[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60696-60728]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25080]

Vol. 83

Monday,

No. 227

November 26, 2018

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and New Source
Performance Standards: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendments; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682; FRL-9986-68-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT50

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and New
Source Performance Standards: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the petroleum refinery
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
(referred to as Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2) and to the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries to clarify
the requirements of these rules and to make technical corrections and
minor revisions to requirements for work practice standards,
recordkeeping, and reporting which were proposed in the Federal
Register on April 10, 2018. This action also finalizes amendments to
the compliance date of the requirements for existing maintenance vents
from August 1, 2017, to December 26, 2018, which were proposed in the
Federal Register on July 10, 2018.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 26, 2018. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 24,
2008.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here.

AFPM American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
API American Petroleum Institute
AWP Alternative Work Practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CDX Central Data Exchange
CRA Congressional Review Act
CRU catalytic reforming unit
DCU delayed coking unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCCU fluid catalytic cracking unit
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
lbs pounds
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MPV miscellaneous process vent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOCS Notice of Compliance Status
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEL open-ended line
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PM particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psi pounds per square inch
psia pounds per square inch absolute
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RSR Refinery Sector Rule
SMR steam-methane reforming
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Background information. On April 10, 2018, and July 10, 2018, the
EPA proposed revisions to the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP and NSPS,
(April 2018 Proposal and July 2018 Proposal), respectively (83 FR
15458, April 10, 2018; 83 FR 31939, July 10, 2018). After consideration
of the public comments we received on these proposed rules, in this
action, we are finalizing revisions to the NESHAP and NSPS rules. We
summarize the significant comments we received regarding the April 2018
Proposal and the July 2018 Proposal and provide our responses in this
preamble. In addition, a Response to Comments document, which is in the
docket for this rulemaking, summarizes and responds to additional
comments which were received regarding the April 2018 Proposal. A
``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates
the changes in this action is also available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to Refinery MACT 1
    B. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to Refinery MACT 2
    C. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to NSPS Ja
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
V. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
                 NESHAP and source category                      code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC Petroleum Refineries.............     324110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by January 25, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA 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

    On December 1, 2015, the EPA finalized amendments to the Petroleum
Refinery NESHAP in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63,
subparts CC and UUU, referred to as Refinery MACT 1 and 2,
respectively, and the NSPS for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 60,
subparts J and Ja (80 FR 75178) (December 2015 Rule). The final
amendments to Refinery MACT 1 include a number of new requirements for
``maintenance vents,'' pressure relief devices (PRDs), delayed coking
units (DCUs), and flares, and also establishes a fenceline monitoring
requirement.
    The December 2015 Rule included revisions to the continuous
compliance alternatives for catalytic cracking units and provisions
specific to startup and shutdown of catalytic cracking units and sulfur
recovery plants. The December 2015 Rule also finalized technical
corrections and clarifications to Refinery NSPS subparts J and Ja to
address issues raised by the American Petroleum Institute (API) in
their 2008 and 2012 petitions for reconsideration of the final NSPS Ja
rule that had not been previously addressed. These include corrections
and clarifications to provisions for sulfur recovery plants,
performance testing, and control device operating parameters.
    In the process of implementing these new requirements, numerous
questions and issues have been identified and we proposed
clarifications and technical amendments to address these questions and
issues on April 10, 2018 (April 2018 Proposal) (83 FR 15458; April 10,
2018). These issues were raised in petitions for reconsideration and in
separately issued letters from industry and in meetings with industry
groups.
    The EPA received three separate petitions for reconsideration. Two
petitions were jointly filed by API and American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM). The first of these petitions was filed on January
19, 2016 and requested an administrative reconsideration under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA of certain provisions of Refinery MACT 1 and 2,
as promulgated in the December 2015 Rule. Specifically, API and AFPM
requested that the EPA reconsider the maintenance vent provisions in
Refinery MACT 1; the alternate startup, shutdown, or hot standby
standards for fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs) in Refinery MACT
2; the alternate startup and shutdown for sulfur recovery units in
Refinery MACT 2; and the new catalytic reforming units (CRUs) purging
limitations in Refinery MACT 2. The request pertained to providing and/
or clarifying the compliance time for these requirements. Based on this
request and additional information received, the EPA issued a proposal
on February 9, 2016 (81 FR 6814), and a final rule on July 13, 2016 (81
FR 45232), fully responding to the January 19, 2016, petition for
reconsideration. The second petition from API and AFPM was filed on
February 1, 2016 and outlined a number of specific issues related to
the work practice standards for PRDs and flares, and the alternative
water overflow provisions for DCUs, as well as a number of other
specific issues on other aspects of the rule. The third petition was
filed on February 1, 2016, by Earthjustice on behalf of Air Alliance
Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council,
the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Community In-Power and
Development Association, the Del Amo Action Committee, the
Environmental Integrity Project, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the
Sierra Club, the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. The Earthjustice petition
claimed that several aspects of the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 were

not addressed in the proposed rule, and, thus, the public was precluded
from commenting on them during the public comment period, including:
(1) Work practice standards for PRDs and flares; (2) alternative water
overflow provisions for DCUs; (3) reduced monitoring provisions for
fenceline monitoring; and (4) adjustments to the risk assessment to
account for these changes from what was proposed. On June 16, 2016, the
EPA sent letters to petitioners granting reconsideration on issues
where petitioners claimed they had not been provided an opportunity to
comment. These petitions and letters granting reconsideration are
available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket ID Nos. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0860, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0891 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682-0892).
    On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661), the EPA proposed for public
comment the issues for which reconsideration was granted in the June
16, 2016, letters. The EPA identified five issues for which it was
seeking public comment: (1) The work practice standards for PRDs; (2)
the work practice standards for emergency flaring events; (3) the
assessment of risk as modified based on implementation of these PRD and
emergency flaring work practice standards; (4) the alternative work
practice (AWP) standards for DCUs employing the water overflow design;
and (5) the provision allowing refineries to reduce the frequency of
fenceline monitoring at sampling locations that consistently record
benzene concentrations below 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter. In that
notice, the EPA also proposed two minor clarifying amendments to
correct a cross referencing error and to clarify that facilities
complying with overlapping equipment leak provisions must still comply
with the PRD work practice standards in the December 2015 Rule.
    The February 1, 2016, API and AFPM petition for reconsideration
included a number of recommendations for technical amendments and
clarifications that were not specifically addressed in the October 18,
2016, proposal.\1\ In addition, API and AFPM asked for clarification on
various requirements of the final amendments in a July 12, 2016,
letter.\2\ The EPA addressed many of the clarification requests from
the July 2016 letter and the petition for reconsideration in a letter
issued on April 7, 2017.\3\ API and AFPM also raised additional issues
associated with the implementation of the final rule amendments in a
March 28, 2017, letter to the EPA \4\ and provided a list of
typographical errors in the rule in a January 27, 2017, meeting \5\
with the EPA. On January 10, 2018, AFPM submitted a letter containing a
comparison of the electronic CFR, the Federal Register documents, and
the redline versions of the December 2015 Rule and October 2016
amendments to the Refinery Sector Rule noting differences and providing
suggestions as to how these discrepancies should be resolved.\6\ These
items are located in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0682. On April 10,
2018 (83 FR 15848), the EPA published proposed additional revisions to
the December 2015 Rule addressing many of the issues and clarifications
identified by API and AFPM in their February 2016 petition for
reconsideration and their subsequent communications with the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Supplemental Request for Administrative Reconsideration of
Targeted Elements of EPA's Final Rule ``Petroleum Refinery Sector
Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards;
Final Rule,'' Howard Feldman, API, and David Friedman, AFPM.
February 1, 2016. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892.
    \2\ Letter from Matt Todd, API, and David Friedman, AFPM, to
Penny Lassiter, EPA. July 12, 2016. Available in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
    \3\ Letter from Peter Tsirigotis, EPA, to Matt Todd, API, and
David Friedman, AFPM. April 7, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationarysources-air-pollution/december-2015-refinerysector-rule-response-letters-qa.
    \4\ Letter from Matt Todd, API, and David Friedman, AFPM, to
Penny Lassiter, EPA. March 28, 2017. Available in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
    \5\ Meeting minutes for January 27, 2017, EPA meeting with API.
Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
    \6\ David Friedman, ``Comparison of Official CFR and e-CFR
Postings Regarding MACT CC/UUU and NSPS Ja Postings.'' Message to
Penny Lassiter and Brenda Shine. January 10, 2018. Email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule (July 2018
Proposal) to revise the compliance date for maintenance vents located
at sources constructed on or before June 30, 2014, from August 1, 2017,
to January 30, 2019, (83 FR 31939; July 10, 2018). We proposed to
change the compliance date to address challenges petroleum refinery
owners or operators are experiencing in attempting to comply with the
December 2015 Rule maintenance vent requirements, notwithstanding the
additional compliance time provided by our revision of the compliance
date to August 1, 2017, plus an additional 1-year (i.e., August 1,
2018) compliance extension granted by the relevant permitting
authorities for each source pursuant to the requirements set forth in
the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(i). The requirements for
maintenance vents promulgated in the December 2015 Rule resulted in the
need for completing the ``management of change process'' for affected
sources (81 FR 45232, 45237, July 13, 2016). We also recognized that
the Agency had proposed technical revisions and clarifications to the
maintenance vent provisions in the April 2018 Proposal and that an
extension would also allow the EPA to take final action on that
proposal prior to the extended compliance date. Technical revisions and
clarifications are being finalized in today's rule.
    The April 2018 Proposal provided a 45-day comment period ending on
May 25, 2018. The EPA received 16 comments on the proposed amendments
from refiners, equipment manufacturers, trade associations,
environmental groups, and private citizens. The July 2018 Proposal
provided a 30-day comment period ending on August 9, 2018. The EPA
received comments on the proposed revisions from refiners, trade
associations, environmental groups, and private citizens. This preamble
to the final rule provides a discussion of the final revisions,
including changes in response to comments on the proposal, as well as a
summary of the significant comments received and responses.

III. What is included in this final rule?

A. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to Refinery MACT 1

1. Definitions
What is the history of the definitions addressed in the April 2018
Proposal?
    In the April 2018 Proposal, we proposed to amend four definitions:
Flare purge gas, supplemental natural gas, relief valve, and reference
control technology for storage vessel and to define an additional term.
Specific to flare purge gas, we proposed for the term to include gas
needed for other safety reasons. For flare supplemental gas, we
proposed to amend the definition to specifically exclude assist air or
assist steam. For relief valves we narrowed the definition to include
PRDs that are designed to re-close after the pressure relief. As a
complementary amendment, we proposed to add a definition for PRD.
Finally, we proposed to revise the definition of reference control
technology for storage vessels to be consistent with the storage vessel
rule requirements in section 63.660.
What key comments were received on definitions?
    We did not receive public comments on the proposed addition and
revisions of these definitions.

