`[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14248-14283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05463]



[[Page 14247]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 52

March 18, 2015

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site 
Waste and Recovery Operations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 14248]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360; FRL-9923-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR47


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to correct and clarify 
regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for reporting of 
performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); revise 
the routine maintenance provisions; clarify provisions pertaining to 
open-ended valves and lines (OELs); add monitoring requirements for 
pressure relief devices (PRDs); clarify provisions for some performance 
test methods and procedures; and make several minor clarifications and 
corrections. The revisions to the final rule increase the level of 
emissions control and environmental protection provided by the OSWRO 
NESHAP.

DATES: This final action is effective on March 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 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. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-0246; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C504-06), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-2076; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the 
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Marcia Mia, EPA Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; U.S. EPA, WJC West Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 
564-7042; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. 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:

ADAF--age-dependent adjustment factors
BDT--best demonstrated technology
CAA--Clean Air Act
CBI--confidential business information
CDX--Central Data Exchange
CEDRI--Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CRA--Congressional Review Act
CWA--Clean Water Act
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA--Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
ERT--Electronic Reporting Tool
FR--Federal Register
HAP--hazardous air pollutants
HON--Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ--hazard quotient
ICR--information collection request
IPT--integrated project team
kPa--kilopascals
LDAR--leak detection and repair
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
MIR--maximum individual risk
MON--Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NATA--National Air Toxics Assessment
NEIC--National Enforcement Investigations Center
NESHAP--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS--Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA--Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEL--open-ended valve or line
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSWRO--off-site waste and recovery operations
PB-HAP--hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM--polycyclic organic matter
ppm--parts per million
ppmv--parts per million by volume
ppmw--parts per million by weight
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD--pressure relief device
psi--pounds per square inch
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RQ--reportable quantity
RTR--residual risk and technology review
SBA--Small Business Administration
SCAQMD--South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOCMI--synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SSM--startup, shutdown and malfunction
TOSHI--target organ-specific hazard index
tpy--tons per year
TSDF--hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities
TTN--Technology Transfer Network
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS--voluntary consensus standards
VOC--volatile organic compound
VOHAP--volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
XML--extensible markup language

    Background Information. On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP based on our RTR, and we also 
proposed to amend provisions related to emissions during periods of 
SSM, to add requirements for electronic reporting of performance 
testing and monitoring requirements for PRDs, to revise routine 
maintenance provisions, to clarify provisions for OELs and for some 
performance test methods and procedures and to make several minor 
clarifications and corrections. In this action, we are finalizing 
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize key comments we 
timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses 
in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the proposal not 
presented in the preamble

[[Page 14249]]

and the EPA's responses to those comments are available in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. The background information also includes 
discussion and technical analyses of other issues addressed in this 
final rule. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that 
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the OSWRO source category and how does the NESHAP 
promulgated on July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions from the source 
category?
    C. What changes have been made to the standards since 
promulgation of the NESHAP for the OSWRO source category?
    D. What changes did we propose for the OSWRO source category in 
our July 2, 2014, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the OSWRO source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the OSWRO source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions 
to the OSWRO NESHAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the OSWRO source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the OSWRO Source Category
    C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the OSWRO 
Source Category
    D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

  Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Category Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NESHAP and source category         Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-Site Waste and Recovery         Businesses or government agencies
 Operations.                         that operate any of the following:
                                     Hazardous waste treatment, storage
                                     and disposal facilities (TSDF);
                                     Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                     Act (RCRA) exempt hazardous
                                     wastewater treatment facilities;
                                     nonhazardous wastewater treatment
                                     facilities other than publicly-
                                     owned treatment works; used solvent
                                     recovery plants; RCRA exempt
                                     hazardous waste recycling
                                     operations; used oil re-refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will be available on the Internet through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and 
technology exchange in various areas or air pollution control. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 
of this final action at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/offwaste/oswropg.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA 
will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at 
this same Web site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by May 18, 2015. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule, ``[i]f the

[[Page 14250]]

person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or any combination of HAP at a 
rate of 25 tpy or more. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, 
including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a 
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA 
section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 79 FR 37850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards 
provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to 
readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the OSWRO source category and how does the NESHAP 
promulgated on July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions from the source 
category?

    The EPA promulgated the OSWRO NESHAP on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34139). 
The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. The OSWRO 
industry consists of facilities that conduct operations to manage, 
convey or handle wastes or recoverable materials that are received from 
other facilities. The source category covered by the OSWRO NESHAP 
currently includes approximately 56 facilities. However, based on 
available permit information, seven facilities are known to be exempt 
from most of the rule requirements due to the low HAP content of the 
off-site waste they receive or because they comply instead with 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are not 
expected to be affected by the final rule amendments.
    In general, the rule applies to waste management units and recovery 
operations that are located at major sources of HAP emissions, are used 
to manage, convey or handle used oil, used solvent or waste received 
from other facilities, and contain at least one of 97 organic HAP 
specified in the rule.\2\ The HAP emission sources at facilities 
subject to the OSWRO NESHAP are tanks, containers, surface 
impoundments, oil-water separators, organic-water separators, process 
vents and transfer systems used to manage offsite material and 
equipment leaks. The MACT standards regulate these emissions sources 
through emission limits, equipment standards and work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The OSWRO MACT rule defines ``waste,'' ``used oil'' and 
``used solvent'' in 40 CFR 63.681 Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What changes have been made to the standards since promulgation of 
the NESHAP for the OSWRO source category?

    Rule changes have been made to the OSWRO NESHAP since the 
promulgation of the NESHAP on July 1, 1996, in several separate 
actions. On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38950), the EPA issued a direct final 
rule that amended specific provisions in the rule to resolve issues and 
questions raised after promulgation of the final rule. In this action, 
the EPA also amended other rule language to correct technical 
omissions, to make requirements consistent with other related air 
rules, and to correct typographical, printing and grammatical errors. 
On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1263), the EPA published technical 
corrections

[[Page 14251]]

and minor technical amendments for the OSWRO NESHAP. In addition, the 
EPA published proposed and final rules on January 16, 2002 (67 FR 
2286), and June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37334), respectively, to clarify which 
parts of several existing NESHAP, including the OSWRO NESHAP, can be 
delegated to state, local and tribal agencies. The EPA also published 
proposed and final rules on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43992), and April 20, 
2006 (71 FR 20446), respectively, to revise certain aspects of SSM 
requirements in several existing NESHAP, including the OSWRO NESHAP.

D. What changes did we propose for the OSWRO source category in our 
July 2, 2014, proposal?

    On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA published proposed 
amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP based on the RTR analyses and also 
proposed other revisions. The proposed revisions include the following:
     Revisions to the tank requirements to require increased 
control of emissions for tanks in a specific size range that also 
contain material above a specified vapor pressure;
     Revisions to the equipment leak requirements to remove the 
option to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 
61, subpart V, and require compliance with only 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
H;
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM;
     The addition of requirements for reporting of performance 
testing through the ERT;
     Revisions to the routine maintenance provisions to limit 
the applicability of the provisions to tanks;
     Clarifications to the ``sealed'' requirement of the 
provisions for OELs;
     Addition of monitoring requirements for PRDs;
     Clarification of provisions for some performance test 
methods and procedures; and
     Several minor clarifications and corrections.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the OSWRO source category, and amends 
the OSWRO NESHAP, as proposed, based on those determinations. This 
action also finalizes the proposed changes to the NESHAP described in 
section II.D. of this preamble. We are also finalizing minor changes to 
the NESHAP in consideration of comments received during the public 
comment period for the proposed rulemaking, as described in section 
IV.D.2 of this preamble. In the following subsections, we introduce and 
summarize the final amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
OSWRO source category?

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we are revising the tank and 
equipment leak requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP. Specifically, as we 
proposed, we are finalizing our determination that risks from the OSWRO 
source category are acceptable, considering all of the health 
information and factors evaluated and also considering risk estimation 
uncertainty; we are finalizing revisions to the tank requirements to 
require increased control of emissions for tanks in a specific size 
range that also contain material above a specified vapor pressure; and 
we are finalizing revisions to the equipment leak requirements to 
remove the option to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 
CFR part 61, subpart V, and require compliance with only 40 CFR part 
63, subpart H. We evaluated the costs, emissions reductions, energy 
implications and cost effectiveness of these revised standards and 
determined that these measures are cost effective and technically 
feasible and will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent adverse environmental effects from exposure to 
emissions from the OSWRO source category.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the OSWRO source category?

