Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0057
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2020-07-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41680-41714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05896]

[[Page 41679]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 133

July 10, 2020

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site 
Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 41680]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833; FRL-10006-94-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU19

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site 
Remediation 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 Site Remediation source category regulated 
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
the proposed determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics 
from site remediation sources are acceptable and that no revision to 
the standards is required to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Based on the results of our technology review, 
we are promulgating the proposed changes to the leak detection and 
repair (LDAR) program. In addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to 
revise regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), including finalizing work 
practice requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs) and the 240-
hour maintenance period for control devices on tanks. We are finalizing 
requirements for electronic submittal of semiannual reports and 
performance test results. Finally, we are making minor clarifications 
and corrections. The final revisions to the rule will increase the 
level of emissions control and environmental protection provided by the 
Site Remediation NESHAP.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 10, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833. 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 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 Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2865; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: witosky.matthew@epa.gov. For specific information regarding 
the risk modeling methodology, contact Matthew Woody, 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) 541-1535; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. 
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Marcia Mia, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building 
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-7042; and email address: 
Mia.Marcia@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:

ACC American Chemistry Council
ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors
API American Petroleum Institute
APR amino and phenolic resins
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
EFH Exposure Factors Handbook
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EtO ethylene oxide
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
NEI National Emissions Inventory
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OEL open-ended line
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PCDDs polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
PCDFs polychlorinated dibenzofurans
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRD pressure relief device
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMMU remediation material management unit
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On September 3, 2019, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Site Remediation NESHAP based on our RTR. In this 
action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant 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 National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Site Remediation 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (84 FR 46138; 
September 3, 2019), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833. 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:

[[Page 41681]]

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 Site Remediation source category and how does the 
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Site Remediation source 
category in our September 3, 2019, proposal?
    D. What other actions did we take for the Site Remediation 
source category in our September 3, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Site Remediation source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Site Remediation source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Site Remediation source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Site Remediation source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Site Remediation Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Site Remediation Source Category
    C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) Amendments
    D. Other Issues and Changes Made to the Site Remediation NESHAP
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) and 
1 CFR part 51
    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 code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  40 CFR part 63,    325211
                                 subpart GGGGG.    325192
                                                   325188
                                                   32411
                                                   49311
                                                   49319
                                                   48611
                                                   42269
                                                   42271
Federal Government............  .................  Federal agency
                                                    facilities that
                                                    conduct Site
                                                    Remediation
                                                    activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/siteremediation-national-emissionstandards-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 September 8, 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

[[Page 41682]]

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 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 46138 (September 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC 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 Site Remediation source category and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the final Site Remediation NESHAP at 68 FR 
58172 (October 8, 2003). The NESHAP applies to ``remediation 
material.'' Site remediation means one or more activities or processes 
used to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, immobilize, or otherwise 
manage remediation material. Monitoring or measuring of contamination 
levels in media, whether by using wells, sampling, or other means, is 
not considered to be a Site Remediation. The rule applies only to 
active remedial operations at sites that are major sources with 
affected facilities subject to another MACT standard. The Site 
Remediation NESHAP applies to various types of affected sources 
including process vents, remediation material management units, and 
equipment leaks. The affected source for process vents is the entire 
group of process vents associated with the in-situ and ex-situ 
remediation processes used at the site to remove, destroy, degrade, 
transform, or immobilize hazardous substances in the remediation 
material. Examples of process vents for in-situ remediation processes 
include the discharge vents to the atmosphere used for soil vapor 
extraction and underground bioremediation processes. Examples of 
process vents for ex-situ remediation processes include vents for 
thermal desorption, bioremediation, and stripping processes (air or 
steam stripping). The affected source for remediation material 
management units is the entire group of tanks, surface impoundments, 
containers, oil-water separators, and transfer systems used for the 
Site Remediation activities involving clean-up of remediation material. 
The affected source for equipment leaks is the entire group of 
remediation equipment components (pumps, valves, etc.) that is intended 
to operate for 300 hours or more during a calendar year in remediation 
material service and that contains or contacts remediation material 
having a concentration of regulated HAP equal to or greater than 10 
percent by weight.
    The Site Remediation MACT standards include a combination of 
equipment standards, work practice standards, operational standards, 
and performance standards for each of the

[[Page 41683]]

affected emission sources noted above. The source category covered by 
this MACT standard currently includes approximately 30 facilities.

C. What changes did we propose for the Site Remediation source category 
in our September 3, 2019, proposal?

    On September 3, 2019, the EPA published proposed amendments in the 
Federal Register for the Site Remediation NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGGGG, that took into consideration the RTR analyses and also 
proposed other revisions. The proposed revisions included the 
following:
     Revisions to the equipment leak requirements to require 
the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU 
for valves and pumps, rather than the thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT;
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM;
     The addition of requirements for electronic submittal of 
semiannual reports and performance tests;
     Removal of the 240-hour exemption from control 
requirements for planned routine maintenance of emissions control 
systems;
     Clarifications to the ``sealed'' requirement of the 
provisions for open-ended lines (OELs);
     Addition of work practice and monitoring requirements for 
PRDs; and
     Several minor clarifications and corrections.

D. What other actions did we take for the Site Remediation source 
category in our September 3, 2019, proposal?

    Within the RTR proposal, the EPA separately solicited comment on 
ways in which the Site Remediation NESHAP could be amended with respect 
to facilities currently exempt under 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3), 
under a scenario where the EPA removes the exemption. The exemption 
applies to facilities subject to federally-enforceable oversight under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In 
particular, in light of comments received on our 2016 proposal to 
remove the exemption, the Agency sought additional comment regarding 
subcategorization or other methods of distinguishing among appropriate 
requirements for such sources. We explained our intention to use this 
opportunity to gather additional information in anticipation of 
addressing these issues through a separate action.

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 Site Remediation source category 
and amends the SR NESHAP based on those determinations. We are also 
finalizing other proposed changes to the NESHAP and other changes made 
in consideration of comments received during the public comment period 
for the proposed rulemaking. In the following subsections, we summarize 
the final amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP.
    We are not finalizing any changes at this time to the exemption 
from the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements available for federally-
overseen Site Remediations under RCRA or CERCLA, pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.7881(b)(2) and (3). The agency is continuing to review comments 
related to our solicitation on this issue in the RTR proposal, see 84 
FR 46167-69 (September 3, 2019), and comments on the May 13, 2016, 
proposal regarding the exemption (81 FR 29812), and intends to address 
this issue in a separate action.

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

    For the Site Remediation source category, we have determined that 
the current NESHAP reduces risk to an acceptable level, provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health, and prevents adverse 
environmental effects. Therefore, as we proposed, it is not necessary 
to revise the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f).

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

    We have determined that there have been developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA 
section 112(d)(6), and as we proposed, we are revising the NESHAP to 
require facilities to use the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UU for valves and pumps, rather than those of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart TT. For other Site Remediation emissions sources, we have 
determined that, as we proposed, there are no viable developments in 
HAP emission reduction practices, processes, or control technologies to 
apply, considering the technical feasibility, estimated costs, and 
emission reductions of the options identified.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and (3) for the Site Remediation source category?

    Consistent with the Court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we are finalizing the proposed requirements, 
with two minor modifications, for safety devices, bypasses and closure 
devices on pressure tanks, and PRDs to ensure a standard continuously 
applies during malfunctions that result in an emissions release 
directly to the atmosphere (i.e., an actuation event). These final 
requirements include work practices that consist of conducting an 
analysis of the cause of a PRD actuation event and the implementation 
of corrective measures. In addition, we are finalizing the proposed 
criteria for what constitutes a deviation from the work practice 
requirements. We are also finalizing the proposed requirement that PRDs 
be monitored with a device or monitoring system that is capable of (1) 
identifying the pressure release; (2) recording the time and duration 
of each pressure release; and (3) notifying operators immediately that 
a pressure release is occurring. Finally, we are finalizing the 
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 
releases to the atmosphere from bypasses and PRDs.
    In response to comments received on the proposed rule, we are 
making two modifications to the proposed requirements and one change to 
the estimate of costs associated with PRD monitoring. One modification 
is to exclude PRDs on containers from the PRD work practice standards 
and monitoring requirements, and the other modification is to clarify 
when a PRD is subject to LDAR requirements and when a PRD is subject to 
the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. We have also 
revised the economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD 
monitoring requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment 
for some facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have 
adequate monitoring systems.

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

    With one exception, we are finalizing changes to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption as proposed. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability

[[Page 41684]]

table) is being revised to change several references related to 
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also eliminated or 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to 
remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in this 
source category can meet the applicable emission standards in the Site 
Remediation NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and 
shutdown; therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards 
are needed to address emissions during these periods.
    In response to comments received on the proposed rule, the EPA is 
making a change to the 240-hour annual control system bypass allowance 
for planned routine maintenance of a closed vent system or control 
device. Rather than remove this allowance for all control systems, the 
final rule will retain the allowance with the addition of a work 
practice requirement for storage tank control devices and closed vent 
systems.

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

    This rule also finalizes revisions to several other Site 
Remediation NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the 
following paragraphs.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that 
owners or operators of site remediation facilities submit electronic 
copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation 
reports, and semi-annual compliance reports through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI).
    As proposed, the EPA is not establishing emission standards for 
inorganic or metal HAP.
    Based on comments received on the proposed provisions for OELs, we 
are not finalizing the proposed language in the Site Remediation NESHAP 
that OELs are ``sealed'' by a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 
when instrument monitoring of the OEL conducted according to EPA Method 
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 parts per 
million (ppm) or greater. Since OELs are present at many facilities, 
additional consideration of the proposed change would be appropriate 
because there are multiple source categories that cross-reference the 
same equipment and operational requirements for OELs. We continue to 
believe it is important that the standard to seal the OEL includes a 
clear mechanism for a source to demonstrate compliance with that 
requirement. Therefore, the EPA intends to continue to evaluate 
appropriate means of compliance certainty for OELs, including the term 
``sealed,'' and is not finalizing any revisions to the OEL standards 
applicable to Site Remediation in this action. The EPA emission 
estimates used in the risk modeling are based on reported emissions and 
we did not estimate HAP reductions from the proposed approach. For this 
reason, this decision not to finalize the OEL provisions does not alter 
our analysis of estimated emissions, risks, and decisions related to 
risk.
    We are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous minor changes 
to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on July 10, 2020.
    The compliance date for existing affected sources for the revised 
SSM requirements is 180 days after the effective date of the standard, 
January 6, 2021. The requirements for electronic reporting 
requirements, the revised routine maintenance provisions, the operating 
and pressure management requirements for PRDs, and the revised 
requirements regarding bypasses and closure devices on pressure tanks 
is 180 days after the effective date of the standard, January 6, 2021.
    For electronic reporting, we have experience with similar 
industries shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more 
typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete the 
changes required to convert reporting mechanisms, including the 
installation of the necessary hardware and software, becoming familiar 
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically 
through the EPA's CEDRI, testing these new electronic submission 
capabilities, reliably employing electronic reporting, and converting 
the logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters.
    We are finalizing the 180-day compliance date for the other 
requirements listed above for existing affected sources because we are 
finalizing changes to the requirements for SSM by removing the 
exemption from the requirements to meet a standard during SSM periods 
and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan, 
as proposed. We have 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 SSM; adjust parameter monitoring and recording 
systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to 
reflect the revised requirements.
    The compliance date for existing affected sources to comply with 
the new PRD actuation work practice standard, including monitoring 
requirement and actuation event reporting requirements, under 40 CFR 
63.7923 is 18 months from the effective date of the final amendment, 
January 10, 2022. This time period will allow Site Remediation facility 
owners and operators to research equipment and vendors, and to 
purchase, install, test, and properly operate any necessary equipment 
by the compliance date.
    For equipment leaks, the compliance date for existing affected 
sources is 1 year from the effective date of the standards, July 10, 
2021. This time period is necessary to allow existing affected sources 
that are currently complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, adequate 
time to modify their existing LDAR programs to comply with the revised 
standards for pumps and valves.
    New affected sources must comply with all of the standards and 
requirements of the amended rule immediately upon the effective date of 
the final amendments, July 10, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is 
later.

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

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0833).

[[Page 41685]]

A. Residual Risk Review for the Site Remediation Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Site 
Remediation source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk 
assessment for both affected sources and sources exempt from Site 
Remediation NESHAP requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) or (3) 
(i.e., ``RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources'') and presented the results of 
these assessments separately, along with our proposed decisions 
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety for affected 
sources, in the September 3, 2019, RTR proposal (84 FR 46138).\2\ The 
residual risk assessments for the Site Remediation source category 
included assessment of cancer risk, chronic noncancer risk, and acute 
noncancer risk due to inhalation exposure, as well as multipathway 
exposure risk and environmental risk. The results of the risk 
assessment for affected sources are presented briefly below in Table 2 
of this preamble and in more detail in the residual risk document, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in 
Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking. The results of the risk 
assessment for the RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources are presented briefly 
below in Table 3 of this preamble and in more detail in the residual 
risk document, Residual Risk Assessment for Exempt Sources in the Site 
Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology 
Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The risk assessment for exempt sources, while not 
characterized as a risk acceptability analysis, provides all of the 
necessary data in order to complete a risk acceptability 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the assessment for affected sources indicated that 
maximum inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 1-in-1 
million based on actual and allowable emissions (actual emissions were 
assumed to equal allowable emissions), which is well below the 
presumptive limit of acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million). The total 
estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable emission 
levels is 0.001 excess cancer case per year, or 1 case every 1,000 
years. In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific 
hazard index (TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1. The 
evaluation of acute noncancer risk, which was conservative, showed a 
maximum hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 for all Site Remediation facilities. 
Based on the results of the screening analyses for human multipathway 
exposure to, and environmental impacts from HAP known to be persistent 
and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we also concluded 
that the risks to the individual most exposed through ingestion is 
below the level of concern and no ecological benchmarks are exceeded. 
The facility-wide cancer and noncancer risks were estimated based on 
the actual emissions from all emissions sources at site remediation 
facilities, including those not within the Site Remediation source 
category. For facility-wide emissions, the maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 1,000-in-1 million from 
ethylene oxide (EtO) and the noncancer TOSHI is 5.

                                    Table 2--Site Remediation Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Affected Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated  population
                                    Maximum  individual     at  increased risk of       Estimated annual         Maximum chronic       Maximum screening
    Number of  facilities \1\        cancer risk  (in 1        cancer >= 1-in-1         cancer incidence         noncancer TOSHI       acute  noncancer
                                          million)                 million              (cases per year)                                      HQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Based on Actual Emissions Level 2 3
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102.............................                        1                      400                    0.001                      0.1  HQREL = 1 (arsenic
                                                                                                                                       compounds).
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Based on Whole Facility Emissions
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1,000                2,300,000                      0.5                        5  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.

    The results of the assessment for RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources 
indicated that maximum inhalation cancer risk to the individual most 
exposed is 4-in-1 million based on actual emissions and allowable 
emissions (actual emissions were assumed to equal allowable emissions), 
which is well below the presumptive limit of acceptability (i.e., 100-
in-1 million). The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and 
allowable emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 
case every 1,000 years. In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer 
TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1. The evaluation of 
acute noncancer risk, which was conservative, showed a maximum HQ less 
than 1 for all of these site remediation facilities. Based on the 
results of the screening analyses for human multipathway exposure to, 
and environmental impacts from, PB-HAP, we also concluded that the 
risks to the individual most exposed through ingestion is below the 
level of concern and no ecological benchmarks are exceeded. The 
facility-wide cancer and noncancer risks were estimated based on the 
actual emissions from all emissions sources at site remediation 
facilities, including those not within the Site Remediation source 
category. For facility-wide emissions, maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 2,000-in-1 million from 
EtO and the noncancer TOSHI is 7.

[[Page 41686]]

                                     Table 3--Site Remediation Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Exempt Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated  population
                                    Maximum  individual     at  increased risk of       Estimated annual         Maximum chronic       Maximum screening
    Number of  facilities \1\        cancer risk  (in 1        cancer >= 1-in-1         cancer incidence         noncancer TOSHI       acute  noncancer
                                          million)                 million              (cases per year)                                      HQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Based on Actual Emissions Level 2 3
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118.............................                        4                    1,100                    0.001                      0.3  <1
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Based on Whole Facility Emissions
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2,000                9,000,000                        1                        7  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from exempt sources in the source category.
\3\ Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.

