National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation, 25531-25544 [06-4080]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25531-25544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4080]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021; FRL-8163-7]
RIN 2060-AM30


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site 
Remediation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for site remediation activities 
that were promulgated on October 8, 2003, to control emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from site remediation activities. We are 
proposing to amend specific provisions to resolve issues and questions 
subsequent to promulgation; correct technical omissions; and correct

[[Page 25532]]

typographical, cross-reference, and grammatical errors.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed amendments must be received 
on or before June 30, 2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by May 22, 2006, a public hearing will be held on May 
31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     By Facsimile: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. EPA, Mailcode 6102T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 
total of two copies. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to 
the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0021, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 
B102, Washington, DC, 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0021. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is 
an ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 
Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Nizich, Chemicals and 
Coatings Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (C439-03), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3078, 
facsimile number (919) 541-3207, electronic mail (e-mail) address: 
nizich.greg@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Entities Table. Entities potentially affected by this proposed 
action include, but are not limited to, the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                        NAICS \1\             Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          325211  Site remediation activities at businesses at
                                                        325192   which materials containing organic HAP
                                                        325188   currently are or have been in the past stored,
                                                         32411   processed, treated, or otherwise managed at the
                                                         49311   facility. These facilities include: Organic
                                                         49319   liquid storage terminals, petroleum refineries,
                                                         48611   chemical manufacturing facilities, and other
                                                         42269   manufacturing facilities with co-located site
                                                         42271   remediation activities.
Federal Government............................  ..............  Federal agency facilities that conduct site
                                                                 remediation activities to clean up materials
                                                                 contaminated with organic HAP.
State/Local/Tribal Government.................  ..............  Tribal governments that conduct site remediation
                                                                 activities to clean up materials contaminated
                                                                 with organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Representative industrial codes at which site
  remediation activities have been or are currently conducted at some but not all facilities under a given code.
  The list is not necessarily comprehensive as to the types of facilities at which a site remediation cleanup
  may potentially be required either now or in the future.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action.
    A comprehensive list of NAICS codes cannot be compiled for 
businesses or facilities potentially regulated by the rule due to the 
nature of activities regulated by the source category. The industrial 
code alone for a given facility does not determine whether the facility 
is or is not potentially subject to the rule. The rule may be 
applicable to any type of business or facility at which a site 
remediation is conducted to clean up media contaminated with organic 
HAP and other hazardous material. Thus, for many businesses and 
facilities subject to the rule, the regulated sources (i.e., the site 
remediation activities) are not the predominant activity, process, 
operation, or service conducted at the facility. In these cases, the 
industrial code indicates a primary product produced or service 
provided at the facility rather than the presence of a site remediation 
at the facility. For example,

[[Page 25533]]

NAICS code classifications where site remediation activities are 
currently being performed at some but not all facilities include, but 
are not limited to, petroleum refineries (NAICS code 32411), industrial 
organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 3251xx), and plastic 
materials and synthetics manufacturing (NAICS code 3252xx). However, we 
are also aware of site remediation activities potentially subject to 
the rule being performed at facilities listed under NAICS codes for 
refuse systems, waste management, business services, miscellaneous 
services, and nonclassifiable.
    To determine whether your facility is regulated by the action, you 
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the 40 CFR part 
63, subpart GGGGG--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Site Remediation. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    WorldWide Web (WWW). Following the Administrator's signature, a 
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the Technology 
Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina or at an alternate site nearby. Contact Mr. Greg Nizich at 
919-541-3078 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public 
hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the 
hearing location.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments
    A. Short-Term Site Remediation Exemption
    B. Point of Determination of Remediation Material Volatile 
Organic HAP (VOHAP) Concentration
    C. 1 Mg/yr Site Remediation Exemption
    D. Requirements for Remediation Material Transferred Off-Site
    E. Requirements for Equipment Leaks
    F. Applicability Determination for Remediation Activities at 
Certain Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities
    G. Other Rule Editorial Corrections
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background

