to provide 180 days after the effective date of
the final rule to comply with the proposed electronic reporting
requirements. This will generally allow facilities to complete their
reporting period under the current provisions and provide sufficient
time to transition to the new electronic reporting requirements.
2. Compliance Dates for Performance Tests
The EPA proposes that owners and operators conduct the first
periodic performance test within 180 days of the effective date of the
final rule. The Agency considers 180 days to be as expedient as
realistically practicable for MTVLO terminals. This allows owners and
operators time to identify an appropriate testing contractor and to
schedule and conduct the performance tests. Additionally, the EPA
proposes to allow owners and operators to use tests conducted up to two
years prior to the effective date of the final rule as the first
periodic performance test. This will reduce the burden on owners and
operators who have recently conducted testing by allowing them to use
data that is still representative of facility operations and control
device performance instead of immediately requiring a new performance
test.
3. Compliance Dates for Flare Monitoring Provisions
The EPA proposes to provide three years to comply with the
additional monitoring requirements proposed for flares. This is
consistent with the timeframe we provided for petroleum refineries when
first proposing those requirements. The new requirements may require
owners or operators to upgrade monitoring systems, and three years is
as expedient as realistically practicable considering the number of
monitoring systems that owners or operators may need to upgrade.
4. Compliance Dates for Other Revisions
The EPA proposes that other proposed revisions would become
effective on the effective date of the final rule.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

The EPA estimates that approximately 190 facilities are subject to
the MTVLO NESHAP MACT standards. The list of facilities is in the
document titled List of Facilities Subject to the MTVLO NESHAP in the
docket for this rulemaking.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the NESHAP would
reduce overall VOC and HAP emissions from the MTVLO source category by
3,500 tpy and 280 tpy, respectively. These reductions include
approximately 118 tons per year of hexane emissions, 62 tons of benzene
emissions, and 56 tons of methanol emissions.
Considering secondary impacts (e.g., emission increases associated
with supplemental fuel or additional electricity), the EPA estimates
that the proposed action would result in additional criteria pollutant
emissions of 14.7 tpy of carbon monoxide and 3.2 tpy of nitrogen
oxides. For more information about the estimated emission reductions
and secondary impacts of this proposed action, see the memorandum
Technology Review for National Emission Standards for Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations in the docket.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the cost impacts?

The proposed action would cost (in 2023 dollars) approximately
$3,560,000 in first year costs (testing and initial demonstrations);
$3,000,000 in capital costs for monitoring systems; and an estimated
$2,135,000 in total annualized costs (TACs) based on our analysis of
the proposed changes to testing and flare monitoring described in
section III.B.5 and III.B.6 of this preamble. For more detail regarding
this assessment, see the memorandum Technology Review for National
Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations included
in the docket for this rulemaking.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal,
Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA often prepares a partial equilibrium analysis for economic
impact analyses of rules that directly affect industries. In this type
of economic analysis, the EPA estimates any impacts on a single
affected industry or several affected industries. The EPA assumes that
all impacts of

[[Page 10575]]

this rule on industries outside of those affected are zero or so
inconsequential that those impacts do not require consideration in the
analysis. If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an economic
impact analysis, are quite insignificant, then the impact analysis
could consist of a calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a
percentage of sales for affected companies. The EPA applies this latter
type of analysis (termed a screening analysis) when the Agency deems a
partial equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis
unnecessary given the expected size of the impacts.
The EPA calculates the economic impacts of the proposal on small
entities as the percentage of TACs incurred by affected ultimate parent
owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct
economic impact to ultimate parent owners of MTVLO terminals while
presuming no impact on consumers. The EPA estimates the average small
entity impacted by the proposal will incur TACs of 0.50 percent of
their revenue, with none exceeding 4.11 percent. The EPA estimates
fewer than 20 percent of impacted small entities will incur TACs
greater than one percent of their revenue. This is based on a
conservative estimate of costs imposed on ultimate parent companies,
where TACs are an average across all facilities due to lack of facility
specific cost information.
In addition to the screening analysis, the EPA also prepared a
present value analysis to capture the stream of costs over time. The
EPA selected a 15-year period from 2027 to 2041 as the best measure of
the economic impacts of this action. This allows for a reasonable and
consistent timeframe over which to examine impacts of this proposed
action from a present value (PV) perspective and aligns with several
cycles of performance testing and emission monitor procurement. The PV
of costs in 2024 dollars is approximately $19 million using a three
percent discount rate and $15 million using a seven percent discount
rate. The equivalent annualized value (EAV) in 2024 dollars is
approximately $1.6 million using a discount rate of three percent and
$1.7 million using a discount rate of seven percent.
Given the results of the analysis, these economic impacts are
relatively low for affected industries and entities impacted by this
proposed rule, and the EPA does not anticipate substantial impacts on
the markets for affected products. The EPA does not expect costs of the
proposed rule to result in a significant market impact, regardless of
whether the firms pass costs to the purchaser or absorb costs. The EPA
expects minimal to no impacts on employment.