What is the EPA's final decision on the definitions?
    We are finalizing the addition and revisions of these definitions
as proposed.
2. Miscellaneous Process Vent Provisions
    In the April 2018 Proposal, we proposed several amendments to
address petitioners' requests for revisions and clarifications to the
requirements identifying and managing the subset of miscellaneous
process vents (MPV) that result from maintenance activities. In the
July 2018 Proposal, we proposed to change the compliance date of the
requirements for existing maintenance vents. We describe each of these
proposals in the following subparagraphs.
a. Notice of Compliance Status (NOCS) Report
What is the history of the NOCS report for MPV addressed in the April
2018 Proposal?
    In their March 28, 2017, letter (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682-0915), API and AFPM noted that the MPV provisions at section
63.643(c) do not require an owner or operator to designate a
maintenance vent as Group 1 or Group 2 MPV. However, they stated that
the reporting requirements at section 63.655(f)(1)(ii) are unclear as
to whether a NOCS report is needed for some or all maintenance vents.
We did not intend for maintenance vents to be included in the NOCS
report. The rule has separate requirements for characterizing,
recording, and reporting maintenance vents in section 63.655(g)(13) and
(h)(12); therefore, it is not necessary to identify each place where
equipment may be opened for maintenance in a NOCS report. To clarify
this, we proposed to add language to section 63.643(c) to explicitly
state that maintenance vents need not be identified in the NOCS report.
What key comments were received on the NOCS report for MPV provisions?
    We did not receive comments on the proposed amendment in section
63.643(c) to explicitly state that maintenance vents need not be
identified in the NOCS report.
What is the EPA's final decision on the NOCS report for MPV provisions?
    We are finalizing the amendment in section 63.643(c) as proposed.
b. Maintenance Vents Associated With Equipment Containing Pyrophoric
Catalysts
What is the history of regulatory text for maintenance vents associated
with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst addressed in the April
2018 Proposal?
    Under 40 CFR 63.643(c) an owner or operator may designate a process
vent as a maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of
startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where
equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service.
Facilities generally must comply with one of three conditions prior to
venting maintenance vents to the atmosphere (section 63.643(c)(1)(i)-
(iii)). However, section 63.643(c)(1)(iv) of the December 2015 Rule
provides flexibility for maintenance vents associated with equipment
containing pyrophoric catalyst (or simply ``pyrophoric units''), such
as hydrotreaters and hydrocrackers, at refineries that do not have pure
hydrogen supply. At many refineries, pure hydrogen is generated by
steam-methane reforming (SMR), with hydrogen concentrations of 98
volume percent or higher. The other source of hydrogen available at
refineries is from the CRU. This catalytic reformer hydrogen may have
hydrogen concentrations of 50 percent or more and may contain
appreciable concentrations of light hydrocarbons which limit the
ability of vents associated with this source of hydrogen to meet the
lower explosive limit (LEL) of 10 percent or less. The December 2015
Rule limits the flexibility to maintenance vents associated with
pyrophoric units at refineries without a pure hydrogen supply. For
pyrophoric units at a refinery without a pure hydrogen supply, the
December 2015 Rule provides that the LEL of the vapor in the equipment
must be less than 20 percent, except for one event per year not to
exceed 35 percent.
    API and AFPM took issue with the regulatory language that drew a
distinction based on whether there is a pure hydrogen supply located at
the refinery. As described in the preamble to the April 2018 Proposal
(83 FR 15462), we reviewed comments from API and AFPM as well as
additional information contained in an August 1, 2017, letter (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0916) which provided evidence that a single
refinery may have many pyrophoric units, some that have a pure hydrogen
supply and some that do not have a pure hydrogen supply. Thus, our
assumption at the time we issued the December 2015 Rule that all
pyrophoric units at a single refinery either would or would not have a
pure hydrogen supply was incorrect. Therefore, we proposed to modify
the portion of the regulatory text that distinguished units based on
whether there was a pure hydrogen supply ``at the refinery'' and
instead base the regulation on whether a pure hydrogen supply was
available for the pyrophoric unit.
What key comments were received on the regulatory text for maintenance
vents associated with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst?
    Comment b.1: One commenter (-0953) stated that the proposed
language is inadequately defined, and allows the refiner to opt in to
the provision providing flexibility by, for example, shutting down the
source of the pure hydrogen supply.
    Response b.1: In most cases, the pyrophoric unit will be supplied
by either pure SMR hydrogen or catalytic reforming hydrogen. As purging
with hydrogen is one of the steps used to de-inventory this equipment,
the refiner cannot shutdown the hydrogen supply prior to de-
inventorying the equipment. If a pyrophoric unit can be supplied with
either SMR and catalytic reformer hydrogen, and the SMR hydrogen is
being used during normal operations of the pyrophoric unit prior to de-
inventorying the unit, we consider it a violation of the good air
pollution control practices requirement in section 63.643(n) to switch
the hydrogen supply only for de-inventorying the equipment. We also
note that the refiner must keep records of the lack of a pure hydrogen
supply as required at section 63.655(i)(12)(v).
    Comment b.2: One commenter stated that the EPA has not provided any
assessment of the potential increase of uncontrolled emissions to the
atmosphere, or an analysis of the increase in health risks or the
environmental impact of the proposed exemption, or an assessment of the
industry-provided cost data.
    Response b.2: The docket for the rulemaking includes the
information upon which we based our decisions, including costs and
environmental impact estimates of the provision providing flexibility
to maintenance vents associated with pyrophoric units without a pure
hydrogen supply. We had reviewed this information and determined that
it was a reasonable estimate of the impacts (see Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682-0733 and -0909). This information supports our statement
in the April 2018

Proposal that this amendment is not projected to appreciably impact
emission reductions associated with the standard. In fact, considering
secondary emissions from the flare or other control system needed to
comply with the 10 percent LEL limit, this provision providing
flexibility to maintenance vents associated with pyrophoric units
without a pure hydrogen supply is expected to result in a net
environmental benefit.
    Comment b.3: One commenter stated that the exemption does not
comport with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3), which
requires the standards to be no less stringent than the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) floor. The commenter points to the
voluntary survey of hydrogen production units as submitted by API and
notes that 12 of 62 units not connected to a pure hydrogen supply
reported being able to comply with the 10 percent LEL standard. As
such, the commenter contends that the MACT floor should be 10 percent
LEL for equipment containing pyrophoric catalysts regardless of whether
or not they are connected to a pure hydrogen supply and, thus, there
should be no alternative based on whether or not a pure hydrogen supply
is available. Furthermore, the commenter stated that costs cannot be
used as justification for providing a higher emission limit alternative
to MACT standards, particularly those based on the MACT floor.
    Response b.3: As an initial matter, the EPA did not intend to re-
open the issue of what is the MACT floor for pyrophoric units through
the proposal. Rather, the issue raised was whether the flexibility
provided should only be for pyrophoric units located at a refinery
without a pure hydrogen supply or should also apply to pyrophoric units
located at a facility that has a pure hydrogen supply but for which
pure hydrogen is not available at the unit. Regardless, we disagree
with the commenter that the survey results submitted by API support a
conclusion that 10 percent LEL is the MACT floor for all pyrophoric
units. The survey provided by API was not the type of rigorous survey
that could provide a basis for establishing the MACT floor. As an
initial matter, the API survey did not include the universe of
pyrophoric units and there is no information to suggest whether the
best performers for the subset of units addressed in the survey
represents the top performing 12 percent of sources across the
industry. Also, because the exact questions and definitions of terms
were not provided, there may be some misinterpretation of the results.
For example, it is unclear from the summary provided if the question
was whether the facility owners or operators could meet 10 percent LEL
for all events (i.e., a never-to-be-exceeded limit) or if this was more
of an operational average.
    We agree with the commenter that costs cannot be considered in
establishing a MACT standard. We based this provision on an assessment
of the overall environmental impacts associated with the emission
limitations and concluded that the best performing pyrophoric units
without a pure hydrogen supply, when considering secondary impacts, was
to meet a 20 percent LEL with one exception not to exceed 35 percent
LEL per year. The API survey does not provide support to change our
analysis of the MACT floor in the December 2015 Rule.
    Comment b.4: One commenter (-0958) pointed out that the proposed
amendment to section 63.643(c)(1)(iv) is inconsistent with the
description of the amendment included in the preamble to the April 2018
Proposal. Specifically, the description of the amendment in the
preamble of the April 2018 Proposal does not contain the additional
phrase, ``considering all such maintenance vents at the refinery,''
which was included in the amendatory text. The commenter suggested that
the EPA delete this phrase as it could be interpreted to limit the use
of the 35 percent allowance to once per year per refinery rather than
to once per year per piece of equipment.
    Response b.4: We agree that the preamble discussion and the rule
language regarding these revisions are not consistent. We did not
intend to limit the one time per year 35 percent LEL to the refinery;
rather, we intended it to apply to each pyrophoric unit without a pure
hydrogen supply. Consistent with our intent as expressed in the
preamble discussion of the April 2018 Proposal, 83 FR at 15462, we are
removing the phrase, ``considering all such maintenance vents at the
refinery'' from the regulatory text at section 63.643(c)(1)(iv) for the
final amendments promulgated by this rulemaking.
What is the EPA's final decision on the regulatory text for maintenance
vents associated with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst?
    We are finalizing the proposed amendment with one change. In
response to the public comments received, we are not including the
phrase ``considering all such maintenance vents at the refinery'' in
the final regulatory text at section 63.643(c)(1)(iv), as revised by
this rulemaking.
c. Control Requirements for Maintenance Vents
What is the history of the provisions for the control requirements for
maintenance vents addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    Paragraph 63.643(a) specifies that Group 1 miscellaneous process
vents must be controlled by 98 percent or to 20 parts per million by
volume or to a flare meeting the requirements in section 63.670. This
paragraph also states in the second sentence that requirements for
maintenance vents are specified in section 63.643(c), ``and the owner
or operator is only required to comply with the requirements in section
63.643(c).'' Paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) then specify requirements
for maintenance vents. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that equipment must be
depressured to a control device, fuel gas system, or back to the
process until one of the conditions in paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (iv)
is met. In reviewing these rule requirements, the EPA noted that we did
not specify that the control device in (c)(1) must also meet the Group
1 miscellaneous process vent control device requirements in paragraph
(a). The second sentence in section 63.643(a) could be misinterpreted
to mean that a facility complying with the maintenance vent provisions
in section 63.643(c) must only comply with the requirements in
paragraph (c) and not the control requirements in paragraph (a) for the
control device referenced by paragraph (c)(1). In omitting these
requirements, we did not intend that the control requirement for
maintenance vents prior to atmospheric release would not be compliant
with Group 1 controls as specified in section 63.643(a). In order to
clarify this intent, we proposed to amend paragraph section
63.643(c)(1) to include control device specifications equivalent to
those in section 63.643(a).
What key comments were received on the provisions for the control
requirements for maintenance vents?
    We received one comment in support of this revision.
What is the EPA's final decision on the provisions for the control
requirements for maintenance vents?
    We are finalizing the amendment to Sec.  63.643(c)(1) to include
control device specifications equivalent to those in Sec.  63.643(a),
as proposed.

