Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753-0157
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/Stands Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2020-06-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34326-34351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05909]

[[Page 34325]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 107

June 3, 2020

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test 
Cells/Stands Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 3, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 34326]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753; FRL-10006-68-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT01

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine 
Test Cells/Stands Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category 
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action on 
amendments to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP addressing periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments also 
include provisions regarding electronic reporting, as well as 
clarifying and technical corrections. These final amendments will 
result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 3, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0753. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 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 https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Christopher Werner, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5133; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: werner.christopher@epa.gov. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: palma.ted@epa.gov. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5 
(Mail Code R-19J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; 
telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: 
ayres.sara@epa.gov.

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:

AAP American Academy of Pediatrics
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors
CHPAC Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
CO carbon monoxide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM polycyclic organic matter
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Background information. On May 8, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions 
to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP based on our RTR. In this 
action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant public comments we timely 
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and 
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the document 
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Residual Risk 
and Technology Review for Engine Test Cells/Stands, which is available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753). 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 Engine Test Cells/Stands source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

[[Page 34327]]

    C. What changes did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
source category in our May 8, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source 
Category
    B. Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source 
Category
    C. SSM for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category
    D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category
    E. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category
    F. Additional Issue on Which Comment Was Requested: Prior 
Approval for an Aspect of Performance Testing
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    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 Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. 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 Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Source category                         NESHAP                          NAICS \1\ code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Test Facilities..................  Engine Test Cells/Stands...  333120, 333618, 333111, 334312, 336111,
                                                                        336120, 336112, 336992, 336312, 336350,
                                                                        54171, 541380, 333611, 336411, 336412,
                                                                        336414, 92711.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide 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 also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/engine-test-cellsstands-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

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 
(the Court) by August 3, 2020. 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 only 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 if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator 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, WJC South 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

[[Page 34328]]

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 25 tpy or more of any combination of 
HAP. 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 which 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 84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court 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 Engine Test Cells/Stands source category and how does 
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP on May 27, 
2003 (68 FR 28774). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPPP. The engine test facilities industry consists of 
facilities that utilize engine test cells/stands for testing of 
uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines. The source 
category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 59 
facilities.
    As promulgated in 2003, the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP applies 
to engine test cells/stands located at major sources of HAP emissions. 
Because the NESHAP regulates the testing of uninstalled stationary or 
uninstalled mobile engines, it does not regulate the testing of any 
final product (e.g., automobile, boat, or power generator). Engine test 
cells/stands are used for research and development activities (e.g., 
new model development, endurance testing) and for quality control at 
engine production facilities. More information about this source 
category can be found in the proposal. See 84 FR 20211, May 8, 2019.
    Engine test cells/stands emit HAP in the exhaust gases from 
combustion of gaseous and liquid fuels in the engines tested. The 
emission rates and annual emissions vary based on the size and design 
of the engines tested, the types of fuels burned, and the number, type, 
and duration of tests performed. Fuels used during testing include, but 
are not limited to, biofuels, natural gas, propane, gasoline, kerosene, 
jet fuel, diesel, and various grades of fuel oil.
    The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of 
fuels in the engines being tested in the test cells/stands. The primary 
HAP present in the exhaust gases from engine test cells/stands are 
formaldehyde, benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
    The Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP provides the owner or operator 
of a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for 
testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 horsepower 
or more and located at a major source of HAP emissions two compliance 
options: (1) Reduce carbon monoxide (CO) or total hydrocarbons (THC) 
emissions in the exhaust from the new or reconstructed affected source 
to 20 parts per million by volume dry basis or less, at 15-percent 
oxygen content, or (2) reduce CO or THC emissions in the exhaust from 
the new or reconstructed affected source by 96 percent or more. If a 
new or reconstructed affected source elects to comply with the percent 
reduction emission limitation, the affected source must conduct an 
initial performance test to determine the capture and control 
efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be 
achieved on a continuous basis.

C. What changes did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category in our May 8, 2019, proposal?

    On May 8, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPPP, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the 
proposed rule, we proposed: No revisions to the numerical emissions 
limit based on the risk analysis and technology review; to amend 
provisions addressing periods of SSM; to amend provisions regarding 
electronic reporting; and to make certain clarifying and technical 
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 Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category. This action also finalizes

[[Page 34329]]

changes to the NESHAP for that source category, including changes to 
SSM provisions, changes to electronic reporting requirements, as well 
as clarifying and technical corrections. This action also reflects 
certain revisions to the May 2019 proposal in consideration of comments 
received during the public comment period described in section IV of 
this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the Engine Test 
Cells/Stands NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 
As proposed, we are finalizing our finding that risks remaining after 
implementation of the existing MACT standards for this source category 
are acceptable. Similarly, as proposed, we are finalizing the 
determination that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, and that a more stringent standard is 
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we 
are not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission limits based 
on the analysis conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are 
readopting the current standards.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Engine Test Cells/
Stands NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM. In its 
2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the Court 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. As detailed in 
section IV.D.1 of the proposal preamble (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019), the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP requires that the standards apply at 
all times (see 40 CFR 63.9305(a)), consistent with the Court decision 
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without setting a 
separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in the 
proposal. See 84 FR 20226, May 8, 2019.
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As 
discussed in the May 2019 proposal preamble, 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, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for 
malfunctions where feasible. See 84 FR 20226 (May 8, 2019), for further 
discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards 
for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could 
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, given that 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.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions 
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, to 
eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an 
exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our 
proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of 
startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained 
further below. Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to revise the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements as they relate to 
malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the proposal 
preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.9305(a) that the standards apply at all times. See 84 FR 20228-29, 
May 8, 2019.

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

    Consistent with the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the electronic 
reporting requirements, specifically that owners and operators of 
engine test cells/stands submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and 
semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI).
    We are also finalizing additional changes to the NESHAP that 
address technical and editorial corrections, as proposed and as 
described in section IV.E of this preamble.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on June 3, 2020. The compliance date for existing 
engine test cells/stands is December 1, 2020. New sources, including 
those that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 8, 2019, 
must comply with all of the revisions to the standards immediately upon 
the effective date of this action, June 3, 2020, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    For existing affected sources, we are finalizing two changes, as 
proposed, that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are 
finalizing the requirement that performance test results, performance 
evaluation reports, and the semiannual reports using the new template 
be submitted electronically. We are also finalizing a change to the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan, as proposed. We have experience with 
similar industries that have been required to convert reporting 
mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, 
become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results 
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic 
submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and 
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters. This experience shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to 
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter 
monitoring and recording

[[Page 34330]]

systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to 
reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that 
multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would 
create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would 
impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with 
the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 
180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, 
thus, is finalizing the requirement that existing affected sources be 
in compliance with all of the revised requirements of this rule within 
180 days of the rule's effective date.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category?

    For each of the issues addressed in the proposed rule, 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 public 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 titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the 
Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine Test Cells/Stands, which 
is available in the docket for this action.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and 
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions 
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the May 
2019 proposed rule for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category (84 
FR 20208, May 8, 2019). The results of the risk assessment are 
presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in more detail in the 
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule, which is in the docket for this action.

                                          Table 2--Engine Test Cells/Stands Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Maximum individual         Population at           Annual cancer          Maximum chronic     Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
                       cancer risk (in 1       increased risk of     incidence (cases per     noncancer TOSHI \3\                    \4\
                         million) \2\           cancer >=1-in-1              year)         -------------------------------------------------------------
                   ------------------------         million        ------------------------     Based on . . .
     Number of          Based on . . .     ------------------------     Based on . . .     ------------------------
  facilities \1\   ------------------------     Based on . . .     ------------------------
                                           ------------------------                           Actual     Allowable     Based on actual emissions level
                      Actual     Allowable    Actual     Allowable    Actual     Allowable   emissions   emissions
                     emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions     level       level
                       level       level       level       level       level       level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59................          20          70       2,700     190,000       0.005        0.02         0.1         0.5  HQREL = 9 (acrolein) HQAEGL-1 = 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. The
  respiratory TOSHI was calculated using the California EPA (CalEPA) chronic reference exposure level (REL) for acrolein. The EPA is in the process of
  updating the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein but did not complete this update prior to signature
  of this final rule.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
  using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based 
on actual emissions, show the maximum individual excess lifetime cancer 
risk (MIR) posed by the 59 facilities is 20-in-1 million, with benzene, 
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions from 
reciprocating engine testing as the major contributors to the risk. The 
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.005 
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 200 years. About 
2,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal 
to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted by this source category, with 60 of 
those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. The 
maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) 
value for the source category is 0.1 (respiratory) driven by emissions 
of acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and naphthalene from 
reciprocating engine testing. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 
1.
    The EPA also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions 
allowed by the MACT standard, or ``MACT-allowable emissions.'' Risk 
results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable 
emissions indicate that the cancer MIR is 70-in-1 million with benzene, 
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions from 
reciprocating engine testing driving the risks, and that the maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI value is 0.5 at the MACT-allowable emissions 
level with acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and naphthalene 
emissions from reciprocating engine testing driving the TOSHI. The 
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering 
allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.02 excess cancer cases 
per year or one excess case every 50 years. Based on MACT-allowable 
emission rates, approximately 190,000 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, with 500 of those people estimated 
to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. No people are estimated to 
have a noncancer hazard index (HI) above 1.
    Table 1 of this preamble indicates that for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands source category, the maximum acute HQ could be up to 9, driven 
by actual emissions of acrolein. To better characterize the potential 
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to 
HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the Science Advisory 
Board's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies, we 
examined a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for 
our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are 
generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute health reference