E. What are the benefits?

If finalized, this proposed rule would reduce HAP and VOC emissions
from MTVLO sources. VOCs form ground-level ozone in conjunction with
nitrogen oxides and in the presence of sunlight. Due to methodology and
data limitations, the EPA did not attempt to monetize the health
benefits of HAP reductions in this analysis. The Economic Impact
Analysis for this proposed action includes a qualitative discussion of
the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the proposed action.
The EPA is obligated to present the agency's best scientific
understanding and the implications of that science when developing
policies and regulations. However, the EPA's analytical practices may
not have presented the full range of uncertainties and associated
confidence level regarding the potential benefit estimates from
reduction in exposure from fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
and ozone. In addition, the science regarding the exposure, health
effects from exposure and valuation of reduction in health effect are
evolving with better data and methods, especially at low concentrations
of PM and ozone. The EPA's use of benefit per ton (BPT) monetized
values introduces additional uncertainty. Although developed as a
screening tool when full-form photochemical modeling was not feasible,
the BPT approach reduces complex spatial and atmospheric relationships
and may be more suited to model emissions that are geographically more
uniform and species better mixing, thereby adding uncertainty
associated with those estimates. Some of the sources of uncertainties
include the set of assumptions used in projecting the health impact of
reducing particulate matter. These projections are based on a series of
models that take into account emissions changes, resulting
distributions of changes in ambient air quality, the estimated
reductions in health effects from changes in exposure, and the
composition of the population that will benefit from the reduced
exposure. Each component includes assumptions, each with varying
degrees of uncertainty.
In addition, the EPA historically provided point estimates rather
than just ranges of emission-related effects or only quantifying
emissions when monetizing proved to be too uncertain. Therefore, to
address these concerns, the EPA is refraining in providing primary
estimates resulting from changes in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone exposure
resulting from changes in VOC emissions but will continue to quantify
the emissions until the Agency if confident enough in the modeling to
robustly monetize those impacts.

V. Request for Comments

The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action. In addition to
general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in
additional data that may improve the analyses (C-31). The EPA is
specifically interested in receiving any information regarding
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
reduce HAP emissions.
C-1: Should the EPA maintain the current applicability standards
for onshore existing sources?
C-2: Should the EPA maintain the vapor exemption provision
established under 40 CFR 63.560(d)(1)?
C-3: Do facilities currently use controls to achieve emissions less
than 10- or 25-tons HAP and are these controls federally enforceable?
C-4: Should the emission estimation procedures in 40 CFR 63.565(l)
be limited to federally enforceable (``permitted'') controls?
C-5: Are there any control technology developments that the EPA
should consider as part of the EPA's technology review?
C-6: Should the EPA maintain current monitoring requirements for
vapor collection system, or should the EPA revise the equipment leak
provisions to include liquid components, revise the leak definition, or
revise the monitoring frequency?
C-7: Should the EPA require sources to conduct EPA Method 21
monitoring when actively loading regulated material, and should the EPA
require repair of leaks within 15 days or prior to the next loading
operation?
C-8: Should the EPA allow AVO monitoring for vapor lines that are
under water or float on the water surface and for difficult-to-monitor
equipment components, and should the EPA eliminate the subsequent EPA
Method 21 monitoring requirement for AVO detected leaks?
C-9: Should the EPA broaden and strengthen the general duty
provision for MTVLO terminals?
C-10: Do circumstances warrant setting work practice standards for
periods of malfunction at MTVLO consistent with the requirements of CAA
section 112(h)?
C-11: How should the Agency address affirmative defense provisions
in other

[[Page 10576]]