d. Additional Maintenance Vent Alternative for Equipment Blinding
What is the history of the maintenance vent alternative for equipment
blinding addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    We proposed a new alternative compliance option for the subset of
maintenance vents subject to the provisions addressed at Sec.
63.643(c)(v). The proposed alternative compliance option would apply to
equipment that must be blinded to seal off hydrocarbon-containing
streams prior to conducting maintenance activities.
What key comments were received on the maintenance vent alternative for
equipment blinding?
    We received two comments on the proposed amendment. One commenter
expressed concern regarding the burden of the recordkeeping associated
with this alternative compliance option. The second commenter asserted
that the use of work practice standards for maintenance vents is
illegal. As detailed in the comment summaries and responses included in
the response to comment document for this final rule (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682), we were not persuaded to make changes to the
proposed amendments.
What is the EPA's final decision on the maintenance vent alternative
for equipment blinding?
    We are finalizing the new alternative compliance option for the
subset of maintenance vents subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.643(c)(v) for which equipment blinding is necessary, as proposed.
e. Recordkeeping for Maintenance Vents on Equipment Containing Less
Than 72 Pounds per Day (lbs/day) of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
What is the history of the provisions regarding recordkeeping for
maintenance vents on equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of VOC
provisions addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    Under section 63.643(c) an owner or operator may designate a
process vent as a maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result
of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where
equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service.
The rule specifies that prior to venting a maintenance vent to the
atmosphere, process liquids must be removed from the equipment as much
as practical and the equipment must be depressured to a control device,
fuel gas system, or back to the process until one of several
conditions, as applicable, is met. One condition specifies that
equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of VOC can be depressured
directly to the atmosphere provided that the mass of VOC in the
equipment is determined and provided that refiners keep records of the
process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent and the
date of each maintenance vent opening, and the estimate of the total
quantity of VOC in the equipment at the time of vent opening.
Therefore, each maintenance vent opening would be documented on an
event-basis.
    Industry petitioners noted that there are numerous routine
maintenance activities, such as replacing sampling line tubing or
replacing a pressure gauge, that involve potential releases of very
small amounts of VOC, often less than 1 lb/day, that are well below the
72 lbs/day of VOC threshold provided in section 63.643(c)(1)(iii). They
claimed that documenting each individual event is burdensome and
unnecessary. As stated in the preamble to the April 2018 Proposal (83
FR 15463), the EPA agrees that documentation of each release from
maintenance vents which serve equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day
of VOC is not necessary provided there is a demonstration that the
event is compliant with the requirement that the equipment contains
less than 72 lbs/day of VOC. Therefore, we proposed to revise the
event-specific recordkeeping requirements specific to maintenance vent
openings in equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of VOC to only
require a record demonstrating that the total quantity of VOC in the
equipment based on the type, size, and contents is less than 72 lbs/day
of VOC at the time of the maintenance vent opening.
What key comments were received on the recordkeeping for maintenance
vents on equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of VOC provisions?
    We received two comments on this proposed amendment. One commenter
maintained that the event-specific recordkeeping requirements are too
burdensome, while the other commenter maintained that the recordkeeping
requirements are not adequate to assure compliance with the rule. As
detailed in the comment summaries and responses included in the
response to comment document for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682), we concluded that the proposed amendment struck the
right balance between requiring the necessary information needed to
demonstrate and enforce compliance with the 72 lbs/day of VOC
maintenance vent provision while reducing the recordkeeping and
reporting burden with more detailed records.
What is the EPA's final decision on the recordkeeping for maintenance
vents on equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of VOC provisions?
    We are finalizing these amendments as proposed.
f. Bypass Monitoring for Open-Ended Lines (OEL)
What is the history of the bypass monitoring provisions for OELs
addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    API and AFPM requested clarification of the bypass monitoring
provisions in section 63.644(c) for OEL (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682-0892 and -0915). This provision excludes components subject
to the Refinery MACT 1 equipment leak provisions in section 63.648 from
the bypass monitoring requirement. Noting that the provisions in
section 63.648 only apply to components in organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) service (i.e., greater than 5-weight percent HAP), API
and AFPM asked whether the EPA also intended to exclude open-ended
valves or lines that are in VOC service (less than 5-weight percent
HAP) and are capped and plugged in compliance with the standards in
NSPS subpart VV or VVa or the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON; 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H) that are substantively equivalent to the Refinery
MACT 1 equipment leak provisions in section 63.648. Commenters noted
that OELs in conveyances carrying a Group 1 MPV could be in less than
5-weight percent HAP service, but could still be capped and plugged in
accordance with another rule, such as NSPS subpart VV or VVa or the
HON. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 15464), the
EPA agrees that, because the use of a cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve for an open-ended valve or line is sufficient to prevent a
bypass, the Refinery MACT 1 bypass monitoring requirements in section
63.644(c) are redundant with NSPS subpart VV in these cases. Therefore,
we proposed to amend section 63.644(c) to make clear that open-ended
valves or lines that are capped and plugged sufficient to meet the
standards in NSPS subpart VV at Sec.  60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c), are
not subject to the bypass monitoring in section 63.644(c).
What key comments were received on the bypass monitoring provisions for
OELs?
    Comment f.1: One commenter (-0958) expressed support for the
addition of

the bypass monitoring option for capped or plugged OELs in section
63.644(c)(3). The commenter suggested that the EPA similarly amend
section 63.660(i)(2) to provide this new monitoring alternative for
vent systems handling Group 1 storage vessel vents. A different
commenter (-0953) opposed this revision, stating that the EPA did not
show or provide any evidence to support the statement that the
monitoring requirements are ``redundant with NSPS subpart VV.'' The
commenter recommended that the EPA require a compliance demonstration
or otherwise demonstrate that the provisions are equivalent.
    Response f.1: The December 2015 Rule bypass provisions require
either a flow indicator or the use of a valve locked in a non-diverting
position using a car-seal or lock and key. The general equipment leak
provisions for OELs are installation of a plug, cap or secondary valve.
Based on the effectiveness of this equipment work practice standard,
continuous or periodic monitoring of these secondarily-sealed lines are
not generally required. With the elimination of the exemption for
discharges associated with maintenance activities and process upsets
under the definition of ``periodically discharged'' in the December
2015 Rule, there are a number of process lines that are not traditional
bypass lines and that were not previously considered an MPV or an MPV
bypass, but now are. Many of these lines are small and not conducive to
the installation of a car-seal or lock and key so they cannot comply
with the current bypass provisions. Most of these small lines have been
previously regulated via Refinery MACT 1's requirement to comply with
the NSPS open-ended line provisions, which are an effective means to
control emissions from these smaller lines. Because the existing
equipment leak provisions for these types of OELs serve the same
purpose and are more appropriate for these smaller lines, we determined
that it is reasonable to provide for this method of compliance for
these OELs.
What is the EPA's final decision on the bypass monitoring provisions
for OELs?
    We are finalizing this amendment as proposed. In response to
comments received on the proposed rule, we are providing this new
monitoring alternative for vent systems handling Group 1 storage vessel
vents at section 63.660(i)(2) in the final rule.
g. Compliance Date Extension for Existing Maintenance Vents
What is the history of the compliance date extension for existing
maintenance vents addressed in the July 2018 Proposal?
    In the July 2018 Proposal, we proposed to amend the compliance date
for maintenance vent provisions applicable to existing sources (i.e.,
those constructed or reconstructed on or before June 30, 2014)
promulgated at 40 CFR 63.643(c). The basis for this proposal was that
sources needed additional time to follow the ``management of change''
process. We also noted that we had proposed substantive revisions to
the maintenance vent requirements as part of the April 2018 Proposal.
What significant comments were received on the compliance date
extension for existing maintenance vents?
    Comment g.1: One commenter (-0968) stated that the proposed
compliance extension is arbitrary and capricious because the EPA has
not provided any evidence as to why refineries could not comply with
the August 1, 2017, compliance date and why a revised compliance date
of January 30, 2019, is as expeditious as practicable, as required by
CAA section 112(i)(3)(A). The commenter noted that the EPA referred to
the fact that some number of refinery owners and operators have applied
for and received compliance extensions of up to one year from their
permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), but does not provide
any evidence of these applications or subsequent state agency
determinations in the rulemaking record. The commenter further noted
that the EPA's failure to provide this information in the record for
the rulemaking has inhibited the public's ability to provide fully
informed comments, and as such, the EPA is in violation of the notice-
and-comment and public participation requirements of CAA section
307(d). The commenter also disagreed with the EPA's statement in the
preamble of the July 2018 Proposal that the source requests for an
extension from the permitting authorities is demonstrative of refinery
owners and operators acting on ``good faith efforts.'' Rather, the
commenter asserted that the filing of these requests shows an avoidance
of compliance with the rule.
    The commenter stated that the proposed compliance extension is
particularly harmful since the EPA has acknowledged that there are
significant disproportionate impacts of refinery pollution to
communities of color and low-income people. The commenter noted that
the EPA has not supported the conclusion in the July 2018 Proposal that
the extension of compliance would have an insignificant effect on
emissions reductions. A separate commenter (-0971) concurred with the
EPA's conclusions that the proposed compliance extension would have an
insignificant effect on emissions reductions.
    The commenter also stated that the EPA's reliance on regulatory
uncertainty due to the April 2018 Proposal as part of the justification
for the need for a compliance extension is at odds with the CAA's
explicit prohibition on any delay or postponement of a final rule based
on reconsideration (see CAA section 307(d)(7)(B)). The commenter
further added that this provision only allows the EPA to stay a rule's
effective date during reconsideration, not to postpone compliance, and
only enables the EPA to do so for up to three months. Another commenter
(-0971) expressed support for the proposed compliance extension for
maintenance vents because of regulatory uncertainty since the EPA
proposed amendments in April 2018 Proposal, but has not yet finalized
those proposed amendments. The commenter stated that these revisions
are critical to providing certainty as to what is required and to
assure equipment may be isolated for maintenance under all expected
maintenance situations. The commenter noted that maintenance vents are
located across the refinery, and time will be needed to review
procedures that would implement those revisions under refinery
management of change processes, incorporate the changes into refinery
compliance procedures and recordkeeping and reporting systems, and
provide training to employees.
    Response g.1: The EPA is not finalizing the extension of the
compliance date as proposed in July 2018. However, in order to provide
sources with time to understand the amended maintenance requirements,
to determine which maintenance compliance option best meets their
needs, and to come into compliance we are modifying the compliance date
so that it is 30 days following the effective date of the final rule.
Due to the variety of different types of maintenance vents and their
ubiquitous nature, there has been some uncertainty as to how the
maintenance vent requirements apply; whether the provisions, as
promulgated, are appropriate for all types of vents; and the time
needed to make the requisite modifications to ensure