    We promulgated subpart GGGGG, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation, in 40 CFR part 63 on 
October 8, 2003 (68 FR 58172). Subpart GGGGG applies to owners and 
operators of facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions and 
where a site remediation is conducted that meets the definitions and 
conditions specified in the final rule. Certain types of site 
remediations are explicitly exempted from being subject to the final 
rule. Each site remediation subject to the final rule must meet the 
emission limitation and work practice standards in subpart GGGGG that 
apply to the source types (e.g., process vents, tanks, containers, 
equipment components) used to perform or associated with the site 
remediation activities.
    Since the promulgation of subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63, we have 
received questions about our interpretation of specific provisions in 
the final rule. To clarify these issues, we decided that technical 
amendments to the final rule are appropriate. Also, as part of today's 
action, we are proposing to amend other rule language to correct 
technical omissions, and to correct terminology, typographical, 
printing, and grammatical errors that we have identified since 
promulgation. The proposed amendments would not significantly change 
our original projections for the final rule's compliance costs, 
environmental benefits, burden on industry, or the number of affected 
facilities.
    A petition for reconsideration for the final rule was filed by the 
Sierra Club on December 8, 2003. The amendments proposed today do not 
address any issues cited in the Sierra Club's petition. We are still 
reviewing the items for reconsideration and will address them in a 
future notice.

II. Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, to clarify 
our intent for applying and implementing specific rule requirements and 
to correct unintentional technical omissions and editorial errors. A 
summary of the proposed amendments to the final rule and the rationale 
for these amendments are presented below.

A. Short-Term Site Remediation Exemption

    Subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 provides an exemption for certain 
short-term site remediations performed at facilities subject to the 
final rule. Specifically, site remediations where the cleanup of a 
contaminated area at the facility can be completed within 30 
consecutive calendar days are exempted from the air emission control 
requirements in subpart GGGGG. This exemption is included in the final 
rule to facilitate the prompt cleanup of contamination resulting from 
small spills or similar events where the facility owner or operator can 
quickly complete the cleanup in a short period of time. Following 
promulgation of the rule, we received requests to clarify how the 30-
day limit is implemented.
    As we discussed in the preamble to the final rule (68 FR 58185), 
the time interval for this exemption is based on the time required to 
complete those remediation activities that actually emit or have a 
potential to emit HAP. Furthermore, this exemption applies to those 
cleanups of contaminated areas that can reasonably be completed within 
a period much shorter than 30 days (e.g., several days, 1 to 2 weeks). 
We chose the 30-day interval specified in the final rule in 
consideration of those situations where a cleanup at a particular site 
that normally should be completed within several days or a week takes 
longer to complete because factors beyond the control of the owner or 
operator temporarily suspend or delay the remediation activities (such 
as severe weather or unexpected machinery breakdowns). Therefore, we 
decided that selecting a maximum of 30 days for the short-term site 
remediation exemption allows a sufficient extended period to complete 
cleanups that experience unavoidable delays and provides a reasonable 
time buffer to account for any unforeseen circumstances that may 
develop at a site.
    It is our intention that the short-term site remediation exemption 
only applies to those cleanups where all associated activities can be 
completed within 30 days (including any off-site treatment of the 
remediation materials) such that the organic HAP constituents in all of 
the remediation material resulting from the cleanup of the contaminated 
area no longer have a reasonable potential for volatilizing and being 
released to the atmosphere. In other words, we do not

[[Page 25534]]