[[Page 34331]]

values than there are in chronic health reference values. By 
definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of 
exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for 
repeated exposures. However, the level of exposure that would cause 
health effects is not specifically known. Therefore, when an REL is 
exceeded and an Acute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL-1) or Emergency 
Response Planning Guideline (ERPG-1) level is available (i.e., levels 
at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general public 
for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional 
comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for the threshold 
level of exposure above which exposed individuals could experience 
effects. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, 
the potential for effects increases. The highest refined screening 
acute HQ value was 9 (based on the acute REL for acrolein). This value 
includes a refinement of determining the highest HQ value that occurs 
outside the boundaries of affected facilities. In this case the highest 
value (9) occurs adjacent to a property boundary in a remote wooded 
location. HQ values at all nearby residential locations are below 1. As 
noted previously, the highest HQ occurred when the primary source of 
the acrolein emissions from turbine engine testing operations was 
modeled with an hourly emissions multiplier of 9.5 times the annual 
emissions rate. For further information on the development of this 
multiplier, see Appendix 1 of the document titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support 
of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available 
in the docket for this action. The analysis also conservatively assumes 
all emission points at the facility impact the same receptor at the 
same time. As presented in Table 2, no facilities are estimated to have 
an HQ greater than 1 based on an AEGL or an ERPG.
    Regarding multipathway risk screening, of the 59 facilities in the 
source category, 21 facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic 
hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in 
the environment (PB-HAP) (arsenic and polycyclic organic matter (POM)), 
and 23 facilities reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP 
(cadmium and mercury). Three of these facilities reported emissions of 
a carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic) that exceeded a Tier 1 cancer screening 
threshold emission rate, and one facility reported emissions of non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury) that exceeded a Tier 1 
noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For facilities that 
exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway screening threshold emission rate for 
one or more PB-HAP, we used additional facility site-specific 
information to perform a Tier 2 screening assessment and determined the 
maximum chronic cancer and noncancer impacts for the source category. 
Based on the Tier 2 multipathway cancer assessment, the arsenic 
emissions exceeded the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate by a 
factor of 2. An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in 
any of the tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). 
Rather, it represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard 
may be. For example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a 
non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that 
the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, a tier screening threshold 
emission rate of 30 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that 
the risk is lower than 30-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the 
conservative, or health-protective, assumptions encompassed in the 
screening tiers: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of 
possible values for the influential parameters used in the screening 
tiers, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. The Tier 2 noncancer 
screening threshold emission rate for both mercury and cadmium 
emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2 results presented 
above, additional screening or site-specific assessments were not 
deemed necessary.
    The EPA also conducted an environmental risk screening assessment 
for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category for the following 
pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen 
fluoride (HF), lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), 
and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, 
which was evaluated differently), arsenic and POM emissions had no 
exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Divalent 
mercury, methyl mercury, and cadmium emissions had Tier 1 exceedances 
at one facility of surface soil benchmarks by a maximum screening value 
of 3. A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for divalent mercury, 
methyl mercury, and cadmium emissions. In the Tier 2 screening 
analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks 
evaluated for any of the pollutants. For lead, we did not estimate any 
exceedances of the secondary lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS). For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each 
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points 
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In 
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., 
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the 
environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse 
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source 
category.
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to 
provide context for the source category risks. The results of the 
facility-wide risk assessment for both MACT sources and non-MACT 
sources (i.e., sources at the facility that are not included in the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands source category) indicate that 23 facilities 
included in the analysis have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than 
or equal to 1-in-1 million, and 10 of those facilities have a facility-
wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million. The maximum 
facility-wide cancer MIR is 70-in-1 million, mainly driven by emissions 
of chromium (VI) compounds from organic solvent (miscellaneous volatile 
organic compounds (VOC)) evaporation. The total estimated cancer 
incidence from the whole facility is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, 
or one excess case every 33 years. Approximately 190,000 people were 
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to 
HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources at the 59 facilities in 
this source category, with 6,800 of those people estimated to have 
cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic 
noncancer TOSHI (neurological) for the source category is estimated to 
be less than 1 (at 0.4), mainly driven by emissions of lead compounds 
and hydrogen cyanide from open burning of rocket propellant (an 
industrial solid waste disposal process) and by trichloroethylene 
emissions from liquid waste (a general waste treatment process). None 
of the population around the 59 facilities are exposed to noncancer HI 
levels above 1, based on facility-wide emissions.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the

[[Page 34332]]

populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and also the populations 
living within 50 km of the facilities. In each case, we found that just 
over 40 percent of the residents within these distances are classified 
as minority (compared to a national minority average of 38 percent of 
the population). When examining the population exposed to a cancer MIR 
at or above 1-in-1 million, we found that only 10 percent of them are 
categorized as minorities. Further, none of the population around the 
facilities is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. For 
more information regarding the methodology and the results of the 
demographic analysis, see the technical report titled Risk and 
Technology Review-Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category Operations, which 
is available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source 
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the current NESHAP 
for the source category provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, and whether more stringent standards are necessary to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect, by taking into consideration 
costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors. In determining 
whether the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, we examined the same risk factors that we 
investigated for our acceptability determination and also considered 
the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors 
related to emission control options that might reduce risk associated 
with emissions from the source category. We proposed that the 2003 
Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. Based on the results of our 
environmental risk screening assessment, 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 Engine Test Cells/Stands 
source category?
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed 
risk review and our proposed determination that no revisions are 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Comments that were not 
supportive of the risk review were considered at length.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA had failed to quantify 
and reduce the health risks posed by lead emissions. The commenter 
noted that engine test cells/stands emit 0.03 tons of lead per year. 
The commenter noted that lead is particularly harmful to children and 
the developing fetus. The commenter was concerned the EPA had not 
quantified the health risks from lead emissions and disagreed with the 
Agency's determination that no individual source is causing an 
exceedance of the NAAQS for Lead. The commenter asserted that EPA must 
not ignore the health risks lead causes, given that lead is a well-
known toxic heavy metal with diverse and severe health impacts for 
which there is no safe level for human exposure. In particular, the 
commenter stated that lead is associated with neurological, 
hematological, and immune effects on children and hematological, 
cardiovascular, and renal effects on adults. The commenter also noted 
that children are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead, 
including sensory, motor, cognitive, and behavioral impacts. The 
commenter further noted that no safe blood lead level in children has 
been identified; that low levels of lead in blood have been shown to 
affect IQ and academic achievement; and that the effects of lead 
exposure cannot be remedied. According to the commenter, a recent study 
found that for every 0.2 micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) of lead in 
the blood, an adolescent's IQ was reduced one point. Children residing 
in poverty and black children face higher exposures to lead and are 
consequently more susceptible to lead's health impacts. Reproductive 
effects, such as decreased sperm count in men and spontaneous abortions 
in women, have been associated with lead exposure. The commenter noted 
that the EPA has classified lead as a probable human carcinogen.
    The commenter disagreed with the EPA's use of the 2008 lead NAAQS 
as a benchmark for determining acceptable risk and argued that the 
EPA's assessment of the health risks for lead was inadequate. The 
commenter noted that the EPA, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), CalEPA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 
acknowledge that no safe level of lead can be identified. By relying on 
the lead NAAQS rather than conducting an independent risk assessment, 
the commenter believed the EPA's risk assessment for lead was 
inadequate because the EPA had not assessed the inhalation risks (from 
breathing) and multipathway risks (from other types of exposure). The 
commenter argued that the EPA cannot presume that achieving an ambient 
air concentration of the NAAQS for lead is sufficient to ensure an 
acceptable health risk and provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health'' from lead for CAA section 112(f) purposes. The 
commenter observed that the NAAQS recognizes harm (including the loss 
of IQ points as an indicator of neurological harm) occurs below the 
level of the NAAQS.
    The commenter also noted that the Children's Health Protection 
Advisory Committee (CHPAC) has advised the EPA to lower the lead NAAQS 
to 0.02 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) because the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS ``is insufficient to protect children's health.'' The commenter 
argued that the current NAAQS addresses air-related population mean IQ 
loss in excess of 2 points and recognizes that on average higher 
neurological harm is occurring under the 2008 lead NAAQS. The commenter 
believed that it is likely harm occurs below the level of the 2008 
NAAQS and that it is unacceptable for the EPA to ignore the harm caused 
by lead emissions. The commenter argued that EPA must address and 
incorporate the best currently available information on children's 
exposure, including the CHPAC recommendation of lowering the lead 
standards to 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\ from the current NAAQS level of 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\. The commenter noted that the CDC has recognized that there 
is no safe level for lead exposure and uses a reference level of 5 
[mu]g/dL, while California's health benchmark level at which measurable 
neurological harm can occur is 1.0 [mu]g/dL. The commenter recommended 
that the EPA use the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model for 
infants and children and the Adult Lead Methodology for fetus. In 
addition, the commenter suggested that the EPA should update the 
residual risk assessment for this source category to include available 
test data on lead in soil and waterways and to evaluate the potential 
health impacts resulting from the emission of lead from each facility. 
The commenter believes that additional monitoring should also be 
required to ensure that lead emitted from a facility

[[Page 34333]]