    We determined that there are developments in practices, processes 
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the NESHAP for this 
source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT standards to include those 
developments. Specifically, as we proposed, we are finalizing revisions 
to the tank requirements to require increased control of emissions for 
tanks in a specific size range that also contain material above a 
specified vapor pressure, and we are finalizing revisions, as proposed, 
to the equipment leak requirements to remove the option to comply with 
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and 
require compliance with only 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. As noted in 
section III.A of the preamble, we are concurrently promulgating these 
tank and equipment leak revisions under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the OSWRO NESHAP to 
eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63 (General 
Provisions applicability table) is being revised to change several 
references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We 
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made 
changes to the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary or 
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined 
that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 
emission standards in the OSWRO NESHAP at all times, including periods 
of startup and shutdown; therefore, the EPA determined that no 
additional standards are needed to address emissions during these 
periods.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other 
OSWRO NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the following 
paragraphs.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that 
owners and operators of OSWRO facilities submit electronic copies of 
certain required performance test reports through an electronic 
performance test report tool called the ERT. This requirement to submit 
performance test data electronically to the EPA does not require any 
additional performance testing and applies only to those performance 
tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We are finalizing the proposed revisions to the routine maintenance 
provisions to limit their applicability to tanks routing emissions to a 
control device rather than any equipment or process routing emissions 
to a control device. This revision restores the OSWRO NESHAP provisions 
to the original intent for them to be consistent with the routine 
maintenance provisions of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON).
    To reduce compliance uncertainty associated with ``sealed'' OELs, 
we are

[[Page 14252]]

finalizing the proposed revisions to clarify that OELs are ``sealed'' 
by a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when instrument monitoring 
of the OEL conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A indicates no readings of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater. For 
OELs that are exempt from the requirements to be equipped with a cap, 
blind flange, plug or second valve, we are requiring them to be 
equipped with a flow indicator, seal or locking device.
    To conform with the reasoning of the Court's ruling in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, we are finalizing the proposed requirements regarding releases 
directly to the atmosphere from safety devices, pressure tanks, 
bypasses and PRDs. These requirements prohibit bypasses of control 
devices and prohibit emissions released directly to the atmosphere from 
PRDs and closure devices on pressure tanks. In addition, we are 
finalizing the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
associated with releases to the atmosphere from bypasses and PRDs. We 
are also finalizing the proposed requirements that PRDs be monitored 
with a device or monitoring system that is capable of: (1) Identifying 
the pressure release; (2) recording the time and duration of each 
pressure release; and (3) notifying operators immediately that a 
pressure release is occurring.
    We are finalizing, as proposed, several minor changes to the test 
methods and procedures required by the NESHAP to correct errors and to 
provide consistency, clarification and flexibility.
    In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous 
minor changes to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.
    We are also finalizing minor changes to the NESHAP in consideration 
of comments received during the public comment period for the proposed 
rulemaking, as described in section IV. D.2 of this preamble.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the 
OSWRO NESHAP?

    The effective date and compliance dates for the revisions to the 
OSWRO NESHAP being promulgated in this action have not changed since 
proposal.
    The revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP being promulgated in this action 
are effective on March 18, 2015.
    The compliance date for the revised SSM requirements, electronic 
reporting requirements, the revised routine maintenance provisions, the 
operating and pressure release management requirements for PRDs, and 
the revised requirements regarding bypasses and closure devices on 
pressure tanks for existing OSWRO facilities is the effective date of 
the standards March 18, 2015. The compliance date for existing OSWRO 
facilities to comply with the PRD monitoring requirements is 3 years 
from the effective date of the standards, March 20, 2018. The 
compliance date for existing OSWRO facilities to comply with the 
revised tank requirements is 2 years from the effective date of the 
standards, March 20, 2017. For equipment leaks, the compliance date for 
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the standards, 
March 18, 2016.
    New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon 
the effective date of the standard, March 18, 2015, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the OSWRO source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the OSWRO 
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the July 2, 2014, proposed rule for the OSWRO NESHAP (79 FR 37850). The 
results of the risk assessment are presented briefly below in Table 2, 
and in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source 
Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and Technology Review 
Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Based 
on actual emissions for the OSWRO source category, the maximum 
individual risk (MIR) was estimated to be up to 9-in-1 million, the 
maximum chronic non-cancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) 
value was estimated to be up to 0.6, and the maximum off-site acute 
hazard quotient (HQ) value was estimated to be up to 1. The total 
estimated national cancer incidence from this source category, based on 
actual emission levels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one 
case in every 50 years. Based on MACT-allowable emissions for the OSWRO 
source category, the MIR was estimated to be up to 20-in-1 million, and 
the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated to be up to 1. 
We also found there were emissions of one persistent and bio-
accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) with an available RTR multipathway screening 
value, and the reported emissions of this HAP, 2-acetylaminofluorene 
(which is a polycyclic organic matter (POM) compound), were below the 
multipathway screening value for this compound. Emissions of three 
environmental HAP, POM, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, were 
reported by OSWRO facilities. For each of these three HAP, the modeled 
concentrations were below the respective ecological benchmark values. 
The maximum facility-wide MIR was 200-in-1 million and the maximum 
facility-wide TOSHI was 4. These risks were found to be due to 
emissions from non-OSWRO processes at the facility site and were based 
on actual emissions. We weighed all health risk factors in our risk 
acceptability determination, and we proposed that the residual risks 
from the OSWRO source category are acceptable.

[[Page 14253]]



                                   Table 2--Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) \a\                                                 Maximum chronic  non-
-------------------------------------------------------                               Estimated        cancer TOSHI \b\
                                                          Estimated population at      annual    ----------------------------
                                              MACT-      increased risk levels of      cancer                       MACT-       Maximum screening acute
        Actual  emissions  level            allowable             cancer              incidence      Actual       allowable        non-cancer HQ \d\
                                            emissions                                (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                            level \c\                                   year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.......................................           20   >= 1-in-1 million: 210,000         0.02           0.6             1   HQREL = 1 (glycol ethers).
                                                        >= 10-in-1 million: 0.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\b\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the OSWRO source category for both actual and MACT-allowable emissions is the respiratory
  system.
\c\ The development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memo MACT-Allowable Emissions for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
  Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
\d\ The maximum off-site acute value of 1 for actual emissions is driven by emissions of glycol ethers. Acute assessments are not performed with MACT-
  allowable emissions.

    We then considered whether the OSWRO NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and whether more stringent 
standards are necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we 
considered the same risk factors that we considered for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. The control options identified to 
reduce risk were the same as those identified under the technology 
review for the OSWRO source category. Based on that analysis, we 
proposed to require more stringent controls for tanks of certain sizes 
and containing materials above a certain vapor pressure. We also 
proposed to require facilities to comply with the more stringent leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H rather 
than to allow facilities to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Furthermore, we proposed that 
additional HAP emissions controls for OSWRO process vents are not 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. Based on the results of 
our screening analysis for risks to the environment, we also proposed 
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the OSWRO source category since 
the proposed rule?
    Information received by the EPA during the proposal comment period 
indicates that four additional facilities, not included in the risk 
review for the OSWRO source category, are subject to the OSWRO NESHAP. 
These facilities include Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, 
Tennessee; Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas; E.I. DuPont de 
Nemours and Company in Orange, Texas; and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and 
Company in Axis, Alabama.
    To determine whether to conduct additional risk modeling for these 
facilities, we reviewed the title V permits and the results of 
previously performed risk modeling for these facilities. The review of 
the facility title V permits, as well as conversations with facility 
representatives, indicated that these facilities are primarily chemical 
manufacturing plants with processes subject to other NESHAPs that also 
process some amount of waste received from other facilities within 
their companies. A review of previously modeled facility-wide risks for 
these four facilities as part of the risk reviews for the other NESHAP 
indicate that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks due to emissions 
of HAP range from 6-in-1 million to 40-in-1 million. These risks are 
relatively low when compared to the upper end of the range of 
acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide non-cancer 
risks due to HAP emissions range from 0.08 to 1. In addition, the 
results show that the facility-wide cancer and non-cancer risks are 
attributed to HAP emissions from non-OSWRO processes. As the OSWRO 
processes are minor operations at these facilities, the risk due to 
OSWRO operations is expected to be a small fraction of the facility-
wide risk.
    Adding these facilities to the dataset and performing additional 
modeling would not be expected to result in increased maximum risks 
from the source category, for the reasons discussed above. Thus, we 
determined that additional modeling to include these facilities is not 
necessary, and, based on available information, the risks from these 
four facilities do not change our decisions regarding risk 
acceptability or ample margin of safety for the OSWRO source category. 
We have not otherwise changed any aspects of our risk review since the 
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally 
supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin 
of safety analysis and requirement for additional control. A summary of 
these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0360).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the risk review?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that 
the risks from the OSWRO source category are acceptable, and the 
revised requirements for tanks and equipment leaks described above will 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public. In addition, for 
the reasons explained in the proposal, we determined that more 
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor 
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety 
or adverse environmental effects have changed. Therefore, pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f)(2), we are revising the OSWRO NESHAP to require the 
40 CFR part 63, subpart H LDAR program and more stringent emissions 
controls for certain tanks to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public.