    We weighed all health risk factors for affected sources, including 
those shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability 
determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Site 
Remediation source category are acceptable (84 FR 46157; September 3, 
2019).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking 
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, 
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards 
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered 
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category.
    In our ample margin of safety analysis, we identified three control 
options that could further reduce HAP emissions from the source 
category. These control options included requiring a higher emissions 
reduction efficiency for process vents, requiring more stringent leak 
definition thresholds for certain equipment as part of the currently 
required LDAR program, and requiring connector monitoring as part of 
the currently required LDAR program. For these control options, we 
proposed that the costs were not reasonable in light of the minimal 
risk reduction that would be achieved, and these additional HAP 
emissions controls are not necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health (84 FR 46158; September 3, 2019).
2. How did the risk review change for the Site Remediation source 
category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the 
September 2019 proposal for this source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Most of the commenters on the proposed risk review supported our 
risk acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations for the 
Site Remediation NESHAP. Some commenters requested that we make changes 
to our residual risk review approach. However, we evaluated the 
comments and determined that no changes to our risk assessment methods 
or conclusions are warranted. A complete summary of these comments and 
responses are in the comment summary and response document, available 
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833). The 
following is a summary of key comments we received regarding the risk 
review and our responses to those comments.
    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the EPA's finding that 
risks from the source category are acceptable, additional emissions 
reductions are not needed to provide an ample margin of safety, and it 
is not necessary to set more stringent standards to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. One of these commenters added that the risk 
assessment results show very low risk from the source category. 
However, another of these commenters asserted that even with the low 
risk shown, the EPA's risk analysis overstates risk due to the 
methodology the agency uses. This commenter said that the EPA's model 
plant approach combined with data gap filling for most of the modeled 
facilities results in a significant overestimation of HAP emissions. 
The commenter also said that the EPA's conservative assumption that the 
population breathes outdoor air at a fixed residential location for 70 
years is an unrealistic assumption that needs to be modified. The 
commenter pointed out that the California's Office of Environmental 
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has revised their methodology for air 
toxics assessment to use a 30-year residential exposure to identify the 
maximum exposed individual for cancer risk assessment. Another of the 
commenters remarked that the EPA should not have used the 70-year 
exposure assumption for this source category, since Site Remediations 
typically do not last more than 20 years. The commenter stated that the 
EPA should have developed and used a factor representative of the 
typical life of a remediation activity, which would have likely shown 
even lower risk for the source category. One commenter also asserted 
that the acute multiplier of 10 used to estimate hourly emissions from 
annual emissions is not based on Site Remediation data and is a 
standard EPA multiplier that is overly conservative.
    Response: The EPA relied on our standardized factor of 70 years for 
our exposure factor.\3\ In this way the EPA has taken a health-
protective, or conservative, approach in estimating risks and has found 
that the risks are acceptable and that the existing standards provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Therefore, no 
additional regulation was proposed based on risk for the category. For 
this reason, there is no utility in refining the inputs to the risk 
assessment to further lower the risk estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook, 2011 Edition (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA only assessed EtO 
emissions and risks in the facility-wide risk part of

[[Page 41687]]

its analysis, where the EPA finds risks of 1,000to 2,000-in-1 million. 
The commenter stated that the EPA failed to justify ignoring EtO 
emissions and resulting health risks from the Site Remediation source 
category itself. The commenter asserted that the EPA ignored these 
emissions because the six facilities it had data from did not show EtO 
emissions, and the EPA believes EtO is unlikely to be emitted during a 
Site Remediation due to its rapid decomposition. In contrast, the 
commenter submitted that the monograph on EtO published by the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggests EtO has an 
atmospheric half-life of 211 days. The commenter noted that the IARC 
monograph goes on to state that data suggest neither rain nor 
absorption into aqueous aerosols remove EtO from the atmosphere. The 
commenter stated that the EPA has not provided sound rationale for 
ignoring evidence of EtO emissions for this source category, and the 
EPA statements on EtO's rapid decomposition in the environment are not 
supported by credible scientific findings. The commenter claimed that 
the EPA is relying on an American Chemistry Council (ACC) study that is 
not available to the public in the online docket, undermining the 
Agency's findings and violating the CAA's public notice-and-comment 
requirements. The commenter explained that the referenced ACC study 
relies upon a conceptual model that applied various data parameters to 
determine potential adverse ecological risks and does not provide 
information with respect to human health risks. The commenter contended 
that the EPA may not rely on its underlying memorandum and this cited 
study as the basis to not assess health risk from EtO emissions from 
Site Remediations. The commenter said the EPA has not shown, based on 
facts in the record, that there are no emissions and no health risks 
from this chemical. The commenter also claimed that the EPA's proposal 
that these emissions are unlikely to be emitted from the source 
category does not make sense if EtO is emitted from other operations at 
the sites. The commenter asserted that by refusing to assess the EtO-
based risk for this source category, the EPA has failed to satisfy the 
CAA's requirement to assess and reduce such risk.
    Response: The data submitted by the commenter does not give the 
Agency reason to change our position that EtO is unlikely to be a site 
remediation pollutant. The half-life of a pollutant in the air is 
irrelevant to whether EtO is a pollutant likely to be encountered in 
Site Remediation material. The EPA stands by our assertion that EtO is 
highly unlikely to persist in remediation material that would be 
subject to Site Remediation NESHAP, (e.g., soil, water, sediment). This 
assertion is further evidenced by the lack of any reported EtO 
emissions in the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) from site 
remediation operations. The commenter provided no data to contradict 
this assertion.
    The EPA further disagrees that the sources cited by the commenter 
do not provide sound rationale for removing EtO as a site remediation 
pollutant. The EPA included two articles from peer-reviewed scientific 
journals in the docket for the proposed rule to substantiate its 
conclusion regarding EtO.\4\ The properties of EtO cited in the 
proposal preamble were taken from these articles. In one article, the 
fate of EtO in the environment was estimated using the EPI (Estimation 
Program Interface) SuiteTM of modeling 
programs.5 6 The individual estimation programs and/or their 
underlying predictive methods and equations used within EPI 
SuiteTM have been described in numerous peer-reviewed 
technical journals. In addition, EPI SuiteTM has undergone 
detailed review by a panel of the EPA's independent Science Advisory 
Board (SAB), and its September 2007 report can be downloaded. The EPA 
disagrees that the ACC study cited by the commenter is not in the 
docket. While the document is not available for direct download from 
the docket due to its copyright protection, it can be viewed in the EPA 
Docket Center and is also available from other sources in the public 
domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0021 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0022.
    \5\ Staples, C.A., & Gulledge, W. (2006). An environmental fate, 
exposure and risk assessment of ethylene oxide from diffuse 
emissions. Chemosphere, 65(4), 691-698. doi: 10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2006.01.047.
    \6\ EPI SuiteTM website: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA's benchmarks for the 
level of health risk that is considered acceptable are an outdated 
policy that does not reflect subsequent scientific breakthroughs and 
public perceptions of acceptable environmental health risks. The 
commenter disagreed with the EPA's policy that a cancer risk of 100-in-
1 million is presumed to be either safe or acceptable, that for acute 
risks an HQ less than 1 is always acceptable, and that an HQ greater 
than 1 can be deemed acceptable without reasoned explanation. The 
commenter stated that the EPA's acceptability benchmarks are based on a 
1988 study of people's tolerance for various types of health risk, 
known as the Survey of Societal Risk.\7\ The commenter remarked that 
the EPA has failed to revisit or update this policy over the decades, 
even though scientists have made breakthroughs on early-life exposure 
and children's vulnerability; biomonitoring and other data on adult 
body burdens of chemicals; the vulnerability of overburdened 
communities, including socioeconomic disparities; and ways to analyze 
and control the impacts of pollutants on human health. The commenter 
listed 17 ``landmark'' actions from the EPA, other regulatory agencies, 
and scientific bodies relating to environmental health effects and 
human susceptibility that have occurred since 1990, which the commenter 
states make the current EPA policy outdated. The commenter asserted 
that the EPA acceptability benchmark policy needs to be reformed in the 
face of increasing evidence that challenges the assumption of a safe or 
acceptable level of HAP exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Survey of Risks, Benzene Rule Legacy Docket ID No. OAQPS 79-
3, Part I, Docket Item X-B-1 (cited at National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene Emissions from Maleic 
Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage 
Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants, 53 FR 28496, 28512/3-13/3 (July 28, 1988)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA considers this comment outside the scope of the 
risk review for the Site Remediation source category. As the commenter 
notes, this level of acceptable risk was determined based on the EPA's 
prior analysis of general perception of relative risk (see Benzene 
NESHAP, 54 FR 38046). The task of re-determining the public's general 
concern for the level of acceptable risk falls outside the scope of an 
individual risk review.
    However, our discussion in the proposal preamble addresses the 
commenter's concern (See 84 FR 46143; September 3, 2019)--though 
providing this explanation is not intended to reopen our approach. The 
scope of the EPA's risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response 
to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, where the EPA 
explained that ``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits 
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR 
[maximum individual risk] figure be considered, but also incidence, the 
presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk 
estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can 
be reviewed as well as the impact on the

[[Page 41688]]

general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual 
case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the 
Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by 
employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with 
the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use 
of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby 
implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk 
which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to 
determining what will `protect the public health.' '' (54 FR at 38057; 
September 14, 1989.)
    The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk 
determinations and the Court upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA 
section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene 
NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the EPA did not assess whether 
the health risk and emissions reductions of the rule provide an ample 
margin of safety. The commenter stated that the EPA only considered the 
cost and feasibility of available control measures from its technology 
review, did not consider facility-wide risks, and ignored exempt 
sources in its ample margin of safety decision. The commenter cited the 
Court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018) to 
support their comment. Additionally, the commenter said the EPA did not 
provide the underlying data it used to reach its facility-wide risk 
determinations.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. The risk assessment 
demonstrated that health risks due to air emissions from site 
remediation sources are acceptable and after considering available 
control options and all available risk information, the EPA concluded 
that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. The commenter misconstrues the analysis at pages 46157-
58 of the proposal. The EPA had already made a determination, 
consistent with the methodology of the Benzene NESHAP, that the risk 
posed by emissions from the affected sources in the Site Remediation 
source category is acceptable. See 84 FR 46157 (September 3, 2019), 
section C.1 ``risk acceptability.'' The EPA proceeds to look at 
potential measures that could further reduce risk in the ample margin 
of safety determination, and in that context, has consistently 
historically considered multiple factors, including control technology 
cost, cost effectiveness, feasibility, and the magnitude of risk and 
potential risk reduction, as well as uncertainties. See NRDC v. EPA, 
529 F.3d 1077, 1080-83 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (upholding as reasonable the 
EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) does not mandate 
establishing emission standards to reduce cancer risks below 1-in-1 
million and recognizing that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the 
EPA's approach in the Benzene NESHAP).
    The Court decision cited by the commenter,\8\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 
895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), addressed the basis for setting a health-
based emission limit based on a health threshold in lieu of a 
technology-based standard for hydrochloric acid (HCl) under section 
112(d)(4) of the CAA, not making a determination under section 
112(f)(2) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the comment letter in Docket ID Item No.EPA-HQ-2018-
0833-0069, p 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA did not contemplate an ample margin of safety analysis for 
RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources because they are not subject to the 
emissions standards in the rule. The ample margin of safety portion of 
a CAA section 112(f) analysis necessarily entails an evaluation of 
control options. For the EPA to undertake an ample margin of safety 
analysis for the exempt sources, a final determination would first be 
needed to eliminate the exemption and evaluate control options. We have 
not yet concluded how these sources should be regulated under the Site 
Remediation NESHAP. While we requested comment on issues related to 
eliminating the exemption, we are not acting on the exemption in this 
RTR process. As noted in our separate request for comment on the exempt 
status of such facilities in the RTR proposal, the EPA continues to 
analyze the effect of removing the exemption in terms of designing 
appropriate regulatory provisions should the exemption be removed.
    The EPA considered facility-wide risks and determined that Site 
Remediation emissions are not driving those risks. The risk at two 
facilities where facility-wide risk was greater than 100-in-1 million 
was driven by EtO, which, as explained at proposal, to the EPA's 
knowledge, is not emitted from Site Remediation activities. Also, as 
noted in the proposal, the EPA is separately addressing EtO emissions 
in response to the results of the latest National Air Toxics Assessment 
released in August 2018, which identified the chemical as a potential 
concern in several areas across the country.
    The EPA disagrees that we did not provide the data for our whole-
facility analysis. The data files were placed in the docket for public 
review upon publication (see Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833-
0037).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As explained in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA 
section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' 
(see 54 FR 38045; September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk 
measures and factors in our risk acceptability determination, including 
the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the 
maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent and distribution of cancer and 
noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation 
uncertainties.
    In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the 
emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health ``in consideration of all health information, including the 
number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 
million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and 
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant 
to each particular decision.'' \9\ The EPA must promulgate emission 
standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an 
ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the 
ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent 
standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Site Remediation 
source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to

[[Page 41689]]

protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Therefore, we are not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG to require 
additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the 
residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Court upheld this approach to CAA section 112(f)(2) in 
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. Technology Review for the Site Remediation Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Site 
Remediation source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources 
in the Site Remediation source category. At proposal, we identified 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for 
process vents and equipment leaks.
    For process vents, one potential control technology was identified 
at proposal, use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer, which could 
increase the emissions capture and control efficiency from 95 percent 
to 98 percent for those process vents that are currently controlled 
with a carbon adsorption system or other device achieving 95-percent 
control. We estimated the HAP emissions reduction beyond the current 
control requirements could range between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy for the 
source category, and the estimated costs would be $1 million to $2 
million per ton of HAP emission reduction.
    For equipment leaks, we identified the more stringent leak 
definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU over those of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT as a development in practices, processes, or control 
technologies at proposal. Two options were identified: Option 1--
requiring the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU, for valves and pumps; Option 2--requiring the use of the 
leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and 
pumps and also requiring connector monitoring under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU. For Option 1, we estimated an additional HAP emission 
reduction of up to 4.7 tpy and estimated the costs would be $2,000 per 
ton of HAP emission reduction. For Option 2, we estimated the HAP 
emission reduction incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 5 tpy 
and the incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 
would be $35,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
    Based on the costs and the emission reductions that would be 
achieved with the identified developments, we proposed to revise the 
MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require facilities 
to use the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for 
valves and pumps, without the subpart UU requirements for connectors in 
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. We proposed that it was 
not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6) to require 98-percent control for process vents, based on the 
use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer. More information concerning our 
technology review can be found in the memorandum titled CAA section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Site Remediation Source Category, 
which is available in the docket for this action and in the preamble to 
the proposed rule (84 FR 46160 and 46161; September 3, 2019).
2. How did the technology review change for the Site Remediation source 
category?
    The technology review has not changed from proposal to this final 
action. As explained below, the comments received were generally 
supportive of the revisions to the equipment leak requirements to 
require the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU, for valves and pumps, to not require connector monitoring 
for equipment leaks, and to not require changes to the NESHAP for 
process vents.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Most of the commenters on the proposed technology review supported 
our proposed revised standards for equipment leaks and our 
determination that revised standards for process vents are not 
necessary for the Site Remediation NESHAP. One commenter requested that 
we consider additional elements in our technology review, including 
incorporating exempt sources in our analysis of the cost effectiveness 
of connector monitoring, considering leakless equipment in our review 
of the equipment leak standards, and considering a different threshold 
for cost effectiveness. A complete summary of these and other comments 
and responses are in the comment summary and response document, 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0833). The following is a summary of key comments we received regarding 
the technology review and our responses to those comments.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA must evaluate 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies to 
reduce inorganic HAP and HAP metal emissions and must revise its 
existing standards by setting limits that reflect the use of these 
practices, processes, and control technologies. As emissions standards 
in the Site Remediation NESHAP currently do not apply to these HAP, the 
commenter noted that the EPA did not include these HAP in its 
technology review. The commenter stated that the EPA must set emission 
standards for each HAP that a source category emits and then must also 
determine whether developments in pollution control make it 
``necessary'' to revise the emission standards.
    Response: We acknowledge that the Site Remediation NESHAP does not 
contain emissions standards for metal HAP and inorganic HAP. However, 
the EPA's duty under CAA section 112(d)(6) is to review the standards 
promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and to evaluate any 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies to 
determine whether it is necessary to revise the existing standards.
    The EPA's decision to consider regulation of these pollutants in 
this rulemaking is not governed by or mandated by CAA section 
112(d)(6). That provision requires the EPA to review and revise, as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this 
section. We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that the EPA 
must establish new standards for unregulated emission points or 
pollutants as part of a technology review of the existing standards. 
The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring 
the Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards 
already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as 
necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies. Nothing in CAA section 112(d)(6) directs the 
Agency to develop new emission standards to address HAP or emission 
points for which standards were not previously promulgated as part of 
or in conjunction with the mandatory 8-year technology review.