consider simply shipping the remediation material generated by the 
cleanup to another site by the 30th day as complying with the 
exemption's intended scope. Materials containing organic HAP that are 
shipped off-site may still have the potential for the organics to 
volatilize and, consequently, be released to the atmosphere. Unless 
properly treated or disposed of, the action of shipping the remediation 
materials to an off-site location effectively just moves the HAP 
emissions point to another location and extends the time available for 
the organic HAP to be emitted.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.7884 to clarify the final rule 
language with respect to our intent for application of the short-term 
remediation exemption, including those situations when the remediation 
material is transferred off-site. The proposed amendment language would 
explicitly define the beginning and end of the 30-day exemption period. 
Within this 30-day period, regardless of the location where the 
treatment or disposal occurs (i.e., either on-site or at another 
facility), final treatment or disposal of all remediation material 
generated during the cleanup would need to be completed.
    The first day of the 30-day exemption period would be defined as 
the day on which you initiate any action that removes, destroys, 
degrades, transforms, immobilizes, or otherwise manages the remediation 
materials. Consistent with the exemption under the existing rule, the 
following activities, when completed before beginning this initial 
action, would not be counted as part of the 30-day period: Activities 
to characterize the type and extent of the contamination by collecting 
and analyzing samples; activities to obtain permits from Federal, 
State, or local authorities to conduct the site remediation; activities 
to schedule workers and necessary equipment; and activities to arrange 
for contractor or third party assistance in performing the site 
remediation.
    The last day of the exemption period would be defined as the day on 
which all of the remediation materials generated by the cleanup have 
been treated or disposed of (either at the cleanup site or another 
site) in a manner such that the organic HAP in the material no longer 
have a reasonable potential for volatilizing and being released to the 
atmosphere. This means the final treatment or disposal of all of the 
remediation material must be completed within the 30-day period 
following initiation of the cleanup. A site remediation where the only 
activities completed are excavating or otherwise removing the 
contaminated material, and then storing this material (e.g., in waste 
piles, tanks, or containers) during the 30-day period does not qualify 
for the exemption. In this case, the processes and equipment used for 
site remediation would need to meet the applicable emissions 
limitations and work practice standards in the final rule (unless the 
site remediation qualifies for another exemption allowed under the 
final rule).
    Similarly, simply shipping all the remediation material off-site by 
the 30th day does not meet the conditions of the exemption. If the 
remediation materials generated by a cleanup are shipped off-site for 
treatment or disposal, then the owner or operator would be required to 
complete the transfer of all of the materials to a facility where these 
materials would be treated or disposed of within the 30-day period such 
that the organic HAP constituents in the materials no longer have a 
reasonable potential for volatilizing and subsequent release to the 
atmosphere. In situations when the off-site treatment or disposal of 
the remediation material cannot be completed within the 30-day period, 
then the remediation material is subject to 40 CFR 63.7936 of subpart 
GGGGG which specifies the requirements you must meet when you transfer 
remediation material off-site.

B. Point of Determination of Remediation Material Volatile Organic HAP 
(VOHAP) Concentration

    Subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 establishes standards to control 
organic HAP emissions from certain remediation material management 
units (i.e., tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil/water 
separators, organic/water separators and transfer systems) used for 
remediation activities. The final rule requires that those units 
managing remediation material with an average VOHAP concentration equal 
to or greater than 500 parts per million by weight (ppmw), meet the 
applicable emission limitation and work practice standards for the 
remediation material management unit specified in the rule. If the 
VOHAP concentration of the material is less than 500 ppmw, then the 
remediation material management units handling this material are not 
required to meet the air emission control requirements in subpart 
GGGGG. The VOHAP concentration is based on the organic HAP content of 
the remediation material determined by either direct measurement of 
samples of the remediation material or through use of knowledge of the 
remediation material (i.e., application of the owner's or operator's 
expertise using appropriate information regarding the remediation 
material).
    As promulgated, subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 requires the VOHAP 
concentration for the remediation material to be determined at the 
``point-of-extraction.'' This term is defined to be a point above 
ground where you can collect samples of a remediation material before, 
or at the first point where, organic constituents in the material have 
the potential to volatilize and be released to the atmosphere, and (in 
all instances) before placing the material in a remediation material 
management unit.
    This point of determination is different from the definition we 
originally proposed for subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63. In the 
proposed rule, the VOHAP concentration of the remediation material was 
specified to be determined at a point prior to, or within, a 
remediation material management unit, provided that organic 
constituents in the material have not been allowed to volatilize and be 
released to the atmosphere. This approach was discussed in the preamble 
to the proposed rule (67 FR 49408) and proposed in 40 CFR 
63.7882(c)(4)(i) and 40 CFR 63.7912(a). We proposed this approach 
because it simplifies the determination procedure for the wide variety 
of treatment and management processes that can be used for site 
remediation activities.
    The approach addresses situations not only when there is a single 
remediation material stream, but also those situations when there are 
two or more combined material streams (either only remediation 
materials or remediation materials with non-remediation materials). If 
a single material stream (or combination of streams) having a VOHAP 
concentration of 500 ppmw or greater is managed in a remediation 
material management unit, then the unit is subject to the air emission 
control requirements for the particular unit, as specified in the final 
rule. If at a further downstream point, the VOHAP concentration of the 
material falls below the 500 ppmw action level following treatment, the 
material no longer needs to be managed in units that meet the 
applicable air emission control requirements in subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR 
part 63 (however, these units would still need to comply with any 
applicable control under other Federal or State air rules). Similarly, 
if the VOHAP concentration of a remediation material through processing 
or other means is increased in a remediation material management unit 
to a level at or greater than the 500 ppmw action