is at low enough concentrations such that it does not raise an 
individual's blood lead level by 1 [mu]g/dL.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that we 
failed to assess risks from either lead or lead compounds for the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. The inhalation risks of lead 
were assessed using Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5 (HEM-3) and the 
RfC values documented in Table 1 of Appendix 8 of the document titled, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule. The lead NAAQS was used to assess multipathway risk from lead 
emissions. See 84 FR 20218, May 8, 2019. The standard provided the 
benchmark for our decision that further assessment of health impacts 
from lead exposure from category sources is not necessary and is an 
otherwise appropriate use of the standard.
    We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that either the use 
of the lead NAAQS does not sufficiently protect public health from lead 
emissions from this source category or the setting of the lead NAAQS 
did not reflect an adequate scientific assessment of risk. While 
recognizing that lead has been demonstrated to exert ``a broad array of 
deleterious effects on multiple organ systems,'' the lead NAAQS targets 
the effects associated with relatively lower exposures and associated 
blood lead levels, specifically nervous system effects in children, 
including cognitive and neurobehavioral effects (73 FR 66976, November 
12, 2008). The EPA establishes the NAAQS at a level to protect 
sensitive subpopulations, such as children and pregnant women. The 2008 
decision on the lead NAAQS was informed by an evidence-based framework 
for neurocognitive effects in young children. In applying the evidence-
based framework, the EPA focused on a subpopulation of U.S. children, 
those living near air sources and more likely to be exposed at the 
level of the standard; to the same effect.\2\ In addition, in reviewing 
and sustaining the primary lead NAAQS, we note that the Court 
specifically noted that the lead NAAQs was targeted to protect children 
living near lead sources: ``EPA explained that the scientific evidence 
showing the impact of lead exposure in young children in the United 
States led it `to give greater prominence to children as the sensitive 
subpopulation in this review' and to focus its revision of the lead 
NAAQS on the `sensitive subpopulation that is the group of children 
living near [lead emission] sources and more likely to be exposed at 
the level of the standard.' Given the scientific evidence on which it 
relied, the EPA's decision to base the revised lead NAAQS on protecting 
the subset of children likely to be exposed to airborne lead at the 
level of the standard was not arbitrary or capricious.'' Coalition of 
Battery Recyclers, 604 F. 3d 613, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See for example, 73 FR 67000/3--``The framework in effect 
focuses on the sensitive subpopulation that is the group of children 
living near sources and more likely to be exposed at the level of 
the standard. The evidence-based framework estimates a mean air-
related IQ loss for this subpopulation of children; it does not 
estimate a mean for all U.S. children''; see also 73 FR 67005/1--
``the air-related IQ loss framework provides estimates for the mean 
air-related IQ loss of a subset of the population of U.S. children, 
and there are uncertainties associated with those estimates. It 
provides estimates for that subset of children likely to be exposed 
to the level of the standard, which is generally expected to be the 
subpopulation of children living near sources who are likely to be 
most highly exposed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the risk assessment document, there is no reference 
dose (RfD) or other comparable chronic health benchmark value for lead 
compounds. In 1988, the EPA's IRIS program also reviewed the health 
effects data regarding lead and its inorganic compounds and determined 
that it would be inappropriate to develop an RfD for these compounds, 
stating, ``A great deal of information on the health effects of lead 
has been obtained through decades of medical observation and scientific 
research. This information has been assessed in the development of air 
and water quality criteria by the Agency's Office of Health and 
Environmental Assessment (OHEA) in support of regulatory decision-
making by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and by the 
Office of Drinking Water. By comparison to most other environmental 
toxicants, the degree of uncertainty about the health effects of lead 
is quite low. It appears that some of these effects, particularly 
changes in the levels of certain blood enzymes and in aspects of 
children's neurobehavioral development may occur at blood lead levels 
so low that a threshold has yet to be determined. The Agency's RfD Work 
Group discussed inorganic lead (and lead compounds) at two meetings 
(07/08/1985 and 07/22/1985) and considered it inappropriate to develop 
an RfD for inorganic lead.''
    The EPA's IRIS assessment for lead and lead compounds (inorganic) 
(CASRN 7439-92-1) can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm.
    With regard to the information identified by the commenter, much of 
this information was similar to information available at the time of 
the 2008 NAAQS decision. For example, in 2005, the CDC recognized the 
evidence of adverse health effects in children with blood lead levels 
below 10 [mu]g/dL, and that there is no safe level of blood lead in 
young children.\3\ The commenter also cites a benchmark analysis by 
California EPA OEHHA that was completed during the time of the last 
review.\4\ The quantitative relationship from this analysis of a 
correlation of one IQ point change with a 1.0 [mu]g/dL change in blood 
lead is actually a substantially smaller change in IQ per [mu]g/dL 
blood lead than the slope of 1.75 IQ points per [mu]g/dL blood lead 
used in the evidence-based framework that the Administrator relied upon 
in his 2008 decision on a revised level for the lead NAAQS (73 FR 
66964, November 12, 2008). Regarding the CHPAC recommendation on level 
and averaging time referenced by the commenter, this was made to the 
EPA in January 2015 in the context of the current NAAQS review and the 
same comment was made and considered in the 2008 review that concluded 
with the current lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CDC (2005), Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A 
Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 
2005. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/prevleadpoisoning.pdf.
    \4\ Carlisle, J. and K. Dowling. Development of health criteria 
for school site risk assessment pursuant to health and safety code 
section 901(g): Child-specific benchmark change in blood lead 
concentration for school site risk assessment. Final Report. 
Sacramento: Integrated Assessment Branch, OEHHA, California EPA. 
April 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the comment that EPA cannot presume that 
achieving an ambient air concentration of the NAAQS for lead is 
sufficient to ensure acceptable health risk and provide an ``ample 
margin of safety to protect public health'' from lead for CAA section 
112(f) purposes. The EPA considered the primary NAAQS for lead--which 
incorporates an adequate margin of safety--in determining whether lead 
risks (taken together with cancer and other noncancer health risks) 
from air-borne lead from engine test facilities are acceptable or 
unacceptable, under CAA section 112(f)(2). As explained at proposal, 
ample margin of safety determinations, under CAA section 112(f)(2) are 
conducted separately, in accord with the two-step framework set forth 
in the Benzene NESHAP and NRDC v. EPA (the Vinyl Chloride Decision), 
824 F. 2d at 1165, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1987) and NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 
962, 973-74 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (distinguishing the NAAQS process,

[[Page 34334]]

whereby the margin of safety analysis is incorporated as part of the 
standard without a two-step analysis, from residual risk 
determinations).\5\ See 84 FR 20218 n.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Court was referring to the predecessor provision to the 
current CAA section 112(f), but its analysis is equally applicable 
to the revised provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After review of all the comments received, we determined that no 
changes needed to be made to the underlying risk assessment 
methodology. Additional comments and our specific responses can be 
found in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
for the Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine Test Cells/
Stands, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons 
explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands source category are acceptable, and the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant 
to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our risk review as 
proposed, and we are readopting the current standards.

B. Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for control of HAP 
emissions from engine testing facilities. No cost-effective 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were 
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the 
standards. More information concerning our technology review is in the 
memorandum titled Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
Source Category, which is in the docket for this action, and in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
2. How did the technology review change for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands source category?
    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 EPA received comments in support of the proposed determination 
from the technology review that no revisions were warranted under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). We also received comments asserting that the 
technology review was inadequate for a variety of reasons, primarily 
because of failure to consider control technologies developed since the 
original NESHAP.
    Comment: One commenter noted that advances in diesel engine design 
had greatly reduced air emissions from diesel engine test cells over 
the last few years. The commenter stated that new diesel engines are 
cleaner than they used to be and, as a result, emissions from engine 
test cells and stands also declined because they are testing engines 
that are operating more cleanly and efficiently. The commenter noted 
the EPA is moving forward with new diesel truck standards. The 
commenter thought the changes in the emissions from engines should 
allow test cells to reduce their emissions. These advances, the 
commenter argued, are developments the EPA should take into account. 
The commenter thought the EPA should revise the emission standards 
based on the ability to reduce emissions due to cleaner engines. The 
EPA should evaluate advances in more efficient engines and operating 
technology; use of lower HAP fuels; and alternative engines that do not 
rely on HAP-emitting fuels. The commenter argued that the EPA did not 
evaluate or take into account any of these developments, which the 
commenter contended was ``unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious under 
Sec.  7412(d)(6).''
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
existing MACT standard should be lowered due to new emission standards 
for diesel engines and advances in diesel engine design (presumably 
under CAA sections 202 and 213). We also disagree with the commenter's 
contention that by not considering these developments our technology 
review is ``unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.'' CAA section 112(d)(6) 
requires the EPA to conduct a technology review to determine if there 
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies'' 
that may be appropriate to incorporate into existing standards. At 
proposal, we did not propose any revision to the current MACT standard 
under CAA section 112(d)(6). We explained that the technology basis for 
the MACT standard was the use of add-on capture systems and control 
devices (i.e., thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers) and that our 
technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) did not identify any new 
or improved add-on control technology, or any new work practices, 
operational procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention 
approaches that reduce emissions in the category that have been 
implemented at engine testing operations since promulgation of the 
current NESHAP. See 84 FR 20225-26, May 8, 2019.
    Additionally, the emission standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
PPPPP apply to the collection of engine test cells/stands located at a 
major source of HAP emissions that are used to test uninstalled 
stationary engines or uninstalled mobile engines. The subpart PPPPP 
standards do not apply to individual engines or to final products, such 
as automobiles or light and heavy-duty trucks. Rather, the purpose of 
engine testing is to simulate the operation of a specific type of 
engine under certain environmental conditions. In some cases, the 
testing confirms a new or refurbished engine is assembled correctly and 
will function as intended. In other cases, the testing measures the 
durability and performance of a new engine design or a new engine 
component.
    In sum, under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review, the EPA 
is concluding that there are no new cost-effective controls that would 
achieve further emissions reductions and that the existing numerical 
emission limits in the NESHAP should be retained. For these reasons, 
consistent with the EPA's proposal, the emission limits in the NESHAP 
are not being revised.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned the EPA had not collected the 
best available information on current controls and thought the EPA 
should have requested information from pollution control manufacturers 
and distributors, consulted with states and local air districts, 
consulted with the Institute of Clean Air Companies, and requested 
information from pollution control and monitoring companies regarding 
developments in controls for HAP pollutants. The commenter believed 
this information was readily available to the EPA and failing to 
contact control manufacturers biased the EPA's technology review away 
from the most current developments. The commenter thought the EPA 
should have assessed the technologies and tools

[[Page 34335]]

available in the market for the control of the pollutants and provide 
the information for notice-and-comment. The commenter believed that 
providing this information to the public would have a positive impact 
on the regulated industry, as well as community members exposed to 
pollution. The commenter thought this information could lead facilities 
to implement pollution controls with which they are not currently 
familiar and would create jobs and increase the economic success both 
of the regulated facility and the company selling the control or 
monitoring tools.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. CAA section 
112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise standards ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. Pursuant 
to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA may consider cost in deciding whether 
to revise existing standards. Our review of control technologies and 
current industry processes and practices identified no new cost-
effective controls that would achieve further emission reductions. As 
explained in the proposal preamble, the EPA completed a technology 
review as part of this rulemaking, which focused on identifying and 
evaluating any developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that occurred since 2003. See 84 FR 20213-14, 20225-26, 
May 8, 2019. In conducting the technology review for the Engine Test 
Cells/Stands source category, the EPA looked for add-on control 
technology that was not identified during the original NESHAP 
development and for improvements to existing add-on controls. We also 
looked for new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, 
and pollution prevention alternatives that have the potential to reduce 
emissions. We conducted extensive research to help us identify 
developments in control technology, work practices and procedures that 
could potentially reduce HAP emissions. Developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies were investigated through 
discussions with industry representatives, searches of the EPA's 
Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control 
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate Clearinghouse, site visits, 
and literature searches. We met several times with industry 
representatives and visited engine test facilities at four different 
plants. We also included questions in a questionnaire that specifically 
asked companies to provide information on their add-on control devices 
and any work practices they use to reduce emissions. The questionnaire 
was completed by multiple companies and covered over 40 individual 
facilities known to operate engine test cells/stands. Fifteen of these 
facilities were located at major sources of HAP, while the remainder 
were located at area sources. The Agency's review found no new add-on 
control technology, no developments in existing add-on control 
technology, and no new work practices, operational changes, or 
pollution prevention practices that would result in further reductions 
in emissions from this source category. For a detailed discussion of 
the findings, please refer to the Technology Review for the Engine Test 
Cells/Stands Source Category memorandum, in the docket (Docket ID Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753-0031).
    The EPA also reviewed numerous construction and operating permits 
issued by permitting authorities to major and area sources that operate 
engine test facilities. As part of these reviews, we looked for any new 
control technology or work practice standards required by a state or 
local agency. We also provided a 45-day comment period on our proposed 
conclusion that would allow industry, state, and local air agencies, 
control device manufacturers, and other stakeholders to provide 
information on any new technologies and work practices that we may have 
overlooked. However, no new technologies or work practice approaches 
were identified in the public comments we received. Commenters did not 
provide any additional information on control technology for this 
source category and the EPA did not receive any additional information 
based on the proposal. The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem 
and courts generally defer to the Agency's decision to proceed on the 
basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ``invest the 
resources to conduct the perfect study.'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
    For these reasons, the EPA is not persuaded by these comments and 
rather considers our review to be sufficiently rigorous. If any 
improvements in control technology, work practices, operational 
procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches 
occurred since the 2003 NESHAP was finalized, we would have identified 
them. Since our review did not identify any improvements and no new 
methods have been identified during the public comment period, we are 
finalizing as proposed our determination that no changes to the 
emission standards are required pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Comment: One commenter noted that no reduction in emission limits 
for this source category has occurred since 2003 and stated that better 
control technology is available that would make further emission 
reductions possible.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. As explained 
previously, our review of control technologies and current industry 
processes and practices identified no new cost-effective controls that 
would achieve further emission reductions. Although the commenter 
stated that better technology is available, the commenter did not 
identify or provide evidence demonstrating any control technology that 
would achieve lower HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands. As 
explained previously, the Agency's review found no new add-on control 
technology, no developments in existing add-on control technology, and 
no new work practices, operational changes, or pollution prevention 
practices that would result in further reductions in emissions from 
this source category. For a detailed discussion of the findings of our 
technology review, please refer to the Technology Review for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands Source Category memorandum, which is available in the 
docket (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753-0031).
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled, Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for the Residual Risk and Technology Review for 
Engine Test Cells/Stands, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology 
review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the 
reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-
effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies 
were identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the 
standards. More information concerning our technology review, and how 
we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled 
Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category, 
which is available in the docket for this action, and in the