NSPS or NESHAP rules in response to the D.C. Circuit's SSM Litigation
Group decision?
C-12: Should the EPA remove the affirmative defense provisions from
the MTVLO NESHAP?
C-13: Should the EPA remove maintenance allowance provisions from
the MTVLO NESHAP?
C-14: What potential appropriate work practice standards could the
EPA require, in light of the proposed removal of the maintenance
allowance provision?
C-15: What additional aspects should the EPA consider regarding the
content, layout, and overall design of the CEDRI electronic reporting
template?
C-16: Should the EPA require electronic reporting?
C-17: Should the EPA update the general provisions cross-references
in table 1 and the outdated cross-reference to operating pressure
requirements in 40 CFR 63.653(a)(3)?
C-18: How should MACT and RACT standards apply to offshore marine
terminals?
C-19: Should the EPA clarify the exemption at 40 CFR 63.560(d)(5)
or otherwise amend the rule to clarify the applicability of the rule to
loading LNG in marine tank vessels?
C-20: Should the EPA require periodic performance tests at least
every five years (60 calendar months), and the proposed requirement to
conduct and annual RATA?
C-21: Should the EPA enhance the flare monitoring and recordkeeping
provisions in accordance with those provisions in the 2015 Refineries
Rule?
C-22: Should the EPA allow hourly grab samples rather than daily
grab samples to determine the consistent or minimum NHV of the flare
gas?
C-23: Should the EPA allow sources to use the MTVLO liquid loading
rate as a proxy for the flare gas flow rate?
C-24: What are appropriate temperature operating limits for
condensers and refrigeration units?
C-25: Should the EPA require the baseline temperature operating
limit to be based on the control device temperature during the
performance test?
C-26: Should the EPA treat the 1,000 ppmv VOC outlet concentration
alternative as a direct emission limit only allowed specifically for
all recovery devices, and how many facilities would revisions to the
1,000 ppmv VOC outlet concentration standard impact?
C-27: Should the EPA include an overlap provision to clarify
applicability of requirements for facilities subject to MACT and RACT
standards?
C-28: Should the EPA implement the proposed editorial revisions
listed in Section III.B.8 and are there additional editorial revisions
needed to improve the clarity of the rule?
C-29: Should the EPA consider any components of this proposed rule
not functionally independent or severable?
C-30: Are the compliance dates for the proposed revisions to the
MTVLO NESHAP appropriate?
C-31: The EPA solicits comment on whether there is any additional
data that may improve the analyses for this technology review,
including the number of affected sources.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders is
available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to E.O. 12866
interagency review recommendations have been documented in the docket
for this rulemaking. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations, is available in the docket for this rulemaking and
is briefly summarized in section IV of this preamble.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared is assigned OMB
Control Number 2060-0289 (EPA ICR number 1679.13). You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here.
In this action, the EPA is proposing enhanced flare monitoring
requirements, requirements to perform periodic performance testing, and
electronic reporting provisions. The rulemaking also addresses
emissions during SSM and includes other minor clarifications and
corrections. This information will be collected to ensure compliance
with the MTVLO NESHAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of marine tank
vessel loading operation terminals.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63
subpart Y).
Estimated number of respondents: 190 (assumes no new respondents
over the next three years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: 1,950 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,135,128, includes $1,945,841 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than April 3, 2026.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses and government jurisdictions within the MTVLO source
category. The Agency has identified 26 small entities that may be
impacted by this proposed rule. The EPA calculated the cost-to-sales
ratios for all the affected facilities to determine (i) the magnitude
of the costs of the rule, and (ii) whether there would be a significant
impact on small entities compared to large entities. On average

[[Page 10577]]

the small entities are estimated to experience an impact of 0.50
percent cost-to-sales. The results of this small entity screening
analysis do not indicate that a substantial share of the small entities
affected by this rule would incur potentially high costs relative to
their revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in Economic
Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations, which is available in the docket for this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities that have been identified
as being affected by this action are owned or operated by Tribal
governments or located within Tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action. However, consistent with the EPA Policy
on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer
government-to-government consultation with Tribes upon request.

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

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed revisions
reduce HAP and VOC emissions generated from MTVLO and are projected to
improve overall health, including that of children.

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

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The amendments proposed in this action
involve minor improvements to the monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for MTVLO and would have a
minimal impact on the amount of imports or exports of crude oils,
condensates, or other organic liquids used in the energy supply
industries. Additionally, the EPA expects this proposed action would
not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, natural
gas production, or electricity production. Thus, given the minimal
impacts on energy supply, distribution, and use nationally, no
significant adverse energy effects are expected to occur. For more
information on these estimates of energy effects, please refer to the
supporting document, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

The NTTAA requires the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) in addition to the EPA methods in regulatory activities unless
doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. VCS are technical documents, such as test methods, that
are developed or adopted by VCS bodies using procedures that ensure
that the standards development process is open to all interested
parties. VCS bodies are generally private sector, not-for-profit
entities such as the American Society for Testing and Materials. The
EPA searched the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute for VCS that could be used in the MTVLO
NESHAP. The EPA also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. While the EPA made a reasonable effort to
identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS, our findings do not
necessarily represent all potential alternative standards which may
exist.
The EPA searched for acceptable alternatives for EPA Methods 1, 1A,
2, 2A, 2C, and 2D of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-1; EPA Methods 21, 22,
25, 25A, and 25B of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7; EPA Performance
Specification 8 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B; and, EPA Method 301 of
40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. The Agency found no VCS are acceptable
alternatives for these EPA methods and performance specification.
According to 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the
general provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in
the final rule or subsequent amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable
VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.

Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-04304 Filed 3-3-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 4, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.