[[Page 25535]]

level, that unit will need to use the appropriate controls specified in 
subpart GGGGG.
    We received no adverse public comment on the proposed approach. We 
did, however, receive unrelated adverse public comments stating that 
the format we used for the proposed rule (e.g., reliance on presenting 
many rule requirements in an exclusively tabular format and extensive 
cross-referencing to provisions in other subparts in 40 CFR part 63) 
made the rule difficult to read and understand. In response to these 
comments, we significantly revised the editorial format and 
organization of the final rule. In doing so, the rule language we 
proposed designating the point where the VOHAP concentration of a 
remediation material is to be determined for the purpose of identifying 
those remediation material management units not subject to the rule's 
air emission control requirements (i.e., units managing remediation 
material having a VOHAP concentration less than the 500 ppmw action 
level) was unintentionally misstated when we converted this provision 
to the new format and wording used for the final rule.
    Today's proposed amendments would correct our error by amending the 
language in subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 regarding the point where 
the VOHAP concentration of remediation material is determined, and 
reinstate the same regulatory approach and language that we used for 
the proposed rule. This regulatory language would be placed in the 
appropriate sections of the reformatted final version of subpart GGGGG 
with appropriate adjustments of terminology and section cross-
references consistent with the final rule structure.
    In addition, today's proposed amendments would remove the term 
``point-of-extraction'' in the final rule since the term no longer is 
needed to implement any provision of subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 
and would specify that you determine the average total VOHAP 
concentration of the remediation material at a point prior to or within 
a remediation material management unit. The applicable regulatory 
language under the procedures in 40 CFR 63.7943 for determining average 
VOHAP concentration of a remediation material would also be revised 
using the original proposal language to the fullest extent possible 
under the format of the final rule. Thus, we would be implementing our 
intended approach for determining the VOHAP concentration of the 
remediation material. Under today's proposed amendments (consistent 
with our original proposal), once the VOHAP concentration for a 
remediation material has been determined to be less than 500 ppmw, all 
remediation material management units downstream from the point of 
determination managing this material would no longer be required to 
meet the air emission control requirements in subpart GGGGG unless a 
remediation process is used that concentrates all, or part of, the 
remediation material being managed in the unit such that the VOHAP 
concentration of the material increases to 500 ppmw or more (e.g., 
free-product separation).

C. 1 Mg/yr Site Remediation Exemption

    An applicability exemption is provided in 40 CFR 63.7881(c) for a 
facility that is a major source of HAP and is subject to another 
subpart under 40 CFR part 63, but where the annual quantity of organic 
HAP in the materials generated by the site remediations conducted at 
the facility is less than 1 megagram per year (Mg/yr). Facilities at 
which the site remediation activities qualify for this exemption are 
not subject to the final rule except for recordkeeping requirements. 
The owner or operator is required to maintain records documenting that 
the total quantity of the organic HAP in the remediation materials 
generated by site remediations at the facility is less than 1 Mg/yr. 
This section of the final rule has been wrongly interpreted by some to 
mean that the 1 Mg/yr limit is applied on an individual site 
remediation basis. By this interpretation, at a facility where two site 
remediations are conducted in a year, each site remediation would be 
allowed to generate remediation materials having total organic HAP 
content up to 1 Mg/yr resulting in a facilitywide total of 2 Mg/yr, 
which is not what we intended. This is not how the exemption provisions 
are to be applied to a facility.
    The 1 Mg/yr limit for the exemption is applied on a facilitywide 
basis. As we stated in the proposal (67 FR 49406), the exemption 
applies to a facility for which the owner or operator demonstrates that 
the total annual organic HAP mass content of the remediation material 
cleaned up at a facility is less than 1 Mg/yr. The mass limit is based 
on the total organic HAP content of the remediation material at the 
facility, not the material from an individual site remediation at the 
facility. There is no restriction on the number of site remediations 
for which the exemption applies so long as the total organic HAP amount 
in the remediation materials generated by all of the site remediations 
conducted at the facility during a year is less than 1 Mg/yr.
    To clarify the final rule language with respect to how the small-
quantity remediation exemption is to be applied, we are proposing 
amended language for 40 CFR 63.7881(c). This language would not change 
how the 1 Mg/yr limit applies nor change the documentation requirements 
for the exemption now in the final rule, but simply and more explicitly 
state that the 1 Mg/yr limit applies on a facilitywide, calendar-year 
basis, and that there is no restriction of the number of site 
remediations under the exemption.

D. Requirements for Remediation Material Transferred Off-Site

    The requirements for owners and operators transferring remediation 
material, having an average VOHAP concentration of 10 ppmw or greater, 
to an off-site facility are specified in 40 CFR 63.7936 of subpart 
GGGGG. This section has been incorrectly interpreted by some to mean 
that any remediation material transferred off-site with a VOHAP 
concentration at or above the 10 ppmw action level has some treatment 
obligation under subpart GGGGG. While we are not proposing to amend the 
existing language in 40 CFR 63.7936, we are including an explanation 
here to clarify how the 10 ppmw action level in 40 CFR 63.7936 is 
applied to remediation material transferred off-site.
    The 10 ppmw VOHAP concentration action level in 40 CFR 63.7936 is 
not used to determine applicability of emissions control or work 
practice standards under subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63. Rather, the 
10 ppmw VOHAP concentration action level is specified because, at or 
above that VOHAP concentration, some action may be required by both the 
transferring facility and receiving facility, but further evaluation is 
needed to be certain if any action is required. If the VOHAP 
concentration of the transferred remediation material is less than 10 
ppmw, there are no requirements under subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 
regarding the off-site transfer and subsequent management of this 
material. However, if the VOHAP concentration of the transferred 
remediation material is 10 ppmw or greater, then there are 
recordkeeping, notification, and possibly air emission control 
requirements (depending on how the material is managed at the receiving 
facility) under subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 that must be met.
    The determination of which air emission control requirements in 
subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 apply to, or follow, the transferred

[[Page 25536]]

remediation material to the receiving facility is based on other action 
levels in the final rule that are specifically applied to the affected 
sources regardless of the source location (i.e., the 10 ppmw action 
level for process vents in 40 CFR 63.7885 and the 500 ppmw action level 
for remediation material management units in 40 CFR 63.7886). In cases 
where transferred remediation material, having an average VOHAP 
concentration of 10 ppmw or greater, is treated or managed at the 
receiving facility in vented processes that would be affected sources 
under subpart GGGGG if located at the transferring facility (40 CFR 
63.7882(a)(1)), then these processes must comply with the air emission 
control requirements for process vents in the final rule (40 CFR 
63.7885).
    In cases where transferred remediation material having an average 
VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw or greater is treated or managed at the 
receiving facility in remediation material management units that would 
be affected sources under subpart GGGGG (40 CFR 63.7882(a)(2)), these 
units must comply with the applicable air emission control requirements 
in the final rule (40 CFR 63.7886). If instead the average VOHAP 
concentration of the transferred remediation material placed in these 
remediation material management units at the receiving facility is 10 
ppmw or greater but less than 500 ppmw, then the units are not required 
to meet the air emission control requirements in subpart GGGGG. The 
only requirement is to document why the transferred remediation 
material is not subject to the air emission control requirements in 
subpart GGGGG (i.e., the VOHAP concentration of the material is below 
the 500 ppmw action level).