[[Page 14254]]

B. Technology Review for the OSWRO Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OSWRO 
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies for the emission sources 
in the OSWRO source category. At proposal, we identified developments 
in practices, processes or control technologies for process vents, 
tanks and equipment leaks.
    For process vents, one potential control technology was identified 
at proposal, use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer, which could 
increase the emissions capture and control efficiency from 95 percent 
to 98 percent for those process vents that are currently controlled 
with a carbon adsorption system or other device achieving 95-percent 
control. We estimated an additional emission reduction of 10 tpy of HAP 
would be associated with this increase in emissions control efficiency, 
and the estimated costs would be $350,000 per ton of HAP emission 
reduction.
    For tanks, we identified two potential developments in practices 
and control techniques at proposal. Option 1 would lower the vapor 
pressure threshold above which ``Level 2'' control would be required 
for some tanks. ``Level 2'' control essentially requires one of five 
options: (1) A fixed roof tank equipped with an internal floating roof; 
(2) a fixed roof tank equipped with an external floating roof; (3) a 
tank with a vapor-tight cover and vented through a closed-vent system 
to a control device that has an efficiency of 95 percent or more; (4) a 
pressure tank; or (5) a tank inside a permanent total enclosure that is 
vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed combustion control 
device. Option 1 would require Level 2 emissions control for tanks with 
capacities greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters (m\3\), but less 
than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored material is 13 
kilopascals (kPa) or greater, instead of 27.6 kPa or greater as 
required by the current MACT standard. Option 2 would revise the vapor 
pressure threshold as in Option 1 and increase the required control 
efficiency from the current 95-percent to a 98-percent emissions 
reduction for all tanks required to use Level 2 controls. For tank 
Option 1, we estimated an additional emission reduction of up to 73 tpy 
and estimated the costs would be $300 per ton of HAP emission 
reduction. For tank Option 2, we estimated the HAP emissions reduction 
incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 22 tpy and the 
incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would be 
$56,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
    For equipment leaks, we identified the more stringent leak 
definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H over those of 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V as a development in practices, processes or control 
technologies at proposal. To implement the subpart H LDAR program, two 
options were identified: Option 1--switching from the subpart V LDAR 
program to the subpart H LDAR program, without the connector monitoring 
requirements; Option 2--switching from the subpart V LDAR program to 
the subpart H LDAR program, with the connector monitoring requirements. 
For Option 1, we estimated an additional emission reduction of up to 69 
tpy and estimated the costs would be $1,000 per ton of HAP emission 
reduction. For Option 2, we estimated the HAP emissions reduction 
incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 70 tpy and the 
incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would be 
$7,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
    Based on the costs and the emission reductions that would be 
achieved with the identified developments, we proposed to revise the 
MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require Level 2 
controls for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 m\3\, 
but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored material is 
13 kPa or greater and to require facilities to comply with the subpart 
H LDAR program, including the subpart H requirements for connectors in 
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. We proposed that it was 
not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6) to require 98-percent control, based on the use of a 
regenerative thermal oxidizer, for process vents. More information 
concerning our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled, 
Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed Amendments to the 
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source Category, which is 
available in the docket, and in the preamble to the proposed rule, 79 
FR at 37870 to 37873.
2. How did the technology review change for the OSWRO source category?
a. Tanks
    The analysis of the proposed control requirements for tanks at 
existing OSWRO facilities has been revised to reflect new data 
submitted by industry during the comment period. As part of its 
comments, the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition provided information to 
demonstrate that alternative values or assumptions should be used in 
the analysis of tank emission reductions and costs of control. These 
comments were associated with the proposed requirement that Level 2 
controls be used for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 
m\3\, but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored 
material is 13 kPa or greater (i.e., Option 1). We reviewed this 
information, determined that several suggested changes were appropriate 
because they more accurately reflect the conditions of tanks in the 
OSWRO source category, and revised our analysis of tank emissions 
reductions and control costs to incorporate the data submitted by the 
commenter, where such incorporation was deemed appropriate. The major 
revisions to the analysis included the use of different parameters in 
estimating HAP emissions per tank and the inclusion of additional 
emissions control equipment and ancillary equipment. In addition, 
through further review of our previous analysis, we determined that the 
number of tanks nationwide that would require control under Option 1 
was overestimated, and we revised the estimated number of tanks that 
would be affected by Option 1 in this analysis.
    As shown in Table 3, our revised estimate of the capital costs for 
the tanks Option 1 requirement is approximately $139,000, and the total 
annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $192,000. The 
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and the cost 
effectiveness is approximately $7,000/ton.

[[Page 14255]]



   Table 3--Revised Estimated Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Control Option 1 for Tanks at OSWRO
                                                   Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               HAP  emissions                                          Cost
           Regulatory alternative                reduction       Capital cost   Annual costs ($/  effectiveness
                                                   (tpy)             ($)              yr)          ($/ton HAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1....................................            26.4          139,000          192,000            7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At proposal, we also evaluated the impacts of requiring an 
increased HAP emissions control efficiency of 98 percent based on the 
use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer (i.e., Option 2) and found that 
the costs of Option 2 were not reasonable given the level of HAP 
emissions reductions that it would achieve. No comments were received 
regarding Option 2, and we have not revised the analysis for Option 2.
    For further details on the revised tanks analysis, see the 
technical memorandum titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site 
Waste and Recovery Operations Tanks, available in the docket for this 
action.
b. Equipment Leaks
    As part of its comments on the proposed rule, one commenter noted 
that the EPA did not account for monitoring of agitator seals on tanks 
in its analysis of the costs of implementing the more stringent leak 
definitions for equipment in 40 CFR part 63 subpart H. We have revised 
our analysis of the costs and emissions reductions associated with 
switching from the 40 CFR part 61, subpart V LDAR program to the 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart H LDAR program to include the expected emissions 
reductions and costs associated with monitoring agitator seals for 
leaks. Also, based on information received after proposal that there 
are four additional facilities in the source category that would be 
subject to the LDAR requirements of the rule, we have revised the 
analysis to include those facilities. We included this information in 
the evaluation of both regulatory options: Option 1--switching from a 
subpart V LDAR program to a subpart H LDAR program, without the subpart 
H connector monitoring requirements and Option 2--switching from a 
subpart V LDAR program, with the subpart H connector monitoring 
requirements.
    The revised estimated costs and emissions reductions associated 
with these two options are shown in Table 4. For Option 1 (subpart H 
without connector monitoring), we estimate the capital costs to be 
approximately $414,000, and the total annualized costs are estimated to 
be approximately $155,000. The estimated HAP emissions reduction is 
approximately 109 tpy, and the cost effectiveness is approximately 
$1,000/ton. For Option 2 (subpart H with connector monitoring), we 
estimate the capital costs to be approximately $2,089,000, and the 
total annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $664,000. The 
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 185 tpy, and the 
cost effectiveness is approximately $4,000/ton. The incremental cost 
effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately $7,000.

 Table 4--Revised Estimated Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Equipment Leak Control Options at OSWRO
                                                   Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Incremental
                                  HAP  emissions                                       Cost            cost
     Regulatory alternative          reduction     Capital cost    Annual costs    effectiveness   effectiveness
                                       (tpy)            ($)           ($/yr)        ($/ton HAP)     ($/ton HAP
                                                                                                     removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: Subpart H, no                    108.7         414,000         155,000           1,000  ..............
 connector monitoring...........
Option 2: Subpart H with                   184.5       2,089,000         664,000           4,000           7,000
 connector monitoring...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these revisions to the equipment leak analysis, we 
also considered comments regarding the costs of connector monitoring. 
In its comments on the proposed rule, one commenter claimed that the 
costs the EPA included in its analysis for ongoing connector monitoring 
and administrative activities were too low. Although we do not agree 
with the commenter and we continue to believe the costs we used in the 
analysis for these activities are reasonable, we conducted an 
additional analysis to assess the potential effect of using the values 
provided by the commenter on the cost effectiveness of Option 2. This 
additional analysis showed there would be a slight increase in the 
Option 2 total annualized cost to $672,000. The cost effectiveness 
would remain approximately $4,000, and the incremental cost 
effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would still be 
approximately $7,000.
    For further details on the revised equipment leaks analysis, see 
the technical memorandum titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations Equipment Leaks, available in the 
docket for this action.
c. Process Vents and Other OSWRO Equipment and Processes
    For process vents and other equipment and processes at OSWRO 
facilities, the technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding 
the OSWRO source category technology review and our responses to these 
comments. Additional comments on the technology review and our 
responses can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360).
    Comment: One commenter states that the EPA did not account for 
monitoring of agitator seals on tanks in its analysis of the costs of 
implementing the more stringent leak definitions for equipment in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart H, and