compliance. The maintenance vent provisions in their current form were
promulgated in the December 2015 Rule in order to replace a start-up,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provision that was included in the
original MACT standard. The EPA was replacing the SSM provisions
because in Sierra Club v. EPA, [551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)], the
D.C. Circuit determined that SSM provisions, similar to those included
in the Refinery MACT were inconsistent with the requirements of the
CAA. The EPA originally provided a compliance date as of the effective
date of the December 2015 Rule (January 30, 2016), but subsequently
extended that date to August 2017 based on information from refineries
that they needed more time to comply. As previously noted, many
refineries sought a further extension until August 2018 from state
permitting authorities. Establishing a compliance date 30 days
following promulgation of these revisions will allow refineries a
modest amount of time to ensure any remaining maintenance vents not yet
in compliance with the MACT, as modified through this final action, are
in compliance.
    With respect to the comments on the effect of emissions reductions
relative to the July 2018 Proposal, we reached this conclusion based on
several factors. First, maintenance events typically occur about once
per year or less frequently for major equipment. Thus, during the
proposed period of the compliance extension (approximately 6 months
from the August 2018 compliance date that applied to most refineries
due to extensions granted by state permitting authorities), some
equipment would have no major events and other equipment, at most,
should experience only one event. Second, facilities would still be
required to comply with the general requirements to use good air
pollution control practices during maintenance events. Many facility
owners or operators already have standard procedures for emptying and
degassing equipment. While these procedures are not as stringent as the
MACT requirements for maintenance vents as adopted in the December 2015
Rule and as we had proposed in April 2018, they would provide some
limit on emissions to the atmosphere. In a meeting with industry
representatives, an example of the type of emissions occurring from
maintenance vents was provided to the Agency (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682-0909). Based on that example, the Agency estimates that
approximately 200 lbs of VOC would be released from purging 6 pieces of
equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst when venting at 35 percent LEL
rather than 10 percent LEL. Based on our previous analysis of impacts
for risk and technology review revisions to Refinery MACT 1, we
estimate approximately 10 percent of VOC emissions are HAP, so that we
estimate on the order of approximately 3 pounds of HAP emissions (0.1 x
200/6) would occur per major equipment venting event. The maintenance
vent provisions as adopted in the December 2015 Rule were projected to
reduce emissions of HAP by 5,200 tons per year (80 FR 75178, December
1, 2015). Therefore, based on the low expected emissions from each
major equipment venting event, the expected limited occurrence of
maintenance venting events, and the likelihood that many types of
maintenance venting events are in compliance with the MACT, the
compliance extension would have an insignificant effect on emissions.
What is the EPA's final decision on the compliance date extension for
existing maintenance vents?
    The EPA is not finalizing the compliance extension as proposed in
the July 2018 Proposal. However, in order to provide sources with time
to understand the amended maintenance requirements, to determine which
maintenance compliance option best meets their needs, and to come into
compliance, we are modifying the compliance date so that it is 30 days
following the effective date of the final rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cf. 5 U.S.C. 553(d) providing a 30-day period prior to a
rule taking effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Pressure Relief Device Provisions
a. Clarification of Requirements for PRD ``in organic HAP service''
What is the history of the requirements for PRD ``in organic HAP
service'' addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    The introductory text for the equipment leak provisions for PRD in
section 63.648(j) requires compliance with no detectable emission
provisions for PRD ``in organic HAP gas or vapor service'' and the
pressure release management requirements for PRD ``for all pressure
relief devices.'' However, the pressure release management requirements
for PRD in section 63.648(j)(3) are applicable only to PRD ``in organic
HAP service.'' There are five specific provisions within the pressure
release management requirements for PRD listed in paragraphs
63.648(j)(3)(i) through (v). In the first four paragraphs, the phrase
``each [or any] affected pressure relief device'' is used, but this
phrase is missing in the fifth paragraph. API and AFPM requested that
we clarify whether releases listed in section 63.648(j)(3)(v) are
limited to PRDs ``in organic HAP service.'' Consistent with the
requirements in section 63.648(j)(3)(i) through (iv) and the Agency's
intent when promulgating the provisions in section 63.648(j)(3), we
proposed to add the phrase, ``affected pressure relief device'' to
section 63.648(j)(3)(v). We also proposed to amend the introductory
text in paragraph (j) to add the phrase, ``in organic HAP service'' at
the end of the last sentence to further clarify that the pressure
release management requirements for PRD in section 63.648(j)(3) are
applicable to ``all pressure relief devices in organic HAP service.''
What key comments were received on the requirements for PRD ``in
organic HAP service''?
    We did not receive any public comments on these proposed
amendments.
What is the EPA's final decision on the requirements for PRD ``in
organic HAP service''?
    We are finalizing these amendments as proposed.
b. Redundant Release Prevention Measures in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(ii)
What is the history of the requirements for redundant release
prevention measures addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    Section 63.648(j)(3)(ii) lists options for three redundant release
prevention measures that must be applied to affected PRDs. The
prevention measures in paragraph (j)(3)(ii) include: (A) Flow,
temperature, level, and pressure indicators with deadman switches,
monitors, or automatic actuators; (B) documented routine inspection and
maintenance programs and/or operator training (maintenance programs and
operator training may count as only one redundant prevention measure);
(C) inherently safer designs or safety instrumentation systems; (D)
deluge systems; and (E) staged relief system where initial pressure
relief valves (with lower set release pressure) discharges to a flare
or other closed vent system and control device. In their petition for
reconsideration (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892), API and AFPM
requested clarification as to whether two prevention measures can be
selected from the list in Sec.  63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A). API and AFPM noted
that the rule does not state that the measures in paragraph
(j)(3)(ii)(A)

are to be considered a single prevention measure. The Agency grouped
the measures listed in subparagraph A together because of similarities
they have; however, they can be separate measures. Therefore, as the
EPA explains in the preamble to the April 2018 Proposal (83 FR 15464),
if these measures operate independently, they are considered two
separate redundant prevention measures.
What key comments were received on the requirements for redundant
release prevention measures?
    We did not receive any public comments on this proposed amendment.
What is the EPA's final decision on the requirements for redundant
release prevention measures?
    We are finalizing the amendment to Sec.  63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A), which
clarifies that independent, non-duplicative systems count as separate
redundant prevention measures, as proposed.
c. Pilot-Operated PRD and Balanced Bellows PRD
What is the history of the provisions for pilot-operated PRD and
balanced bellows PRD addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    In a letter dated March 28, 2017, API and AFPM requested
clarification on whether pilot-operated PRDs are required to comply
with the pressure release management provisions of section 63.648(j)(1)
through (3). Based on our understanding of pilot-operated PRD (see
memorandum, ``Pilot- operated PRD,'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682) and balanced bellows PRD, we proposed that pilot-operated and
balanced bellows PRD are subject to the requirements in section
63.648(j)(1) and (2), but are not subject to the requirements in
section 63.648(j)(3) because the primary releases from these PRD are
vented to a control device. We also proposed to amend the reporting
requirements in section 63.655(g)(10) and the recordkeeping
requirements in section 63.655(i)(11) to retain the requirements to
report and keep records of each release to the atmosphere through the
pilot vent that exceeds 72 lbs/day of VOC, including the duration of
the pressure release through the pilot vent and the estimate of the
mass quantity of each organic HAP release.
What key comments were received on the provisions for pilot-operated
PRD and balanced bellows PRD?
    We received one public comment on this proposed amendment. The
commenter was generally opposed to the addition of balanced bellows and
pilot-operated PRD to the work practice standard requirements for PRD.
The comment and the EPA's response are available in the response to
comments document for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682).
What is the EPA's final decision on the provisions for pilot-operated
PRD and balanced bellows PRD?
    We are finalizing these amendments as proposed.
4. Delayed Coking Unit Decoking Operation Provisions
    What is the history of the delayed coking unit decoking operation
provisions addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    The provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(a) require owners or operators of
DCU to depressure each coke drum to a closed blowdown system until the
coke drum vessel pressure or temperature meets the applicable limits
specified in the rule (2 psig or 220 degrees Fahrenheit for existing
sources). Special provisions are provided in 40 CFR 63.657(e) and (f)
for DCU using ``water overflow'' or ``double-quench'' method of
cooling, respectively. According to 40 CFR 63.657(e), the owner or
operator of a DCU using the ``water overflow'' method of coke cooling
must hardpipe the overflow water (i.e., via an overhead line) or
otherwise prevent exposure of the overflow water to the atmosphere when
transferring the overflow water to the overflow water storage tank
whenever the coke drum vessel temperature exceeds 220 degrees
Fahrenheit. The provision in 40 CFR 63.657(e) also provides that the
overflow water storage tank may be an open or fixed-roof tank provided
that a submerged fill pipe (pipe outlet below existing liquid level in
the tank) is used to transfer overflow water to the tank.
    In the October 18, 2016, reconsideration proposal, we opened the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(e) for public comment, but we did not
propose to amend the requirements. In response to the October 18, 2016,
reconsideration proposal, we received several comments regarding the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(e) for DCU using the water overflow method
of coke cooling. Based on these comments, in the April 2018 Proposal we
proposed amendments to the water overflow requirements in 40 CFR
63.657(e) to clarify that an owner or operator of a DCU with a water
overflow design does not need to comply with the provisions in 40 CFR
63.657(e) if they comply with the primary pressure or temperature
limits in 40 CFR 63.657(a) prior to overflowing any water. We also
proposed to add a requirement to use a separator or disengaging device
when using the water overflow method of cooling to prevent entrainment
of gases from the coke drum vessel to the overflow water storage tank
and we proposed that gases from the separator must be routed to a
closed vent blowdown system or otherwise controlled following the
requirements for a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent. As separators
appear to be an integral part of the water overflow system design, we
did not project any capital investment or additional operating costs
associated with this proposed amendment.
What key comments were received on the delayed coking unit decoking
operation provisions?
    The following is a summary of the key comments received in response
to our April 2018 Proposal and our responses to these comments.
Detailed public comments and the EPA responses are included in the
response to comments document for this final action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682).
    Comment 1: Industry commenters (-0955, -0958) stated that the
proposed amendment to require DCU using the water overflow compliance
option to have a disengaging device is unsupported by the record for
the proposed rule and was not included in the Information Collection
Request (ICR) or MACT floor analysis supporting the December 2015 Rule.
The commenters noted that the EPA has not determined how many DCU use
the water overflow method of coke cooling or how many will require the
installation of a disengaging device, instead basing the provisions on
a report by one facility using such a device. The same commenters
stated that the EPA has not quantified the expected emission reductions
associated with the proposed amendment to require DCU using the water
overflow compliance option to have a disengaging device. One of the
commenters (-0955) maintained that the emissions from the overflow
water are small and sufficiently controlled via the submerged fill
requirement. This commenter provided various analyses to support their
contention that the emissions from their overflow water are small,
including results of facility-specific industrial hygiene monitoring
programs, which the commenter claims have shown that operators
exposures to benzene are ``orders of magnitude below the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exposure limit of 1.0 parts per
million (ppm), at 0.003 ppm (300 parts per billion (ppb)) and