[[Page 34336]]

preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019). Therefore, 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology 
review as proposed.

C. SSM for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category?
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to the Engine Test 
Cells/Stands NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM. In 
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), the Court 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. The 
EPA proposed the amendments to remove or revise provisions related to 
SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards 
apply at all times. More information concerning the elimination or 
revision of SSM provisions is detailed in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
source category?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed (84 FR 20208, 
May 8, 2019) with minor changes to the General Provisions table (Table 
7) and related cross-references to correct inadvertent errors made at 
proposal. These include the following:
     Addition of language in Table 7 indicating that several 
provisions are still applicable for 180 days following the effective 
date of this final rule; and
     Removal of cross-references to SSM exemption-related 
provisions.
    We also note that because the final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) 
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no 
longer applicable, the EPA is adding to the rule at 40 CFR 
63.9355(c)(5) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that 
the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The 
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required 
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).'' A public comment was also received on this 
issue and more information can be found in the comment summary and 
response document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for 
the Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine Test Cells/Stands, 
which is available in the docket for this action;
    For reasons more fully described in the preamble at proposal, we 
also proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.9305 to add regulatory text regarding 
the general duty to minimize emissions. However, a typographical error 
was inadvertently made at the end of the sentence, ``The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieve.'' This sentence should have read 
as follows, and we are finalizing it as such: ``The general duty to 
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any 
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved.''
    Also, for reasons more fully described at proposal, we proposed to 
revise 40 CFR 63.9355 to add regulatory text regarding the requirements 
to record actions taken to minimize emissions and to record corrective 
actions. However, in 40 CFR 63.9355(a)(6), we inadvertently left the 
words ``the cause'' out of the sentence that read, ``For each failure 
record the date, time and duration of each failure.'' This sentence 
should have read as follows, and we are finalizing it as such: ``For 
each failure record the date, time, the cause and duration of each 
failure.''
    Finally, while we proposed to revise the performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.9321 to remove the language ``according to the 
requirements in Sec.  [thinsp]63.7(e)(1)'' (because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 
restated the SSM exemption), rule text showing this change was 
inadvertently not provided in the amendatory text appearing toward the 
end of the proposal document. Because this change, and the rationale 
for it, was adequately described in the proposal preamble, we are 
finalizing it as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received comments related to our proposed revisions to the 
SSM provisions. One commenter generally supported the proposed 
revisions to the SSM provisions but disagreed with the Agency's 
approach to malfunctions.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's assertion that the 
Agency has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where 
feasible. The commenter asserted that the EPA has only the discretion 
provided by the CAA (See, e.g., Clean Air Council v. EPA, 862 F.3d at 9 
(D.C. Cir. 2018)) and that the CAA does not give the EPA authority to 
set malfunction-based standards or exemptions (See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d), 
(h), and 7602(k)). The commenter noted the EPA has not acted on a 
petition for reconsideration that was filed when the EPA set a 
malfunction standard in the Refinery Sector Rule (See Air Alliance 
Houston et al. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 16-1035 (filed February 7, 2016), 
which held amendments in abeyance pending EPA action on 
reconsideration). The commenter contends their reconsideration petition 
and comments filed in support of that petition and offered at the 
November 2016 public hearing have shown that the Refinery Sector Rule 
malfunction exemption is unlawful and arbitrary and should be removed 
from the standards. Since the EPA has not acted on the reconsideration 
petition and the Court has held the case in abeyance, the commenter 
said that no other similar proposals for other source categories should 
be made until the Refinery Sector Rule petition is resolved. The 
commenter maintains that the malfunction exemption in the Refinery 
Sector Rule remains under a cloud of substantial controversy and is 
unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the 
EPA lacks the authority to set standards for malfunctions. In fact, in 
the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) vacating the SSM exemption in EPA's regulations implementing CAA 
section 112, the Court held that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 
emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and 
that when CAA sections 112 and 302(k) are read together, Congress has 
required that there must be continuous CAA section 112-compliant 
standards. Pursuant to that holding, the EPA must apply a standard to 
periods of malfunction. In this final rule, the EPA has removed the SSM 
exemption and has required compliance with the existing standards 
during periods of SSM. Thus, the EPA has set a standard for periods of 
SSM as required by the Sierra Club decision.
    The commenter's discussion of the EPA's decision in the Refinery 
Sector Rule, to set a standard for a particular type of malfunction 
that is different than the standards that apply in other circumstances, 
is not relevant here because the standards in this final rule for 
engine test cells apply to at all times, including during periods of 
malfunction. The commenter also

[[Page 34337]]

characterizes the Refinery Sector Rule as containing a malfunction 
exemption, so it is not clear whether the commenter's concern is with a 
standard that applies during malfunctions. In any event, the 
commenter's claim that the EPA has no authority to set standards for 
malfunctions is inconsistent with the Sierra Club SSM case.
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for the Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine 
Test Cells/Stands, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed 
amendments to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019) and in section III.C of this 
preamble, we are finalizing our approach for the SSM provisions as 
proposed other than the minor changes detailed previously.

D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category?
    The EPA proposed that owners and operators of engine test cells/
stands must submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance 
reports through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. More information 
concerning our proposal on electronic reporting requirements can be 
found in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
2. How did the electronic reporting provisions change for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands source category?
    Since proposal, the electronic reporting provisions have not 
changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting 
provisions, and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments both in support of and against the 
proposed electronic reporting provisions.
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed use of electronic 
reporting but recommended the EPA make certain changes to the proposed 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The commenter supported 
electronic reporting if it reduces regulatory burden, provides 
flexibility, and creates efficiencies for regulated entities. Although 
the commenter was supportive of electronic reporting, they wanted to 
ensure there is an orderly transition to the new reporting system. The 
commenter requested that the EPA should address the following issues:
     The addition of electronic reporting should not establish 
any new data requirements beyond what is currently required by the 
regulation. All data reporting requirements should tie to a regulatory 
citation;
     The reporting system should allow companies the option to 
provide explanatory comments on data or information submitted;
     Electronic reporting should not place further restrictions 
on who is eligible to submit a report;
     Sufficient compliance time should be allowed for companies 
to implement the revised requirements and to integrate EPA and company 
systems;
     Regulatory language should allow companies to submit 
hardcopy reports if there are problems with the EPA's reporting system 
availability or company systems;
     Electronic reporting should allow companies to submit 
reports as Portable Document Format (PDF) documents;
     The reporting system should allow updates or corrections 
to be submitted;
     The EPA should work with other regulatory authorities 
(i.e., states, local agencies) to establish comparable or compatible 
electronic systems. The commenter said that electronic reporting to the 
EPA would not reduce reporting burden if companies reporting 
electronically to the EPA still have to submit hardcopy reports to 
other agencies that do not have electronic systems; and
     Any reporting templates should be available for review at 
the time a rule is proposed.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment. The new requirement to 
submit reports electronically does not establish any new data 
requirements, will allow facilities to submit some performance test 
results as an attachment within the electronic reporting tool (ERT) as 
well as include additional information in the semiannual report in PDF, 
allows facilities to make corrections to submittals through the 
resubmittal process in CEDRI, provides sufficient time for facilities 
to understand and comply with the new method of submitting reports, and 
includes provisions allowing extensions to be approved for situations 
where a facility is unable to successfully submit a report by the 
reporting deadline due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., 
outages of the EPA's CEDRI). Further, once submitted and certified, 
reports can be accessed by facility personnel and authorized EPA, 
Regional, state, local, and tribal reviewers.
    For the semiannual compliance reports, reporters must use the 
spreadsheet template provided by the EPA to submit information to 
CEDRI. Additional information may be supplied through the comment field 
or as additional attachments through the process described on the 
Welcome tab of the spreadsheet template. In the proposal, we solicited 
comment on the content, layout and overall design of the template and a 
copy of the proposed template was made available in the docket (see 
Engine_Test_Cells_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft, available at 
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753-0147). 84 FR 20229, May 8, 
2019. We received public comments on the draft template, which we took 
into consideration when preparing the final semiannual compliance 
report template. A copy of the final semiannual compliance report 
template is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0753). The official version of the report template is 
available at the CEDRI homepage (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).
    All facilities must submit their reports electronically. For 
reports that contain information claimed as CBI, reporters will submit 
redacted reports electronically and mail complete versions, including 
the CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other electronic storage 
media to the EPA. Although facilities will not have the option to 
continue submitting reports in hardcopy, the EPA provides support for 
companies on the EPA's CEDRI website, accessed at https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri. An overview of the electronic 
data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic 
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
    Comment: One commenter thought that the EPA should provide a notice 
and comment period only through a Federal Register document for all 
future changes in reporting templates. According to the commenter, at 
proposal, the EPA noted that the compliance reporting template for 
engine test facilities will be available on the CEDRI website. At the 
time of the proposal, the template was only available in the rule 
docket. While stakeholders can review the template as