[[Page 14256]]

asserts that many tanks at OSWRO facilities are equipped with 
agitators.
    Response: We acknowledge that we did not, prior to proposal, 
analyze the impacts of including monthly monitoring of agitators with 
Method 21 for the proposed rule. We performed this analysis in response 
to comments and have determined that the capital costs per facility for 
agitator monitoring are approximately $1,000, and the total annualized 
costs are estimated to be approximately $2,000. The estimated HAP 
emissions reduction is approximately 0.7 tpy, and the cost 
effectiveness is approximately $2,000/ton. Agitator monitoring would be 
included in both LDAR Options 1 and 2. To determine the effect of 
including agitator monitoring in the LDAR program options, we compared 
the costs and emissions reductions on a per facility basis rather than 
for the whole source category to avoid issues with differences in the 
number of facilities included in the source category. The effect of 
including agitator monitoring in Option 1 is an increase in the per 
facility capital costs from approximately $7,000 to approximately 
$8,000, an increase in the total annualized costs from approximately 
$1,500 to approximately $3,000, an increase in the estimated HAP 
emissions reduction from approximately 1.5 to approximately 2.2 tpy, 
and the cost effectiveness value remaining at approximately $1,000/ton. 
The effect of including agitator monitoring in Option 2 is an increase 
in the per facility capital costs from approximately $41,000 to 
approximately $43,000, an increase in the total annualized costs from 
approximately $12,000 to approximately $14,000, and an increase in the 
estimated HAP emissions reduction from approximately 3.1 to 
approximately 3.8 tpy. The cost effectiveness remains at approximately 
$4,000/ton, and the incremental cost effectiveness compared with Option 
1 remains the same at $7,000/ton. Further details on the revised 
equipment leaks analysis are documented in the technical memorandum 
titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery 
Operations Equipment Leaks, available in the docket for this action.
    Based on our analysis of the costs of a 40 CFR part 63, subpart H 
LDAR program with monthly agitator monitoring using Method 21, we are 
finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that OSWRO facilities comply 
with subpart H, including the subpart H requirements for connectors in 
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
    Comment: Several commenters dispute the EPA's emission reduction 
estimates related to connector monitoring. One of these commenters 
notes that the EPA based its cost-effectiveness calculations on the 
approach from the December 21, 2011, memorandum, Analysis of Emissions 
Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks, developed for the Uniform 
Standards, and provides comments on the approach used in this 
memorandum. This commenter and another commenter state that the leak 
rate factor of 1.7 for connectors was determined for the refining 
industry, and the EPA provides no basis that it applies to the 
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) or the OSWRO 
source category. One commenter states that if the EPA believes the 1.7 
factor is warranted, it should use petroleum refinery leak rates as a 
starting point instead of SOCMI rates. The commenter asserts that based 
on the experience of member companies with process units subject to HON 
connector monitoring, commencement of Method 21 monitoring with a leak 
definition of 500 ppm will not reduce emissions by 50 percent, as the 
EPA estimates. This commenter submitted a report that concluded there 
is no statistical difference in average leak rates between the initial 
Method 21 inspections and subsequent inspections and that volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from connectors at plants subject to 
the HON or Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) are far below SOCMI 
average factor estimates. The commenter suggests that sensory methods 
of detecting leaks are adequate and the imposition of Method 21 in 
addition to current practices will not further reduce the number of 
leaks. The commenter asserts that operators are trained to recognize 
hazards associated with leaks using sensory methods and are expected to 
take prompt action when leaks occur.
    Another commenter asserts that the revised monitoring requirements 
for connectors will not result in substantial, or any, HAP emission 
reductions. The commenter's assertion is based on data obtained from 
LDAR records of its member facilities, where only five connectors were 
found to have a leak above 500 ppm out of 10,542 connectors analyzed 
over the past year. The commenter also asserts that the EPA's 
assumption of 82-percent HAP composition is incorrect, and was taken 
from an OSWRO NESHAP background information document from 1994 which is 
based on an outdated HAP list (i.e., methyl ethyl ketone has since been 
removed).
    Response: The EPA stands by our analysis of emission reduction 
estimates related to connector monitoring for the OSWRO source 
category.
    Regarding the factor used in estimating the leak frequency, we 
increased the connector leak frequency by a factor of 1.7. As explained 
below, we believe it is appropriate to apply this factor to the OSWRO 
source category to account for differences in industry-reported and 
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) measured leak 
frequencies. In 1999, the NEIC published the results of a comparative 
monitoring study at 17 petroleum refineries, which showed the 
percentage of valves identified as leaking by NEIC was always higher 
than the results of monitoring conducted by the petroleum refiners.\3\ 
This NEIC report states that the disparity between the NEIC and company 
results may be attributable to refineries not monitoring in the manner 
prescribed in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. In a 
subsequent analysis of these results, the NEIC results were shown to be 
higher than the industry results by a factor of at least 2.6 at the 99-
percent confidence level.\4\ As the initial connector leak frequency 
used in the analysis of OSWRO connector leak emissions was the same as 
that used in the Uniform Standards analysis,\5\ which was based on 
industry-supplied data for facilities regulated by the MON, we applied 
a factor to account for the differences noted between industry-supplied 
data and NEIC-measured leak frequency data. For the OSWRO analysis, the 
factor of 1.7 was used rather than 2.6. This 1.7 factor represents the 
10th percentile of the data set (i.e., 90 percent of the NEIC leak 
frequencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the leak frequencies 
reported by the refineries). This conservative factor was chosen, in 
part, to account for the possibility that refineries and OSWRO 
facilities could leak at different rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 
October 1999. Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to 
Reducing `Fugitive Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair 
Programs.
    \4\ Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI International, to K. 
Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Statistical Analysis of Valve Leak 
Frequencies Obtained by Industry and EPA for Petroleum Refining 
Process Units.
    \5\ Memorandum from C. Hancy, RTI International, to J. Howard, 
USEPA. December 21, 2011. Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques 
for Equipment Leaks. This memorandum is available in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter that applying the connector leak 
frequency

[[Page 14257]]

factor of 1.7 necessitates the use of petroleum refinery leak frequency 
rates. Since the process equipment and chemicals used at OSWRO 
facilities are more similar to those of the SOCMI than those at 
petroleum refineries, we believe it is appropriate to use SOCMI leak 
frequencies. Further, the factor we applied to the connector leak 
frequency to account for differences noted between industry-supplied 
and NEIC-measured data already accounted for potential differences in 
leak frequencies between petroleum refineries and OSWRO facilities by 
using the more conservative factor of 1.7 than the factor of 2.6 that 
would be applied to refinery data. We note that the initial leak 
frequency of 0.36 percent used in the OSWRO analysis is the same as 
that reported by the commenter's member companies for the HON initial 
monitoring, and we made the conservative assumption that the subsequent 
leak frequency after implementation of Method 21 monitoring of 
connectors would be the same as the initial leak frequency. However, we 
also assumed, as we have in other rulemakings, that these leaking 
connectors would be fixed so that the average leak frequency over each 
monitoring cycle would be equal to one-half of the subsequent leak 
frequency (i.e., 0.18 percent).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, RTI 
International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts 
Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 
SOCMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's claim that the estimated emissions 
per connector used in the EPA's analysis are too high. The leak rates 
used were based on those reported in the Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emissions Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995), which determined 
these leak rates based on screening data from 33 chemical production 
units and bagging data from 22 chemical production units. We consider 
this to be relevant and robust data, and the resulting average leak 
emissions rates are appropriate to use in our analyses.
    We agree with the commenter that the HAP composition used in our 
analyses of 82 percent was taken from the 1994 OSWRO NESHAP background 
information document. The commenter did not provide any information to 
show that another estimate of HAP composition would be appropriate, 
and, without any basis for a different value, we have not changed our 
analyses to include a different HAP composition.
    Comment: Two commenters dispute the EPA's assessment of the costs 
to monitor connectors. Specifically, one commenter disputes the EPA's 
assumed cost of $2.50 per monitored connector and outlines the various 
challenges in monitoring connectors in comparison with other types of 
equipment components. The other commenter states that the EPA 
underestimated the annual administrative costs of monitoring connectors 
and provides their own estimate of $27,000. Both commenters provide a 
revised analysis of the cost of connector monitoring based on a recent 
study conducted by one company at one facility, and conclude that 
monitoring connectors would cost $6.50 per component and $18,139/ton. 
Another commenter states that the requirement to conduct connector 
monitoring could result in OSWRO facilities being forced to hire 
outside consultants to perform the monitoring due to the large number 
of connectors at each site and that the annual monitoring costs for 
connectors could be the same as that for all other monitored 
components.
    Response: We have considered the commenters' concerns that the 
estimated connector monitoring costs used in our analysis of the costs 
of an LDAR program, including periodic connector monitoring using 
Method 21, are too low. The two areas in which the commenters dispute 
the estimated connector monitoring costs are in the ongoing monitoring 
costs per connector and the estimated annual administrative and 
reporting costs. Regarding ongoing monitoring costs, we do not believe 
the $2.50 used in the EPA's analysis is an unreasonable estimate of the 
monitoring costs per connector. This estimate is based on an average 
monitoring cost per component of $1.00 to $1.50, and then increased to 
$2.50 to account for industry claims that connectors are more difficult 
than other components to monitor.\7\ However, to determine how a fee of 
$6.50 per connector, as suggested by the commenters, would affect the 
cost effectiveness of the provisions, we conducted an additional 
analysis of costs of an LDAR program using this value. We note that all 
monitoring costs already assume an outside contractor would be used. 
Regarding the administrative and reporting costs, the submitted study 
includes $27,000 per year for these activities for connectors alone. At 
the labor rates used in the study, this equates to 781 hours per year. 
We do not find this amount of time to be reasonable for connector 
administrative and reporting costs, especially considering that 
connector monitoring may only be required once every four years. 
However, it may be possible that our estimate of 50 hours per year at a 
labor rate of $92.92 per hour overestimates the labor rate and 
underestimates the amount of time required to complete the necessary 
administrative requirements. Therefore, we conducted an additional 
analysis of the costs of the LDAR program assuming twice as many hours 
as we previously estimated and the labor rates provided by the 
commenter for these administrative actions. Using these more 
conservative values, the incremental cost effectiveness for connectors 
would be $6,825/ton. This incremental cost effectiveness is still 
$7,000/ton of HAP reduced, as was calculated without the alternate 
connector monitoring costs. Therefore, using these alternative values 
would not change our determination that the costs of the subpart H LDAR 
program (including connector monitoring) are reasonable, given the 
level of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved, and we are 
finalizing the equipment leak amendments to require subpart H LDAR 
(including connector monitoring) as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, RTI 
International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts 
Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 
SOCMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter states the EPA used several assumptions the 
commenter does not agree with in its estimate of emissions from tanks. 
One is that the EPA overestimated the tank throughput. The commenter 
asserts that, based on data from its members, the average waste 
throughput is typically less than 20,000,000 gallons for each facility, 
which is much lower than the EPA's estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per 
facility. The commenter also disagrees with the EPA's assumption that 
OSWRO tanks contain 100-percent HAP, as hazardous wastes processed by 
OSWRO facilities contain a large portion of organic and inorganic non-
HAP constituents. The commenter estimates that as little as 50 percent 
of the tank constituents are HAP and provided a suggested mix of HAP 
constituents. The commenter also states that the EPA's selection of 
Houston as the location of the model facility is inappropriate because 
of its average sub-tropical temperatures, and a location more 
representative of the national average should be selected. The 
commenter also states that the EPA's use of the default conservation 
vent pressure settings of 0.03 pounds per square inch (psi) and -0.03 
psi in the calculation of uncontrolled emissions is too low, and actual 
pressure settings for tanks currently subject to the OSWRO Level 1 
control requirements are typically set at 0.5 psi.