less.'' Both of these commenters also asserted that the EPA should not
finalize the proposed amendment to require DCU using the water overflow
compliance option to have a disengaging device.
    Another commenter (-0953) asserted that the EPA did not provide any
quantitative assessment of emissions from water overflow DCU compared
to the primary MACT standard in order to demonstrate that the water
overflow is at least as stringent as the MACT floor requirement (no
draining or venting until the pressure in the drum is at or below 2
psig). According to the commenter, without this direct supporting
analysis, the EPA's inclusion of the water overflow provision is
arbitrary and capricious. The commenter recommended that the water
overflow provisions not be finalized or that additional control
requirements be placed on the storage tank receiving the water
overflow. Specifically, the commenter recommended that the rule require
these tanks to be vented to a control device that achieves 98-percent
destruction efficiency or better. Alternatively, the commenter
recommended that the EPA develop minimum requirements for the liquid
height and volume of water in the receiving tank and a maximum limit on
the temperature of the water in the tank. The commenter also
recommended that the EPA set restrictions on the re-use of the overflow
water without prior additional treatment to remove organic
contaminants.
    Two commenters (-0955, -0958) stated that, if the requirement to
use a disengaging device is finalized, the EPA should provide a
compliance date 3 years after the effective date of the rule, as
provided under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A), due to the expected expense
and timing needed for equipment installation to comply with this
requirement. One commenter (-0955) described the specific steps
required for a DCU system not equipped with a disengaging device to
comply with the proposed rule including: Design, engineering, permit
application submission and permit receipt, and installation, estimating
it will take between 24-36 months to complete.
    Response 1: We agree that we did not include the water overflow
provisions in the MACT floor analysis supporting the December 2015
Rule. The MACT floor analysis resulted in a determination that
emissions from the DCU must be controlled (no atmospheric venting,
draining or deheading of the coke drum) until the coke drum vessel
pressure is at or below 2 psig is the MACT floor. In developing an
alternative compliance method, such as the DCU water overflow
provisions, we are only required to ensure that the alternative being
provided is at least as stringent (achieves the same or lower
emissions) as the established MACT floor.
    We disagree that the record does not support the proposal. In
comments received on the June 30, 2014, proposed risk and technology
review ``Sector Rule,'' Phillips 66 requested special provisions for
water overflow (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0682-0614). Further, we
understood from background meetings that there are two main suppliers
of DCU technology, one of which took over the ConocoPhillips technology
licenses (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0216). As Phillips 66
was an initial developer of the technology, we surmised that the DCU
designed for water overflow were likely all based on the Phillips 66
design. They also noted in their comments that they operated two units
with water overflow design. While the ICR supporting the December 2015
Rule did not specifically ask about the water overflow method of
cooling, we did ask the height of the drum and the height of the water
in the drum prior to first draining. Three DCU were reported to have
water height when first draining equal to the drum height and two DCU
were reported to have water height greater than the drum height. From
these data, we estimated that 2 to 5 DCU used the water overflow method
of cooling. We understood that Phillips 66 likely operated most of the
DCU designed to use the water overflow method of cooling. Therefore,
when Phillips 66 provided a water overflow DCU design that included a
water-vapor disengaging drum, we expected all water overflow DCU had
this design. In subsequent meetings with API and AFPM, we discussed our
findings and our intention to add a requirement for a vapor disengaging
drum (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0910 and -0911). These
records clearly show we carefully considered this proposed requirement
and we informed industry representatives from API, AFPM, and some
individual refinery representatives of our conclusions prior to the
proposal.
    We agree that the EPA has not provided a quantitative assessment of
the emissions from the DCU when using water overflow. Rather, for the
December 2015 Rule, we relied on a qualitative assessment because the
precise mechanism of the emissions from the DCU is not well understood.
This qualitative analysis did not consider the entrainment of gases in
the overflow water or the need for the use of a disengaging drum. To
support this final action, we estimated, to the best of our ability,
the emissions from a typical DCU using water overflow method of cooling
for units using a vapor disengaging device and one with no vapor
disengaging device and compared them with the emissions projected for a
DCU using conventional method of cooling complying with the 2 psig MACT
standard. We found that the emissions from a DCU using water overflow
method of cooling and a vapor disengaging device had emissions
significantly less than a conventional DCU complying with the 2 psig
standard. We also found that the emissions from a DCU using the water
overflow method of cooling without a vapor disengaging device could
have emissions exceeding those for a conventional DCU complying with
the 2 psig pressure limit (see memorandum entitled ``Estimating
Emissions from Delayed Coking Units Using the Water Overflow Method of
Cooling'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682). Our emission
estimates are higher than the emissions estimated by the commenter
because their analyses did not consider entrained gases in the overflow
water. In a follow-up meeting with this commenter, we learned that the
concentration monitored near the overflow water tank was 0.3 ppm
benzene (consistent with the value of 300 ppb). This concentration,
while below the OSHA exposure limit of 1 ppm, is not ``orders of
magnitude below'' the OSHA exposure limit and provides strong evidence
that emissions near the water overflow tank are higher than would be
projected based on their analysis submitted during the comment period.
    Based on our analysis, we find that the water overflow method of
cooling alternative achieves greater emission reductions than the
primary 2 psig pressure limit when a vapor disengaging device is used
for the overflow water prior to the water storage tank. Because
emissions without the disengaging device in the case where the
receiving tank is not vented to a control device can exceed that of a
conventional DCU complying with the 2 psig pressure limit, we conclude
that it is necessary for the alternative compliance method to require
use of a disengaging device unless the receiving tank is vented to a
control device.
    Although cost consideration is not relevant for determining MACT,
we disagree that the EPA did not consider the expense of installing a
disengaging device. As part of the cost estimates for the DCU MACT
requirements established in the December 2015 Rule,

80 FR 75226, we considered compliance costs for every DCU that did not
already meet the 2 psig pressure limit. Because we already considered
compliance costs in our burden estimates for the December 2015 Rule,
there was no basis for assuming that compliance with the alternative
standard proposed here would result in additional or otherwise
different compliance costs and to do so would result in double-counting
the compliance costs.
    With respect to the commenter requesting additional controls on the
tank receiving the water overflow, our analysis supports the conclusion
that the main source of emissions from the water overflow systems is
entrained vapors in the overflow water. We agree that venting the
receiving tank to a control device is a reasonable alternative to using
a disengaging device and we have added this as an alternative
compliance option for DCU using the water overflow method of cooling.
However, venting the receiving tank to a control device when a vapor
disengaging device is already used is unnecessary and redundant. We
agree that adding certain limitations on overflow water temperature,
receiving tank water volume and temperature can help to reduce
emissions when a vapor disengaging device is not used, but we do not
believe adding these limitations will make water overflow without a
vapor disengaging device equivalent to the primary 2 psig emission
limitation. Based on our analysis, we find that the use of a
disengaging device with submerged fill requirement is as stringent as
the MACT floor and that additional restrictions on the receiving
storage vessel for these DCU are not necessary to comply with MACT.
    Finally, regarding the compliance date, we agree that it will take
time to design, procure, and install a disengaging drum for those DCU
using water overflow and that do not currently have a disengaging drum.
Similarly, venting the receiving tank to a control device as an
alternative to using a disengaging device will also require time to
design and retrofit the tank with a fixed roof and closed vent system
to control. We originally provided a 3-year compliance schedule due to
the design, engineering, and equipment installation that could be
required to meet the emission limitations for DCU in the December 2015
Rule. As the December 2015 Rule did not require a vapor disengaging
drum or controlled tank and similar enhancements in the enclosed
blowdown system will be needed for facilities to comply with the April
2018 Proposal, we are providing a limited compliance extension, of 2
years from the effective date of this final rule that alters the work
practice standard by establishing the vapor disengaging drum
requirement. This extension will only be afforded for DCU that use the
water overflow method of cooling without adequate systems for a vapor
disengaging device or controlled tank, which we consider to be as
expeditious as practicable based on comments received on the April 2018
Proposal. We are also including operational requirements on the water
overflow system for these DCU in the interim to minimize emissions to
the greatest extent possible as requested by one of the commenters.
These operational limits will not require any additional equipment, so
implementation can occur immediately. We do not expect that these
operational limits are sufficient to ensure that emissions from these
units will be less than conventional DCU complying with the 2 psig
standard at all times, but they will help to ensure emissions are not
unrestricted in this interim period. We also note that pursuant to the
provisions in Sec.  63.6(i), which are generally applicable, refinery
owners or operators may seek compliance extensions on a case-by-case
basis if necessary.
What is the EPA's final decision on the delayed coking unit decoking
operation provisions?
    We are finalizing the requirement for DCU using the water overflow
provisions in section 63.657(e) to use a separator or disengaging
device to prevent entrainment of gases in the cooling water. In
response to comments, we are providing a limited compliance extension,
of 2 years from the effective date of this final rule, only for DCU
that use the water overflow method of cooling that document the need to
design, procure, and install a disengaging device, which we consider to
be as expeditious as practicable based on comments received on the
April 2018 Proposal. We are providing operational restrictions on these
DCU in the interim to minimize emissions to the greatest extent
possible. Finally, in response to comments, we are including, as an
alternative to the use of a vapor disengaging drum, requirements to
discharge the overflow water to a storage vessel vented to a control
device (i.e., a vessel meeting the requirements for storage vessels in
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS).
5. Fenceline Monitoring Provisions
What is the history of the fenceline monitoring provisions addressed in
the April 2018 Proposal?
    We proposed several amendments to the fenceline monitoring
provisions in Refinery MACT 1. Many of the proposed revisions to the
fenceline monitoring provisions are related to requirements for
reporting monitoring data.
    The December 2015 Rule included new EPA Methods 325A and B
specifying monitor siting and quantitative sample analysis procedures.
Method 325A requires an additional monitor be placed near known VOC
emission sources if the VOC emissions source is located within 50
meters of the monitoring perimeter and the source is between two
monitors. In the April 2018 Proposal, we proposed an alternative to the
additional monitor siting requirements if the only known VOC emission
sources within 50 meters of the monitoring perimeter between two
monitors are pumps, valves, connectors, sampling connections, and open-
ended line sources. The proposed alternative requires that these
sources be actively monitored monthly using audio, visual, or olfactory
means and quarterly using Method 21 or the AWP for equipment leaks.
    In addition, we proposed to revise the quarterly reporting
requirements in section 63.655(h)(8) to specify that it means calendar
year quarters (i.e., Quarter 1 is from January 1 to March 31; Quarter 2
is from April 1 through June 30; Quarter 3 is from July 1 through
September 30; and Quarter 4 is from October 1 through December 31)
rather than being tied to the date compliance monitoring began.
    We also proposed to require one field blank per sampling period
rather than two as currently required. Similarly, we proposed to
decrease the number of duplicate samples that must be collected each
sampling period. Instead of requiring a duplicate sample for every 10
monitoring locations, we proposed that facilities with 19 or fewer
monitoring locations be required to collect one duplicate sample per
sampling period and facilities with 20 or more sampling locations be
required to collect two duplicate samples per sampling period. We also
proposed to require that duplicate samples be averaged together to
determine the sampling location's benzene concentration for the
purposes of calculating the benzene concentration difference
([Delta]c).
    Consistent with the requirements in section 63.658(k) for
requesting an alternative test method for collecting