[[Page 34338]]

it exists currently, the commenter said that any future changes to the 
template should be made available to affected reporters for comment 
prior to being adopted. The commenter stated that facilities do not 
regularly check the CEDRI website and would not be aware of any changes 
to the template. If the EPA changes the template without notice, the 
commenter said that facilities may use the wrong template or find they 
are in noncompliance. The commenter noted that a notification of 
proposed rules is required to be published in the Federal Register 
pursuant to the CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The 
commenter cited both section 307(d)(3) of the CAA and section 553(b) of 
the APA as support:
    Section 307(d)(3) of the CAA states, in the case of any rule to 
which this subsection applies, notice of proposed rulemaking shall be 
published in the Federal Register, as provided under section 553(b) of 
Title 5 [of the United States Code], shall be accompanied by a 
statement of its basis and purpose and shall specify the period 
available for public comment. (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(3)).
    Section 553(b) of the APA states that general notice of proposed 
rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons 
subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise 
have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. Except when notice 
or hearing is required by statute, it does not apply to interpretative 
rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice, or when the agency for good cause finds (and 
incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in 
the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. (5 
U.S.C. 553(b).)
    The commenter stated that none of the exceptions in the APA would 
apply to any future changes in reporting templates and noted that the 
Federal Register is the official publication for federal agencies to 
publish changes in regulatory requirements. The commenter said that 
companies typically monitor the Federal Register daily, but do not 
typically subscribe to the Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions 
Factors (CHIEF) Listserv or periodically review the CEDRI website. The 
commenter said that it is not practical for companies to also review 
the CHIEF Listserv and CEDRI websites and that posting revised 
templates to these sites is not a ``legally-sufficient substitute for 
the Federal Register.'' The commenter also said that the EPA should 
provide notice of any proposed changes to electronic reporting 
requirements in a Federal Register notice as this approach will provide 
the regulated community with the notice that they need to review any 
proposed regulatory changes, provide comments, and initiate compliance 
plans. The commenter believed that posting to an EPA website does not 
provide adequate notice that electronic reporting requirements have 
changed and recommended that the EPA only make future changes to the 
template if a Federal Register notice is issued and an opportunity for 
public comment is provided.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that future changes to a reporting 
template require public notice and comment. This rulemaking establishes 
the process the EPA will use to notify owners/operators of the 
availability of revised forms and provided interested parties with an 
opportunity to comment on that process. The fact that the commenters 
prefer a different process does not mean that the EPA lacks the 
authority to adopt the process proposed. We are making the CEDRI forms 
consistent with the underlying regulations, and as such, the public has 
already had a chance to review and comment on the content of these 
reports. These underlying regulations establish clear and objective 
criteria for EPA to apply in future non-rulemaking actions. The 
application of regulatory criteria to future individual situations does 
not require notice and comment rulemaking, either under section 307(d) 
of the CAA or the APA.
    The EPA has amended the template to display the date of creation 
and revision number of the template. The date of the final rule is not 
included in the template.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's proposed extension 
provisions for CEDRI outages or force majeure events. The commenter 
thought the proposed extension provisions were ``unlawful and 
arbitrary.'' The commenter argued that the extension provisions do not 
set a firm deadline to either submit required reports or to request an 
extension of the reporting deadline. The commenter also disagreed with 
the provision: ``[t]he decision to accept the claim . . . and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator'' and with the EPA's proposed definition of ``force 
majeure event.'' The commenter believed these provisions were too broad 
and vague and was concerned a facility would use these provisions to 
evade the compliance reporting deadlines that assure compliance with 
applicable standards.
    The commenter also thought that the EPA lacked the authority to 
allow exceptions or extensions for a ``force majeure event'' under the 
CAA. The commenters said the CAA was enacted to protect public health 
and welfare, to reduce pollution and the harm it causes, including 
cancer and other serious health impacts from HAP. The commenter said 
that creating a ``malfunction exemption'' contravenes the CAA. The 
commenter noted that the concept of ``force majeure'' comes from 
contract law and is not applicable to the CAA because it is not a 
contract. The commenter noted that ``force majeure is a phrase coined 
primarily for the convenience of contracting parties wishing to 
describe the facts that create a contractual impossibility due to an 
`Act of God.' (See 6 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, section 1324 
(1962)). As Corbin points out, this term is outmoded and serves no 
useful purpose as a test of responsibility.'' Perlman v. Pioneer 
Limited Partnership, 918 F.2d 1244, 1248 n.5 (5th Cir. 1990). The 
commenter urged the EPA to not apply the concept of ``force majeure'' 
to any part of the CAA and said that doing so would be a variation of 
the prior malfunction exemptions that were found to be unlawful under 
the CAA. (See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 
2008); NRDC, 749 F.3d at 1062-63). The commenter argued that there is 
no ``force majeure'' exception allowed for non-compliance with the CAA 
or its requirements, and that the EPA may not create an exemption 
because ``the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto contain no force 
majeure exception.'' U.S. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 818 F.2d 
1077, 1088 (3d Cir. 1987) (refusing to provide for a free-standing 
``force majeure'' exception that would have exempted emission 
violations that fell outside the contractual term used in a consent 
decree due to the lack of legal basis to do so). The commenter noted 
that the Court explained: ``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.'' Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    The commenter thought that while CEDRI outages and some events may 
be out of a facility's control, the facility owners or operators have 
many factors within their control. The commenter said the EPA failed to 
evaluate the steps

[[Page 34339]]

a facility could take to predict and prevent delays in the reporting of 
pollution exceedances related to foreseeable types of events it defines 
as ``force majeure.'' If the EPA creates a ``force majeure event'' 
extension provision, the commenter recommended the facility be required 
to prevent similar problems in the future and report what steps it will 
take in the future to prevent the same problem from recurring. When 
there is such a problem, the commenter argued, the need for prompt 
reporting is important for ensuring actual emission exceedances end. 
The commenter asserted that allowing an unreasonable extension or not 
setting any deadline would be unlawful. The commenter thought reporting 
was especially important during the types of events described by the 
EPA. The commenter stated that reporting is necessary to protect public 
health and welfare.
    The commenter also said the EPA did not identify any problems or 
burdens with the electronic reporting system that could justify an 
extension. The commenter noted that in a proposed rule for the 
Petroleum Refinery Sector, the EPA had stated: ``We note that the 
submission of ERT formatted performance test and performance evaluation 
reports using CEDRI is fully operational, and there are no known or 
reported system issues . . . In addition, the CDX Helpdesk staff are 
available during regular business hours to support industry users in 
completing their submissions electronically using CEDRI.'' The 
commenter also noted the EPA found that ``over 3,400 ERT files have 
been submitted to the EPA through CEDRI,'' only 43 help calls were 
received, and only 9 calls were referred to EPA staff for further 
assistance (see, NESHAP: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendments, 
Proposal, 83 FR 15458, 15469 (April 10, 2018). The commenter said the 
EPA's proposed extension was not based on evidence of any problem with 
electronic reporting in the past, based on the record provided for 
public comment. The commenter said that no evidence was provided 
showing that a reporting problem could not be resolved through a case-
by-case resolution or that any harm has been caused by not having an 
extension provision.
    The commenter was concerned that delayed reporting and potentially 
failure to report would cause harm because it delays compliance 
assurance by the EPA, the states, and affected community residents. The 
commenter thought the extension provision would undermine the health 
and environmental protections of the standards, resulting in cancer and 
acute health threats from engine test facilities. The commenter urged 
the EPA to set a deadline for reporting and to assure that the 
extension request allows only a temporary delay in reporting, such as a 
10-day extension, rather than an open-ended extension with no deadline.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with these comments. The final rule 
requires electronic reporting for all facilities subject 40 CFR part 
63, to subpart PPPPP as proposed. The commenter questioned the limited 
flexibility the EPA proposed (and is finalizing), namely inclusion of 
electronic reporting provisions for reporters facing circumstances 
beyond their control. The commenter asserts the case-by-case extension 
of report submittal deadlines is an ``unlawful exemption [from 
compliance with] the emissions standards.'' This is not the case, as 
explained below. The proposed provisions the commenter questions are as 
follows (emphasis added):

    (3) If you are required to electronically submit a report 
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of 
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission 
is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and 
submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply 
with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the 
event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to 
the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time 
and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in 
reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; 
describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if 
you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the 
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report 
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the 
outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system 
outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely 
within the discretion of the Administrator.

    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
    There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an 
exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, 
rather, this regulatory provision only sets out a method for requesting 
an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are required to 
justify their request and identify a reporting date. There is no 
predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that can be 
granted, as this is something best determined by the Administrator 
(i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as defined in 40 
CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the request. 
Different circumstances may require a different length of extension for 
electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may delay 
electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina scale event may 
delay electronic reporting for much longer, especially if the facility 
has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to 
either access electronically stored data or to submit reports 
electronically. The Administrator (or delegated authority)

[[Page 34340]]

will be the most knowledgeable of the events leading to the request for 
extension and will assess whether an extension is appropriate, and, if 
so, a reasonable length for the extension. The Administrator (or 
delegated authority) may even request that the report be sent in 
hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed 
duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage or 
after the force majeure event resolves.
    The concept of force majeure is not arbitrary, as it has been 
implemented since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the 
performance test extensions requirements provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) 
and 60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a 
requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    The EPA disagrees that the reporting extension will undermine 
enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or 
reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an 
extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by 
the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has 
not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the 
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report 
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are 
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's 
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters 
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
    Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not 
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope 
for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very 
limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the 
owner's or operator's control that occurs in the 5 business days prior 
to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the 
Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the Administrator would 
agree that something outside the control of the owner or operator 
prevented the owner or operator from meeting its reporting obligation. 
In no circumstance does this electronic reporting extension allow for 
the owner or operator to be out of compliance with the underlying 
emissions standards.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assumption that the 
requirement to report ``as soon as possible'' makes it likely that 
reporting will be significantly delayed, may lead a facility to drag 
its feet in submitting reports for an extended period, or may lead to a 
facility never reporting information. Each request for an extension of 
the electronic reporting deadline must be approved by the Administrator 
(or delegated authority), and each request must state the time 
requested for the extension as well as the dates and times at which the 
unsuccessful attempt(s) to access CEDRI were made in the case of a 
CEDRI outage. The EPA also disagrees that a delay in reporting due to a 
CEDRI outage or a force majeure event would necessitate a delay in a 
corrective action that would be taken to prevent harmful and unlawful 
emission exceedances. The facility must remain in compliance with all 
air emissions requirements and has an ongoing responsibility under the 
general duty clause of 40 CFR 63.6(e) to operate and maintain any 
affected source in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution practices for minimizing emissions. An extension of the 
deadline for submitting an electronic report in no way eliminates 
culpability for exceedances of emissions limitations or the requirement 
to address them.
    The EPA disagrees that the force majeure extension request must 
require a facility to report what steps it will take in the future to 
prevent the same problem from occurring. A force majeure event for the 
purpose of electronic reporting is defined as ``. . . an event that 
will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility.'' Examples of such events are acts of nature and 
acts of war or terrorism. By definition, force majeure events are not 
something that a facility is able to control, and, thus, there is no 
way for the facility to prevent it from happening.
    The EPA disagrees that the existing statistics on the use of CEDRI 
and e-reporting precludes the need for a provision to account for an 
outage of the CEDRI system. Prudent management of electronic data 
systems builds in allowances for unexpected, non-routine delays, such 
as occurred on July 1, 2016, and October 20-23, 2017, and is consistent 
with the already-existing provisions afforded for unexpected, non-
routine delays in performance testing (see 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and (2) 
and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)). For both electronic reporting and performance 
testing, owners or operators are to conduct and complete their 
activities within a short window of time; the EPA believes that it is 
prudent to allow owners or operators to make force majeure claims for 
situations beyond their reasonable control. The EPA also disagrees that 
incidental issues with questions on completing the form or the 
procedures for accessing CEDRI for which the CEDRI Helpdesk is 
available, are conditions that would be considered either force majeure 
or a CEDRI system outage. The existence of the Helpdesk for answering 
questions on procedures in submitting reports to CEDRI have no impact 
on the availability of CEDRI in such a circumstance.
    The purpose of these requests for extensions are to accommodate 
owners and operators in cases where they cannot successfully submit a 
report electronically for reasons that are beyond their control and 
occur during a short window of time prior to the reporting deadline. 
The extension is not automatic, and the Administrator retains the right 
to accept or reject the request. The language was added as part of the 
standard electronic reporting language based on numerous comments 
received on the proposal for the Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping 
Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100, 
March 20, 2015).
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for the Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine 
Test Cells/Stands, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic 
reporting provisions?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed 
amendments to the electronic reporting provisions. For the reasons 
explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019), we have 
determined the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
final rule will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time