[[Page 14258]]

    This commenter also disputes the EPA's estimate of the costs that 
would be incurred by facilities to comply with the proposed amendments 
to the vapor pressure thresholds for tank control level. The commenter 
states that contrary to the EPA's assumptions, there are a significant 
number of sources that would require the installation of a new control 
device or would have to upgrade and/or expand their existing control 
device systems to comply with the Control Level 2 standards. The 
commenter asserts that the EPA provided no assessment of whether 
existing control devices are sized to accommodate additional vented 
sources, and control devices are typically not sized with significant 
excess capacity due to economic and space considerations. The commenter 
states that the EPA also did not consider flame arrestors to prevent 
back-flash to tanks, which would cost $10,000 per unit. In addition, 
the commenter asserts that the EPA did not consider capital costs 
related to engineering installation, or regulatory and safety costs, 
such as additional process hazard reviews and analyses under either the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety 
Management or CAA Risk Management Plan regulations that would likely be 
required if tanks are connected to a control device.
    The commenter also disputes EPA's estimate of annual costs, and 
states that the EPA did not consider the additional cost associated 
with operation of the control device itself, such as costs associated 
with replacement and disposal or regeneration of carbon (for a carbon 
adsorption system). The commenter asserts that the annual cost should 
still be applied even if there is an existing control device because 
annual carbon costs are a function of the throughput of the newly 
affected units. The commenter further asserts that additional annual 
and capital costs would be incurred from the operation of a nitrogen 
blanketing system that may be required if carbon adsorption units is 
used as the HAP control device.
    The commenter estimates that the cost effectiveness of the proposed 
amendments to the tank vapor pressure thresholds is actually $48,000 
per ton of HAP controlled, which the commenter claims is an unnecessary 
cost to achieve minor emission reductions.
    Response: Our analysis presented the best quantification of the 
emission reductions and costs of the proposed amendments to the tank 
provisions based on the information available at the time. We have 
revised some of the assumptions used in the analysis to address 
concerns raised by the commenter and to include additional information 
that the commenter has provided. Details of this analysis are presented 
in the memo, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and 
Recovery Operations Tanks, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    We agree with the commenter that OSWRO tanks likely do not contain 
100-percent HAP, and have revised the analysis to include a mix of tank 
constituents that comprises 60-percent HAP, as suggested by the 
commenter. We have moved the location of the model facility from 
Houston to a location near the center of the continental United States, 
which has temperatures more representative of the national average. We 
have also increased the conservation vent pressure setting from the 
default value of 0.03 psi to 0.5 psi, as suggested by the commenter. We 
did not revise the average waste throughput used in the analysis. The 
commenter did not provide data to support the claim that the average 
waste throughput is actually 20,000,000 gallons per facility, and the 
EPA's estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per facility is supported by data 
obtained through the 2013 CAA section 114 questionnaire for the one 
OSWRO facility with tanks in the size and vapor pressure range affected 
by the proposed standards.
    In addition, while some facilities may have control devices with 
adequate capacity to control emissions from the additional tanks that 
would become subject to Level 2 control requirements as a result of the 
proposed amendments, it may be possible that some facilities do not 
have the required excess capacity. Therefore, we have revised the 
analysis to add the conservative assumption that each facility would 
need to install a carbon adsorber to comply with the proposed 
amendments. The revised analysis includes the cost of a carbon adsorber 
canister system, including installation and other associated capital 
costs, as well as annual costs for the operation of the device (e.g., 
cost of carbon). We have also revised the analysis to include costs for 
flame arrestors, as suggested by the commenter. We have revised the 
number of tanks in the analysis from 21 to 14 to account for seven 
tanks that are known to already be controlled based on information 
collected through the CAA section 114 questionnaire.
    We disagree with the commenter that the cost of nitrogen blanketing 
systems should be included in the analysis. Nitrogen blankets are not 
required by the OSWRO NESHAP for use with a control device, and we do 
not believe that nitrogen blankets are necessary for the operation of 
control devices, including a carbon adsorption system, as suggested by 
the commenter. Further, nitrogen blanketing systems can be used on 
tanks that are not controlled by a control device, and may already be 
in place for the tanks that would be affected by the revised standard. 
We also disagree with the commenter that we have not considered capital 
costs related to engineering installation and regulatory and safety 
costs. We explicitly include installation costs of equipment, and we 
follow the procedure of the EPA Control Cost Manual for including 
indirect costs.
    Considering the revisions to emission controls and costs identified 
above, we have determined that the capital costs for the proposed 
amendments to the tank provisions are approximately $139,000, and the 
total annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $192,000. The 
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and the cost 
effectiveness is approximately $7,000 per ton of HAP reduced. While the 
revised analysis resulted in lower emission reductions at a higher cost 
than the estimates developed prior to proposal, we still find the 
amendments to the tank control provisions to be cost effective, and 
are, therefore, finalizing the amendments as proposed.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the technology 
review?
    Based on our revised analysis for tanks, the costs of Option 1 are 
reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be 
achieved with this control option. Therefore, as a result of this 
revised technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we have 
determined, as we did at proposal, that it is appropriate to revise the 
OSWRO NESHAP to require Level 2 controls for tanks with capacities 
greater than or equal to 75 m\3\, but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor 
pressure of the stored material is 13 kPa or greater.
    Considering our revised analysis for equipment leaks, we have 
determined the costs of Option 2, which includes all of the 
requirements of Option 1, are reasonable, given the level of HAP 
emissions reduction that would be achieved with this control option. We 
note that, while we did not include the higher connector monitoring 
costs analyzed in response to commenter suggestions in this 
determination, the inclusion of these costs would not change our 
conclusion that the costs of Option 2 are reasonable, given the level 
of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved with this control 
option.

[[Page 14259]]

Therefore, as a result of this revised technology review pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6), we have determined, as we did at proposal, that 
it is appropriate to revise the OSWRO NESHAP to require existing and 
new affected sources to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H rather 
than 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, including the subpart H requirements 
for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
    As noted in section IV.A.4 of the preamble, we are promulgating 
these revisions concurrently under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above and in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, we have determined that it is not necessary pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the OSWRO NESHAP to require additional 
HAP emission controls for process vents or any other equipment or 
processes at OSWRO facilities.