and/or analyzing samples, we also proposed to revise the Table 6 entry
for section 63.7(f) to indicate that section 63.7(f) applies except
that alternatives directly specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, do
not require additional notification to the Administrator or the
approval of the Administrator.
What key comments were received on the fenceline monitoring provisions?
    We received minor comments on these proposed revisions. The comment
summaries and the EPA responses are available in the response to
comments document for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682).
What is the EPA's final decision on the fenceline monitoring
provisions?
    The proposed revisions to the fenceline monitoring requirements, as
described above, are being finalized as proposed with one minor change.
In the April 2018 proposal, Sec.  63.655(h)(8)(viii) specified that
CEDRI would calculate the biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c)
for benzene for each sampling period and the annual average [Delta]c
for benzene for each sampling period. However, in order to accurately
reflect CEDRI's current configuration, we are finalizing Sec.
63.655(h)(8)(viii) to require the reporter to calculate and report the
values of the biweekly and annual average [Delta]c for benzene.
6. Storage Vessel Provisions
What is the history of the storage vessel provisions addressed in the
April 2018 Proposal?
    We received comments from API and AFPM in their February 1, 2016,
petition for reconsideration regarding the incorporation of 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW, storage vessel provisions and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, closed vent systems and control device provisions into Refinery
MACT 1 requirements for Group 1 storage vessels at 40 CFR 63.660. The
pre-amended version of the Refinery MACT 1 rule specified (by cross
reference at 40 CFR 63.646) that storage vessels containing liquids
with a vapor pressure of 76.6 kilopascals (approximately 11 pounds per
square inch (psi)) or greater must be vented to a closed vent system or
to a control device consistent with the requirements in section 63.119
of the HON. API and AFPM pointed out that the EPA did not retain this
provision at 40 CFR 63.660 in the December 2015 Rule. We agree that the
language was inadvertently omitted. We did not intend to deviate from
the longstanding requirement limiting the vapor pressure of material
that can be stored in a floating roof tank. Therefore, we proposed to
revise the introductory text in 40 CFR 63.660 to clarify that owners or
operators of affected Group 1 storage vessels storing liquids with a
maximum true vapor pressure less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 psi) can
comply with either the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW or
SS, and that owners or operators storing liquids with a maximum true
vapor pressure greater than or equal to 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 psi)
must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
    We also received comments from API and AFPM in their February 1,
2016, petition for reconsideration regarding provisions in section
63.660(b). Section 63.660(b)(1) allows Group 1 storage vessels to
comply with alternatives to those specified in section 63.1063(a)(2) of
subpart WW. Section 63.660(b)(2) specifies additional controls for
ladders having at least one slotted leg. The petitioners explained that
section 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) provides extended compliance time for these
controls, but that it is unclear whether this additional compliance
time extends to the use of the alternatives to comply with section
63.660(b). We proposed language to clarify that the additional
compliance time specified in the alternative included at section
63.1063(a)(2) applies to the implementation of controls in section
63.660(b).
    We also proposed language to clarify at section 63.660(e) that the
initial inspection requirements that apply with initial filling of the
storage vessels are not required again if a vessel transitions from the
existing source requirements in section 63.646 to new source
requirements in section 63.660.
    The following is a summary of the comment received in response to
our April 2018 Proposal and our response to this comment. We did not
receive any other comments related to the proposed amendments for
storage vessels.
What comment was received on the storage vessel provisions?
    Comment 1: One commenter (-0958) claims that the EPA proposed
revisions to the introductory paragraph of section 63.660 to allow
certain storage vessels to comply with alternative requirements is not
an acceptable control measure. The commenter states that the proposed
revisions included 11.0 psia as parenthetical equivalent to the 76.6
kPa threshold. The commenter recommended that the EPA revise the 11.0
psia to 11.1 psia as this represents a more accurate conversion and
consistency with historical regulations.
    Response 1: Upon reviewing this issue, we agree with the commenter
that 11.1 psia is the correct value to use when converting 76.6
kilopascals to psia and we are revising the proposed language to use
11.1 psia rather than 11.0 psia in this introductory paragraph.
What is the EPA's final decision on the storage vessel provisions?
    After considering public comments on the proposed amendments, the
EPA is finalizing the amendment to the introductory text in 40 CFR
63.660 with a change from 11.0 psia to 11.1 psia. We are finalizing the
amendments to section 63.660(b) and section 63.660(e) as proposed.
7. Flare Control Device Provisions
What is the history of the flare control device provisions addressed in
the April 2018 Proposal?
    API and AFPM requested clarification in a December 1, 2016, letter
to the EPA (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0913) regarding assist
steam line designs that entrain air into the lower or upper steam at
the flare tip. The industry representatives noted that many of the
steam-assisted flare lines have this type of air entrainment and likely
were part of the dataset analyzed to develop the standards established
in the December 2015 Rule for steam-assisted flares. API and AFPM,
therefore, maintain that these flares should not be considered to have
assist air, and that they are appropriately and adequately regulated
under the final standards in the December 2015 Rule for steam-assisted
flares. Because flares with assist air are required to comply with both
a combustion zone net heating value (NHVcz) and a net
heating value dilution parameter (NHVdil), there is
increased burden in having to comply with two operating parameters, and
API and AFPM contend that this burden is unnecessary.
    In the preamble to the April 2018 Proposal, we stated that air
intentionally entrained through steam nozzles meets the definition of
assist air. However, we also noted that if this is the only assist air
introduced prior to or at the flare tip, it is reasonable in most cases
for the owner or operator to only need to comply with the
NHVcz operating limit. We also noted that, for flare tips
with an effective tip diameter of 9 inches or more, there are no flare
tip steam induction designs that can entrain enough assist air to cause
a flare operator to have a deviation of the NHVdil operating
limit without first deviating from the NHVcz operating
limit. Therefore, we proposed in section 63.670(f)(1) to allow owners
or operators of flares whose only assist air is from perimeter assist
air entrained in lower

and upper steam at the flare tip and with a flare tip diameter of 9
inches or greater to comply only with the NHVcz operating
limit. Steam-assisted flares with perimeter assist air and an effective
tip diameter of less than 9 inches would remain subject to the
requirement to account for the amount of assist air intentionally
entrained within the calculation of NHVdil. We further
proposed to add provisions to section 63.670(i)(6) specifying that
owners or operators of these smaller diameter steam-assisted flares use
the steam flow rate and the maximum design air-to-steam ratio of the
steam tube's air entrainment system for determining the flow rate of
this assist air.
    We also proposed several clarifying amendments for flares in
response to API and AFPM's February 1, 2016, petition for
reconsideration (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892) as outlined
below.
     For air assisted flares, we proposed to amend section
63.670(i)(5) to include provisions for continuously monitoring fan
speed or power and using fan curves for determining assist air flow
rates to clarify that this is an acceptable method of determining air
flow rates.
     We proposed two amendments relative to the visible
emissions monitoring requirements in section 63.670(h) and (h)(1). We
proposed to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible emission
demonstration should be conducted the first time regulated materials
are routed to the flare. We also proposed to amend section 63.670(h)(1)
to clarify that the daily 5-minute observations must only be conducted
on days the flare receives regulated materials and that the additional
visible emissions monitoring is specific to cases when visible
emissions are observed while regulated material is routed to the flare.
     We proposed to amend section 63.670(o)(1)(iii)(B) to
clarify that the owner or operator must establish the smokeless
capacity of the flare in a 15-minute block average and to amend section
63.670(o)(3)(i) to clarify that the exceedance of the smokeless
capacity of the flare is based on a 15-minute block average.
What comments were received on the flare control device provisions?
    The following is a summary of one comment received in response to
our April 2018 Proposal and our response to this comment. All other
comments related to the proposed amendments for the flare provisions
are included in the response to comments document for this final action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2010-0682).
    Comment 1: One commenter (-0958) explained that assist air may only
be entrained in upper steam. Thus, they requested that the proposed
revision to section 63.670(f)(1) and section 63.670(i)(6) be changed
from ``lower and upper'' to ``lower and/or upper.'' The commenter also
requested that the EPA clarify that the tip diameter referenced in
section 63.670(i)(6) is the effective diameter as defined in section
63.670(n)(1) and section 63.670(k)(1). Finally, the commenter requested
that the EPA clarify that section 63.670(i)(6) applies to flares with
an effective diameter less than 9 inches and stated that perimeter air
monitoring for a steam-assisted flare with an effective diameter equal
to or greater than 9 inches is not required.
    Response 1: We did not mean to limit the air entrainment provisions
to only instances where air is entrained in both lower and upper steam
at the flare tip. We agree that the language ``lower and/or upper
steam'' is more accurate and consistent with our intent. We also agree
that we should refer to the ``effective diameter'' of the flare tip as
defined in the equation for NHVdil in section 63.670(n)(1).
This clarification was made in section 63.670(f)(1); this term is not
used in section 63.670(i)(6).
What is the EPA's final decision on the flare control device
provisions?
    After considering the comments, we are finalizing the proposed
amendment in section 63.670(f)(1) and section 63.670(i)(6) with a
change in language from ``lower and upper'' to ``lower and/or upper.''
We are also finalizing the proposed amendment in section 63.670(f)(1)
with a change in language from ``flare tip diameter'' to ``effective
diameter,'' a term that is defined in section 63.670(n)(1) and section
63.670(k)(1). The proposed clarifying amendments related to air
assisted flares, visible emissions monitoring requirements, and
smokeless capacity of the flare are being finalized as proposed.
8. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
What is the history of the recordkeeping and reporting provisions
addressed in the April 2018 Proposal?
    We proposed several clarifying amendments for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in response to questions received from API and
AFPM as well as in response to API and AFPM's March 28, 2017, letter
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0915).
    Refinery owners or operators must submit a NOCS with 150 days of
the compliance date associated with the provisions in the December 2015
Rule. We proposed to amend sections 63.655(f) and (f)(6) to provide
that sources having a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016, may
submit the NOCS in the periodic report rather than as a separate
submission.
    We proposed several amendments for electronic reporting
requirements at sections 63.655(f)(1)(i)(B)(3) and (C)(2), (f)(1)(iii),
(f)(2), and (f)(4) to clarify that when the results of performance
tests or evaluations are reported in the NOCS, the results are due by
the date the NOCS is due, whether the results are reported via
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or in hard
copy as part of the NOCS report. If the results are reported via CEDRI,
we also proposed to specify that sources need not resubmit those
results in the NOCS, but may instead submit specified information
identifying that a performance test or evaluation was conducted and the
units and pollutants that were tested. We also proposed to add the
phrase ``Unless otherwise specified by this subpart'' to sections
63.655(h)(9)(i) and (ii) to make clear that test results associated
with a NOCS report are due at the time the NOCS is due and not within
60 days of completing the performance test or evaluation. We also
proposed to amend several references in Table 6--General Provisions
Applicability to Subpart CC that discuss reporting requirements for
performance tests or performance evaluations.
    We proposed to revise the provision in section 63.655(h)(10) to
include processes to assert claims of EPA system outage or force
majeure events as a basis for extending the electronic reporting
deadlines.
    We also proposed to revise section 63.655(i)(5) to restore the
subparagraphs which were inadvertently not included in the published
CFR due to a clerical error.
    The amendments to section 63.655(h)(5)(iii) included in the
December 2015 Rule (80 FR 75247) were not included in the regulations
as published by the CFR. As reflected in the instructions to the
amendments, we intended for the option to use an automated data
compression recording system to be an approved monitoring alternative.
In addition, in reviewing this amendment, the EPA noted that 40 CFR
63.655(h)(5) specifically addresses mechanisms for owners or operators
to request approval for alternatives to the continuous operating
parameter monitoring and recordkeeping provisions, while the provisions
in 40 CFR 63.655(i)(3) specifically include