[[Page 34341]]

and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, 
minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and 
accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 
public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's 
plan \6\[thinsp]to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping 
with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \7\[thinsp]developed in response to 
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\8\ For more information 
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic 
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \7\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \8\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category?
    The EPA proposed the following technical and editorial changes to 
the existing NESHAP for the source category:
     Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.9307 to 
add THC as a continuous emission monitoring option and to add 
Performance Specification 8A and EPA Method 25A;
     Revising the initial compliance requirements in 40 CFR 
63.9320 to include a provision for the performance test to be used to 
demonstrate compliance;
     Revising Tables 3 and 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, 
to add an alternative compliance option; and
     Revising section 40 CFR 63.9350 to address the reporting 
of performance tests and performance evaluations.
2. How did the technical and editorial changes change for the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands source category?
    Since proposal, the technical and editorial changes have not 
changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technical and editorial 
changes, and what are our responses?
    While no comments were received on the particular technical and 
editorial changes detailed above, additional comments of a technical 
and editorial nature were received. Our specific responses to those 
comments can be found in the document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for the Residual Risk and Technology Review for Engine 
Test Cells/Stands, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical and 
editorial changes?
    Because no comments were received on the technical and editorial 
changes that the EPA proposed, we determined that these changes should 
be finalized as proposed.

F. Additional Issue on Which Comment Was Requested: Prior Approval for 
an Aspect of Performance Testing

1. What did we propose for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source 
category?
    In the proposal, the EPA specifically solicited comment on an 
aspect of initial performance testing. According to the existing 
regulations, if an affected source owner or operator elects to comply 
with the percent reduction emission limitation, an initial performance 
test must be conducted to determine the capture and control 
efficiencies of the equipment and to establish the operating limits to 
be achieved on a continuous basis. Performance tests are to be 
conducted under representative operating conditions, and the source is 
required to document the operating conditions during the test and 
explain why the conditions represent normal operation. In discussions 
prior to our May 2019 proposal, industry stakeholders raised the issue 
that, for facilities with multiple test cells/stands, it is difficult 
to define ``normal'' operation due to the several types of engine tests 
conducted, the varying operation conditions for the engine tests, the 
number of cells/stands, different kinds of test fuels, and the complex 
emission capture system. Thus, affected sources have felt the need to 
request approval on the testing protocol prior to conducting the 
performance tests to limit tests to representative cells. We requested 
comment on whether this process of requesting prior approval for 
determining what is considered ``normal'' operation for a specific 
affected facility is reasonable and appropriate for the one-time 
required performance test. More information concerning our request for 
comment on this aspect of initial performance testing can be found in 
the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
2. How did the performance testing issue change for the Engine Test 
Cells/Stands source category?
    Since proposal, this issue has not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the performance testing issue, 
and what are our responses?
    One commenter commented more broadly on the issue of performance 
testing.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA streamline 
requirements calling for Agency approval of alternate testing protocols 
and monitoring. The commenter said that this requirement creates 
unnecessary compliance complexity for facilities with multiple test 
cells and further stated that it was difficult to comply with this 
requirement when determining the capture efficiency for a cell that is 
not a permanent total enclosure (PTE), which is the case for cells in 
large complexes. The commenter said that in situations where there are 
temporary total enclosures (TTE), demonstrating TTE as defined by EPA 
Method 204 is challenging because of the size and set-up at a large 
facility (e.g., approximately 90 cells). The gas-to-gas protocol, the 
commenter said, is not practical to implement due to the size and 
complexity of multiple cells within a large complex. The TTE 
requirements cannot be met as prescribed because:
     The test method requires the construction of a TTE over 
all of the test cells in order to measure emissions at exhaust points 
from the test cell building. With many cells and the volume of air flow 
involved, construction of a TTE is impossible because the temporary 
structure would be the size of a large building.
     Measuring all of the emission points from a test cell 
building at one location is not practical as this would require 
simultaneous testing at one location of exhaust volume and THC 
concentration from over 100 locations (90+ general ventilation exhaust 
points, scavenge air exhaust points systems, emission analyzer vents, 
and regenerative thermal oxidizers).
     The low CO volume generated from scavenge air and air 
handling units associated with the general ventilation system can be 
difficult to measure accurately and background CO levels can interfere 
with obtaining accurate

[[Page 34342]]

measurements for determining capture efficiency in testing TTE.
     Approval is needed to limit tests to ``representative'' 
cells. From a practical perspective, the absence of a definition of 
what is representative (e.g., test type, common engine type, common 
fuel, CO measurement methods) results in delayed approvals from 
regulatory authorities as there is no defined basis for approval.
     Other TTE EPA Method 204 issues include:
    [cir] A source must request alternative approval to deviate from 
EPA Method 204 requirements to use a single analyzer. The rule does not 
address the ability to use various calibration gases based on 
concentration ranges for several capture points.
    [cir] Current rule excludes an allowance for measuring CO instead 
of VOC or THC, triggering the need for regulatory authority approval to 
measure CO. In most cases, VOC is too low of a concentration to measure 
from test cell operations.
    [cir] When testing capture efficiency, an entity must lock room air 
handling system in place in order to accurately measure air flow from 
this source and generate valid data. This can trigger changes in 
ambient conditions for the engine test.
    To address these issues, the commenter recommended the EPA should:
    1. Step 1: Define 100-percent capture to exclude general 
ventilation, scavenge air systems, and test bench emissions. Based on 
testing experience and data, these sources represent less than 1 
percent of the emissions.
    [cir] Due to the size, number, and configuration of test cells, it 
is difficult to determine capture efficiency and meet the TTE 
requirements.
    [cir] Alternatively, the EPA could establish a default capture rate 
for the de minimis emissions to avoid facilities having to undertake 
costly testing when the capture is known to be nearly complete.
    2. Step 2: If a PTE cannot be met and the gas-to-gas protocol and 
TTE requirements are triggered:
    [cir] Allow for a representative test and include a definition 
describing the requirements for representative test conditions in order 
to measure CO from various points from the enclosure. This would 
include testing a representative test cycle (e.g., durability) on a 
single common engine/fuel type.
    [cir] Modify requirements to allow for multiple analyzers with 
different measurement spans.
    [cir] If testing of capture efficiency must be conducted, the test 
method should allow for the locking of the room air handling system. 
This is not considered normal operation but is necessary because 
facilities cannot accurately measure air flow when the system is in a 
constant state of adjusting.
    [cir] Allow measurement of CO, not just THC or HAP.
    Response: The EPA is not amending the test procedures and protocols 
required by this subpart at this time. The EPA also notes that the 
ability to use either alternative methods or deviations of methods may 
be pursued on a case by case basis through the site-specific test plan 
and the alternative method procedures of 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2). Sources may 
also request approval of a broadly applicable alternative test method 
through the EPA Measurement Technology Group.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the performance 
testing issue?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed changes 
regarding initial performance testing. For the reasons explained 
previously, we determined that no changes should be made to current 
practice. Although affected sources may still request approval on the 
testing protocol, this practice will continue to not be required.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently 59 engine test cells/stands facilities 
operating in the United States that conduct engine testing operations 
and are subject to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPPP, affected source is the collection of all equipment 
and activities associated with engine test cells/stands used for 
testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines located at 
a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source 
is a completely new engine testing source that commenced construction 
after May 14, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and 
commenced reconstruction after May 14, 2002.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP from the 
source category are estimated to be approximately 163 tpy. This 
represents a reduction in HAP emissions of about 80 tpy due to the 
current (2003) Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. These final amendments 
require all affected sources subject to the emission standards in the 
Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. 
We do not expect that eliminating the SSM exemption will result in 
reduced emissions since the existing NESHAP requires that the operating 
limits established during the performance test for demonstrating 
continuous compliance must be met at all times.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment. The EPA expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy 
impacts from this rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The EPA estimates that each facility in the source category will 
experience costs as a result of the final amendments. These costs are 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs of the final 
rule. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the 
rule amendments. The total cost for this activity is estimated to be 
$4,029 annually, inclusive of all affected entities. Facilities will 
also experience costs associated with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption (including labor hours required for re-evaluation of 
previously developed SSM record systems), and costs associated with the 
requirement to electronically submit performance test, performance 
evaluation, and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI (including 
labor hours needed to become familiar with CEDRI and the reporting 
template for semi-annual compliance reports). There costs were also 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs of the rule 
amendments, however, we do not expect any net change in cost to result 
from elimination of the SSM exemption or the addition of the electronic 
reporting requirements. Therefore, the total estimated cost of this 
action, beyond the costs that would have been incurred by industry 
pursuant to the regulations in effect prior to this final rule, is 
$4,029 annually.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with a

[[Page 34343]]

rule and the distribution of those costs among affected facilities can 
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to 
the rule. As presented in section VI.C of this preamble, the total 
estimated cost of this final rule is approximately $4,029 annually. 
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, 
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed 
by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not finalizing changes to the emission limit 
requirements and estimates the proposed changes to SSM, recordkeeping, 
reporting, and monitoring are not economically significant. Because 
these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as 
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions 
were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing 
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Engine 
Test Cells/Stands source category across different demographic groups 
within the populations living near facilities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

                       Table 3--Engine Test Cells/Stands Demographic Risk Analysis Results
       [Engine Test Cells/Stands source category: Demographic assessment results--50 km study area radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                               cancer risk
                                                                             greater than or    Population with
                                                                             equal to 1 in 1   HI greater than 1
                                                                                 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Nationwide                Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        317,746,049              2,745                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      White and minority by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 62                 90                  0
Minority...............................................                 38                 10                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Minority by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                  3                  0
Native American........................................                0.8                0.4                  0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 18                  2                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                  7                  4                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 13                  0
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 87                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 14                  9                  0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 86                 91                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Linguistically isolated by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  6                  2                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 2,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 based 
on actual or allowable emissions. Regarding cancer risk, the specific 
demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population 
potentially impacted by engine test cells/stands emissions is greater 
than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the following 
demographics: White (90 percent for the source category compared to 62 
percent nationwide), Above Poverty Level (87

[[Page 34344]]

percent for the source category compared to 86 percent nationwide), and 
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma (91 percent for the source 
category compared to 86 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic 
group percentages (including the groups explicitly designated as 
minority) are the same or less than the corresponding nationwide 
percentages.
    The EPA, therefore, reaffirms its determination that this final 
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous 
populations because it maintains the level of environmental protection 
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this 
action.