C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the OSWRO Source 
Category

1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the OSWRO source category?
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed standards in this rule that apply 
at all times. We have also revised Table 2 (the General Provisions 
applicability table) in several respects as is explained in more detail 
below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 
also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is 
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed 
rule and summarized again here.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA took into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, did 
not propose alternate standards for those periods. Information on 
periods of startup and shutdown received from the facilities through 
CAA section 114 questionnaire responses indicated that emissions during 
these periods are the same as during normal operations. The facilities 
do not process waste unless and until their control devices are 
operating to fully control emissions. Therefore, we determined that 
separate standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not 
necessary.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA 
section 112, emission standards for new sources must be no less 
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar 
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. As the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average 
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' 
sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is 
to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 
F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for 
variability in setting emission standards, nothing in CAA section 112 
requires the EPA to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A 
malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of 
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a 
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to 
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no 
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can 
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of 
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions 
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions 
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions 
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation 
of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods,

[[Page 14260]]

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause 
analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also 
consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action, and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations.
    To address the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to 
revise and add certain provisions to the OSWRO rule. As described in 
detail below, we proposed to revise the General Provisions 
Applicability Table (Table 2) to change several references related to 
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also proposed to add 
the following provisions to the OSWRO rule: (1) The general duty to 
minimize emissions at all times; (2) the requirement for sources to 
comply with the emission limits in the rule at all times, with 
clarification for what constitutes a deviation; (3) performance testing 
conditions requirements; (4) excused monitoring excursions provisions; 
and (5) malfunction recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
i. General Duty
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows specifically for 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and 63.6(e)(3) and 
to include a ``no'' in the column 2 for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) entry. 
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. 
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or 
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We 
proposed instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 
63.683(e) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while 
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The 
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general 
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, 
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general 
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.683(e) 
does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We also proposed to include a ``no'' in column 2 for the newly 
added entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 63.683(e).
    The provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) still apply, and we 
proposed to keep the ``yes'' in column 2 for that section. For 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(2), we proposed to include a ``no'' in the second column for 
that section because it is a reserved section in the General 
Provisions.
    We also proposed to clarify in the applicability section of 40 CFR 
63.680(g)(1) and (2) that the emission limits of subpart DD apply at 
all times except when the affected source is not operating and that the 
owner or operator must not shut down items of equipment required or 
used for compliance with the requirements of subpart DD.
ii. SSM Plan
    We proposed to include a ``no'' in column 2 for the newly added 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(3) entry. Generally, this paragraph requires development of 
an SSM plan and specifies SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM 
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission 
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during 
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for 
and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer 
necessary.
iii. Compliance With Standards
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 
2 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in 
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA 
proposed to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times.
iv. Performance Testing
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 
2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA instead proposed to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.694(l). The performance testing requirements 
we proposed to add differ from the General Provisions performance 
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not 
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM 
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from 
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions specified that 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should be based on 
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating 
conditions) of the affected source. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions often are 
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA proposed to 
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that 
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records 
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance 
test'' upon request, but does not specifically require the information 
to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA proposed to add to this 
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement 
to record the information.

[[Page 14261]]

v. Monitoring
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general 
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary 
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air 
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 
CFR 63.8(d)).
vi. Recordkeeping
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA proposed that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions 
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown 
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup 
and shutdown periods.
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA proposed to 
add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.696(h). The regulatory text we 
proposed to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in 
that the General Provisions require the creation and retention of a 
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment. The EPA proposed that 
this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard 
and is requiring that the source record the date, time and duration of 
the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA also proposed to 
add to 40 CFR 63.696(h) a requirement that sources keep records that 
include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to 
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet 
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss 
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, 
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA 
proposed to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.696(h).
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 2 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken 
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
vii. Reporting
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by consolidating it with the 
entry for 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to 
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for 
SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirements, the EPA 
proposed to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.697(b)(3). The 
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in 
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We 
proposed language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable 
standard at any time to report the information concerning such events 
in the semiannual summary report already required under this rule. We 
proposed that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration 
and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), 
a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity 
of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA proposed this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminated the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by consolidating it with the 
entry for 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a 
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for 
startups, shutdown and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an 
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required.
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the OSWRO source category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the SSM provisions since the 
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    Comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to remove 
the SSM exemptions for the OSWRO source category. Some commenters 
suggested that the rule should provide a six-month compliance period 
for the SSM provisions, that the rule requirements, which were based on 
steady-state conditions, should not apply during periods of 
malfunction, and that the EPA should establish work practice standards 
for malfunctions. One

[[Page 14262]]

commenter generally supported the revised provisions for the emission 
standards in the OSWRO NESHAP to apply at all times but suggested that 
more stringent monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and notification 
requirements are needed for malfunctions. The commenters did not 
provide new information or a basis for EPA to change the proposed 
provisions and did not provide sufficient information to show that 
facilities cannot comply with the MACT standards at all times, 
including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The comments 
and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the 
Comment Summary and Response document available in the docket for this 
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM 
provisions?
    For the reasons provided above, provided in the preamble for the 
proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the 
OSWRO NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or 
modified inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the 
absence of the SSM exemption. We are, therefore, finalizing our 
proposed determination that facilities comply with the standards at all 
times and no additional standards are needed to address emissions 
during startup or shutdown periods.

D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO NESHAP

1. What other changes did we propose for the OSWRO NESHAP?
i. Electronic Reporting
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, to increase the 
ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, the EPA 
proposed to require owners and operators of OSWRO facilities to submit 
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will 
generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then 
archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and 
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA will not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking 
benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance 
test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI will no longer 
be required to be kept in hard copy.
    State, local and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined 
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available 
to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available 
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough 
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble to the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations and providing greater 
transparency to the public.
ii. Routine Maintenance
    The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.693(b)(3)(i) allows a facility to 
bypass control devices for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned 
routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or control device in 
situations when the routine maintenance cannot be performed during 
periods that the control device is shut down.
    The routine maintenance provision was originally established in the 
HON (see 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3)-(4); 57 FR 62710, December 31, 1992 
(proposed); 59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994 (final)) for facilities that 
elected to use a closed vent system and control device to comply with 
the emission limitation requirements for tanks. We included the routine 
maintenance provision in the HON for tanks routing emissions to control 
devices because the estimated HAP emissions to degas the tank would be 
greater than the emissions that would result if the tank emitted 
directly to the atmosphere for a short period of time during routine 
maintenance of the control device.
    We intended for the OSWRO NESHAP to track the HON maintenance 
provisions, and, therefore, those provisions should have been limited 
to tanks. We did not identify a basis for applying the routine 
maintenance provisions in the OSWRO NESHAP to emission points other 
than tanks, and, therefore, proposed to limit the provision to tanks 
routing emissions to a control device, consistent with the rationale 
provided in the HON.
iii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
    The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.691(b) requires an owner or operator 
to control emissions from equipment leaks according to the requirements 
of either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H.\8\ 
For OELs, both subpart V in 40 CFR 61.242-6(a) and subpart H in 40 CFR 
63.167(a) require that the open end be equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, plug or second valve that shall ``seal the open end.'' However, 
``seal'' is not defined in either subpart, leading to uncertainty for 
the owner or operator as to whether compliance is being achieved. 
Inspections under the EPA's Air Toxics LDAR initiative have provided 
evidence that while certain OELs may be equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, plug or second valve, they are not operating in a ``sealed'' 
manner as the EPA interprets that term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and IV.B of this 
preamble, we are removing the option from subpart DD to comply with 
40 CFR part 61, subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The compliance date for 
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the final 
amendments, and new sources must comply immediately upon the 
effective date of the final amendments, or upon startup, whichever 
is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this uncertainty, we proposed to amend 40 CFR 
63.691(b) to clarify what ``seal the open end'' means for OELs. The 
proposed clarification explains that, for the purpose of complying with 
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(a)(2) of subpart V or 40 CFR 
63.167(a)(2) of subpart H, as applicable, OELs are ``sealed'' by the 
cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when instrument monitoring of 
the OELs conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
    In addition, 40 CFR 63.167(d) of subpart H and 40 CFR 61.242-6(d) 
of subpart V exempt OELs that are in an

[[Page 14263]]