options already approved for continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS). Consistent with our intent for the use of an automated data
compression recording system to be an approved monitoring alternative,
we proposed to move paragraph 63.655(h)(5)(iii) to 63.655(i)(3)(ii)(C).
    Finally, we proposed a number of editorial and other corrections in
Table 2 of the April 2018 Proposal (83 FR 15470).
What significant comments were received on the recordkeeping and
reporting provisions?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received in
response to our April 2018 Proposal and our response to these comments.
All other comments related to the proposed amendments for the
recordkeeping and reporting provisions are included in the response to
comments document for this final action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2010-
0682).
    Comment 1: One commenter (-0958) objected to the proposed revisions
to section 63.655(f) and section 63.655(f)(6) which require facilities
to include their NOCS in the periodic report following the compliance
activity. The commenter suggested that the EPA revert to the 150-day
NOCS submission requirements as was included in the December 2015 Rule
amendments for the sources listed in Table 11 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, which have a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016.
The commenter explained that for petroleum refinery owners and
operators completing compliance activities requiring an NOCS in the
latter half of the periodic reporting period, as little as 60 days
could be provided to perform the test and generate the submission in
order to include it in the periodic report.
    Response 1: The proposed revisions were specifically included to
address the commenter's original request to align the new compliance
notifications with the semiannual periodic reports to reduce burden. As
the commenter has withdrawn the request for these revisions, we are not
finalizing these proposed revisions.
    Comment 2: One commenter (-0958) supported the proposed revision
allowing petroleum refinery owners and operators to request an
extension for reporting under specified circumstances. One such
circumstance is if the EPA's electronic reporting systems is out-of-
service in the five business days prior to the report due date.
Proposed revisions in section 63.655(h)(10)(i) and section
63.1575(l)(1) require the extension request to include the date, time,
and length of the electronic reporting system outage. The commenter
requested that the EPA remove these details from the requirements for
the extension request as this is information the EPA, rather than the
reporter, keeps. The commenter suggested that the EPA could require
reporters to identify the dates on which they attempted to access the
system in the 5-day period preceding the reporting due date.
    Response 2: We agree with the commenter. While users may know the
length of time for a planned outage, as this information is provided to
users, it is unlikely that a user will know the length of time for an
unplanned outage. However, users will know the dates and times that
they attempted but were unable to access the system. Therefore, we have
revised the language in section 63.655(h)(10)(i) and section
63.1575(l)(1) to state that owner or operators must provide information
on the date(s) and time(s) the Central Data Exchange (CDX) or the CEDRI
was unavailable when the user attempted to access it in the 5 business
days prior to the submission deadline.
What is the EPA's final decision on the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions?
    In response to the public comments received, we are not finalizing
the proposed amendments to section 63.655(f) and section 63.655(f)(6)
which require facilities to include their NOCS in the periodic report
following the compliance activity.
    Also in response to the public comments received, we are finalizing
the proposed amendment to section 63.655(h)(10) with changes. In the
final rule, a refinery owner or operator's request for an extension
must include information on the date(s) and time(s) the CDX or the
CEDRI was unavailable when the user attempted to access it in the 5
business days prior to the submission deadline, rather than requiring
information regarding the length of the outage.
    We are finalizing the amendments to the electric reporting
requirements in sections 63.655(f)(1)(i)(B)(3) and (C)(2), (f)(1)(iii),
(f)(2), and (f)(4), sections 63.655(h)(9)(i) and (ii), and Table 6--
General Provisions Applicability to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, as
proposed.
    We are finalizing the restoration of paragraph 63.655(i)(5), as
proposed. We are also finalizing moving paragraph 63.655(h)(5)(iii) to
63.655(i)(3)(ii)(C), as proposed. We are also finalizing the editorial
and other corrections in Table 2 of the April 2018 Proposal (83 FR
15470), as proposed.

B. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to Refinery MACT 2

1. FCCU Provisions
What is the history of the FCCU provisions addressed in the April 2018
Proposal?
    In order to demonstrate compliance with the alternative particulate
matter (PM) standard for FCCU as provided at section 63.1564(a)(5)(ii),
the outlet (exhaust) gas flow rate of the catalyst regenerator must be
determined. As provided in section 63.1573(a), owners or operators may
determine this flow rate using a flow CPMS or an alternative.
Currently, the language in section 63.1573(a) restricts the use of the
alternative to occasions when ``the unit does not introduce any other
gas streams into the catalyst regenerator vent.'' API and AFPM (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0915) claim that while this restriction is
appropriate for determining the flow rate for applying emissions
limitations downstream of the regenerator because additional gases
introduced to the vent would not be measured using this method, it is
not a necessary constraint for determining compliance with the
alternative PM limit. This is because the alternative PM standard
applies at the outlet of the regenerator prior to the primary cyclone
inlet and this is the flow measured by the alternative in section
63.1573(a). As described in the preamble of the April 2018 Proposal (83
FR 15471). We proposed to amend section 63.1573(a) to remove that
restriction.
    Additionally, API and AFPM noted in their February 1, 2016,
petition (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892) for reconsideration that the FCCU
alternative organic HAP standard for startup, shutdown, and hot standby
in section 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) requires maintaining the oxygen
concentration in the regenerator exhaust gas at or above 1 volume
percent (dry) (i.e., greater than or equal to 1-percent oxygen
(O2) measured on a dry basis); however, they claim process
O2 analyzers measure O2 on a wet basis. As
described in the preamble of the April 2018 Proposal (83 FR 15471),
meeting the 1-percent O2 standard on a wet basis measurement
will always mean that there is more O2 than if the
concentration value is corrected to a dry basis. As such, we proposed
to amend section 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) and Table 10 to allow for the use of
a wet O2 measurement for demonstrating compliance with the
standard so long as it is used directly with no correction for moisture
content.