E. Requirements for Equipment Leaks

    The general standards in subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 for 
process vents and for remediation material management units provide 
owners and operators an alternative compliance option for those units 
that are already using air pollution controls to comply with another 
subpart under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 63. Under this option, your 
unit is not subject to air emission control requirements in subpart 
GGGGG if the unit is controlled in compliance with the standards 
specified in the applicable subpart of 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 
63. This means the unit meets all applicable emissions limitations and 
work practice standards under the other subpart (e.g., you install and 
operate the required air emission control devices or have implemented 
the required work practice to reduce HAP emissions to levels specified 
by the applicable subpart). This provision only applies if the other 
subpart actually specifies a standard requiring control of HAP 
emissions from your affected process vents. It does not apply to any 
exemption of the affected source from using air pollution controls 
allowed by the other applicable subpart. This compliance option under 
subpart GGGGG was included in the proposed rule for both process vents 
and remediation material management units. We received no adverse 
public comments on allowing this compliance option.
    The general standards in subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 do not 
include a comparable compliance option for those affected equipment 
leak sources associated with a site remediation that are already using 
air pollution controls to comply with another subpart under 40 CFR part 
61 or 40 CFR part 63. There is no reason not to extend the same 
compliance option that subpart GGGGG allows for process vents and 
remediation material management units to equipment leak sources. The 
exclusion of this type of compliance option under the general standards 
for equipment leaks from the final rule was an oversight on our part. 
Therefore, the proposed amendments would add to the general standards 
for equipment leaks in 40 CFR 63.7887 a compliance option for those 
affected equipment leak sources that are already using air pollution 
controls or work practices to comply with another subpart under 40 CFR 
part 61 or 40 CFR part 63. The proposed regulatory language for this 
option effectively is the same (with minor wording changes appropriate 
to equipment leak sources) as used in the final rule for process vents 
and for remediation material management units that are already using 
air pollution controls to comply with another subpart under 40 CFR part 
61 or 40 CFR part 63.

F. Applicability Determination for Remediation Activities at Certain 
Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities

    Since promulgation of the final rule, we have been notified that 
provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) providing special consideration 
for activities located at certain oil and natural gas production field 
facilities were not incorporated into the Site Remediation NESHAP. 
These provisions, under section 112(n)(4)(A) of the CAA, have resulted 
in incorporation of regulatory text in other regulations that often 
apply to oil and natural gas production field facilities such as the 
Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP. These provisions were not 
accounted for in the Site Remediation NESHAP proposed on July 30, 2002. 
In addition, the issue was not raised by commenters on the proposed 
rule and, as a result, the final rule does not treat emissions at oil 
and natural gas production fields differently from those at any other 
location. Since we believe regulations must be consistent with the CAA, 
we are proposing amendments to the applicability provisions of the Site 
Remediation NESHAP to further that outcome. Section 112(n)(4)(A) 
states:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this 
section, emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production 
well (with its associated equipment) and emissions from any pipeline 
compressor or pump station shall not be aggregated with emissions 
from other similar units, whether or not such units are in a 
contiguous area or under common control, to determine whether such 
units or stations are major sources, and in the case of any oil and 
gas exploration or production well (with its associated equipment), 
such emissions shall not be aggregated for any purpose under this 
section.

    In the Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63 
subpart HH, we address the provisions of section 112(n)(4)(A) by 
limiting the emission points that can be aggregated in the major source 
determination process at production field facilities. In order to be 
consistent with both the Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP, and 
section 112 of the CAA, we are proposing amendments to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP to limit emissions aggregation for major source 
status determination at production field facilities only, to glycol 
dehydration units, storage vessels with flash emission potential and 
site remediation activities. The terms ``production field facility,'' 
``glycol dehydration unit,'' and ``storage vessel with the potential 
for flash emissions'' are all defined terms under the Oil and Natural 
Gas Production NESHAP (40 CFR 63.761) and will be referenced under the 
proposed amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP.

G. Other Rule Editorial Corrections

    Table 1 to subpart GGGGG of 40 CFR part 63 lists the specific 
organic chemical compounds, isomers, and mixtures that are HAP for 
purposes of implementing the requirements of subpart GGGGG. The version 
of table 1 to subpart GGGGG published in October 2003 inadvertently 
included a listing for the compound 1,1-dimethyl hydrazine that we 
stated in the preamble for the final rule should not have been listed 
in the table (68 FR 58175). The proposed

[[Page 25537]]

amendments would replace table 1 to subpart GGGGG with the correct 
version of the table excluding the listing for 1,1-dimethyl hydrazine.
    Amendments to the regulatory language throughout 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGGGG, are proposed to correct terminology, typographical, 
section cross-reference, or grammatical errors. These amendments would 
not change any of the technical or administrative requirements of the 
final rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.''
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this action a ``significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted this 
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions 
or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The proposed amendments would result in no changes to the information 
collection requirements of the existing rule. OMB has previously 
approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGGGG, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0534, EPA ICR number 2062.02. A copy of the OMB approved Information 
Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby; Collection 
Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.; 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The small entities that may be directly regulated by the 
proposed rule include small businesses and small governmental 
jurisdictions. We have determined that there would be little or no 
impact on any affected small entities because the proposed rule 
amendments would amend existing regulations to clarify specific 
provisions and to correct technical omissions and editorial errors. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to 
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's proposed rule amendments contain no Federal mandates (under 
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
tribal

[[Page 25538]]

governments or the private sector. The proposed rule amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the proposed rule 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed rule amendments contain no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because the burden is small and the regulation does 
not unfairly apply to small governments. Therefore, the proposed rule 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The proposed rule amendments do not have federalism implications. 
Today's action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The 
proposed rule amendments would amend existing regulations to clarify 
specific provisions in the existing regulations and to correct 
technical omissions and editorial errors. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule 
amendments from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed rule amendments 
do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the proposed rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to 
those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. Today's action is based on 
technology performance and not on health or safety risks and therefore 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045.

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

    Today's action is not a significant energy action: as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy because it 
only clarifies our intent and corrects errors in the existing rule. 
Further, we have concluded that the proposed rule amendments are not 
likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when we decide not use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve any new technical standards or the 
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore, 
the consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GGGGG--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.7881 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7881  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Your facility is a major source of HAP as defined in Sec.  
63.2, except that for facilities that are production field facilities, 
as defined in Sec.  63.761, only HAP emissions from glycol dehydration 
units, storage vessels with the potential for flash emissions (both as 
defined in Sec.  63.761), and site remediation activities shall be 
aggregated for a major source determination. A major source emits or 
has the potential to emit any single HAP at the rate of 10 tons (9.07 
megagrams) or more per year or any combination of

[[Page 25539]]

HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.
* * * * *
    (c) Your site remediation activities are not subject to the 
requirements of this subpart, except for the recordkeeping requirements 
in this paragraph (c), if the total quantity of the HAP listed in Table 
1 to this subpart that is contained in the remediation material 
excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed during all of the 
site remediations conducted at your facility in a calendar year is less 
than 1 megagram per year (Mg/yr). This exemption applies the 1 Mg/yr 
limit on a facilitywide, calendar-year basis and there is no 
restriction of the number of site remediations that can be conducted 
during this period. You must prepare and maintain at your facility 
written documentation to support your determination that the total HAP 
quantity in your remediation materials for the year is less than 1 Mg. 
The documentation must include a description of your methodology and 
data used for determining the total HAP content of the remediation 
material.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.7884 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7884  What are the general standards I must meet for each site 
remediation with affected sources?

    (a) For each site remediation with affected sources designated 
under Sec.  63.7882, you must meet the standards specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.7885 through 63.7955, as applicable to your affected 
sources, unless your site remediation meets the requirements for an 
exemption under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) A site remediation that is completed within 30 consecutive 
calendar days according to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) of this section is not subject to the standards under paragraph (a) 
of this section. This exemption cannot be used for a site remediation 
involving the staged or intermittent cleanup of remediation material 
whereby the remediation activities at the site are started, stopped, 
and then re-started in a series of intervals with durations less than 
30-days per interval for which the total time of all of the intervals 
required to complete the site remediation exceeds a total of 30 days.
    (1) The 30 consecutive calendar day period for a site remediation 
that qualifies for this exemption is determined according to actions 
taken by you as defined in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) The first day of the compliance period is defined as the day on 
which you initiate any action that removes, destroys, degrades, 
transforms, immobilizes, or otherwise manages the remediation 
materials. The following activities, when completed before beginning 
this initial action, are not counted as part of the 30-day period: 
Activities to characterize the type and extent of the contamination by 
collecting and analyzing samples; activities to obtain permits from 
Federal, State, or local authorities to conduct the site remediation; 
activities to schedule workers and necessary equipment; and activities 
to arrange for contractor or third party assistance in performing the 
site remediation.
    (ii) The last day of the compliance period is defined as the day on 
which treatment or disposal of all of the remediation materials 
generated by the cleanup is completed such that the organic 
constituents in these materials no longer have a reasonable potential 
for volatilizing and being released to the atmosphere.
    (2) For the purpose of complying with this paragraph (b)(2), if you 
ship or otherwise transfer the remediation material off-site you must 
complete the transfer of all of the material to a facility where your 
remediation material will be treated or disposed within the 30-day 
period such that the organic constituents in these materials no longer 
have a reasonable potential for volatilizing and being released to the 
atmosphere. If remediation material is to be shipped or otherwise 
transferred to an off-site facility where the final treatment or 
disposal of the material cannot be completed within the 30-day period, 
then the transfer (and subsequent management) of this material is 
subject to the requirements specified in Sec.  63.7936.
    (3) You must prepare and maintain at your facility written 
documentation describing the exempted site remediation, and listing the 
initiation and completion dates for the site remediation.
    4. Section 63.7886 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7886  What are the general standards I must meet for my 
affected remediation material management units?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) You determine that the average total VOHAP concentration, as 
defined in Sec.  63.7957, of the remediation material managed in the 
remediation material management unit material is less than 500 ppmw. 
You must follow the requirements in Sec.  63.7943 to demonstrate that 
the VOHAP concentration of the remediation material is less than 500 
ppmw. Once the VOHAP concentration for a remediation material has been 
determined to be less than 500 ppmw, all remediation material 
management units downstream from the point of determination managing 
this material meet the requirements of this paragraph unless a 
remediation process is used that concentrates all, or part of, the 
remediation material being managed in the unit such that the VOHAP 
concentration of the material could increase (e.g., free-product 
separation).
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.7887 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7887  What are the general standards I must meet for my 
affected equipment leak sources?

    (a) You must control HAP emissions from equipment leaks from each 
equipment component that is part of the affected source by implementing 
leak detection and control measures according to the standards 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.7920 through 63.7922 unless you elect to 
meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) If the affected equipment leak source is also subject to 
another subpart under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 63, you may control 
emissions of the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart from the 
affected equipment leak source in compliance with the standards 
specified in the other applicable subpart. This means you are complying 
with all applicable emissions limitations and work practice standards 
under the other subpart (e.g., you implement leak detection and control 
measures to reduce HAP emissions as specified by the applicable 
subpart). This provision does not apply to any exemption of the 
affected source from the emissions limitations and work practice 
standards allowed by the other applicable subpart.
    6. Section 63.7890 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7890  What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for process vents?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Reduce from all affected process vents the emissions of total 
organic compounds (TOC) (minus methane and ethane) to a level below 1.4 
kg/hr and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.0 lb/hr and 3.1 tpy); or
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.7893 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:

[[Page 25540]]

Sec.  63.7893  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for process vents?

* * * * *
    (b) You must maintain emission levels from all of your affected 
process vents to meet the facilitywide emission limits in Sec.  
63.7890(b) that apply to you, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    8. Section 63.7896 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) You have determined, according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.7944, and recorded the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation 
material placed in each affected tank subject to Sec.  63.7886(b)(1)(i) 
that does not use Tank Level 2 controls.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.7898 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Visually inspecting the external floating roof according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1063(d)(1) and inspecting the seals according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.1063(d)(2) and (3).
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.7903 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards in Sec.  63.7900 applicable to 
your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) 
through (e) of this section.
    (b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirement 
to determine the applicable container control level specified in Sec.  
63.7900(b) for each affected container by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    11. Section 63.7913 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 
introductory text to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each separator 
using a fixed roof vented through a closed vent system to a control 
device according to Sec.  63.7910(b)(2) by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.7915 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7915  What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for transfer systems?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) A transfer system that consists of continuous hard-piping. All 
joints or seams between the pipe sections must be permanently or semi-
permanently sealed (e.g., a welded joint between two sections of metal 
pipe or a bolted and gasketed flange).
* * * * *
    13. Section 63.7917 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7917  What are my inspection and monitoring requirements for 
transfer systems?

* * * * *
    (c) If you operate a transfer system consisting of hard piping 
according to Sec.  63.7917(c)(2), you must annually inspect the 
unburied portion of pipeline and all joints for leaks and other 
defects.* * *
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.7918 is amended by revising paragraph (e) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7918  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations and work practice standards for transfer systems?

* * * * *
    (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each transfer 
system that is enclosed and vented to a control device according to 
Sec.  63.7915(c)(3) by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (5) of this section.