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

    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 
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2066.09. 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.
    We are finalizing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP in the form of 
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring 
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance 
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the 
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are owners or operators 
of engine test cells/stands facilities subject to the Engine Test 
Cells/Standards NESHAP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: On average, over the next 3 years, 
approximately 12 existing major sources will be subject to these 
standards, of which seven are subject to emission limits, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. It is also estimated that 
one additional respondent will become subject to the emission standards 
over the 3-year period and two additional respondents will be subject 
only to the notification requirements.
    Frequency of response: On average, this collection is expected to 
produce 18 responses per year.
    Total estimated burden: 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,029 (per year), which is inclusive of the 
cost of familiarization with regulatory requirements, plus $2,900 
annualized capital or operation and 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.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. During the original 
rulemaking, an ICR was sent to over 100 companies representing over 300 
individual facilities. Using that information, along with discussion 
with industry stakeholders, it was determined that there were no major 
sources that were also owned by small entities. A review of the 59 
facilities currently in this source category also concluded that none 
are owned by small entities. Thus, this action will not impose any 
requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any engine test cell/
stand facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

[[Page 34345]]

H. 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 
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019) 
and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support 
of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available 
in the docket for this action.

I. 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of 
the proposal preamble (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019), section IV.A of this 
preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category Operations, which is available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.

L. 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, Engine test cells/stands, Hazardous substances, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 11, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is 
amended 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 PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Engine Test Cells/Stands

0
2. Section 63.9295 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.9295  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) Affected sources. (1) If you start up your new or reconstructed 
affected source before May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission 
limitations in this subpart no later than May 27, 2003; except that the 
compliance date for the requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.9295, 
63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355, 63.9375, and Table 7 of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPPP, revised on June 3, 2020 is December 1, 2020.
    (2) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or 
after May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission limitations in 
this subpart upon startup; except that if the initial startup of your 
new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 27, 2003, but on 
or before May 8, 2019, the compliance date for the requirements 
promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355, 
63.9375, and Table 7 of this subpart as revised on June 3, 2020 is 
December 1, 2020.
    (3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected 
source occurs after May 8, 2019, the compliance date is June 3, 2020 or 
the date of startup, whichever is later.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.9305 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9305  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) Prior to December 1, 2020, you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitation that applies to you at all times, except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of your control 
device or associated monitoring equipment. On and after December 1, 
2020, you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitation 
at all times.
    (b) If you must comply with the emission limitation, you must 
operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control 
equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at 
all times. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or 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 that 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 
affected source.
    (c) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, you must 
develop a written SSM plan (SSMP) for emission control devices and 
associated monitoring equipment according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). The plan will apply only to emission control devices, and 
not to engine test cells/stands.

0
4. Section 63.9307 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and 
(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9307  What are my continuous emissions monitoring system 
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to 
the applicable Performance Specification (PS) of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to PS-3 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, using Reference Method 3A or 3B for the 
O2 CEMS, and according to PS-4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B, using Reference Method 10 or 10B for the CO CEMS, and according to 
PS-8 of CFR part 60, appendix B, using Reference Method 25A for the THC 
CEMS. If the fuel used in the engines being tested is natural gas, you 
may use ASTM D 6522-00, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions 
from

[[Page 34346]]

Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, 
and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14). As an alternative to Method 3B, you may 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 
Instruments and Apparatus],'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2) 
and recorded as CO or THC as carbon concentration in parts per million 
by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 percent O2 
content.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.9320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9320   What procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each 
capture and control system according to Sec. Sec.  63.9321, 63.9322, 
63.9323 and 63.9324, and each CEMS according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS-3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
    (c) The initial demonstration of compliance with the carbon 
monoxide (CO) or THC concentration limitation consists of either the 
first 4-hour rolling average CO or THC concentration recorded after 
completion of the CEMS performance evaluation if CEMS are installed or 
the average of the test run averages during the initial performance 
test. You must correct the CO or THC concentration at the outlet of the 
engine test cell/stand or the emission control device to a dry basis 
and to 15 percent O2 content according to Equation 1 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN20.012

Where:

Cc = concentration of CO or THC, corrected to 15 percent 
oxygen, ppmvd
Cunc = total uncorrected concentration of CO or THC, 
ppmvd
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in gas stream, 
dry basis, percent by volume
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.9321 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9321  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.  
63.9310 under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver 
of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(h). 
Prior to December 1, 2020, the performance test must also be conducted 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.9330 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.9330  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitation?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.9340 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.9340  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions:
    (1) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, consistent with 
Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a 
period of SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment 
are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e)(1).
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period you identify as an SSM of control devices and 
associated monitoring equipment are violations, according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).

0
9. Section 63.9350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6) and;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(11);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.9350  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) * * *
    (6) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, if you had an 
SSM of a control device or associated monitoring equipment during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (7) Beginning on December 1, 2020, submit all semiannual compliance 
reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (c) For each deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual 
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (4) of this section, except that on and after December 
1, 2020 the semiannual compliance report must also include the 
information included in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) 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.
    (d) For each CEMS or CPMS deviation, the semiannual compliance 
report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(10) of this section, except that on and after December 1, 2020, the 
semiannual compliance report must also include the information included 
in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.
* * * * *
    (11) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine 
test cell/stand during the reporting period.
    (e) Prior to December 1, 2020, if you had an SSM of a control 
device or associated monitoring equipment during the semiannual 
reporting period that was not consistent with your SSMP, you must 
submit an immediate SSM report according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test or performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring 
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants using test methods 
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 
EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. 
Submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation to 
the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.

[[Page 34347]]

Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA 
pollutants using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT 
as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The results 
of the performance test or performance evaluation must be included as 
an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT 
generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph 
(f) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit 
the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section.
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via 
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in 
this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is 
submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium 
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's 
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occured within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
10. Section 63.9355 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (8);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c) introductory text, and (c)(2) and 
(4); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.9355  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (5) of this section. After June 3, 2020, you must also keep the 
records as described in paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in 
Sec.  63.9355.
* * * * *
    (6) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard,

[[Page 34348]]

record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, time, 
the cause, and duration of each failure.
    (7) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources 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.
    (8) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.9305, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected 
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (b) * * *
    (2) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, the records in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to SSM.
* * * * *
    (c) For each CEMS, you must keep the records as described in 
paragraph (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Previous (i.e., superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, the records in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to SSM of the control device 
and associated monitoring equipment.
    (5) The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on 
record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source 
is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made 
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the 
performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall 
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation 
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by 
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the 
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan 
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.9360 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows;

Sec.  63.9360  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
12. Section 63.9375 is amended in the definition of ``Deviation'' by 
revising paragraph (3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9375  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation * * *
    (3) Prior to December 1, 2020, fails to meet any emission 
limitation or operating limit in this subpart during malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *

0
13. Table 3 to subpart PPPPP is amended by revising the entry ``1. The 
CO or THC outlet concentration emission limitation'' to read as 
follows:

             Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Initial Compliance Demonstrations
                                                      *****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For each new or reconstructed
 affected source complying with . .      You must . . .            Using . . .        According to the following
                 .                                                                        requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CO or THC outlet              a. Demonstrate CO or    i. EPA Methods 3A and   You must demonstrate that
 concentration emission limitation.   THC emissions are 20    10 of appendix A to     the outlet concentration
                                      ppmvd or less.          40 CFR part 60 for CO   of CO or THC emissions
                                                              measurement or EPA      from the test cell/stand
                                                              Method 25A of           or emission control device
                                                              appendix A to 40 CFR    is 20 ppmvd or less,
                                                              part 60 for THC         corrected to 15 percent O2
                                                              measurement; or         content, using the average
                                                                                      of the test runs in the
                                                                                      performance test.
                                                             ii. A CEMS for CO or    This demonstration is
                                                              THC and O2 at the       conducted immediately
                                                              outlet of the engine    following a successful
                                                              test cell/stand or      performance evaluation of
                                                              emission control        the CEMS as required in
                                                              device.                 Sec.   63.9320 (b). The
                                                                                      demonstration consists of
                                                                                      the first 4-hour rolling
                                                                                      average of measurements.
                                                                                      The CO or THC
                                                                                      concentration must be
                                                                                      corrected to 15 percent O2
                                                                                      content, dry basis using
                                                                                      Equation 1 in Sec.
                                                                                      63.9320.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
14. Table 4 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

  Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
                               Limitations
  [As stated in Sec.   63.9330, you must demonstrate initial compliance
   with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
                            following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
           For the . . .                     compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration          The first 4-hour rolling average CO
 emission limitation.                or THC concentration is 20 ppmvd or
                                     less, corrected to 15 percent O2
                                     content if CEMS are installed or
                                     the average of the test run
                                     averages during the performance
                                     test is 20 ppmvd or less, corrected
                                     to 15 percent O2 content.
2. CO or THC percent reduction      The first 4-hour rolling average
 emission limitation.                reduction in CO or THC is 96
                                     percent or more, dry basis,
                                     corrected to 15 percent O2 content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 34349]]