[[Page 41690]]

    When the EPA establishes standards for previously unregulated 
emissions, we would establish the standards under one of the provisions 
that govern initial standard setting--CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 
or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 
112(h). Establishing emissions standards under these provisions of the 
CAA involves a different analytical approach from reviewing emissions 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    While we did not consider establishing standards for these HAP 
under CAA section 112(d)(6), we did investigate these HAP to determine 
whether standards should be established under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 
(3). In our review of the data for affected sources, we found that 
metal HAP are not emitted. Therefore, standards are not required for 
these pollutants (see 84 FR 46161; September 3, 2019) and our 
discussion of this issue in section D.1.a of this document.) This 
analysis satisfies the investigation into these pollutants that the EPA 
said it intended to undertake for these HAP in response to Sierra 
Club's petition for reconsideration of the initial NESHAP 
rulemaking.\11\ For inorganic HAP, based on the EPA's analysis of the 
available emissions data for affected sources, only one Site 
Remediation operation emitted any inorganic HAP. The one inorganic HAP 
emitted by this Site Remediation is asbestos, and asbestos emissions 
are already regulated by another NESHAP (as discussed in more detail 
below). Therefore, we determined it was not necessary to evaluate these 
emissions further or to establish standards under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) or (3) for these emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letter from Janet McCabe to James Pew (March 25, 2015) 
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0012) (granting 
reconsideration of 68 FR 58172 (October 8, 2003)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should do more than it 
proposed for regulating equipment leaks because there have been 
additional developments in equipment, such as leakless or low-emission 
valves and zero-emissions technologies, and the commenter asserts that 
these technologies should be required. The commenter also remarked that 
the EPA's rationale for not requiring connector monitoring is flawed, 
in that it did not account for emissions reductions from the facilities 
exempt from the rule under the RCRA/CERCLA exemption. The commenter 
opined that since these facilities have not had to comply with the 
existing Site Remediation standards, it is likely there would be 
greater emissions reductions from these facilities, which would result 
in an improvement in the cost effectiveness of the measure. The 
commenter also mentioned that considering cost on a per ton basis for 
all emitted HAP does not make sense when the pollutants have vastly 
varying toxicities. The commenter further stated that the EPA does not 
explain why it believes an incremental cost of $35,000 per ton of HAP 
reduced is an unreasonable cost.
    Response: First, we disagree that leakless valves and low-emissions 
technologies should have been included in the technology review. These 
and similar types of equipment were available and accounted for when 
the original NESHAP was promulgated, and, therefore, they are not 
``developments'' in technology.\12\ The commenter has not identified 
``developments'' in relation to this technology, such as a significant 
decrease in cost or a change in applicability to the Site Remediation 
source category. Next, in determining the impacts from any control 
options, we include only the emissions and reductions that would 
actually be expected to occur as a result of the implementation of that 
control option. In this case, since some facilities are exempt from 
emissions control requirements, the impacts are based on the emissions 
reductions and costs of implementation at the facilities that would be 
required to comply with the regulations. If the currently exempt 
facilities become subject to emissions control requirements in the 
future, we will reassess the impacts of potential control options at 
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. EPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Site Remediation (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGGGG)--Background Information for Promulgated Standards. Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 
August 2003. pp. 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees that, for this action, an analysis that relies on 
a cost-per-ton basis ``does not make sense'' when different HAP have 
different toxicities. We note that when assessing the cost 
effectiveness of more stringent standards under consideration, we have 
discretion to express emission reductions that would result from such 
standards in any reasonable format, such as costs per ton of emissions 
reduced. In this case, as explained at proposal, the risk for the Site 
Remediation source category was low, using both the quantity and 
toxicity of emitted pollutants to arrive at this conclusion. The EPA 
also adds that a cost-per-ton basis may not be the only economic 
consideration when deliberating on whether to adopt controls. The EPA 
also looks, where appropriate, at the broader economic impact a given 
control technique may have on the category of sources when deciding 
whether to adopt a given standard.
    With respect to the role of cost in our decisions under the 
technology review, we note that courts have not required the EPA to 
demonstrate that a technology is ``cost-prohibitive'' in order not to 
require adopting a new technology under CAA section 112(d)(6); a simple 
finding that a control is not cost effective is enough. See Association 
of Battery Recyclers, et al. v. EPA, et al., 716 F.3d 667, 673-74 (DC 
Cir. 2015) (approving the EPA's consideration of cost as a factor in 
its section 7412(d)(6) decision-making and EPA's reliance on cost 
effectiveness as a factor in its standard-setting). The EPA declined to 
include connectors in our decision to lower the definition of the leak 
threshold, based on the fact that, relative to a limited impact on 
emissions, the addition of connectors would have increased the cost of 
the LDAR program by more than an order of magnitude from the option 
chosen (i.e., lower leak thresholds for pumps and valves).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    Based on our analysis for equipment leaks, we have determined the 
costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions 
reduction that would be achieved with this control option. We do not 
believe the costs of Option 2 are reasonable, given the level of HAP 
emissions reduction Option 2 would achieve relative to a much higher 
incremental cost- per-ton above Option 1. Therefore, as a result of the 
technology review, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing 
our proposed determination to revise the Site Remediation NESHAP to 
require existing and new affected sources to comply with the 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UU leak detection thresholds for pumps and valves 
rather than leak thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, for those 
components.
    For the reasons discussed above and in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, we have determined that it is not necessary, pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6), to revise the Site Remediation NESHAP to require 
additional HAP emission controls for process vents or any other 
equipment or processes at Site Remediation facilities.

[[Page 41691]]

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) Amendments

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Site Remediation source category?
    We proposed to add a work practice standard pursuant to CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B), in conjunction with CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), for 
PRDs. PRDs are valves, rupture disks, or other equipment designed to 
remain closed during normal operation but that ``actuate'' (e.g., the 
valve seat opens or a rupture disk ruptures) in the event of an 
overpressure in the system caused by operator error, a malfunction such 
as a power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected cause that 
results in immediate venting of gas from process equipment in order to 
avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. The current Site Remediation 
NESHAP follows the EPA's previous practice of exempting SSM events from 
otherwise applicable emission standards. Consequently, with emissions 
releases from a PRD release actuation event treated as a type of 
malfunction, the Site Remediation NESHAP did not restrict emissions 
releases to the atmosphere from a PRD actuation event (i.e., PRD 
releases were exempt from the otherwise applicable emission standards). 
In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the Court 
determined SSM exemptions in CAA section 112 standards violate the CAA.
    To ensure a standard continuously applies during malfunctions that 
result in emissions from a PRD actuation event, we proposed work 
practices and other provisions for PRDs and bypass lines on closed vent 
systems. We explained that a work practice standard is warranted under 
CAA section 112(h) because the application of measurement technology to 
this class of sources is not practicable due to technological and 
economic limitations. See 84 FR 46153 (September 3, 2019). Modeling the 
work practice standard on the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR (80 FR 
75178; December 1, 2015), we proposed to add work practice requirements 
that consist of conducting an analysis of the cause of a PRD actuation 
event and the implementation of corrective measures for PRDs that emit 
directly to the atmosphere. In addition, we proposed criteria for what 
constitutes a deviation from the work practice requirements. For PRDs 
that vent emissions from actuation events directly to the atmosphere, 
we proposed it would be a deviation of the work practice standard for a 
single PRD to have two releases within a 3-year period due to the same 
cause; for a single PRD to have three releases within a 3-year period 
for any reason; and for any PRD to have a release for which the cause 
was determined to be operator error or poor maintenance. We also 
proposed that ``force majeure'' events, which we proposed to define as 
events resulting from natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, or 
external power curtailment beyond the facility's control (as 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA Administrator), would not 
be included when counting the number of releases. We proposed that 
certain PRDs would not be subject to the work practice requirements due 
to their low potential to emit substantial quantities of HAP. These 
PRDs included the following: (1) PRDs designed and operated to route 
all pressure releases through a closed vent system to a drain system, 
fuel gas system, process or control device; (2) PRDs in heavy liquid 
service; (3) PRDs that are designed solely to release due to liquid 
thermal expansion; and (4) pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs if 
the primary release valve associated with the PRD is vented through a 
control system.
    To ensure compliance with these provisions, we also proposed that 
facilities subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP monitor PRDs in 
remediation material service that release to the atmosphere by using a 
device or system that is capable of identifying and recording the time 
and duration of each actuation event and notifying operators 
immediately that a pressure release is occurring. We further proposed 
to require owners or operators to keep records and report any actuation 
event and the amount of HAP released to the atmosphere with the next 
periodic report. In addition, to add clarity to these provisions, we 
proposed to add definitions for ``bypass,'' ``force majeure event,'' 
``pressure release,'' and ``pressure relief device or valve'' to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGGGG. We also proposed to remove the definition of 
``safety device'' and the provisions related to safety devices from 40 
CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, which would overlap with and be redundant 
of parts of the proposed definition of ``pressure relief device or 
valve'' and the provisions related to these devices.
    For purposes of estimating the costs of the proposed requirement to 
monitor HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs, we assumed that 
operators would already have monitoring systems capable of identifying 
and recording the time and duration of each pressure release.
    In the proposed rule, we removed the exemption from emissions 
standards for periods of SSM in accordance with a decision of the 
Court, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This decision stated that the EPA must 
provide standards that are in place at all times, even during periods 
of SSM. The EPA has interpreted this to include provisions exempting 
sources from otherwise applicable standards during maintenance periods. 
Thus, we also proposed to remove the provision at 40 CFR 63.7925(b)(1) 
that allowed a control device to be bypassed for up to 240 hours per 
year for the performance of planned routine maintenance of the closed 
vent system or control device (i.e., 240-hour routine maintenance 
exemption). As a result, the emissions limits, including those for 
tanks, in the proposed revised Site Remediation NESHAP would apply at 
all times.
2. How did the proposed amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and (3) change for the Site Remediation source category?
    We have made two revisions to the proposed work practice and 
associated monitoring requirements and also revised the estimate of 
costs associated with PRD monitoring. The revisions to the proposed 
work practice and monitoring requirements include adding PRDs to the 
list of Site Remediation equipment in 40 CFR 63.7882 to help clarify 
when a PRD is subject to equipment leak requirements and when it is 
subject to the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. We are 
also revising the proposed PRD provisions to exclude PRDs on 
``containers'' (as defined at 40 CFR 63.7957) from the PRD work 
practice standards and monitoring requirements. Additionally, we have 
revised the economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD 
monitoring requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment 
for some facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have 
adequate monitoring systems.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposed amendments pursuant 
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the EPA amend 40 CFR 
63.7923(d) to include an exemption for PRDs on mobile equipment, 
similar to the exemption in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP in 40 CFR 
63.648(j)(5)(vi). One of these commenters extended this recommendation 
to portable containers, similar to the exemption in the Off-Site Waste 
and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) NESHAP. This commenter is concerned 
that the EPA has not

[[Page 41692]]

evaluated the HAP emissions that may be associated with PRDs on 
portable equipment, noting that containers are generally already 
subject to separate MACT requirements which would address their 
emissions. The commenter also remarked that since facilities generally 
do not own tank trucks and other transport vehicles, and they are not 
dedicated to the facility, it would be impractical and overly broad to 
impose monitoring requirements on them. Further, the commenter is 
concerned that potential monitoring requirements would be technically 
infeasible to implement on containers due to the wide range of 
containers and their transitory nature. Specifically, the commenter 
noted that containers can vary drastically in size from site to site 
and cover a variety of cylinders, drums, tote-tanks, cargo tanks, 
isotainers, railcars, over-the-road tanker vehicles, etc. The commenter 
also remarked that the time they are kept on site depends highly on 
facility-specific operational activities and can range anywhere from a 
few days to a few weeks or months. Combined, the commenter said these 
factors make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to 
appropriately design and effectively implement a continuous monitoring 
system for each container's PRD.
    One commenter also recommended that the EPA include an exemption 
for PRDs that do not have the potential to emit 72 pounds (lbs)/day or 
more of volatile organic compounds (VOC) based on the valve diameter, 
the set release pressure, and the equipment contents, similar to the 
exemption in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)(v). 
The commenter stated that the EPA's logic for that exemption, which is 
that it was consistent with the treatment of miscellaneous process 
vents and consistent with the two California rules (Bay Area and South 
Coast) that served as the MACT floor for the Petroleum Refineries 
NESHAP, also applies to this rule.
    Response: The EPA agrees that an exception would be appropriate for 
moveable equipment, such as trucks with containers, or tanks, train 
cars, and similar moveable equipment that may be brought to a Site 
Remediation for short durations. The EPA agrees that such equipment may 
not be under the control of the affected facility and/or that altering 
such equipment to meet the monitoring requirements for PRDs is 
impractical. The EPA has, therefore, added an exception for 
``containers,'' as that term is defined at 40 CFR 63.7957, which 
encompasses movable equipment such as trucks, train cars, or barges. 
The EPA has followed the model of the OSWRO NESHAP in this regard. See 
83 FR 3986 (January 29, 2018).
    The EPA disagrees that it is appropriate to exempt PRDs that do not 
have the potential to emit 72 lbs./day or more of VOC based on the 
valve diameter from the PRD work practice. The commenter suggests the 
provisions should be adopted because the exemption is also found in the 
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)(v). The exemption to 
which the commenter refers is refinery-specific and applies to ``Group 
1 process vents,'' as defined in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.\13\ 
The commenter did not provide information as to why an exemption for 
Refinery Group 1 process vents should be applied to remediation 
material management units (RMMUs). RMMUs are subject to Site 
Remediation NESHAP standards according to the criteria in 40 CFR 
63.7881(c)(1), 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(2) and 40 CFR 63.7886(d). The 
differences in these emission points is reflected in the definition of 
the Refinery Group 1 process vent in contrast to the applicability 
criteria for RMMUs. The EPA does not find these two sets of units 
sufficiently similar to warrant applying this provision to RMMUs, given 
the wide variety of RMMUs that may be found subject to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP. The commenter also provided no context as to why 72 
lbs./day is appropriate, given the different emission potential that 
determines affected facility status of the units on which the PRDs are 
found in Site Remediation. The 72 lbs./day provision for Petroleum 
Refineries NESHAP was set based on CAA section 112(d)(2) (i.e., a MACT 
floor for petroleum refineries). The EPA does not have, and the 
commenter did not provide, data to support either a 72 lbs./day 
exemption or other value to apply as an exemption threshold for the 
Site Remediation source category. However, certain applicability 
criteria that the EPA finds appropriate to apply in the context of PRD 
activations in the site remediation context are identified at 40 CFR 
63.7923(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Group 1 miscellaneous process vent means a miscellaneous 
process vent for which the total organic HAP concentration is 
greater than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume, and the 
total VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 33 kilograms per 
day for existing sources and 6.8 kilograms per day for new sources 
at the outlet of the final recovery device (if any) and prior to any 
control device and prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to what the commenter 
referred to as ``three exemptions'' included in the proposed work 
practice standards for PRDs, asserting that the work practice standards 
must apply at all times. According to the commenter, a provision that 
allows sources to exceed the emissions standards two or three times 
every 3 years essentially allows non-continuous compliance with the 
CAA, which is inconsistent with the Court precedent. Regarding force 
majeure events, the commenter stated that this provision is an 
exemption that simply provides new semantics for the rejected 
malfunction exemption and is equally unlawful. The commenter further 
explains that the concept of force majeure is from contracts law and 
does not fit with compliance with federal law. The commenter asserts 
that injecting contractual principles or negotiating regulations with a 
regulated party runs directly counter to the statutory test in which 
compliance is non-negotiable. According to the commenter, the EPA does 
not have the discretion to promulgate an exemption that allows EPA to 
decide what is a violation, or not, at a future time, as the Court has 
the authority to decide whether a violation has occurred warranting a 
penalty. This exemption, the commenter claims, places the burden on the 
government or citizen enforcer to prove both that excess emissions have 
occurred and that they did not occur during a force majeure event. The 
commenter also states that the exemption for PRDs with low potential to 
emit is unlawful because the CAA directs the EPA to establish limits 
that apply on a continuous basis for each HAP a source emits, 
regardless of the amount emitted. The commenter adds that it should be 
easy for PRDs to comply with the limits if they truly have low 
emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the proposed 
work practice is not a standard applicable to the affected source at 
all times. Under CAA section 112(h), work practices are a form of 
emissions standard applicable to affected units. Actuation events from 
PRDs that vent to the atmosphere are irregular in time, duration, 
amount, cause, and effect. Attempts to capture such emissions may be 
potentially dangerous to workers, the public, and the environment. The 
EPA's work practice standards require a series of preventive measures 
\14\ and the use of diagnostic tools to prevent recurrence of such 
events, coupled with a clearly defined basis for enforcement action 
when there is a failure to prevent actuation event recurrence under the

[[Page 41693]]

defined circumstances. This work practice standard represents the 
practice employed by the best performing sources and is the MACT floor. 
The MACT floor is not merely after-the-fact recordkeeping requirements 
to document PRD actuation events without penalty. The PRDs at affected 
facilities are subject to continuous monitoring, and, in addition to 
other potential bases for finding a violation as described in 40 CFR 
63.7923(f), each PRD actuation is a violation if the cause is poor 
maintenance or operator error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 84 FR 46153 (September 3, 2019) for a discussion of 
requirements under 40 CFR part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention 
Provisions for PRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees with the comments regarding force majeure events. 
Force majeure events, which result in pressure release actuation 
events, must be accounted for under 40 CFR 63.7923(c). The definition 
of force majeure narrows the scope of such events to natural disasters; 
acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the Site 
Remediation unit (e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power 
curtailment due to an interruptible service agreement; and fire or 
explosion originating at a near or adjoining facility outside of the 
Site Remediation affected source that impacts the Site Remediation 
affected source's ability to operate. Therefore, a force majeure event 
would never be due to operator error or poor maintenance (see 40 CFR 
63.7923(f)(1)) and must be absolutely beyond the power or ability of 
the source to prevent. We believe that the narrow scope of force 
majeure is such that a second event, from a single pressure relief 
device in a 3-year period would be highly unlikely to be due to the 
same force majeure event for the same equipment. (See 40 CFR 
63.7923(f)(2)). Similarly, we believe that it is highly unlikely that 
in a 3-year period, three force majeure events of any type would occur 
for the same equipment. Finally, the source must satisfy the 
Administrator that the event was beyond the control of the owner or 
operator, because the decision to accept the claim of force majeure is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator. Thus, the force 
majeure provisions are an intrinsic part of the work practice standard 
and are not as the commenter maintains an exemption from that standard.
    The EPA disagrees with the comments regarding the exemption for 
certain types of PRDs identified in 40 CFR 63.7923(e). We modeled the 
applicability of the PRD provisions after the Petroleum Refinery rule, 
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. That ``beyond-the-floor'' analysis 
determined that it was not cost effective to include control of these 
PRDs as part of the work practice standard for PRDs, and we do not have 
information to conclude that this analysis would be any different for 
Site Remediation sources. However, these PRDs may be regulated under 
other provisions of the MACT. We note that, if the PRD is on any 
equipment subject to the equipment leaks requirements at 40 CFR 
63.7920-7922, then the PRD is also subject to those same requirements, 
and owners and operators are still required to monitor the PRD after 
the release to verify the device is operating with an instrument 
reading of less than 500 ppm. Such PRDs are subject to repair 
requirements if a leak is found.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification that the PRDs 
covered by the work practices are only those associated with the Site 
Remediation equipment leaks affected sources (i.e., only PRDs that are 
in service for 300 or more hours per year and that contain or contact 
remediation material having a concentration of total HAP listed in 
Table 1 equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight).
    Response: The EPA did not intend for the PRD actuation work 
practice requirements to only apply to PRDs in contact with remediation 
material with HAP content (for those HAPs listed in Table 1 to subpart 
GGGGG) equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight and that are in 
service for 300 hours per year or more. The PRD work practice also 
applies to PRDs protecting any affected units subject to this subpart 
(with the exception of containers), including RMMUs under 40 CFR 
63.7882(a)(2). Thus, PRDs are subject to the PRD work practice if they 
are protecting process vents, tanks, surface impoundments, separators, 
transfer systems, or closed-vent systems and control devices--
regardless of whether such units meet the 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(3) 
thresholds for equipment leak requirements. Note that PRDs are not 
subject to the work practice standard if they are on containers as 
defined at 40 CFR 63.7957, which are subject to the requirements of 40 
CFR 63.7900-7903. The PRD standards must work in conjunction with the 
emission limits for all such affected units to ensure that a standard 
applies at all times, including during malfunction periods. The 
exemption suggested by the commenter would leave PRD actuation events 
from certain affected units subject to no standards during 
malfunctions. Certain RMMUs (40 CFR 63.7886) may be exempt from control 
requirements based on the criteria in 40 CFR 63.7886(d). A PRD 
protecting equipment found to be exempt under 40 CFR 63.7886(d) would 
likewise be exempt from PRD standards, because the unit the PRD is 
protecting is not subject to control requirements.
    The commenter is correct that a PRD as a member of the set of 
equipment subject to 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(3) would not be subject to LDAR 
requirements for ``equipment leaks'' if the PRD ``at rest'' (meaning 
not in actuation) meets either of the criteria in 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(3), 
that is, either: (1) The HAP content of the remediation material is 
less than 10 percent by weight; or (2) the equipment in question is 
used less than 300 hours per year. The applicable requirements to 
ensure a PRD has been repaired or re-sets properly after actuation are 
found in 40 CFR 63.7923(a)(1) and (2). The corresponding recordkeeping 
for such PRDs that are exempt from LDAR while at rest but subject to 
PRD work practices in activation are found at 40 CFR 63.7950(b)(11).
    Comment: Several commenters remarked that the EPA should have 
provided a burden estimate for certain requirements. One commenter 
pointed out that the EPA did not include a burden estimate for 
implementation and reporting for the new PRD work practice requirements 
and submittal of the PRD Notice of Compliance Status. Several 
commenters stated that the EPA has assumed that sources have a system 
already in place that is capable of identifying and recording the time 
and duration of each pressure release from a PRD and of notifying 
operators that a pressure release is occurring, and remarked that 
sources actually often do not have systems like this in place unless 
they are required by regulation; therefore, there will be a cost to 
implement this proposed requirement. One commenter noted that one 
company has five PRDs that vent to the atmosphere potentially subject 
to the proposed requirements, and that none of these currently have 
monitors in place. The commenter also said that some facilities with 
PRD monitors are not set up to communicate with the control room or are 
not capable of determining the duration of a release. One commenter 
estimated that the cost to install a new monitoring system will be 
approximately $15,000 per PRD.
    One commenter expressed that the EPA has not included time for 
facilities to develop procedures to estimate and report the amount of 
excess emissions when a deviation from the new requirements of 40 CFR 
63.7951(b) occurs or to develop procedures for the new deviation 
recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.7952.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that it failed to provide an estimate 
at proposal as to the cost and burdens associated with the work 
practice standard. However, we have adjusted that estimate as discussed 
below, and we

[[Page 41694]]

have appropriately estimated the costs and burdens associated with 
implementation and reporting for the PRD work practice standard. At 
proposal, we assumed that any facility subject to the proposed PRD 
requirements would likely experience one PRD actuation event every 3 
years, which would require an analysis of the event's cause. The EPA 
estimated an additional cost to implement the analysis of PRD actuation 
events for affected facilities that was reflected in the burden 
estimate at proposal. Upon consideration of the comment regarding the 
PRD Notification of Compliance Status, we have made a description of 
the PRD monitoring system part of the semiannual compliance report. It 
may have been unclear at proposal whether this one-time notification 
would be part of the submittal of the next semiannual report, for which 
we already have estimated a burden to complete. We have clarified that 
this notification is submitted with the semiannual compliance report. 
The description of the monitoring system must be updated in subsequent 
reports only if changes are made. With respect to monitoring, the EPA 
has revised our burden estimate to include the cost of additional 
monitoring for sources that do not already have adequate monitoring for 
PRDs. We have estimated that half of the affected facilities must 
acquire between 1 and 5 monitors to meet the new requirement, at an 
estimated annualized cost of $30,000 for the entire source category. 
For more information regarding the revised PRD monitoring burden 
estimate, see the memorandum, Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Impacts 
for the Site Remediation Source Category, available in the docket for 
this action.
    Regarding deviation recordkeeping and reporting, we are providing 
additional time to develop emissions estimation and reporting 
procedures. The compliance date for existing affected sources for the 
revised SSM requirements other than General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.6(e) 
and (f)(1), is 180 days after the effective date of the standard. The 
requirements for electronic reporting requirements, the revised routine 
maintenance provisions, the operating and pressure management 
requirements for PRDs, and the revised requirements regarding bypasses 
and closure devices on pressure tanks is 180 days after the effective 
date of the standard.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the amendments 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
    To ensure a standard continuously applies during malfunctions that 
result in emissions from a PRD actuation event, we proposed work 
practices and other provisions for PRDs and bypass lines on closed vent 
systems. Based on comments received on the proposed provisions, we have 
revised the proposed work practice and associated monitoring 
requirements for PRDs. For the reasons provided in the responses to 
comments above, we have revised the proposed PRD provisions to exclude 
PRDs on containers from the PRD work practice standards and monitoring 
requirements and added language to 40 CFR 63.7882 to help clarify when 
a PRD is subject to equipment leak requirements and when it is subject 
to the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. Additionally, 
based on information provided by commenters, we have revised the 
economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD monitoring 
requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment for some 
facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have adequate 
monitoring systems.

D. Other Issues and Changes Made to the Site Remediation NESHAP

1. Standards for Inorganic and Metal HAP Emissions
a. What did we propose for inorganic and metal HAP emissions?
    In the May 13, 2016, proposal on reconsideration, the EPA stated 
that it would consider the issue of regulating metals and inorganic HAP 
emissions during the risk review (81 FR 29824). In the September 3, 
2019, proposal, the EPA proposed to not set standards for metals and 
inorganic HAP from Site Remediation sources subject to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP because the Agency did not have data indicating that 
site remediation sources subject to the rule emit these pollutants. The 
EPA requested data demonstrating whether or not any affected Site 
Remediation sources emit inorganic or metal HAP.
b. How did the decision regarding inorganic and metal HAP emissions 
change since proposal?
    In this final action, we have not made any changes to the proposed 
decision related to inorganic HAP and metal emissions standards.
c. What key comments did we receive regarding inorganic and metal HAP, 
and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter observed that of over 200 Site Remediations 
in the country, the EPA found data for only six facilities. The 
commenter claimed that the EPA has nearly complete ignorance about 
actual Site Remediation emissions due to a failure by the EPA to 
collect the necessary data and asserts that claiming a lack of data 
without adequate enquiry does not excuse the Agency from the 
requirements of the CAA to set emission standards for each HAP a source 
category emits. The commenter added that data for the source category, 
including exempt facilities, clearly shows that Site Remediations do 
emit specific and substantial quantities of inorganic and metal HAP, 
citing EPA's residual risk assessments in the docket at proposal. In 
contrast, several other commenters observed that the risk assessment 
and the EPA's data for this source category do not demonstrate that 
inorganic HAP and HAP metals are emitted from affected facilities and 
agree with the EPA's decision not to set standards for these 
pollutants. Two of these commenters also note that metals are the HAP 
driving risks; however, this is an assumption of the model plant 
approach employed in conducting the risk assessment. The commenters 
stated that these HAP are likely not emitted, and the actual risks are 
likely much lower than the EPA estimates.
    Response: The NEI is the basis for establishing emission profiles 
for the Site Remediation source category and many EPA residual RTRs 
performed or are in progress within the Agency. The NEI is a 
comprehensive national database operated by the regulated community, 
state agencies, and the EPA to have data available for research and 
analysis, public information, and rulemaking. In the case of the Site 
Remediation RTR, to perform the risk assessment, the EPA used data 
submissions from approximately 220 facilities (102 affected facilities 
and 118 exempt facilities) that submitted over 55,000 records of 
pollutant emissions for over 4,000 emission units at the entire 
facilities (i.e., not just units subject to the Site Remediation 
NESHAP). The NEI provides the best information available to the EPA 
regarding emissions from the Site Remediation source category.
    Of the affected sources, the EPA did not find any affected 
facilities that reported Site Remediation emissions of metals and found 
only one facility that emitted any other inorganic HAP, which

[[Page 41695]]

was asbestos. Upon further investigation of the asbestos emissions at 
this facility, the EPA discovered that the Site Remediation at this 
facility is subject to other rules applicable to asbestos cleanups, 
including 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the Asbestos NESHAP. The EPA has 
determined that since the asbestos emissions are already regulated by 
another NESHAP in this instance, it is not necessary to regulate those 
emissions separately in the Site Remediation NESHAP.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that exempt 
facilities emit substantial quantities of inorganic HAP and metals. The 
emissions reported in the NEI for exempt facilities shows a total of 
0.04 tpy of HAP metal emissions, all of which are from one facility, 
and 1.3 tpy of other inorganic HAP emissions, with 97 percent of these 
emissions from one facility. Thus, while some exempt facilities emit 
limited quantities of metal and inorganic HAP, the nature of Site 
Remediations, which are highly site-specific and vary widely in 
remediation materials treated, treatment methods and equipment, and 
emissions, does not suggest that emissions of metal and inorganic HAP 
are common in Site Remediations, are emitted in large quantities, or 
would be expected from affected facilities. Therefore, without further 
evidence to support the existence of metal or inorganic HAP emission 
from affected facilities, the EPA has determined it is not necessary to 
develop emissions standards for these pollutants for this source 
category.
    We agree with commenters that the risk assessment, which used a 
model approach to attribute emissions to the Site Remediation portion 
of a facility where the NEI did not include Site Remediation emissions, 
likely overstates the emissions of some HAP from the Site Remediation 
portions of the facilities. Where this is true, risk from those HAP 
would be overstated in the risk assessment results.
    As we stated at proposal, to address the limited data on Site 
Remediation emissions for these 96 facilities, the EPA developed a 
model plant approach for its risk assessment. A model plant approach is 
commonly used in other EPA actions. The EPA developed a profile of Site 
Remediation emissions for each facility by applying an emissions factor 
based on emissions from the entire facility, including its non-category 
emissions from primary processes. Some of these non-category emission 
sources emit metal and inorganic HAP, thus leading to an attribution of 
a fraction of those emissions at a facility to the Site Remediation 
category by virtue of the use of the emissions factor. Thus, the model 
plant data used for modeling risk reflect metal and inorganic emissions 
solely because they are emitted by non-category sources elsewhere in 
the facility. The tables in Residual Risk Assessment for Facilities 
Exempt from the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the Risk 
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule (see Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0028, p. 37-43) cited by the commenter do not 
specifically distinguish which compounds cited by the commenter are 
facility-wide non-category emissions adapted to the model plant and 
therefore not actual emissions from site remediation activity, from 
those pollutants emitted by site remediation activity. With the 
exception of HCl, the compounds cited by the commenter are facility-
wide non-category emissions, and not emitted by site remediation 
activity. See section IV. A.3 of this preamble for our discussion on 
HCl. The commenter's assertion that data for the source category shows 
that site remediations emit specific and substantial quantities of 
inorganic and metal HAP is not actually supported by the data cited by 
the commenter.
d. What is the rationale for our final decision regarding inorganic and 
metal HAP?
    For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed 
rule, we are finalizing the proposed decision to not set standards for 
metals and inorganic HAP from Site Remediation sources.
2. SSM
a. What did we propose for SSM?
    We proposed amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP to remove or 
revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the 
requirement that the standards apply at all times.
b. How did the amendments regarding SSM change since proposal?
    For SSM, the Site Remediation NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7925(b)(1) allows 
a facility to bypass control devices for up to 240 hours per year to 
perform planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or 
control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be 
performed during periods that the control device is shut down. To 
ensure that emissions standards apply at all times, we proposed to 
revise 40 CFR 63.7925(b)(1) to require the control device to be 
operating whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through 
the closed-vent system to the control device. Based on comments 
received regarding these requirements, we have revised these proposed 
requirements as they apply to storage tanks. The revised requirements 
will allow a facility to bypass control devices on storage tanks for up 
to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of the 
closed-vent system or control device in situations when the routine 
maintenance cannot be performed during periods that the control device 
is shut down, and they are restricted from filling the tank for those 
240 hours. More information concerning SSM is in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (84 FR 46161; September 3, 2019). We also are clarifying 
the compliance dates for changes in the SSM provisions. See section 
III.F of this preamble for compliance dates.
c. What key comments did we receive regarding SSM, and what are our 
responses?
    We received several comments regarding SSM. We received one comment 
that HAP concentrations may be higher in remediation material at the 
startup of remediation activities, one comment that the removal of the 
SSM exemption is not necessary to be consistent with the Sierra Club 
vs. EPA decision, and one comment generally supporting the proposed SSM 
revisions. One commenter generally supported the revisions but opposed 
what they characterized as ``exemptions'' provided for PRDs during 
process malfunctions. Other commenters disagreed with the proposed 
changes related to periods of planned routine maintenance in 40 CFR 
63.7925(b)(1) as they would affect tanks. Our responses to these 
comments can be found in the Response to Comments document in the 
docket. In addition to comments on SSM, we also received comment on the 
topic of periods for planned routine maintenance. A summary of these 
comments and our response is below.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the EPA retain an 
allowance for maintenance of control devices for tanks and add the work 
practice to the Site Remediation NESHAP that was finalized in the Amino 
and Phenolic Resins (APR) NESHAP RTR Reconsideration in October 2018. 
The commenters explained that this work practice allows closed vent 
systems on tanks to be bypassed for up to 240 hours per year for 
routine maintenance but prohibits sources from increasing the level of 
material in the tank during that time to minimize emissions by ensuring 
no working losses occur. Another commenter requested that the EPA

[[Page 41696]]

retain the current routine maintenance provision that allows all 
closed-vent system or control devices to be bypassed for up to 240 
hours per year to perform routine maintenance. This commenter stated 
that the EPA has not provided any justification or analysis of the 
costs or emissions impact associated with the proposed change.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we removed the exemption from 
emissions standards for periods of SSM in accordance with a decision of 
the Court, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. 
denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This decision stated that the EPA 
must provide standards that are in place at all times, even during 
periods of SSM. Thus, we also removed the provision at 40 CFR 
63.7925(b)(1) that allowed a control device to be bypassed for up to 
240 hours per year for the performance of planned routine maintenance 
of the closed vent system or control device (i.e., 240-hour routine 
maintenance exemption). As a result, the emissions limits, including 
those for tanks, in the proposed revised Site Remediation NESHAP would 
apply at all times.
    While emissions from most equipment can be eliminated completely 
during routine maintenance of a control device, simply by not operating 
the process during those times, the same is not true for a tank. For a 
fixed roof tank complying with the NESHAP by routing emissions through 
a closed vent system to a control device, the stored material in the 
tank will continue to emit volatile compounds when the control device 
is not operating. The only ways for these tanks to avoid such emissions 
are to empty and degas the tank prior to the maintenance activity. It 
is possible that emptying and degassing a tank could result in greater 
emissions than would result from emissions from the tank during a 240-
hour period. At proposal, we did not consider this emissions potential. 
Taking this factor into account, we decided to examine whether separate 
MACT standards should be established for periods of planned routine 
maintenance of the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof 
tank at a new or existing source.
    We began our examination by reviewing the title V permits for each 
facility subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP. In this review, we 
searched for facilities that had tanks subject to the emissions 
standards of the Site Remediation NESHAP and for any permit 
requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of a control 
device for a tank. From this review, several facilities were found to 
have tanks subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP emission standards. 
While the current provisions of the Site Remediation NESHAP minimize 
emissions by limiting the duration of the bypass of a control device 
for planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year, no additional 
permit conditions were found for these facilities for periods of time 
when the tank control device was not operating. We also reviewed other 
NESHAP to examine the requirements that apply to similar tanks. From 
the review of these NESHAP, we found that the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 
(HON) and several other NESHAP, including, but not limited to, those 
for Group I Polymers and Resins, Group IV Polymers and Resins, OSWRO, 
Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities have provisions 
that minimize HAP emissions during periods of planned routine 
maintenance. These provisions minimize HAP emissions by limiting the 
duration of planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The 
Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
NESHAP also allow a facility to request an extension of up to an 
additional 120 hours per year on the condition that no material is 
added to the tank during such requested extension period. The Amino and 
Phenolic Resins NESHAP includes the 240-hour provision described above 
and also prohibits sources from increasing the level of material in 
tanks during that time to minimize emissions. With these provisions, 
fixed roof tanks' emissions are limited to breathing losses, and the 
tanks do not need to be emptied and degassed to perform routine 
maintenance. Based on our review of these permits and NESHAP, we have 
determined that the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank 
vents at existing Site Remediation sources is the minimization of 
emissions by limiting the duration of planned routine maintenance 
periods in which the control device may be bypassed to 240 hours per 
year. Also based on this review, we identified one above-the-floor 
option, which is to add a work practice to prohibit the addition of 
material to the tank during the planned routine maintenance period when 
the tank control device is bypassed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Impacts Associated with the Routine Maintenance Provisions 
for Storage Tanks in the Site Remediation Source Category. 
Memorandum from Lesley Stobert, SC&A, to Matt Witosky, available in 
the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA HQ-OAR-2018-0833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated the impacts of the identified beyond-the-floor control 
option. We estimate that there are one to 10 facilities in the category 
that would need to control one or more tanks during periods when the 
primary emission control system is undergoing planned routine 
maintenance. We have assumed an equal distribution of one to five tanks 
at 10 facilities, for a total of 30 tanks in the source category. To 
comply with the work practice of not adding material to the tank during 
planned routine maintenance periods when the tank control device is 
bypassed, we anticipate no additional equipment would be needed and no 
additional costs would be incurred. We estimate this option would 
reduce emissions by up 76 lbs./year per tank and 2,280 lbs./year (1.1 
tpy) for the source category (i.e., 30 tanks).
    Based on our analysis, the identified beyond-the-floor option is 
reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be 
achieved with this work practice and the absence of additional costs. 
Accordingly, we are revising the Site Remediation MACT standards to 
allow owners or operators of fixed roof vessels at new and existing 
affected Site Remediation facilities to perform planned routine 
maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours per 
year, provided there are no working losses from the tank during that 
time.
    This work practice standard is being established in accordance with 
CAA section 112(h). We note that the tank requirements in this rule 
were originally promulgated as CAA section 112(h) standards, which 
established two control options. One option is for the installation of 
a floating roof pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. This option is 
a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational 
standards. The other option is to install a conveyance system (pursuant 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD) and route the emissions to a control 
device that achieves a 95-percent reduction in HAP emissions or that 
achieves a specific outlet HAP concentration. This second option is a 
combination of design standards, equipment standards, operational 
standards, and a percent reduction or outlet concentration. See the 
preamble to the original rulemaking for 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG 
at 67 FR 49398 (July 30, 2002). The work practice requirement added in 
this action also fulfills the purposes of section 112(h)(1) of the CAA, 
which calls on the Administrator to include requirements in work 
practice standards sufficient to assure the proper operation and

[[Page 41697]]

maintenance of the design or equipment. The added work practice 
standard allows for the planned routine maintenance of the control 
device and minimizes emissions during such periods of planned routine 
maintenance, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(h)(1) 
by eliminating working losses during planned routine maintenance of the 
control device. For breathing losses, we have determined that it is not 
practicable due to technological and economic limitations, to measure 
these emissions during periods of planned routine maintenance to 
establish a numeric limit based upon the best performing sources. The 
breathing losses during the planned routine maintenance of the control 
system are highly dependent on the volume of the vapor space and the 
weather conditions during that time. Specialized flow meters (such as 
mass flow meters) would likely be needed in order to accurately measure 
any flow during these variable, no-to-low flow conditions. Measurement 
costs for these times would be economically impracticable, particularly 
in light of the small quantity of emissions. In addition, we are not 
aware of any measurement of breathing loss HAP emissions from a fixed 
roof storage vessel in the field.
d. What is the rationale for our final amendments regarding SSM?
    With one exception, we are finalizing the provisions for periods of 
SSM provisions as proposed. The SSM-related provision regarding planned 
routine maintenance of control systems for storage tanks has been 
revised since proposal based on consideration of comments received 
during the public comment period. As explained in the comment response 
above in section 2.c, we reviewed available Site Remediation permits 
and the conditions of other NESHAP with similar provisions, and we 
determined that it is appropriate to adopt a work practice standard to 
allow owners or operators of fixed roof vessels at new and existing 
affected Site Remediation facilities to perform planned routine 
maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours per 
year, provided there are no working losses from the tank during that 
time.
3. Electronic Reporting
a. What did we propose for electronic reporting?
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, to facilitate the 
demonstration and determination of compliance and simplify data entry, 
the EPA proposed to require owners and operators of Site Remediation 
facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-annual compliance 
reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. The EPA identified at 
proposal two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting 
extensions may be provided. These situations include outages of the 
EPA's CDX or CEDRI and force majeure events.
    Additionally, for semi-annual summary compliance reports, the 
proposed rule required that owners and operators use a spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. The EPA provided a draft 
version of the template for this report in the docket for the proposed 
rulemaking and requested comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the template.
b. How did the amendments regarding electronic reporting change since 
proposal?
    Regarding electronic reporting, the proposed requirements to submit 
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance 
evaluation reports, and semi-annual compliance reports have not 
changed. However, we have made a few corrections and clarifications to 
the draft spreadsheet template provided at proposal for use in 
submitting semi-annual summary compliance reports to CEDRI.
c. What key comments did we receive regarding electronic reporting, and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal for electronic 
reporting but does not support the proposed reporting exemption 
provisions, which the commenter noted the EPA describes as 
``extensions,'' for CEDRI outages or force majeure events. The 
commenter stated that the provisions do not set a new firm deadline to 
submit the required report or a deadline to request an extension of the 
reporting deadline, and the EPA must set a deadline, such as 10 days. 
The commenter asserted that this leads to a broad and vague mechanism 
by which a facility could evade reporting and compliance with the 
emissions standards. The commenter stated that by not including a new 
deadline, the provision does not provide for an extension, but rather 
provides an exemption from the reporting requirements and potentially 
from meeting the emissions standards. Additionally, the commenter 
remarked that the EPA did not provide a reasoned basis for this 
provision, and it appears there is no evidence that either type of 
event has caused any problems with electronic reporting in the past.
    Response: The EPA notes that there is no exception or exemption to 
reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting 
deadline. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of 
extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by 
the Administrator 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 much longer, especially if the 
facility has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no 
ability to access electronically stored data or submit reports 
electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable on the 
events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an 
extension is appropriate, and, if so, on a reasonable length. The 
Administrator 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 does require that the report be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is 
resolved or after the force majeure event occurs. For these reasons, 
the EPA is not adding a firm deadline for reporting when the 
Administrator accepts a claim of force majeure or EPA system outage and 
instead leaves the deadline for the extension to the discretion of the 
Administrator.
d. What is the rationale for our final amendments regarding electronic 
reporting?
    We are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic 
reporting, however, the final spreadsheet template to be used in 
submitting semi-annual summary compliance reports to CEDRI has been 
revised based on comments received during the public comment period.
4. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
a. What did we propose for OELs?
    We proposed to add a paragraph to 40 CFR 63.7920(b) to clarify what 
``seal the open end'' means for OELs under the Site Remediation NESHAP. 
This clarification was intended to reduce uncertainty for the owner or 
operator as to whether compliance is being achieved. The proposed 
clarification explained that, for the purpose of

[[Page 41698]]

complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1014(b)(1) of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart TT or 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1) of subpart UU, as applicable, 
Site Remediation OELs are ``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug or 
second valve when instrument monitoring of the OELs conducted according 
to EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 
500 ppm or greater.
    We also proposed that OELs that are in an emergency shutdown 
system, and which are designed to open automatically, be equipped with 
either a flow indicator or a seal or locking device since 40 CFR part 
63, subparts TT and UU exempt these OELs from the requirements to be 
equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve that seals the 
open end. Additionally, we proposed recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for these OELs.
b. How did the amendments regarding OELs change since proposal?
    The EPA is not finalizing the proposed provisions related to OELs. 
These requirements include those of proposed 40 CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(i) 
that were intended to clarify what ``seal the open end'' means for 
OELs; the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(ii), which 
specified that certain OELS in an emergency shutdown system be equipped 
with either a flow indicator or a seal or locking device; and the 
related proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these 
OELs.
c. What key comments did we receive regarding OELs, and what are our 
responses?
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that the proposal to amend the 
rule to clarify that open-ended valves and lines are only sealed if an 
EPA Method 21 instrument reading is less than 500 ppm is inconsistent 
with other equipment leak rulemakings under 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The 
commenters oppose the EPA's proposal to clarify what ``seal the open 
end'' means for open-ended valves and lines, with one commenter noting 
that with the low pressure piping in Site Remediation equipment, leaks 
from caps or plugs are minimal, and the existing requirements are 
sufficient. Another commenter stated that this proposed change would 
add new, costly, and burdensome work practice requirements, which are 
not discussed in the preamble or the docket. The commenters also 
claimed that this clarification calls for demonstrating <500 ppm 
leakage by monitoring, without changing the requirement to have the 
open-ended line capped or plugged and without specifying any specific 
monitoring requirements. Further, one commenter remarked that the 
requirement to cap OELs was never an emissions standard but has always 
been considered a work practice in the form of an equipment standard. 
By establishing this equipment standard, the commenter said the EPA 
expressly rejected the idea that a capped open-ended line should be 
treated as a potentially leaking component that should be subject to an 
LDAR-like periodic leak detection requirement. The commenter remarked 
that imposing an emissions standard would transform the work practice 
into a numeric emissions limitation. Commenters also stated that by 
claiming this change is only a clarification of current requirements, 
the EPA has attempted to bypass the need to cite a CAA authorization 
for this change to the standard or meet the process requirements 
associated with such a change, including providing emission reduction, 
cost, and burden estimates in the record. These commenters asserted 
that the EPA must show that imposing a new 500 ppm emissions limit is 
justified, including an assessment of costs and an explanation of how 
the costs are reasonable in light of the expected emissions reductions. 
In additional remarks on the topic, some commenters noted that proposed 
monitoring of OELs was not finalized for 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV or 
VVa due to the low-cost effectiveness of the requirements in relation 
to VOC emissions, which would likely have been even less cost effective 
when considering only HAP. In addition, one commenter provided 
historical information regarding OELs in which the EPA did not require 
LDAR and only require equipment standards for subpart VV and subpart H 
of part 63 (the HON rule). Several commenters stated that if additional 
OEL requirements can be shown to be justified, the requirements should 
take a traditional equipment leak approach in which monitoring is 
performed and that a reading above a certain level, such as 500 ppm, is 
an action level for repair rather than a violation. One commenter added 
that in this approach, a missing OEL cap or plug would not be a 
deviation unless a reading determines that a leak above the defined 
threshold is occurring.
    Some commenters added that this ``clarification'' in the Site 
Remediation NESHAP would appear to be a clarification to all equipment 
leak rules and permits containing similar language. The commenters 
noted that this proposal does not notify other industries subject to 40 
CFR part 63, subparts TT and UU of this change. In order to impose this 
new standard, one commenter stated that the EPA should identify the CAA 
authority for this action, propose amendments to all rules referencing 
40 CFR subparts TT and UU (or propose amendments to subparts TT and UU, 
instead) and provide cost burden and emission impact estimates for this 
change for all impacted rules.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the proposal changed the current 
requirements, which consist of an equipment standard to equip the OEL 
with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve and an operational 
standard that the open end is ``sealed'' by that equipment at all 
times, except during operations requiring process fluid flow or during 
maintenance. See 40 CFR 63.1014(b)(1) and 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1). As 
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 84 FR 46165; September 
3, 2019), the purpose of the proposed definition for ``sealed'' was 
intended to provide compliance certainty with the codified operational 
requirement that the OEL is ``sealed'' for the Site Remediation source 
category. However, upon review of these comments, the EPA agrees that 
additional consideration of the proposed change would be appropriate 
because there are multiple source categories that cross-reference the 
same equipment and operational requirements for OELs. We continue to 
believe that it is important that the standard to seal the OEL includes 
a clear mechanism for a source to demonstrate compliance with that 
requirement. Therefore, the EPA intends to continue to evaluate 
appropriate means of compliance certainty for OELs, including the term 
``sealed,'' and is not finalizing any revisions to the OEL standards 
applicable to Site Remediation in this action. In the meantime, both 
the equipment standard that the OEL is equipped with a cap, blind 
flange, plug, or second valve, and the operational standard requiring 
that this equipment seal the open end of the valve or line, continue to 
apply.
d. What is the rationale for our final decision regarding OELs?
    Considering comments received during the public comment period, the 
EPA is not finalizing the proposed provisions for OELs. These proposed 
provisions were intended to clarify what ``seal the open end'' means 
for OELs, would have required certain OELS in an emergency shutdown 
system to be equipped with a flow indicator or a seal or locking 
device, and would have

[[Page 41699]]

required related recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these 
OELs.
    Since OELs are present at many facilities, additional consideration 
of the proposed change is appropriate because there are multiple source 
categories that cross-reference the same equipment and operational 
requirements for OELs. We continue to believe it is important that the 
standard to seal the OEL includes a clear mechanism for a source to 
demonstrate compliance with that requirement. Therefore, the EPA 
intends to continue to evaluate appropriate means of compliance 
certainty for OELs, including the term ``sealed,'' and is not 
finalizing any revisions to the OEL standards applicable to Site 
Remediation in this action.
    The EPA emission estimates are based on reported emissions, and we 
did not estimate HAP reductions from the proposed approach that we are 
not finalizing. For this reason, the decision to not finalize the OEL 
provisions has no impact on estimated emissions, risks, or decisions 
related to risk.
5. Technical Corrections
a. What technical corrections did we propose?
    We proposed several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the 
clarity of the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements. These proposed 
changes included:
     Adding citations in 40 CFR 63.14 to 40 CFR 63.7944 for the 
two following consensus standards: American Petroleum Institute (API) 
Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From External Floating-Roof Tanks, 
and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D2879-83.
     Correcting citation errors. These include correcting the 
reference in 40 CFR 63.7942 to be 40 CFR 63.7(a)(3) rather than 40 CFR 
63.7(3); correcting the reference in 40 CFR 63.7941 to be 40 CFR 
7890(b) rather than 40 CFR 63.7980(a)(1)(i); and correcting the 
references in 40 CFR 63.7901(a) and (b)(1), and 40 CFR 63.7903(a) and 
(b) to be 40 CFR 63.7900 rather than 40 CFR 63.7990.
b. How did the technical corrections change since proposal?
    We have not made any changes to the proposed technical corrections. 
However, we have added other technical corrections to the final rule. 
These include the following:
     The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(i) did 
not specify which information should be reported with respect to a leak 
found under the PRD provisions. The EPA has specified that sources 
should report the number of times that a leak is detected during the 
reporting period.
     The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(ii) was 
revised to clarify that the source is required to include a notation 
that the required monitoring was performed.
     The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(iii)(B) 
was revised to require that the source report total HAP, rather than 
each HAP, to be consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.7923(d).
     The reference to the requirement to submit a Notification 
of Compliance Status in 40 CFR 63.7951 at proposal has been revised for 
clarity.
c. What is the rationale for our final technical corrections?
    These corrections have been made to correct errors, provide 
consistency of terms and add clarity to the rule.
e. Other Comments
    Comment: A commenter recommended modifying 40 CFR 63.7885(b)(2) to 
address systems with process vents that are associated with gaseous 
systems, noting that the current regulation only provides a parts per 
million by weight (ppmw) value.
    Response: In 40 CFR 63.7882, process vents are defined as the 
entire group of process vents associated with the in-situ and ex-situ 
remediation processes used at the site to remove, destroy, degrade, 
transform, or immobilize hazardous substances in the remediation 
material subject to remediation, which would include process vents 
associated with gaseous systems. The standard in 40 CFR 63.7885(b)(2), 
average volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) concentration 
of the material, is on a mass-weighted basis, ppmw. This concentration 
is determined by collection and analysis of a sample by one of the 
methods listed in 40 CFR 63.694(b)(2)(ii). These methods determine, on 
a mass-weighted basis, the average VOHAP concentration in ppmw. As the 
methods to determine the average VOHAP concentration are in terms of 
mass, it is appropriate for the applicability provisions for process 
vents to be in the same terms. Therefore, we have not modified the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.7885(b)(2).

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    We estimate that there are approximately 63 major source Site 
Remediation facilities. Based on available permit information, 33 
facilities are expected to be subject to a limited set of the rule 
requirements under 40 CFR 63.7881(c) due to the low annual quantity of 
HAP contained in the remediation material excavated, extracted, pumped, 
or otherwise removed during the Site Remediations conducted at the 
facilities. These facilities are only required to prepare and maintain 
written documentation to support the determination that the total 
annual quantity of the HAP contained in the remediation material 
excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed at the facility is 
less than 1 megagram per year. They are not subject to any other 
emissions limits, work practices, monitoring, reporting, or 
recordkeeping requirements. While new Site Remediations are likely to 
be conducted in the future, we are currently not aware of any specific 
new Site Remediation facilities that will be subject to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    For equipment leaks, we are revising the equipment leak thresholds 
for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT. We estimate the HAP emission reduction for this change to 
be approximately 4.7 tpy. We anticipate a reduction of up to 1.1 tpy of 
HAP emissions from the revised requirements for planned routine 
maintenance, which eliminate the routine maintenance exemption for all 
affected units, and, for storage tank emissions control systems only, 
provide a work practice standard. We do not anticipate any HAP emission 
reduction from the requirement to electronically report the results of 
emissions testing. For the revisions to the MACT standards establishing 
a work practice standard for actuation of PRDs in remediation material 
service, we were not able to quantify the possible emission reductions, 
so none are included in our assessment of air quality impacts. 
Therefore, the total HAP emission reductions for the final rule 
revisions for the Site Remediation source category are estimated to be 
5.8 tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    For equipment leaks, we are revising the equipment leak thresholds 
for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $26,000 and 
the annual costs to be $10,000. We do not anticipate any quantifiable 
capital or annual costs for our requirements to electronically report 
the results of emissions testing. For the

[[Page 41700]]

requirements to monitor PRDs, we estimate the nationwide capital costs 
to be $162,000 and the annual costs to be $29,500. For PRDs, we are 
also requiring facilities to conduct analyses of the causes of PRD 
pressure release actuation events and to implement corrective measures. 
We estimate the nationwide annualized costs for the analysis of 
actuation events to be $13,000. This cost represents the estimated 
labor hours we anticipate would be required to determine the cause of a 
typical actuation event and to implement any corrective measure 
suggested by the analysis of the cause. We estimate an increase in 
reporting and recordkeeping associated with the requirements for 
equipment leaks and PRDs of approximately $7,000 per year nationwide. 
Therefore, the total capital costs for the regulatory changes being 
finalized in this action for the Site Remediation source category are 
approximately $188,000, and the total annualized costs are 
approximately $60,000.

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 needed to comply with a 
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can 
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a 
rule. The total capital costs associated with this rule are estimated 
to be approximately $188,000, and the estimated annualized cost is 
approximately $60,000. We expect these costs to be borne by 30 
facilities, with an average annualized cost of approximately $2,000 per 
facility per year. 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?

    We have estimated that this action will achieve HAP emissions 
reductions of 5.8 tpy. The revised standards will result in reductions 
in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and may reduce the 
actual and potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to 
emissions of HAP from this source category, as discussed in the 
proposal preamble (See 84 FR 46158; September 3, 2019). We have not 
quantified the monetary benefits associated with these reductions; 
however, these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air 
quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to 
air pollution from these emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by 
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. The EPA has established policies 
regarding the integration of environmental justice into the Agency's 
rulemaking efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and 
conduct of analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice 
concerns during the development of a rule.
    Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of 
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a 
demographic analysis for Site Remediation facilities to identify any 
overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. 
This analysis only gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-
populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it 
does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most affected 
individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk 
faced by those individuals or communities. The EPA has determined that 
this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous 
populations. Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP increase the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations by 
reducing emissions from equipment leaks and from storage tanks during 
periods of planned routine maintenance of emissions control systems, 
and these revisions do not cause any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Further 
details concerning the demographic analysis are presented in the 
memorandum titled, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic 
Factors For Populations Living Near Site Remediation Source Category 
Operations, a copy of which is available in the docket for this action.

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

    As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the 
demographic analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and 
children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of 
the March 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule and the Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Site Remediation Source Category Operations documents and 
are available in the docket for this action.
    The results of the demographic analysis show that the average 
percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to Site 
Remediation facilities is approximately the same as the percentage of 
the national population in this age group. Consistent with the EPA's 
Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, we conducted inhalation 
and multipathway risk assessments for the Site Remediation source 
category, considering risk to infants and children.\16\ Children are 
exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two primary routes: 
either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via ingestion or dermal 
contact with various media that have been contaminated with the emitted 
chemicals. The EPA considers the possibility that children might be 
more sensitive than adults to toxic chemicals, including chemical 
carcinogens. For our inhalation risk assessment, several carcinogens 
emitted by facilities in this source category have a mutagenic mode of 
action. For these compounds, we applied the age-dependent adjustment 
factors (ADAF) described in the EPA's Supplemental Guidance for 
Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens.\17\ 
This adjustment has the effect of increasing the estimated lifetime 
risks for these pollutants by a factor of 1.6. For one group of these 
chemicals with a mutagenic mode of action, polycyclic organic matter 
(POM), only a small fraction of the total emissions were reported as 
individual compounds. The EPA expresses

[[Page 41701]]

carcinogenic potency of POM relative to the carcinogenic potency of 
benzo[a]pyrene, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM has the same 
mutagenic mode of action as does benzo[a]pyrene. The EPA's Science 
Policy Council recommends applying the ADAF to all carcinogenic 
compounds for which risk estimates are based on potency relative to 
benzo[a]pyrene. Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF to the 
benzo[a]pyrene-equivalent mass portion of all POM mixtures. For our 
multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we assessed risks 
for adults and various age groups of children. Children's exposures are 
expected to differ from exposures of adults due to differences in body 
weights, ingestion rates, dietary preferences and other factors. It is 
important, therefore, to evaluate the contribution of exposures during 
childhood to total lifetime risk using appropriate exposure factor 
values, applying ADAF as appropriate. The EPA developed a health 
protective exposure scenario whereby the receptor, at various 
lifestages, receives ingestion exposure via both the farm food chain 
and the fish ingestion pathways. The analysis revealed that fish 
ingestion is the dominant exposure pathway across all age groups for 
several pollutants, including POM. For POM, the farm food chain also is 
a major route of exposure, with beef and dairy contributing 
significantly to the lifetime average daily dose. Preliminary 
calculations of estimated dermal exposure and risk from these 
pollutants showed that the dermal exposure route is not a significant 
risk pathway relative to ingestion exposures. Based on the analyses 
described above, the EPA has determined that the changes to this rule, 
which will reduce emissions of HAP by over 5 tpy, will lead to reduced 
risk to children and infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available 
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
    \17\ Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from 
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F. 
March 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Orders 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 OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2062.09. 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.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emission standards. These 
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining 
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents/affected entities: Unlike a specific industry sector or 
type of business, the respondents potentially affected by this ICR 
cannot be easily or definitively identified. Potentially, the Site 
Remediation rule may be applicable to any type of business or facility 
at which a Site Remediation is conducted to clean up media contaminated 
with organic HAP when the remediation activities are performed, the 
authority under which the remediation activities are performed, and the 
magnitude of the HAP in the remediation material meets the 
applicability criteria specified in the rule. A Site Remediation that 
is subject to this rule potentially may be conducted at any type of 
privately-owned or government-owned facility at which contamination has 
occurred due to past events or current activities at the facility. For 
Site Remediation performed at sites where the facility has been 
abandoned and there is no owner, a government agency may have 
responsibility for the cleanup.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 30 total for the source category. 
These facilities are already respondents and no facilities are expected 
to become respondents as a result of this action.
    Frequency of response: Semiannual.
    Total estimated burden: 19,700 total hours (per year) for the 
source category, of which 310 hours are estimated as a result of this 
action. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The total estimated cost of the rule is $1.55 
million (per year) for the source category. This includes $288,000 
total annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. We 
estimate that $188,000 of the $288,000 in total annualized capital or 
operation and maintenance costs is a result of this action. 
Recordkeeping and reporting costs of approximately $20,000 estimated as 
a result of this action are included in the $1.55 million in total 
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. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are chemical 
and refining companies. The Agency has determined that two small 
entities, representing approximately 7 percent of the total number of 
entities subject to the rule, may experience an impact of less than 0.1 
percent of revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the 
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This 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

[[Page 41702]]

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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no 
Site Remediation facilities that are owned or operated by tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category 
in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule document, 
which is available in the docket for this action, and are discussed in 
sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble.

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) and 1 CFR 
part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is formalizing 
the incorporation of two technical standards that were included in the 
October 2003 rule for which the EPA had previously not formally 
requested the Office of the Federal Register to include in 40 CFR 63.14 
with a reference back to the sections in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. 
These two standards were already incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14 and were 
formally requested for other rules. These standards are API Publication 
2517, ``Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,'' Third 
Edition, February 1989, and ASTM D2879-83, ``Standard Method for Vapor 
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature 
of Liquids by Isoteniscope.'' Sources subject to the Site Remediation 
NESHAP must determine the average total VOHAP concentration of a 
remediation material using either direct measurement or by knowledge of 
the material. These methods may be used to determine the average VOHAP 
concentration of remediation material. These analyses are used to 
determine control requirements for compliance with applicable 
standards. While the API Publication 2517 is used to determine 
emissions from floating roof tanks, an important component in 
determining these emissions is the vapor pressure of the material 
stored in the tank. Therefore, this publication includes widely used 
methods for determining the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in 
liquids stored at ambient temperature and is available to the public 
for purchase from the reseller IHS Markit Standards Store through their 
website at https://global.ihs.com/. The ASTM D2879-83 method is also 
used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids 
stored at ambient temperature, and it is available to the public for 
free viewing online in the Reading Room section on ASTM's website at 
https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. Hardcopies and printable versions 
are also available for purchase from ASTM. Additional information can 
be found at http://www.api.org/ and https://www.astm.org/Standard/standardsandpublications.html.

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) 
because it increases 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 
results of the demographic analysis completed by the EPA are presented 
in the memorandum titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Site Remediation Source 
Category Operations, which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833) and are discussed in section V.F 
of this preamble.

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, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
part 63 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.

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (h)(31) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-
Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406 and 63.7944.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c)(1):  API Publication 2517 available 
through reseller HIS Markit at https://global.ihs.com/

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (31) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature 
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by 
Isoteniscope, Approved November 28, 1983, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406, 63.7944, and 63.12005.
* * * * *

Subpart GGGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Site Remediation

0
3. Section 63.7882 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text

[[Page 41703]]

and adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7882   What site remediation sources at my facility does this 
subpart affect?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source for your Site Remediation as designated by paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Pressure relief devices. The affected source is any pressure 
relief device in remediation material service, as defined in Sec.  
63.7957. Pressure relief devices meeting the specifications of 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section are also part of an equipment leaks 
affected source.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.7883 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) 
introductory text, (c) introductory text, and (d) introductory text and 
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7883   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later 
than October 9, 2006, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (b) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation 
material other than a radioactive mixed waste as defined in Sec.  
63.7957, then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source, 
except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation 
material that is a radioactive mixed waste as defined in Sec.  63.7957, 
then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph (c)(1) or 
(2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source, except as 
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions 
or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, then you must meet the compliance dates 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, except as 
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) If the affected source's initial startup date is on or before 
September 3, 2019, you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section by the dates specified in 
those paragraphs. If the affected source's initial startup date is 
after September 3, 2019, you must comply with all of the applicable 
requirements of this subpart upon initial startup or July 10, 2020, 
whichever is later.
    (1) You must comply with the equipment leak requirements of Sec.  
63.7920(b)(3), (d), and (e) on or before July 10, 2021.
    (2) You must comply with the pressure relief device requirements of 
Sec.  63.7923(a) on or before January 6, 2021.
    (3) You must comply with the pressure relief device requirements of 
Sec.  63.7923(b) through (f) on or before January 10, 2022.
    (4) You must comply with the pressure tank closure device reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.7951(b)(11) and 
63.7952(a)(7) on or before January 6, 2021.
    (5) You must comply with the electronic reporting requirements of 
Sec.  63.7951(e) through (h) on or before January 6, 2021.

0
5. Section 63.7895 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7895   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for tanks?

* * * * *
    (c) If you use Tank Level 1 controls, you must install and operate 
a fixed roof according to the requirements in Sec.  63.902, with the 
exceptions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. As 
an alternative to using this fixed roof, you may choose to use one of 
Tank Level 2 controls in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (1) Where Sec.  63.902(c)(2) provides an exception for a spring-
loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type 
of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere, for any source 
for the purposes of this subpart, only a conservation vent is eligible 
for the exception after January 6, 2021. If your initial startup date 
is after September 3, 2019, the exception for a spring-loaded pressure-
vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type of pressure 
relief device does not apply, with the exception of a conservation 
vent, for the purposes of this subpart after July 10, 2020.
    (2) The provisions of Sec.  63.902(c)(3) do not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; for any source the provisions of Sec.  63.902(c)(3) 
do not apply for the purposes of this subpart after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.7896 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) and 
(f)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7896   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for tanks?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Each tank using Tank Level 1 controls is equipped with a fixed 
roof and closure devices according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.902(b) and (c), with the exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7895(c)(1) 
and (2), and you have records documenting the design.
* * * * *
    (3) You will operate the fixed roof and closure devices according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.902, with the exceptions specified in 
Sec.  63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Each tank is equipped with a fixed roof and closure devices 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.685(g), with the exceptions 
specified in Sec.  63.7895(c)(1) and (2), and you have records 
documenting the design.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.7898 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7898   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for tanks?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and closure devices 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.902(c), with the exceptions 
specified in Sec.  63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.7900 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3), (c), and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7900   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for containers?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) If the design capacity of your container is less than or equal 
to 0.46 m\3\, then you must use controls according to the standards for 
Container Level 1 controls as specified in Sec.  63.922. As an 
alternative, you may choose to use controls according to either of the 
standards for Container Level 2 controls as specified in Sec.  63.923. 
Sec.  63.922(d)(4)

[[Page 41704]]

and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial 
startup date is after September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) do 
not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 
6, 2021.
    (2) If the design capacity of your container is greater than 0.46 
m3, then you must use controls according to the standards for Container 
Level 2 controls as specified in Sec.  63.923 except as provided for in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Sec.  63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not 
apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is 
after September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for 
the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
    (3) As an alternative to meeting the standards in paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section for containers with a capacity greater than 0.46 m3, if 
you determine that either of the conditions in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or 
(ii) apply to the remediation material placed in your container, then 
you may use controls according to the standards for Container Level 1 
controls as specified in Sec.  63.922. Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) do 
not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date 
is after September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for 
the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *
    (c) At times when a container having a design capacity greater than 
0.1 m3 is used for treatment of a remediation material by a waste 
stabilization process as defined in Sec.  63.7957, you must control air 
emissions from the container during the process whenever the 
remediation material in the container is exposed to the atmosphere 
according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified 
in Sec.  63.924. You must meet the emissions limitations and work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.7925 that apply to your closed vent 
system and control device. Sec.  63.924(d) does not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of 
this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
    (d) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) 
of this section, you may choose to use controls on your container 
according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified 
in Sec.  63.924. You must meet the emissions limitations and work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.7925 that apply to your closed vent 
system and control device. Sec.  63.924(d) does not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of 
this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.7901 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), 
(c)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7901   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for containers?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions 
limitations and work practice standards in Sec.  63.7900 that apply to 
your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) 
through (e) of this section, as applicable to your containers.
    (b) * * *
    (1) You have determined the applicable container control levels 
specified in Sec.  63.7900 for the containers to be used for your Site 
Remediation.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) You will operate each container cover and closure device 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.922(d), with the exceptions 
specified in Sec.  63.7900(b)(1).
    (d) * * *
    (3) You will operate and maintain the container covers and closure 
devices according to the requirements in Sec.  63.923(d), with the 
exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7900(b)(2).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.7903 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) 
introductory text, (c)(1), and (d)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7903   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for containers?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions 
limitations and work practice standards in Sec.  63.7900 applicable to 
your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) 
through (e) of this section.
    (b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirement 
to determine the applicable container control level specified in Sec.  
63.7900(b) for each affected tank by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Operating and maintaining covers for each container according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.922(d), with the exceptions specified 
in Sec.  63.7900(b)(1).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Operating and maintaining container covers according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.923(d), with the exceptions specified in Sec.  
63.7900(b)(2).
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.7905 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.7905   What emissions limitations or work practice standards 
must I meet for surface impoundments?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Install and operate a floating membrane cover according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.942. Sec.  63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021; or
    (2) Install and operate a cover vented through a closed vent system 
to a control device according to the requirements in Sec.  63.943. You 
must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in 
Sec.  63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device. 
Sec.  63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if 
your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; Sec.  
63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any 
source after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.7906 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7906   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions limitations or work practice standards for surface 
impoundments?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.942(c), with the exceptions specified in Sec.  
63.7905(b)(1).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.943(c), with the exceptions specified in Sec.  
63.7905(b)(2).
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.7908 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7908   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for surface 
impoundments?

* * * * *

[[Page 41705]]

    (b) * * *
    (1) Operating and maintaining the floating membrane cover and 
closure devices according to the requirements in Sec.  63.942(c), with 
the exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7905(b)(1).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Operating and maintaining the floating membrane cover and 
closure devices according to the requirements in Sec.  63.943(c), with 
the exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7905(b)(2).
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.7910 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7910   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for separators?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Install and operate a floating roof according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1043. For portions of the separator where it 
is infeasible to install and operate a floating roof, such as over a 
weir mechanism, you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Sec.  63.1043(c)(2) does not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.1043(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes 
of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
    (2) Install and operate a fixed roof vented through a closed vent 
system to a control device according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.1044. You must meet the emissions limitations and work practice 
standards in Sec.  63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and 
control device. Sec.  63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of 
this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; 
Sec.  63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for 
any source after January 6, 2021.
    (3) Install and operate a pressurized separator according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1045. Sec.  63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after 
September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.7911 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), 
and (d)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7911   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for separators?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) You will operate the floating roof and closure devices 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1043(c), with the exceptions 
specified in Sec.  63.7910(b)(1).
    (c) * * *
    (2) You will operate the fixed roof and its closure devices 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1042(c). Sec.  63.1042(c)(3) 
does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial date is 
after September 3, 2019; Sec.  63.1042(c)(3) does not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) You will operate the pressurized separator as a closed system 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1045(b)(3), with the 
exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7910(b)(3).

0
16. Section 63.7912 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7912   What are my inspection and monitoring requirements for 
separators?

* * * * *
    (c) If you use a pressurized separator that operates as a closed 
system according to Sec.  63.7910(b)(3), you must visually inspect each 
pressurized separator and closure devices for defects at least annually 
to ensure they are operating according to the design requirements in 
Sec.  63.1045(b), with the exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7910(b)(3).

0
17. Section 63.7913 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7913   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for separators?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and its closure 
devices according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1042, with the 
exceptions specified in Sec.  63.7911(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Operating the pressurized separator at all times according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.1045, with the exceptions specified in 
Sec.  63.7910(b)(3).
* * * * *

0
18. Revise the undesignated center heading for Sec. Sec.  63.7920 
through 63.7922 to read as follows:

Equipment Leaks and Pressure Relief Devices

0
19. Section 63.7920 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (f); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d) and paragraph (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7920   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for equipment leaks?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Control equipment leaks according to all applicable 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT--National Emission 
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1, with the differences 
noted in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for the purposes of this 
subpart; or
* * * * *
    (3)(i) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1006(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 500 parts 
per million or greater.
    (ii) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1007(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 5,000 
parts per million or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers; 
2,000 parts per million or greater for pumps in food/medical service; 
and 1,000 parts per million or greater for all other pumps.
* * * * *
    (d) For the purposes of this subpart, the requirements of Sec.  
63.7920(e) of this subpart apply rather than those of Sec.  63.1030 or 
of Sec.  63.1011, as applicable, for pressure relief devices in gas and 
vapor service. The requirements of Sec.  63.7920(e) of this subpart 
apply rather than those of Sec.  63.1029 or of Sec.  63.1010, as 
applicable, for pressure relief devices in liquid service.
    (e) Operate each pressure relief device under normal operating 
conditions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 
above the background level as detected by the method specified in Sec.  
63.1004(b) or Sec.  63.1023(b), as applicable.
* * * * *

0
20. Section 63.7923 is added before the undesignated center heading 
``Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7923   What monitoring and work practice standards must I meet 
for pressure relief devices?

    (a) For each pressure relief device in remediation material 
service, you must

[[Page 41706]]

comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section following a 
pressure release actuation event, as applicable.
    (1) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, return the pressure relief device to the normal operating 
conditions specified in Sec.  63.7920(e) as soon as practicable and 
conduct instrument monitoring by the method specified in Sec.  
63.1004(b) or Sec.  63.1023(b), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar 
days after the pressure release device returns to remediation material 
service following a pressure release actuation event, except as 
provided in Sec.  63.1024(d) or of Sec.  63.1005(c), as applicable.
    (2) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture 
disk, except as provided in Sec.  63.1024(d) or Sec.  63.1005(c), as 
applicable, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable but no 
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release actuation event.
    (b) Except for the pressure relief devices described in paragraph 
(e) of this section, you must comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for each pressure relief device 
in remediation material service.
    (c) Equip each pressure relief device in remediation material 
service with a device(s) or use a monitoring system sufficient to 
indicate a pressure release to the atmosphere. The device or monitoring 
system may be either specific to the pressure release device itself or 
may be associated with the process system or piping. Examples of these 
types of devices or monitoring systems include, but are not limited to, 
a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion detector on the 
pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure monitor, or 
parametric monitoring system. The device(s) or monitoring systems must 
be capable of meeting the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Identifying the pressure release;
    (2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring.
    (d) If any pressure relief device in remediation material service 
releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release 
actuation event, follow the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(6) of this section.
    (1) Calculate the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 
released during each pressure release actuation event. Calculations may 
be based on data from the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in 
combination with process parameter monitoring data and process 
knowledge.
    (2) Determine the total number of pressure release actuation events 
that occurred during the calendar year for each pressure relief device.
    (3) Determine the total number of pressure release actuation events 
for each pressure relief device for which the analysis conducted as 
required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section concluded that the 
pressure release was due to a force majeure event, as defined in Sec.  
63.7957.
    (4) Complete an analysis to determine the source, nature and cause 
of each pressure release actuation event as soon as practicable, but no 
later than 45 days after a pressure release actuation event.
    (5) Identify corrective measures to prevent future such pressure 
release actuation events as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 
days after a pressure release actuation event.
    (6) Implement the corrective measure(s) identified as required by 
paragraph (d)(5) of this section within 45 days of the pressure release 
actuation event or as soon thereafter as practicable. For corrective 
measures that cannot be fully implemented within 45 days following the 
pressure release actuation event, you must record the corrective 
measure(s) completed to date, and, for measure(s) not already 
completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed 
commencement and completion dates, no later than 45 days following the 
pressure release actuation event.
    (e) The pressure relief devices listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through 
(6) are not subject to the requirements in paragraph (c) or (d) of this 
section.
    (1) Pressure relief devices designed and operated to route all 
pressure releases through a closed vent system to a drain system 
meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.7915-63.7918, or to a fuel 
gas system, process or control device meeting the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  63.7925 through 63.7928.
    (2) Pressure relief devices in heavy liquid service, as defined in 
Sec.  63.1001 or Sec.  63.1020, as applicable.
    (3) Thermal expansion relief valves.
    (4) Pilot-operated pressure relief devices where the primary 
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control 
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain 
system.
    (5) Balanced bellows pressure relief devices where the primary 
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control 
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain 
system.
    (6) Pressure relief devices on containers, as defined in Sec.  
63.7957.
    (f) Except for the pressure relief devices described in paragraph 
(e) of this section, it is a violation of the requirements of 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for any pressure relief device 
in remediation material service to release directly to the atmosphere 
as a result of a pressure release actuation event(s) described in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Any pressure release actuation event for which the cause of the 
event determined as required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section was 
determined to be operator error or poor maintenance.
    (2) A second pressure release actuation event, not including force 
majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-
year period for the same cause for the same equipment.
    (3) A third pressure release actuation event, not including force 
majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-
year period for any reason.

0
21. Section 63.7925 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7925   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for closed vent systems and control devices?

* * * * *
    (b) You must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply, if your initial 
startup date is after September 3, 2019. If your initial startup date 
was on or before September 3, 2019, you must comply with paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section until January 7, 2021, and after that 
date, you must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply.
    (1) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the 
closed-vent system to the control device, the control device must be 
operating except at those times listed in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of 
performing planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or 
control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be 
performed during periods that the emission point vented to the control 
device is shutdown. On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-
vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine 
maintenance must not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
    (ii) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of 
correcting a malfunction of the closed-vent system or control device. 
You must perform the

[[Page 41707]]

adjustments or repairs necessary to correct the malfunction as soon as 
practicable after the malfunction is detected.
    (2) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the 
closed-vent system to the control device, the control device must be 
operating, except that the control device on a tank may be bypassed for 
the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the control 
device. When the tank control device is bypassed, the owner or operator 
must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned 
routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank 
emissions are vented to the control device.
    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system 
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance must not 
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
    (iii) The level of material in the tank must not be increased 
during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is 
bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
* * * * *

0
22. Section 63.7935 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c), (e), and (f);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g)(4) and (5); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7935   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, you 
must be in compliance with the emissions limitations (including 
operating limits) and the work practice standards in this subpart at 
all times, except, until January 6, 2021, during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction. If your initial startup was after September 
3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources, after January 
6, 2021, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations 
(including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this 
subpart at all times.
    (b) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, 
then until January 6, 2021, you must operate and maintain your affected 
source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). If your initial 
startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for 
all sources after January 6, 2021, at all times, you must operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you 
to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 
the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a 
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance 
requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (c) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 
2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3), and a SSMP is not required after January 6, 2021. No 
SSMP is required for any source for which the initial startup date is 
after September 3, 2019.
* * * * *
    (e) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emissions limitation and each operating limit that applies to you. You 
must also report each instance in which you did not meet the 
requirements for work practice standards that apply to you. These 
instances are deviations from the emissions limitations and work 
practice standards in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7951.
    (f) If your initial start date was on or before September 3, 2019, 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), then until January 
6, 2021, deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). We will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). If your initial startup 
was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all 
sources after January 6, 2021, you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations in this subpart at all times (unless a longer 
timeframe for compliance is expressly provided in this subpart), and we 
will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7935(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) Continuous monitoring system (CMS) operation and maintenance 
requirements in accordance with Sec.  63.7945.
    (5) CMS data collection in accordance with Sec.  63.7946.
    (h) * * *
    (1) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, 
then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing operation and 
maintenance (O&M) procedures in accordance with the general 
requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8). If your 
initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, 
and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing O&M 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8).
    (2) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, 
then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing data quality 
assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of 
Sec.  63.8(d). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, 
then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, 
you must address ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 
accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d) except for 
the requirements related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans 
referenced in Sec.  63.8(d)(3). 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).
    (3) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, 
then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing recordkeeping and 
reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of 
Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). If your initial startup was 
after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources 
after January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing recordkeeping and 
reporting

[[Page 41708]]

procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.10(c)(1) through (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *

0
23. Section 63.7941 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7941   How do I conduct a performance test, design evaluation, 
or other type of initial compliance demonstration?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 
2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must conduct each performance 
test under representative conditions according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(1). If your initial startup date is after September 3, 
2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 
2021, you must conduct each performance test under conditions 
representative of normal operations. You may not conduct performance 
tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The owner or 
operator must record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (4) Follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of 
this section to determine compliance with the facility-wide total 
organic mass emissions rate in Sec.  63.7890(b).
* * * * *

0
24. Section 63.7942 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7942   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    For non-flare control devices, you must conduct performance tests 
at any time the EPA requires you to according to Sec.  63.7(a)(3).

0
25. Section 63.7943 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7943   How do I determine the average VOHAP concentration of 
my remediation material?

* * * * *
    (d) In the event that you and we disagree on a determination using 
knowledge of the average total VOHAP concentration for a remediation 
material, then the results from a determination of VOHAP concentration 
using direct measurement by EPA Method 305 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used to 
determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. 
We may perform or require that you perform this determination using 
direct measurement.

0
26. Section 63.7944 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), immediately before the end semicolon, by 
adding ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), by removing the words ``Method 2879-83'' 
and adding in their place ``D2879-83 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14)''; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  63.7944   How do I determine the maximum HAP vapor pressure of my 
remediation material?

* * * * *
    (d) In the event that you and us disagree on a determination using 
knowledge of the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation 
material, then the results from a determination of maximum HAP vapor 
pressure using direct measurement by EPA Method 25E in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used 
to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this 
subpart. We may perform or require that you perform this determination 
using direct measurement.

0
27. Section 63.7945 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.7945   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (d) Failure to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(4) of this section is a deviation and must be reported according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.7951(b)(7).

0
28. Section 63.7951 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(6) and (7);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(7) introductory text, (b)(7)(ii), 
(b)(8) introductory text, and (b)(8)(i), (iv), and (vi),
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (11);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (h).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7951   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) * * *
    (6) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service 
subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.7923, submit a description of 
the device or monitoring system to be implemented, including the 
pressure relief devices and process parameters to be monitored, and a 
description of the alarms or other methods by which operators will be 
notified of a pressure release. If your initial startup date was on or 
before September 3, 2019, then this information must be submitted with 
the next semi-annual periodic compliance report. If your initial 
startup date is after September 3, 2019, this information must be 
submitted in the first periodic compliance report. The information must 
be updated in subsequent reports if changes are made.
    (7) Semi-annual compliance reports must be submitted according to 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (4) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 
2019, then until January 6, 2021, if you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent 
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in 
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). If your initial startup date is after September 
3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 
2021, an SSMP and the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) is not 
required.
* * * * *
    (7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an 
operating limit) that occurs at an affected source for which you are 
not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS) to 
comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard required 
in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, 
include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the 
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and 
the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal 
or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an 
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected 
source

[[Page 41709]]

where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or 
CEMS) to comply with the emissions limitations or work practice 
standard in this subpart, you must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this 
section.
    (i) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, 
include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the 
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and 
the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal 
or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (iv) For each deviation caused when the daily average value of a 
monitored operating parameter is less than the minimum operating 
parameter limit (or, if applicable, greater than the maximum operating 
parameter limit), the report must include the daily average values of 
the monitored parameter, the applicable operating parameter limit, and 
the date and duration of the period that the deviation occurred. For 
each deviation caused by lack of monitoring data, the report must 
include the date and duration of period when the monitoring data were 
not collected and the reason why the data were not collected.
* * * * *
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (10) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service, 
compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service 
subject to Sec.  63.7920(e), report the number of occurrences of an 
instrument reading of 500 ppm above the background level or greater, if 
detected more than 5 days after a pressure release.
    (ii) For pressure relief devices in remediation service subject to 
Sec.  63.7923(c), report confirmation, yes or no, that the monitoring 
required to show compliance was conducted during the reporting period.
    (iii) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service 
subject to Sec.  63.7923(d), report each pressure release to the 
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release actuation 
event.
    (B) An estimate of the mass quantity of total HAP listed in Table 1 
of this subpart emitted during the pressure release actuation event and 
the method used for determining this quantity.
    (C) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release actuation 
event.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release actuation 
event.
    (E) The measures implemented during the reporting period to prevent 
future such pressure release actuation events, and, if applicable, the 
implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be 
implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
    (11) Pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation information. 
Compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraph 
(b)(11)(iv) of this section when any of the conditions in paragraphs 
(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section are met.
    (i) Any pressure tank closure device, as specified in specified in 
Sec.  63.7895(d)(4), has released to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Any closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could 
divert a vent a stream away from the control device and into the 
atmosphere, as specified in Sec.  63.7927(a)(2), has released directly 
to the atmosphere.
    (iii) Any open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system 
which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process 
upset, as specified in Sec.  63.1014(c) or Sec.  63.1033(c), has 
released directly to the atmosphere.
    (iv) The compliance report must include the information specified 
in paragraphs (b)(11)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (A) The source, nature and cause of the release.
    (B) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP listed in Table 1 of 
this subpart emitted during the release and the method used for 
determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such releases.
    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If your 
initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 
6, 2021, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
semiannual reporting period that was not consistent with your SSMP, you 
must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction report 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii). If your initial 
startup date is after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and 
for all sources after January 6, 2021, an immediate startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction report is not required.
* * * * *
    (e) Performance Test and CMS Performance Evaluation Reports. Within 
60 days after the date of completing each performance test or 
continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined 
in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, the owner or operator must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation 
according to the manner specified by either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Data collected 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 the performance evaluation of CMS measuring 
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants 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. 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 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 the performance evaluation of 
CMS measuring RATA pollutants by methods that are not supported by the 
ERT 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. The results of the performance test or the performance 
evaluation of CMS measuring RATA pollutants by methods that are not 
supported by the ERT, 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.
    (f) Submitting reports electronically. If you are required to 
submit reports following the procedure specified in

[[Page 41710]]

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 confidential 
business information (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.
    (g) Claims of EPA system outage. 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 (g)(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 occurred 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.
    (h) Claims of force majeure. 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 (h)(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
29. Section 63.7952 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (a)(9) and 
(10);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3) and paragraphs (a)(4) through (8) and 
(e).
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7952   What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) If your initial startup date is on or before September 3, 2019, 
you must continue to keep any records specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (3) If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of 
July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, for each 
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit) 
or work practice standard occurring at an affected source, you must 
record information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, 
include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the 
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and 
the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal 
or usual manner of operation.
    (4) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service, 
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) 
through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
that are not subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.7923(c) and (d) 
under the provisions of Sec.  63.7923(e).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.7923(a), (c), and (d) that do 
not consist of or include a rupture disk.
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.7923(a), (c), and (d) equipped 
with rupture disks.
    (5) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service 
subject to Sec.  63.7923(d), keep records of each pressure release 
event to the atmosphere as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 
(viii) of this section.
    (i)The date, time, and duration of the pressure release event.