emergency shutdown system, and which are designed to open 
automatically, from the requirements to be equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, plug or second valve that seals the open end. We proposed that 
these OELs be equipped with either a flow indicator or a seal or 
locking device. We also proposed recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for these OELs.
iv. Safety Devices, Pressure Tanks, Bypasses and PRDs
    To ensure the OSWRO MACT standards are consistent with the Sierra 
Club decision, we proposed to remove the SSM exemption from the rule. 
In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-caused releases 
to the atmosphere to conform with the reasoning of the Court's ruling, 
we proposed to add a provision that releases of HAP listed in Table 1 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD directly to the atmosphere from PRDs and 
closure devices on pressure tanks in off-site material service are 
prohibited. We also proposed to prohibit bypasses that divert a process 
vent or closed vent system stream to the atmosphere such that it does 
not first pass through an emission control device, except to perform 
planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or emission 
control device for tanks, as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this 
preamble. We further proposed to require owners or operators to keep 
records and report any bypass and the amount of HAP released to the 
atmosphere with the next periodic report. In addition, to add clarity 
to these provisions, we proposed to add definitions for ``bypass,'' 
``pressure release,'' ``pressure relief device or valve,'' ``in gas/
vapor service,'' ``in light liquid service,'' ``in heavy liquid 
service'' and ``in liquid service'' to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. We 
also proposed to remove the definition of ``safety device'' and the 
provisions related to safety devices from 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, 
which would overlap with and be redundant of parts of the proposed 
definition of ``pressure relief device or valve'' and the provisions 
related to these devices.
    To ensure compliance with these provisions, we also proposed that 
facilities subject to the OSWRO NESHAP monitor PRDs in off-site 
material service that release to the atmosphere by using a device or 
system that is capable of identifying and recording the time and 
duration of each pressure release and notifying operators immediately 
that a pressure release is occurring. Owners or operators would be 
required to keep records and report any pressure release and the amount 
of organic HAP released to the atmosphere with the next periodic 
report. As with the prohibition, this proposed monitoring requirement 
would not apply to PRDs for which HAP releases are captured and routed 
to a drain system, process or control device.
    For purposes of estimating the costs of the proposed requirement to 
monitor HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs, we assumed that 
operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD in off-site 
material service that vents to the atmosphere (rather than to a control 
device, process or drain system) to identify and record the time and 
duration of each pressure release. However, the proposed requirements 
allowed owners or operators to use a range of methods to satisfy these 
requirements, including the use of a parametric monitoring system (that 
may already be in use at facilities) on the process system or piping 
that is sufficient to notify operators immediately that a release is 
occurring, as well as recording the time and duration of the pressure 
release. Based on our conservative cost assumptions that the most 
expensive approach would be used, the nationwide capital cost of 
installing these monitors was estimated to be $1.75 million, and the 
total annualized cost of installing and operating these monitors is 
$250,000 per year for the OSWRO source category.
v. Performance Test Method Clarifications and Alternative Methods
    The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.694 specifies test methods and 
procedures to be used in determining compliance with the requirements 
of subpart DD. We proposed several minor changes to these provisions to 
correct errors and to provide consistency, clarification and 
flexibility. These proposed changes included:
     Requiring that test runs last ``at least 1 hour,'' rather 
than stating that tests last ``1 hour'' in Sec.  63.694(f)(1) and 
(i)(1);
     Specifying that a minimum of three test runs are required 
in Sec.  63.694(l)(3)(i) and (l)(4)(i), consistent with the Part 63 
General Provisions and standard testing practices;
     Specifying in Sec.  63.694(m)(2) that in the determination 
of process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration, the 
sample site selected must be at the center of the vent for vents 
smaller than 0.10 meter in diameter, which is the point most likely to 
provide a representative sample of the gas stream;
     Clarifying in Sec.  63.694(j)(3) that results from direct 
measurement must be used as the maximum HAP vapor pressure for off-site 
material in a tank if the Administrator and the owner or operator 
disagree on a determination of the maximum HAP vapor pressure for an 
off-site material stream using knowledge;
     Correcting a citation in Sec.  63.694(k)(3) to the 
appropriate section of EPA Method 21 for instrument response factors;
     Allowing the use of either EPA Method 25A or Method 18 in 
Sec.  63.694(l)(3) for determining compliance with the control device 
percent reduction requirement and in Sec.  63.694(l)(4) for determining 
compliance with the enclosed combustion device concentration limit and 
clarifying that Method 25A must be used when measuring total organic 
compounds, while Method 18 must be used for measuring the total HAP 
compounds included in Table 1 to the OSWRO NESHAP;
     Including the use of EPA Method 3A as an alternative to 
EPA Method 3B in Sec.  63.694(l)(4)(iii)(A) for determining the oxygen 
concentration to use in oxygen correction equations; and
     Including the use of EPA Methods 2F and 2G as options for 
flow rate measurement in Sec.  63.694(l)(2) and (m)(3), which are newer 
velocity measurement methods that were published after the original 
OSWRO rule.
vi. Other Clarifications and Corrections
    We proposed several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the 
clarity of the OSWRO NESHAP requirements. These proposed changes 
included:
     Updating the list of combustion devices in Sec.  
63.684(b)(5) that may be used to destroy the HAP contained in an off-
site material stream. This revision would include incinerators, boilers 
or industrial furnaces for which the owner or operator complies with 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, which had not been 
promulgated when the OSWRO MACT standards were developed. We also 
proposed conforming changes to the boiler and process heater control 
device requirements to clarify that combustion units complying with the 
requirements of subpart EEE may be used for the purposes of compliance 
with the OSWRO NESHAP.
     To clarify the requirements for tanks of all sizes and 
tank content vapor pressures, we proposed to revise the tank control 
level tables to include tanks less than 75 m\3\ in capacity with a 
vapor pressure less than 76.6 kPa along with the requirements for tanks 
of other sizes and vapor pressures, and we proposed

[[Page 14264]]

to remove the requirements for these tanks from the text of Sec.  
63.685(b)(4).
     Clarifying that where Sec.  63.691 requires the owner or 
operator to control the HAP emitted from equipment leaks in accordance 
with either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the 
definitions in 40 CFR 61.241 and 40 CFR 63.161 apply, with the 
differences listed, for the purposes of the OSWRO NESHAP.
     Revising the clerical errors to insert ppm values in the 
requirements where they were omitted. These revisions included 
clarifying in Sec.  63.683(c)(1)(ii) that the average volatile organic 
HAP (VOHAP) concentration of the off-site material must be less than 
500 parts per million by weight (ppmw) at the point-of-delivery and 
clarifying the requirements of Sec.  63.693(f)(1)(i)(B) and Sec.  
63.693(f)(1)(ii)(B) are to achieve a total incinerator outlet 
concentration of less than or equal to 20 500 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) on a dry basis corrected to 3-percent oxygen.
     Clarifying in Sec. Sec.  63.684(h), 63.693(b)(8) and 
63.694(b)(3)(iv) that the Administrator may require a performance test, 
revisions to a control device design analysis, or that direct 
measurement be used in the determination of a VOHAP concentration, 
rather than that the Administrator may only request such actions.
     Revising several references to the Part 63 General 
Provisions in Table 2 to correct errors, including errors where the 
entries in Table 2 conflict with the regulatory text in subpart DD and 
where references to specific sections of the General Provisions do not 
exist or are reserved.
2. How did the provisions regarding these other proposed changes to the 
OSWRO NESHAP change since proposal?
    We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for 
electronic reporting, routine maintenance, OELs, the proposed 
performance test method clarifications and alternative methods or the 
other proposed clarifications and corrections.
    For PRDs, in the PRD monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 
63.691(c)(3)(i), we are including examples of parametric monitoring 
systems, in addition to the direct monitoring device examples listed at 
proposal. We are also clarifying that tank conservation vents are not 
PRDs in 40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B), and we are adding fuel gas systems 
to the list of equipment a PRD may be routed to in 40 CFR 63.691(c)(4) 
to be exempt from the PRD monitoring requirements and pressure release 
prohibition. In addition to these revisions, we are making the 
following revisions, clarifications and corrections in the final rule:
     Revisions
    [cir] We are revising the language in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) to 
indicate that facilities complying with the wastewater provisions under 
any other part 63 regulation, not just the HON, are not required to 
also comply with the OSWRO NESHAP provisions for that waste.
    [cir] We are revising the requirements for boilers and process 
heaters and also for incinerators in 40 CFR 63.693(f)(2)(iii) and 
63.693(g)(2)(i)(C) to exclude such equipment that has been issued a 
final or interim status RCRA permit from the OSWRO NESHAP performance 
test requirements, since the performance tests required under RCRA to 
obtain a permit satisfy the performance test requirements of the OSWRO 
NESHAP.
    [cir] We are revising three additional references to the Part 63 
General Provisions in Table 2 to correct errors where the entries in 
Table 2 conflict with the regulatory text in subpart DD regarding 
notification of performance tests. The specific changes were to revise 
the entries for 63.7(b), 63.7(c) and 63.9(e) from a ``no'' to a ``yes'' 
in column 2 of Table 2.
     Clarifications
    [cir] We are revising the definitions of ``in gas/vapor service'' 
and ``in light liquid service'' in 40 CFR 63.681 to clarify our intent 
that equipment in off-site material service that ``contains or 
contacts'' a gas or vapor is ``in gas/vapor service.'' For consistency, 
we are also revising the definition of ``in light liquid service'' to 
include equipment that ``contains or contacts'' liquid.
    [cir] To improve clarity we are revising the wording of the 
proposed tank provisions in 40 CFR 63.685(g)(2) to remove a repeated 
phrase.
    [cir] We have rephrased the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 
63.694(l) to more simply state that performance tests must be conducted 
under representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal 
operating conditions).
    [cir] We have added language in 40 CFR 63.691(b)(2)(v) to clarify 
which requirements apply to PRDs in liquid service and to clarify when 
the PRD provisions of 40 CFR 63.691(c) apply rather than the PRD 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V.
     Corrections
    [cir] We are revising 40 CFR 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii) and 
63.680(e)(2) to reference 63.691(b)(2) rather than 63.691(b) to 
indicate that compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is required 
after a specified date. Consistent with our intention discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, this correction will allow compliance 
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V only until the date at which compliance 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is required.
    [cir] We are including the correct VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw 
in 40 CFR 63.683(c)(1)(ii).
    [cir] We are correcting an erroneous reference to 40 CFR part 67 in 
40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B) to properly reference 40 CFR part 63.
    [cir] We are adding a reference in the semiannual reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.697(b)(4) to 40 CFR 63.683(f), which includes 
additional deviations that must be reported.
    [cir] We are correcting three entries in the General Provisions 
Applicability table
3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the OSWRO 
NESHAP, and what are our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to 
the ERT, OELs, PRDs and other provisions for the OSWRO source category. 
The following is a summary of several of these comments and our 
response to those comments. Other comments received and our responses 
to those comments can be found in the Comment Summary and Response 
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0360).
i. Electronic Reporting
    Comment: One commenter notes that requiring electronic reporting to 
the EPA does not increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal for 
the regulated community because state agencies also want the reports 
submitted to them in their own standard format. The commenter requests 
that the EPA work with air agencies to provide a one-stop location for 
submittal of air emissions testing results.
    Response: The EPA continues to work with air agencies as well as 
stack testing companies (who typically prepare test reports) to develop 
the ERT. E-Enterprise is an EPA-state initiative to improve 
environmental performance and enhance services to the regulated 
community, environmental agencies and the public. We currently have 
active E-Enterprise projects related to electronic reporting that 
involve several states, and we are actively seeking input from all 
states willing to participate in such projects with EPA. The current 
ERT was designed to accept data and information that is typically 
collected

