[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14247-14283]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05463]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 52

March 18, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C504-06), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-2076; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Marcia Mia, EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; U.S. EPA, WJC West Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7042; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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

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

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

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

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

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. What is included in this final rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO Source Category

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

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

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

B. Technology Review for the OSWRO Source Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We disagree with the commenter that applying the connector leak
frequency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO NESHAP

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

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

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

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

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

during a performance test. Some air agencies have begun accepting the
ERT as their reporting mechanism, and with experience, we believe
acceptance by other air agencies will increase. CEDRI, the portal
through which this data is submitted to CDX, includes the ability for
states to interact with submitted ERT files directly, immediately after
electronic submission. During the first phase in the development of
CEDRI, we initiated a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional Integrated
Project Team (IPT) consisting of EPA personnel from various offices and
representatives from air agencies. The objectives of the CEDRI IPT were
to gain insight and ideas regarding the data flow process within the
CEDRI. States have the ability to access files in CEDRI as soon as they
are submitted and can review these documents from anywhere that has
Internet access. While in some instances air agencies may still want a
hard copy of a test report, the ERT can generate a printed test report
or export the report to a word processor for reformatting. This report
can be generated by an air agency with an ERT they have opened, or
generated by a regulated entity and submitted to the air agency as an
emissions test report.
    The EPA believes that electronic reporting is a more efficient way
to collect test data and has set up a retrieval system such that air
agencies can access files that have been submitted using the ERT. As
more air agencies adopt electronic reporting, we believe that the need
for paper reports will diminish. The EPA is also developing a web-based
ERT and has plans to release an extensible markup language (XML) schema
that could be used by third parties to develop customized reporting
software that meets the EPA's reporting requirements. The EPA expects
these additional reporting options will provide a more robust and user
friendly reporting process in the future.
ii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
    Comment: One commenter states that the OEL provisions are
``equipment standards,'' and compliance is determined by whether a cap,
blind flange, plug or second valve is physically installed, and the
term ``sealed'' historically has meant one of these devices is present.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA's intent
has always been that caps, blind flanges, plugs or second valves that
are installed on OELs provide a seal, i.e., no detectable emissions.
This is further supported by examples of compliance audits conducted by
the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and EPA
Regional enforcement personnel in which companies were cited for OELs
not being sealed. We have placed these audits in the docket for this
action.
    Comment: Two commenters believe the EPA must show that imposing a
new emissions limit for OELs is justified according to the criteria of