[[Page 41711]]

    (ii) The dates and results of the EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release event, if 
applicable. The results of each monitoring event shall include the 
measured background level and the maximum instrument reading measured 
at each pressure relief device.
    (iii) The dates replacement rupture disks were installed following 
a pressure release event, if applicable.
    (iv) An estimate of the mass quantity of total HAP listed in Table 
1 of this subpart emitted during the pressure release event and the 
method used for determining this quantity.
    (v) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release event, 
including an identification of the affected pressure relief device(s) 
and a statement noting whether the event resulted from the same 
cause(s) identified following a previous pressure release event.
    (vi) The corrective measures identified to prevent future such 
pressure release events, or an explanation of why corrective measures 
are not necessary.
    (vii) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release event.
    (viii) Records of the corrective measures implemented, including a 
description of the corrective measure(s) completed within the first 45 
days following a pressure release event, and, if applicable, the 
implementation schedule for planned corrective measures to be 
implemented subsequent to the first 45 days following the pressure 
release event, including proposed commencement and completion dates. 
(6) Records of the number of pressure release events during each 
calendar year and the number of those events for which the cause was 
determined to be a force majeure event. Keep these records for the 
current calendar year and the past 5 calendar years.
    (7)(i) For pressure tank closure devices, as specified in Sec.  
63.7895(d)(4), keep records of each release to the atmosphere, 
including the information specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(iii)(A) 
through (G) of this section.
    (ii) For each closed vent system that includes bypass devices that 
could divert a stream away from the control device and into the 
atmosphere, as specified in Sec.  63.7927(a)(2), and each open-ended 
valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open 
automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in Sec.  
63.1014(c) or Sec.  63.1033(c), keep records of each release to the 
atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs 
(a)(7)(iii)(A) though (G) of this section.
    (iii)(A) The source, nature, and cause of the release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the release.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this 
subpart emitted during the release and the calculations used for 
determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such release.
    (F) Hourly records of whether the bypass flow indicator specified 
under Sec.  63.7927(a)(2)(i) was operating and whether a diversion was 
detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times 
of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device 
or the flow indicator is not operating.
    (G) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec.  
63.7927(a)(2)(ii), hourly records of flow are not required. In such 
cases, you must record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals 
or closure mechanism has been done and record the duration of all 
periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve 
position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been 
checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken.
    (8) A record of the fluid level at the beginning and end of each 
maintenance period during which the tank is subject to Sec.  
63.7925(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (e) 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.
    30. Section 63.7956 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read 
as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
31. Section 63.7957 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Bypass'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Deviation'';
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Force majeure'', 
``Pressure release actuation event'', and ``Pressure relief device or 
valve'';
0
d. Revising the definition of ``Process vent''; and
0
e. Removing the definition of ``Safety device''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7957   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream 
to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission 
control device.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation 
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation, (including any 
operating limit), or work practice standard in this subpart regardless 
of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
    Force majeure event means a release of HAP directly to the 
atmosphere from a pressure relief device that is demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an event beyond the 
owner or operator's control, such as natural disasters; acts of war or 
terrorism; loss of a utility external to the Site Remediation unit 
(e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power curtailment due to 
an interruptible service agreement; and fire or explosion originating 
at a near or adjoining facility outside of the Site Remediation 
affected source that impacts the Site Remediation affected source's 
ability to operate.
* * * * *
    Pressure release actuation event means the emission of materials 
resulting from the system pressure being greater than the set pressure 
of the pressure relief device. This release can be one release or a 
series of releases over a short time period.
    Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to 
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable 
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief 
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are

[[Page 41712]]

actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per 
square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
    Process vent means any open-ended pipe, stack, duct, or other 
opening intended to allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the 
atmosphere and this passage is caused by mechanical means (such as 
compressors, vacuum-producing systems or fans) or by process-related 
means (such as volatilization produced by heating). For the purposes of 
this subpart, a process vent is neither a pressure relief device (as 
defined in this section) nor a stack, duct or other opening used to 
exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, heater, 
incinerator, or other combustion device.
* * * * *

0
32. Table 3 to subpart GGGGG of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart GGGGG

    As stated in Sec.  63.7940, you must comply with the applicable 
General Provisions requirements according to the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to subpart
             Citation                       Subject               Brief description                GGGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  Applicability..........  Initial Applicability        Yes.
                                                              Determination;
                                                              Applicability After
                                                              Standard Established;
                                                              Permit Requirements;
                                                              Extensions, Notifications.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions............  Definitions for part 63      Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and Abbreviations  Units and abbreviations for  Yes.
                                                              part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited Activities..  Prohibited Activities;       Yes.
                                                              Compliance date;
                                                              Circumvention,
                                                              Severability.
Sec.   63.5.......................  Construction/            Applicability;               Yes.
                                     Reconstruction.          applications; approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Applicability..........  General Provisions (GP)      Yes.
                                                              apply unless compliance
                                                              extension GP apply to area
                                                              sources that become major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4).............  Compliance Dates for     Standards apply at           Yes.
                                     New and Reconstructed    effective date; 3 years
                                     sources.                 after effective date; upon
                                                              startup; 10 years after
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction commences
                                                              for 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).................  Notification...........  Must notify if commenced     Yes.
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction after
                                                              proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).................  [Reserved].............  ...........................  ......................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that become     Yes.
                                     New and Reconstructed    major must comply with
                                     Area Sources That        major source standards
                                     Become Major.            immediately upon becoming
                                                              major, regardless of
                                                              whether required to comply
                                                              when they were an area
                                                              source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).............  Compliance Dates for     Comply according to date in  Yes.
                                     Existing Sources.        subpart, which must be no
                                                              later than 3 years after
                                                              effective date. For 112(f)
                                                              standards, comply within
                                                              90 days of effective date
                                                              unless compliance
                                                              extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).............  [Reserved].............  ...........................  ......................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that become     Yes.
                                     Existing Area Sources    major must comply with
                                     That Become Major.       major source standards by
                                                              date indicated in subpart
                                                              or by equivalent time
                                                              period (for example, 3
                                                              years).
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  [Reserved].............  ...........................  ......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2).............  Operation & Maintenance  ...........................  No, see Sec.
                                                                                           63.7935(b).
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  Startup, Shutdown, and   ...........................  No, see Sec.
                                     Malfunction Plan                                      63.7935(c).
                                     (SSMP).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  Compliance Except        ...........................  No, see Sec.
                                     During SSM.                                           63.7935(b).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).............  Methods for Determining  Compliance based on          Yes.
                                     Compliance.              performance test,
                                                              operation and maintenance
                                                              plans, records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3).............  Alternative Standard...  Procedures for getting an    Yes.
                                                              alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  Opacity/Visible          Requirements for opacity     No. No opacity
                                     Emissions (VE)           and visible emissions        standards.
                                     Standards.               limits.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)............  Compliance Extension...  Procedures and criteria for  Yes.
                                                              Administrator to grant
                                                              compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Presidential Compliance  President may exempt source  Yes.
                                     Exemption.               category from requirement
                                                              to comply with final rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).............  Performance Test Dates.  Dates for Conducting         Yes.
                                                              Initial Performance
                                                              Testing and Other
                                                              Compliance Demonstrations.
                                                              Must conduct 180 days
                                                              after first subject to
                                                              final rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).................  CAA Section 114          Administrator may require a  Yes.
                                     Authority.               performance test under CAA
                                                              section 114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).................  Notification of          Must notify Administrator    Yes.
                                     Performance Test.        60 days before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).................  Notification of          If rescheduling a            Yes.
                                     Rescheduling.            performance test is
                                                              necessary, must notify
                                                              Administrator 5 days
                                                              before scheduled date of
                                                              rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c)....................  Quality Assurance/Test   Requirement to submit site-  Yes.
                                     Plan.                    specific test plan 60 days
                                                              before the test or on date
                                                              Administrator agrees with:
                                                              Test plan approval
                                                              procedures; performance
                                                              audit requirements;
                                                              internal and external QA
                                                              procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d)....................  Testing Facilities.....  Requirements for testing     Yes.
                                                              facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  Conditions for           Performance tests must be    No, see Sec.
                                     Conducting Performance   conducted under              63.7941(b)(2).
                                     Tests.                   representative conditions.
                                                              Cannot conduct performance
                                                              tests during SSM. Not a
                                                              violation to exceed
                                                              standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).................  Conditions for           Must conduct according to    Yes.
                                     Conducting Performance   rule and EPA test methods
                                     Tests.                   unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).................  Test Run Duration......  Must have three test runs    Yes.
                                                              of at least one hour each.
                                                              Compliance is based on
                                                              arithmetic mean of three
                                                              runs. Conditions when data
                                                              from an additional test
                                                              run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Alternative Test Method  Procedures by which          Yes.
                                                              Administrator can grant
                                                              approval to use an
                                                              alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)....................  Performance Test Data    Must include raw data in     Yes.
                                     Analysis.                performance test report.
                                                              Must submit performance
                                                              test data 60 days after
                                                              end of test with the
                                                              Notification of Compliance
                                                              Status. Keep data for 5
                                                              years.
Sec.   63.7(h)....................  Waiver of Tests........  Procedures for               Yes.
                                                              Administrator to waive
                                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).................  Applicability of         Subject to all monitoring    Yes.
                                     Monitoring               requirements in standard.
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).................  Performance              Performance Specifications   Yes.
                                     Specifications.          in appendix B of part 60
                                                              apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved].............  ...........................  ......................

[[Page 41713]]

 
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Monitoring with Flares.  Unless your rule says        Yes.
                                                              otherwise, the
                                                              requirements for flares in
                                                              63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).................  Monitoring.............  Must conduct monitoring      Yes.
                                                              according to standard
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3).............  Multiple Effluents and   Specific requirements for    Yes.
                                     Multiple Monitoring      installing monitoring
                                     Systems.                 systems. Must install on
                                                              each effluent before it is
                                                              combined and before it is
                                                              released to the atmosphere
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves otherwise. If
                                                              more than one monitoring
                                                              system on an emissions
                                                              point, must report all
                                                              monitoring system results,
                                                              unless one monitoring
                                                              system is a backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).................  Monitoring System        Maintain monitoring system   Yes.
                                     Operation and            in a manner consistent
                                     Maintenance.             with good air pollution
                                                              control practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  Monitoring System        Operate and maintain system  No, see Sec.
                                     Operation.               as specified in Sec.         63.7935(b).
                                                              63.6(e)(1).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  Monitoring System        Keep part for routine        Yes.
                                     Repair.                  repairs available.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  Monitoring System SSM    Develop an SSM Plan for the  No, see Sec.
                                     Plan.                    monitoring system.           63.7935(h)(1).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).............  Monitoring System        Must install to get          Yes.
                                     Installation.            representative emissions
                                                              and parameter
                                                              measurements. Must verify
                                                              operational status before
                                                              or at performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous Monitoring    CMS must be operating        No.
                                     System (CMS)             except during breakdown,
                                     Requirements.            out-of-control, repair,
                                                              maintenance, and high-
                                                              level calibration drifts.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii).........  Continuous Monitoring    COMS must have a minimum of  Yes. However, COMS are
                                     System (CMS)             one cycle of sampling and    not applicable.
                                     Requirements.            analysis for each            Requirements for CPMS
                                                              successive 10-second         are listed in Sec.
                                                              period and one cycle of      Sec.   63.7900 and
                                                              data recording for each      63.7913.
                                                              successive 6-minute
                                                              period. CEMS must have a
                                                              minimum of one cycle of
                                                              operation for each
                                                              successive 15-minute
                                                              period.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  COMS Minimum Procedures  COMS minimum procedures....  No.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).................  CMS Requirements.......  Zero and High level          Yes.
                                                              calibration check           However requirements
                                                              requirements.                for CPMS are
                                                                                           addressed in Sec.
                                                                                           63.7927.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).............  CMS Requirements.......  Out-of-control periods,      Yes.
                                                              including reporting.
Sec.   63.8(d)....................  CMS Quality Control....  Requirements for CMS         Yes.
                                                              quality control, including
                                                              calibration, etc. Must
                                                              keep quality control plan
                                                              on record for 5 years.
                                                              Keep old versions for 5
                                                              years after revisions.
Sec.   63.8(e)....................  CMS Performance          Notification, performance    Yes.
                                     Evaluation.              evaluation test plan,
                                                              reports.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5).............  Alternative Monitoring   Procedures for               Yes.
                                     Method.                  Administrator to approve
                                                              alternative monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to Relative  Procedures for               No.
                                     Accuracy Test.           Administrator to approve
                                                              alternative relative
                                                              accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4).............  Data Reduction.........  COMS 6-minute averages       Yes. However, COMS are
                                                              calculated over at least     not applicable.
                                                              36 evenly spaced data        Requirements for CPMS
                                                              points. CEMS 1-hour          are addressed in Sec.
                                                              averages computed over at     Sec.   63.7900 and
                                                              least four equally spaced    63.7913.
                                                              data points.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).................  Data Reduction.........  Data that cannot be used in  No.
                                                              computing averages for
                                                              CEMS and COMS.
Sec.   63.9(a)....................  Notification             Applicability and State      Yes.
                                     Requirements.            Delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5).............  Initial Notifications..  Submit notification 120      Yes.
                                                              days after effective date.
                                                              Notification of intent to
                                                              construct/reconstruct;
                                                              Notification of
                                                              commencement of construct/
                                                              reconstruct; Notification
                                                              of startup. Contents of
                                                              each.
Sec.   63.9(c)....................  Request for Compliance   Can request if cannot        Yes.
                                     Extension.               comply by date or if
                                                              installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  Notification of Special  For sources that commence    Yes.
                                     Compliance               construction between
                                     Requirements for New     proposal and promulgation
                                     Source.                  and want to comply 3 years
                                                              after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Notification of          Notify Administrator 60      Yes.
                                     Performance Test.        days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  Notification of VE/      Notify Administrator 30      No.
                                     Opacity Test.            days prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)....................  Additional               Notification of performance  Yes. However, there
                                     Notifications When       evaluation. Notification     are no opacity
                                     Using CMS.               using COMS data.             standards.
                                                              Notification that exceeded
                                                              criterion for relative
                                                              accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6).............  Notification of          Contents. Due 60 days after  Yes.
                                     Compliance Status.       end of performance test or
                                                              other initial compliance
                                                              demonstration, except for
                                                              opacity/VE, which are due
                                                              30 days after. When to
                                                              submit to Federal vs.
                                                              State authority.
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of Submittal  Procedures for               Yes.
                                     Deadlines.               Administrator to approve
                                                              change in when
                                                              notifications must be
                                                              submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Change in Previous       Must submit within 15 days   Yes.
                                     Information.             after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Applies to all, unless       Yes.
                                                              compliance extension. When
                                                              to submit to Federal vs.
                                                              State authority.
                                                              Procedures for owners of
                                                              more than 1 source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  General Requirements. Keep   Yes.
                                                              all records readily
                                                              available. Keep for 5
                                                              years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii)....  Records related to SSM.  Exceedance of emission       No, for new sources
                                                              limit during startup,        for which initial
                                                              shutdown or malfunction.     startup is after
                                                                                           September 3, 2019.
                                                                                           Yes, for all other
                                                                                           affected sources
                                                                                           before January 7,
                                                                                           2021, and No
                                                                                           thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)...........  Maintenance Records....  Maintenance on air           Yes.
                                                              pollution control
                                                              equipment..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)....  Records related to SSM.  Actions during SSM.........  No, for new sources
                                                                                           for which initial
                                                                                           startup is after
                                                                                           September 3, 2019.
                                                                                           Yes, for all other
                                                                                           affected sources
                                                                                           before January 7,
                                                                                           2021, and No
                                                                                           thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x-xi).  CMS Records............  Malfunctions, inoperative,   Yes.
                                                              out-of-control.
                                                              Calibration checks.
                                                              Adjustments, maintenance.

[[Page 41714]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)......  Records................  Measurements to demonstrate  Yes.
                                                              compliance with emissions
                                                              limitations. Performance
                                                              test, performance
                                                              evaluation, and visible
                                                              emissions observation
                                                              results. Measurements to
                                                              determine conditions of
                                                              performance tests and
                                                              performance evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)...........  Records................  Records when under waiver..  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  Records................  Records when using           No.
                                                              alternative to relative
                                                              accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...........  Records................  All documentation            Yes.
                                                              supporting Initial
                                                              Notification and
                                                              Notification of Compliance
                                                              Status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)................  Records................  Applicability                Yes.
                                                              Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)...................  Records................  Additional Records for CMS.  No.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)................  General Reporting        Requirement to report......  Yes.
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)................  Report of Performance    When to submit to Federal    Yes.
                                     Test Results.            or State authority.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting Opacity or VE  What to report and when....  No.
                                     Observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)................  Progress Reports.......  Must submit progress         Yes.
                                                              reports on schedule if
                                                              under compliance extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission....  No, see Sec.
                                     Malfunction Reports.                                  63.7951(b)(4).
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)............  Additional CMS Reports.  Must report results for      Yes. However, COMS are
                                                              each CEM on a unit Written   not applicable.
                                                              copy of performance
                                                              evaluation Three copies of
                                                              COMS performance
                                                              evaluation.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)................  Reports................  Excess Emissions Reports...  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i-iii).........  Reports................  Schedule for reporting       No.
                                                              excess emissions and
                                                              parameter monitor
                                                              exceedance (now defined as
                                                              deviations).
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv-v)..........  Excess Emissions         Requirement to revert to     No.
                                     Reports.                 quarterly submission if
                                                              there is an excess
                                                              emissions and parameter
                                                              monitor exceedance (now
                                                              defined as deviations).
                                                              Provision to request
                                                              semiannual reporting after
                                                              compliance for one year.
                                                              Submit report by 30th day
                                                              following end of quarter
                                                              or calendar half. If there
                                                              has not been an exceedance
                                                              or excess emissions (now
                                                              defined as deviations),
                                                              report contents is a
                                                              statement that there have
                                                              been no deviations.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv-v)..........  Excess Emissions         Must submit report           No.
                                     Reports.                 containing all of the
                                                              information in Sec.  Sec.
                                                               63.10(c)(5-13) and
                                                              63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii).......  Excess Emissions Report  Requirements for reporting   No.
                                     and Summary Report.      excess emissions for CMSs
                                                              (now called deviations).
                                                              Requires all of the
                                                              information in Sec.  Sec.
                                                               63.10(c)(5-13) and
                                                              63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)................  Reporting COMS data....  Must submit COMS data with   No.
                                                              performance test data.
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Waiver for               Procedures for               Yes.
                                     Recordkeeping/           Administrator to waive.
                                     Reporting.
Sec.   63.11......................  Control and work         Requirements for flares and  Yes.
                                     practice requirements.   alternative work practice
                                                              for equipment leaks.
Sec.   63.12......................  Delegation.............  State authority to enforce   Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.13......................  Addresses..............  Addresses where reports,     Yes, only applicable
                                                              notifications, and           to those reports not
                                                              requests are sent.           required to be
                                                                                           submitted
                                                                                           electronically.
Sec.   63.14......................  Incorporation by         Test methods incorporated    Yes.
                                     Reference.               by reference.
Sec.   63.15......................  Availability of          Public and confidential      Yes.
                                     Information.             information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-05896 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P