[[Page 14265]]

during a performance test. Some air agencies have begun accepting the 
ERT as their reporting mechanism, and with experience, we believe 
acceptance by other air agencies will increase. CEDRI, the portal 
through which this data is submitted to CDX, includes the ability for 
states to interact with submitted ERT files directly, immediately after 
electronic submission. During the first phase in the development of 
CEDRI, we initiated a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional Integrated 
Project Team (IPT) consisting of EPA personnel from various offices and 
representatives from air agencies. The objectives of the CEDRI IPT were 
to gain insight and ideas regarding the data flow process within the 
CEDRI. States have the ability to access files in CEDRI as soon as they 
are submitted and can review these documents from anywhere that has 
Internet access. While in some instances air agencies may still want a 
hard copy of a test report, the ERT can generate a printed test report 
or export the report to a word processor for reformatting. This report 
can be generated by an air agency with an ERT they have opened, or 
generated by a regulated entity and submitted to the air agency as an 
emissions test report.
    The EPA believes that electronic reporting is a more efficient way 
to collect test data and has set up a retrieval system such that air 
agencies can access files that have been submitted using the ERT. As 
more air agencies adopt electronic reporting, we believe that the need 
for paper reports will diminish. The EPA is also developing a web-based 
ERT and has plans to release an extensible markup language (XML) schema 
that could be used by third parties to develop customized reporting 
software that meets the EPA's reporting requirements. The EPA expects 
these additional reporting options will provide a more robust and user 
friendly reporting process in the future.
ii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
    Comment: One commenter states that the OEL provisions are 
``equipment standards,'' and compliance is determined by whether a cap, 
blind flange, plug or second valve is physically installed, and the 
term ``sealed'' historically has meant one of these devices is present.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA's intent 
has always been that caps, blind flanges, plugs or second valves that 
are installed on OELs provide a seal, i.e., no detectable emissions. 
This is further supported by examples of compliance audits conducted by 
the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and EPA 
Regional enforcement personnel in which companies were cited for OELs 
not being sealed. We have placed these audits in the docket for this 
action.
    Comment: Two commenters believe the EPA must show that imposing a 
new emissions limit for OELs is justified according to the criteria of 
CAA section 112(d)(6), including the technical feasibility, potential 
emission reductions and cost effectiveness. The commenters state that 
the EPA failed to provide new data or rationale showing that the 
definition of ``seal'' is needed for compliance assurance or to relieve 
regulatory uncertainty, relying only on enforcement inspections 
referenced in the 2007 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV rulemaking in which 
monitoring OELs was determined to not be cost effective and was not the 
best demonstrated technology (BDT). Another commenter states that the 
EPA did not provide any data specific to the OSWRO source category for 
OELs, and the data that were provided did not include the concentration 
detected, whether the measurements were for HAP or VOCs, or what 
standardization chemicals were used. One commenter states that the 
existence of leaks from OELs is low and notes that while the EPA did 
not request information to support monitoring of OELs, the commenter 
referred to a monitoring study its member performed for OELs showing 
that less than 1 percent of OELs were leaking at rates of 500 ppm or 
greater. Another commenter states that the EPA's proposed definition 
for a ``seal'' is actually a new loophole that would exempt leaks from 
OELs below 500 ppm from the standards. The commenter contends this 
definition is another type of exemption similar to the SSM exemption 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
found unlawful, and the EPA should not finalize the definition as 
proposed.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are 
imposing a new emissions limit for OELs. As discussed in the preamble 
for the proposed rule and summarized above, the existing OSWRO NESHAP 
already requires the open end of OELs to be equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, plug or second valve that shall ``seal the open end.'' In 
response to compliance uncertainty for owners and operators, we are 
amending 40 CFR 63.691(b) to clarify that, for the purpose of complying 
with the requirements of subpart H or subpart V, as applicable,\9\ OELs 
are ``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when 
instrument monitoring of the OEL conducted according to Method 21 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater. 
This is consistent with how we have interpreted the term ``seal'' 
during inspections and, contrary to the commenters' assertions, is not 
a new requirement. As demonstrated by the data provided in the docket 
and the commenter's data showing that about 1 percent of all OELs are 
leaking, OELs are not uniformly operating in a ``sealed'' manner by 
keeping emissions below the 500 ppm threshold. The commenters have not 
identified a reason to conclude that the OEL data provided in the 
docket are not representative of the OSWRO source category. With this 
clarification, the EPA is removing any ambiguity regarding what 
constitutes a ``sealed'' OEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 14266]]

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

[[Page 14267]]

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

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

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

[[Page 14268]]

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

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

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

[[Page 14269]]

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14270]]

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

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

[[Page 14271]]

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.680 is amended by:

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

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


Sec.  63.680  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

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

[[Page 14272]]

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

0
3. Section 63.681 is amended by:

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

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

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


Sec.  63.681  Definitions.

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

0
4. Section 63.683 is amended by:

[[Page 14273]]


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

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


Sec.  63.683  Standards: General.

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

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


Sec.  63.684  Standards: Off-site material treatment.

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

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


Sec.  63.685  Standards: Tanks.

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

[[Page 14274]]

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

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


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

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

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


Sec.  63.687  Standards: Surface impoundments.

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


Sec.  63.688  Standards: Containers.

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

[[Page 14275]]

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

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


Sec.  63.689  Standards: Transfer systems.

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

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


Sec.  63.691  Standards: Equipment leaks.

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

[[Page 14276]]

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

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


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

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

[[Page 14277]]

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

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


Sec.  63.694  Testing methods and procedures.

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

[[Page 14278]]

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


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

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

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


Sec.  63.695  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

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

[[Page 14279]]

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

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


Sec.  63.696  Recordkeeping requirements.

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

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


Sec.  63.697  Reporting requirements.

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

[[Page 14280]]

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

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


Sec.  63.698  Implementation and enforcement.

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

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

[[Page 14281]]



 Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Applicability of Paragraphs in Subpart A of This Part 63--General Provisions
                                                  to Subpart DD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subpart A  reference               Applies to Subpart DD                    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(b)(2)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(c)(3)..............................  No                           Reserved.
63.1(c)(4)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2)...................  Yes
63.4(a)(3)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(5)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(a)(1)..............................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(b)(5)..............................  No                           Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(b)(3)..............................  No
63.6(b)(4)..............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(e)(1)(i)...........................  No                           See Sec.   63.683(e) for general duty
                                                                        requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..........................  No
63.6(e)(1)(iii).........................  Yes
63.6(e)(2)..............................  No                           Reserved.
63.6(e)(3)..............................  No
63.6(f)(1)..............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(a)(4)..............................  Yes
63.7(b).................................  Yes
63.7(c).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(e)(1)..............................  No                           See Sec.   63.694(l).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(f).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.8(c)(1)(iii).........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[[Page 14282]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(e).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(g).................................  Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(b)(2)(i)..........................  No
63.10(b)(2)(ii).........................  No                           See Sec.   63.696(h) for recordkeeping of
                                                                        (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing
                                                                        of affected source or equipment, and an
                                                                        estimate of the volume of each regulated
                                                                        pollutant emitted over the standard; and
                                                                        (3) actions to minimize emissions and
                                                                        correct the failure.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)........................  Yes                          .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv).........................  No                           .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(v)..........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(c)(1)-(6).........................  No                           .........................................
63.10(c)(7)-(8).........................  Yes                          .........................................
63.10(c)(9)-(15)........................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(5).............................  No                           See Sec.   63.697(b)(3) for reporting of
                                                                        malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2).................  No
63.10(e)(3).............................  Yes
63.10(e)(4).............................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.16...................................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

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


[[Page 14283]]


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

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


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

 Table 5 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at New
           Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Maximum HAP vapor
 Tank design capacity (cubic  pressure of off-site
           meters)             material managed in   Tank control level
                               tank  (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 38  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 m\3\.                         pressure less than
                               76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 38  Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2, except that
 m\3\.                         pressure equal to     fixed roof tanks
                               or greater than       equipped with an
                               76.6 kPa.             internal floating
                                                     roof and tanks
                                                     equipped with an
                                                     external floating
                                                     roof as provided
                                                     for in Sec.
                                                     63.685(d)(1) and
                                                     (2) shall not be
                                                     used.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 38 m\3\ and      pressure less than
 less than 151 m\3\.           13.1 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than
                               13.1 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or   Maximum HAP vapor     Level 1.
 greater than 151 m\3\.        pressure less than
                               0.7 kPa.
                              Maximum HAP vapor     Level 2.
                               pressure equal to
                               or greater than 0.7
                               kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-05463 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P`