0
15. Table 5 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
                               Limitations
[As stated in Sec.   63.9340, you must demonstrate continuous compliance
   with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
                            following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         For the . . .            You must . . .          By . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration      a. Demonstrate CO  i. Collecting the
 emission limitation.            or THC emissions   CPMS data according
                                 are 20 ppmvd or    to Sec.
                                 less over each 4-  63.9306(a), reducing
                                  hour rolling      the measurements to
                                 averaging period.  1-hour averages used
                                                    to calculate the 3-
                                                    hr block average; or
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    CEMS data according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    63.9307(a), reducing
                                                    the measurements to
                                                    1-hour averages,
                                                    correcting them to
                                                    15 percent O2
                                                    content, dry basis,
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.9320.
2. CO or THC percent reduction  a. Demonstrate a   i. Collecting the
 emission limitation.            reduction in CO    CPMS data according
                                 or THC of 96       to Sec.
                                 percent or more    63.9306(a), reducing
                                 over each 4-hour   the measurements to
                                 rolling            1-hour averages; or
                                 averaging period. ii. Collecting the
                                                    CEMS data according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    63.9307(b), reducing
                                                    the measurements to
                                                    1-hour averages,
                                                    correcting them to
                                                    15 percent O2
                                                    content, dry basis,
                                                    calculating the CO
                                                    or THC percent
                                                    reduction according
                                                    to Sec.   63.9320.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
16. Table 7 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

            Table 7 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPP
[As stated in 63.9365, you must comply with the General Provisions in Sec.  Sec.   63.1 through 15 that apply to
                                     you according to the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Applicable to subpart
           Citation                       Subject                     PPPPP                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(12)........  General Applicability......  Yes...................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3).........  Initial Applicability        Yes...................  Applicability to subpart
                                 Determination.                                       PPPPP is also specified in
                                                                                      Sec.   63.9285.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).............  Applicability After          Yes...................
                                 Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).............  Applicability of Permit      No....................  Area sources are not
                                 Program for Area Sources.                            subject to subpart PPPPP.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5).............  Notifications..............  Yes...................
Sec.   63.1(d)................  [Reserved].................
Sec.   63.1(e)................  Applicability of Permit      Yes...................
                                 Program Before Relevant
                                 Standard is Set.
Sec.   63.2...................  Definitions................  Yes...................  Additional definitions are
                                                                                      specified in Sec.
                                                                                      63.9375.
Sec.   63.3...................  Units and Abbreviations....  Yes...................
Sec.   63.4...................  Prohibited Activities and    Yes...................
                                 Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5(a)................  Construction/Reconstruction  Yes...................
Sec.   63.5(b)................  Requirements for Existing,   Yes...................
                                 Newly Constructed, and
                                 Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)................  Application for Approval of  Yes...................
                                 Construction/
                                 Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)................  Approval of Construction/    Yes...................
                                 Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)................  Approval of Construction/    Yes...................
                                 Reconstruction based on
                                 Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)................  Compliance With Standards    Yes...................
                                 and Maintenance
                                 Requirements-Applicability.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7).........  Compliance Dates for New     Yes...................  Sec.   63.9295 specifies
                                 and Reconstructed Sources.                           the compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).........  Compliance Dates for         No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                 Existing Sources.                                    establish standards for
                                                                                      existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).............  Compliance Dates for         Yes...................  Sec.   63.9295(b) specifies
                                 Existing Sources.                                    the compliance date if a
                                                                                      new or reconstructed area
                                                                                      source becomes a major
                                                                                      source.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  Operation and Maintenance..  Yes before December 1,  See Sec.   63.9305 for
                                                              2020. No on and after   general duty requirement.
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  Operation and Maintenance..  Yes before December 1,
                                                              2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)........  Operation and Maintenance..  Yes...................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  SSM Plan...................  Yes before December 1,
                                                              2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.

[[Page 34350]]

 
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  Compliance Except During     Yes before December 1,
                                 SSM.                         2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).........  Methods for Determining      Yes...................
                                 Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3).........  Use of Alternative           Yes...................
                                 Standards.
Sec.   63.6(h)................  Compliance With Opacity/     No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                 Visible Emission Standards.                          establish opacity
                                                                                      standards and does require
                                                                                      continuous opacity
                                                                                      monitoring systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(16)........  Extension of Compliance....  No....................  Compliance extension
                                                                                      provisions apply to
                                                                                      existing sources which do
                                                                                      not have emission
                                                                                      limitations in subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.
Sec.   63.6(j)................  Presidential Compliance      Yes...................
                                 Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).........  Performance Test Dates.....  Yes...................
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).............  Performance Test Required    Yes...................
                                 By the Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)............  Performance Test             Yes...................
                                 Requirements-Notification,
                                 Quality Assurance,
                                 Facilities Necessary for
                                 Safe Testing, Conditions
                                 During Testing.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  Conditions for Conducting    Yes before December 1,
                                 Performance Tests.           2020. No, see Sec.
                                                              63.9321, on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4).........  Conduct of Performance       Yes...................
                                 Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f)................  Alternative Test Methods...  Yes...................
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)............  Performance Testing          Yes...................
                                 Requirements-Data
                                 Analysis, Recordkeeping,
                                 Reporting, Waiver of Test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2).........  Monitoring Requirements--    Yes...................  Subpart PPPPP contains
                                 Applicability.                                       specific requirement for
                                                                                      monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                      63.9325.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).............  Additional Monitoring        No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not have
                                 Requirements.                                        monitoring requirement for
                                                                                      flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)................  Conduct of Monitoring......  Yes...................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).............  Continuous Monitoring        Yes...................
                                 System (CMS) Operation and
                                 Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  General Duty to Minimize     Yes before December 1,
                                 Emissions and CMS            2020. No on and after
                                 Operation.                   December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  Operation and Maintenance    Yes...................
                                 of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  Requirement to Develop SSM   Yes before December 1,
                                 Plan for CMS.                2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).........  Monitoring System            Yes...................
                                 Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).............  CMS........................  No....................  Sec.   63.9335(a) and (b)
                                                                                      specifies the
                                                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).............  COMS.......................  No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not have
                                                                                      opacity or VE standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8).........  CMS Requirements...........  Yes...................  Except that subpart PPPPP
                                                                                      does not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2).........  CMS Quality Control........  Yes...................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).............  CMS Quality Control........  Yes before December 1,
                                                              2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.8(e)................  CMS Performance............  Yes...................  Except for Sec.
                                                                                      63.8(e)(5)(ii) which
                                                                                      applies to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5).........  Alternative Monitoring       Yes...................
                                 Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).............  Alternative to Relative      Yes...................
                                 Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)................  Data Reduction.............  Yes before December 1,  Sec.  Sec.   63.9335 and
                                                              2020. No on and after   63.9340 specify monitoring
                                                              December 1, 2020.       data reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(b)............  Notification Requirements..  Yes...................
Sec.   63.9(c)................  Request for Compliance       No....................  Compliance extension to not
                                 Extension.                                           apply to new or
                                                                                      reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.9(d)................  Notification of Special      Yes...................
                                 Compliance Requirements
                                 for New Sources.
Sec.   63.9(e)................  Notification of Performance  No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                 Test.                                                require performance
                                                                                      testing.
Sec.   63.9(f)................  Notification of Opacity/VE   No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not have
                                 test.                                                opacity/VE standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).............  Additional Notifications     Yes...................
                                 When Using CMS.

[[Page 34351]]

 
Sec.   63.9(g)(2).............  Additional Notifications     No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not have
                                 When Using CMS.                                      opacity/VE standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3).............  Additional Notifications     Yes...................
                                 When Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)................  Notification of Compliance   Yes...................
                                 Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)................  Adjustment of Submittal      Yes...................
                                 Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)................  Change in Previous           Yes...................
                                 Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)...............  Recordkeeping/Reporting....  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)............  General Recordkeeping        Yes...................
                                 Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).........  Recordkeeping of Occurrence  Yes before December 1,
                                 and Duration of Startups     2020. No on and after
                                 and Shutdowns.               December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)........  Recordkeeping of Occurrence  Yes before December 1,  See Sec.   63.9355 for
                                 and Duration of              2020. No on and after   recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                 Malfunctions.                December 1, 2020.       time, and duration; (2)
                                                                                      listing of affected source
                                                                                      or equipment, and an
                                                                                      estimate of the quantity
                                                                                      of each regulated
                                                                                      pollutant emitted over the
                                                                                      standard; and (3) actions
                                                                                      to minimize emissions and
                                                                                      correct the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).......  Recordkeeping of             Yes...................
                                 Maintenance on Controls
                                 and Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....  Actions Taken to Minimize    Yes before December 1,
                                 Emissions During SSM.        2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)...  CMS Records................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).......  Records....................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......  Records....................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......  Records....................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)............  Recordkeeping for            Yes...................
                                 Applicability
                                 Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-    Additional Recordkeeping     Yes...................
 (14).                           for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)........  Records of Excess Emissions  No....................  Specific language is
                                 and Parameter Monitoring                             located at Sec.   63.9355
                                 Exceedances for CMS.                                 of subpart PPPPP.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...........  Records Regarding the SSM    Yes before December 1,
                                 Plan.                        2020. No on and after
                                                              December 1, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)............  General Reporting            Yes...................
                                 Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)............  Report of Performance Test   Yes...................
                                 Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)............  Reporting of Opacity or VE   No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not have
                                 Observations.                                        opacity/VE standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Progress Reports for         No....................  Compliance extensions do
                                 Sources with Compliance                              not apply to new or
                                 Extensions.                                          reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  SSM Reports................  Yes before December 1,  On and after December 1,
                                                              2020. No on and after   2020, see Sec.   63.9350
                                                              December 1, 2020.       for malfunction reporting
                                                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i).  Additional CMS Reports.....  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)........  Additional CMS Reports.....  No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                                                                      require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)............  Excess Emissions/CMS         No....................  Specific language in
                                 Performance Reports.                                 located in Sec.   63.9350
                                                                                      of subpart PPPPP.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)............  COMS Data Reports..........  No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                                                                      require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)...............  Waiver for Recordkeeping/    Yes...................
                                 Reporting.
Sec.   63.11..................  Control Device Requirements/ No....................  Subpart PPPPP does not
                                 Flares.                                              specify use of flares for
                                                                                      compliance.
Sec.   63.12..................  State Authority and          Yes...................
                                 Delegations.
Sec.   63.13..................  Addresses..................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.14..................  Incorporation by Reference.  Yes...................  ASTM D 6522-00 and ANSI/
                                                                                      ASME PTC 19.10-1981
                                                                                      (incorporated by
                                                                                      reference--See Sec.
                                                                                      63.14).
Sec.   63.15..................  Availability of Information/ Yes...................
                                 Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-05909 Filed 6-2-20; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P