    The following is a summary of the one comment received in response
to our April 2018 Proposal and our response to this comment on the
proposed amendments to the FCCU provisions.
What comment was received on the FCCU provisions?
    Comment 1: One commenter (-0958) supported the EPA's proposed
revisions to section 63.1573(a)(1), which allows the use of the inlet
velocity requirement during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) for an FCCU as an alternative to the PM standard
regardless of the configuration of the catalytic regenerator exhaust
vent stream. The same commenter suggested additional clarifications
relative to the alternative PM standard. These clarifications include:
    (1) Amending the last sentence in section 63.1573(a)(1) to clarify
that the requirement to use the same procedure for performance tests
and subsequent monitoring does not apply to the use of the alternative
in section 63.1564(c)(5), since the alternative only applies during
SSM.
    (2) Revising the first sentence of section 63.1573(a)(2) to
specifically allow use for demonstrating compliance with section
63.1564(c)(5).
    (3) Amending the footnote to Item 12 in Table 3 to make it clear
that either alternative in (a)(1) or (a)(2) is acceptable for
demonstrating compliance. The commenter also recommended providing a
separate footnote as other items reference footnote 1.
    (4) Adding the footnote from Item 12 in Table 3 to Item 10 in Table
7.
    Response 1: We agree with the commenter that the last sentence in
section 63.1573(a)(1) is provided to ensure that the operating limits
are established using the same monitoring techniques as the on-going
monitoring. As no site-specific operating limit is required for
compliance with section 63.1564(c)(5), that requirement is not
applicable to this additional allowance of this alternative. We are
revising the language in the final rule to clarify.
    We disagree that it is appropriate to revise the first sentence in
section 63.1573(a)(2), as requested by the commenter, because the flow
rate must be determined based on actual flow conditions, not standard
conditions; therefore, Equation 2 in section 63.1573 is not applicable
to demonstrate compliance with section 63.1564(c)(5).
What is the EPA's final decision on the FCCU provisions?
    In consideration of public comments, we are finalizing the
amendments to the FCCU provisions, as proposed with one change to
section 63.1573(a) to clarify that the provision does not apply to the
use of the alternative in section 63.1564(c)(5).
2. Other Provisions
What is the history of the other Refinery MACT 2 provisions addressed
in the April 2018 Proposal?
    We proposed several clarifying amendments for other Refinery MACT 2
requirements in response to API and AFPM's petition for reconsideration
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892) as well as in response to the
API and AFPM's March 28, 2017, letter (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682-0915).
    We proposed to amend section 63.1572(d)(1) to be consistent with
the analogous language in section 63.671(a)(4).
    We proposed to amend the recordkeeping requirements in section
63.1576(a)(2)(i) to apply only when facilities elect to comply with the
alternative startup and shutdown standards provided in section
63.1564(a)(5)(ii), section 63.1565(a)(5)(ii), or sections
63.1568(a)(4)(ii) or (iii).
    We proposed several amendments for electronic reporting including
at section 63.1574(a)(3) to clarify that the results of performance
tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance are to be reported by
the due date of the NOCS whether the results are reported via CEDRI or
in hard copy as part of the NOCS report. If the results are reported
via CEDRI, we also proposed to specify that sources need not resubmit
those results in the NOCS, but may instead submit information
identifying that a performance test or evaluation was conducted and the
units and pollutants that were tested. We also proposed to amend the
submission of the results of periodic performance tests and the 1-time
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) test required in sections 63.1571(a)(5) and (6)
to require inclusion with the semiannual compliance reports as
specified in section 63.1575(f) instead of within 60 days of completing
the performance evaluation. Similarly, we proposed to streamline
reporting of the results of performance evaluations and continuous
monitoring systems (as provided in item 2 to Table 43) to align with
the semiannual compliance reports as specified in section 63.1575(f)
rather than requiring a separate submission. We also proposed to add
the phrase ``Unless otherwise specified by this subpart'' to sections
63.1575(k)(1) and (2) to make clear that performance tests or
performance evaluations required to be reported in a NOCS report or a
semiannual compliance report are not subject to the 60-day deadline
specified in the paragraphs. We also proposed to add section 63.1575(l)
to address extensions to electronic reporting deadlines. We also
proposed clarifying amendments to several references in Table 44--
Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUU.
    Finally, we proposed a number of editorial and other corrections in
Table 3 of the April 2018 Proposal (83 FR 15472).
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received in
response to our April 2018 Proposal and our response to these comments.
It should be noted that the comment summary and response for the
reporting extension in section 63.655(h)(10)(i) and section
63.1575(l)(1) is addressed in section III.A.8 of this preamble. All
other comments related to the proposed amendments for the other
Refinery MACT 2 provisions are included in the response to comments
document for this final action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2010-0682).
What significant comment was received on the other Refinery MACT 2
provisions?
    Comment 1: One commenter (-0958) recommended that the EPA revise
the proposed requirement in section 63.1571(a), (a)(5), (a)(6), and
Table 6 Item 1.ii to complete initial PM (or nickel) performance test
within 60 days of startup for new units to instead allow for completion
and reporting of the performance test by the 150-day notice of
compliance status date since a new unit may not be up to full
production rates within the first 60 days.
    Response 1: In reviewing the existing provisions regarding
performance tests in Refinery MACT 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU), we
agree that the initial performance tests are required to be completed
and reported no later than 150 days after the compliance date (see
section 63.1574(a)(3)(ii)). To better align the proposed revisions with
the existing requirements, we are revising the proposed requirement to
complete and report these tests no later than 150 days after the
compliance date (see section 63.1574(a)(3)(ii)).
What is the EPA's final decision on the other Refinery MACT 2
provisions?
    After considering public comment, we are finalizing these
amendments with some revisions to the due dates for initial performance
tests in sections 63.1571(a), (a)(5), (a)(6), and Table 6

Item 1.ii as well as edits to the proposed language in the extensions
to electronic reporting provisions in section 63.1575(l) (as described
in section III.A.8 of this preamble). We are finalizing the amendments
at section 63.1572(d)(1), section 63.1576(a)(2)(i), and Table 3 of the
April 2018 Proposal (83 FR 15472), as proposed.

C. Clarifications and Technical Corrections to NSPS Ja

    We proposed three revisions in NSPS Ja to improve consistency,
remove redundancy, and correct grammar at section 60.105a(b)(2)(ii),
section 60.106a(a)(1)(vi), and section 60.106a(a)(1)(iii),
respectively. We did not receive public comments on these proposed
amendments. We are finalizing these amendments as proposed.

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

    As described in the April 2018 Proposal and associated memorandum
titled, ``Projected Cost and Burden Reduction for the Proposed
Amendments of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review: Petroleum
Refineries,'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0925), the technical
corrections and clarifications included in this final rule are expected
to result in overall cost and burden reductions. Consistent with the
April 2018 Proposal, the final amendments expected to reduce burden
are: Revisions of the maintenance vent provisions related to the
availability of a pure hydrogen supply for equipment containing
pyrophoric catalyst, revisions of recordkeeping requirements for
maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less than 72
lbs/day VOC, inclusion of specific provisions for pilot-operated and
balanced bellows PRDs, and inclusion of specific provisions related to
steam tube air entrainment for flares. The other final amendments
included in this rulemaking will have an insignificant effect on the
costs or burdens associated with the standards. Additionally, none of
the final amendments are projected to appreciably impact the emissions
reductions associated with these standards.
    We are finalizing the provisions for maintenance vent recordkeeping
and PRD as proposed, and, thus, the cost and burden reductions
estimated in the April 2018 Proposal and supporting memorandum are
still accurate. The final revisions to the recordkeeping requirements
for maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less than 72
lbs/day VOC are estimated to yield savings of approximately $677,000
per year considering the actual estimated annualized burden of the
December 2015 Rule. The final provisions for pilot-operated and
balanced bellows PRDs included in this final rulemaking yield a
reduction in capital investment of $1.1 million and a reduction in
annualized costs of $330,000 per year considering the actual estimated
annualized burden of the December 2015 Rule.
    It should be noted that we are finalizing amendments to the
proposed provisions for maintenance vent provisions related to the
availability of a pure hydrogen supply for equipment containing
pyrophoric catalyst and provisions related to steam tube air
entrainment for flares with revisions as described in sections III.A.2
and III.A.7 of this preamble. The revisions described in sections
III.A.2 and III.A.7 are not expected to impact the cost and burden
reductions estimated in the referenced April 2018 Proposal and
memorandum for these provisions, as they are clarifying in nature.
    As explained in the April 2018 Proposal, there were no capital
costs estimated for the maintenance vent provisions in the December
2015 Rule and only limited recordkeeping and reporting costs. Capital
investment estimates provided by industry stakeholders for the
maintenance vent provisions included in the December 2015 Rule was
approximately $76 million. The inclusion of the capital costs for the
maintenance vent provisions would have increased the previously
estimated annualized cost included in the December 2015 Rule by
$7,174,400 per year. Through the revisions being finalized in this
rule, these costs will not be incurred by refinery owners and
operators. Similarly, while significant capital and operating costs
were projected for flares, we may have underestimated the number of
steam-assisted flares that would also have to demonstrate compliance
with the NHVdil operating limit in the December 2015 Rule
impacts analysis. Considering such flares, the annualized cost of the
December 2015 Rule for steam-assisted flares would have increased the
previously estimated annualized cost included in the December 2015 Rule
by $3,300,000 per year. Through the revisions being finalized in this
rulemaking which allows owners or operators of certain steam-assisted
flares with air entrainment at the flare tip to comply only with the
NHVcz operating limits, these costs will not be incurred by
refinery owners and operators.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the present value and annualized value
estimates associated with this action located in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1692.12. 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.
    One of the final technical amendments included in this rule impacts
the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC for
certain maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less
than 72 lbs/day VOC as found at 40 CFR 63.655(i)(12)(iv). The new
recordkeeping requirement specifies records used to estimate the total
quantity of VOC in the equipment and the type and size limits of
equipment that contain less than 72 lbs/day of VOC at the time of the
maintenance vent opening be maintained. As specified in 40 CFR
63.655(i)(12)(iv), additional records are required if the inventory
procedures were not followed for each maintenance vent opening or if
the equipment opened exceeded the type and size limits (i.e., 72 lbs/
day VOC). These additional records include identification of the
maintenance vent, the process units or equipment associated with the
maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent opening, and records
used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment at the

time the maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere. These records
will assist the EPA with determining compliance with the standards set
forth in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(iv).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of existing or
new major source petroleum refineries that are major sources of HAP
emissions. The NAICS code is 324110 for petroleum refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: All data in the ICR that are
recorded are required by the amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum
Refineries.
    Estimated number of respondents: 142.
    Frequency of response: Once per year per respondent.
    Total estimated burden: 16 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,640 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The action consists of amendments,
clarifications, and technical corrections which are expected to reduce
regulatory burden. As described in section IV of this preamble, we
expect burden reduction for: (1) Revisions of the maintenance vent
provisions related to the availability of a pure hydrogen supply for
equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst, (2) revisions of
recordkeeping requirements for maintenance vents associated with
equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day VOC, (3) inclusion of
specific provisions for pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs, and
(4) inclusion of specific provisions related to steam tube air
entrainment for flares. Furthermore, as noted in section IV of this
preamble, we do not expect the final amendments to change the expected
economic impact analysis performed for the existing rule. We have,
therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden
for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, 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. It will not have substantial direct effect on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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. The final amendments serve to make technical clarifications
and corrections, as well as revise compliance dates. We expect the
final revisions will have an insignificant effect on emission
reductions. Therefore, the final amendments should not appreciably
increase risk for any populations.

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 rulemaking involves technical standards. As described in
section III.C of this preamble, the EPA has decided to use the
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A
and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental
procedures. This method is available at the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
final amendments serve to make technical clarifications and
corrections, as well as revise compliance dates. We expect the final
technical clarifications and corrections will have an insignificant
effect on emission reductions. The additional compliance time provided
for existing maintenance vents is expected to have an insignificant
effect on emission reductions as many refiners already have measures in
place due to state and other federal requirements to minimize emissions
during these periods. Further, the maintenance vent opening periods are
relatively infrequent and are usually of short duration. Additionally,
the final compliance date only provides approximately 6 months beyond
the August 1, 2018, compliance date for most facilities, which are
operating under 1-year compliance extensions (from the previous
deadline of August 1, 2017) they received from states based on the
procedure in 40 CFR 63.6(i). Therefore, the final amendments should

not appreciably increase risk for any populations.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

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

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: November 8, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(14) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  60.56c(b), 60.63(f), 60.106(e), 60.104a(d), (h), (i),
and (j), 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g), 60.106a(a), 60.107a(a), (c),
and (d), tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 to subpart
FFFF, table 2 to subpart JJJJ, Sec. Sec.  60.285a(f), 60.4415(a),
60.2145(s) and (t), 60.2710(s), (t), and (w), 60.2730(q), 60.4900(b),
60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart
MMMM, Sec. Sec.  60.5406(c), 60.5406a(c), 60.5407a(g), 60.5413(b),
60.5413a(b), and 60.5413a(d).
* * * * *

Subpart Ja--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
May 14, 2007

0
3. Section 60.105a is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.105a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for fluid
catalytic cracking units (FCCU) and fluid coking units (FCU).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each CO2 and O2 monitor according to the
requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3 of
appendix B to this part. The owner or operator shall use Method 3, 3A
or 3B of appendix A-2 to this part for conducting the relative accuracy
evaluations. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust
Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2 to part 60.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 60.106a is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read
as follows: