*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

6560-50-P 

EO 12866 RTR Bin1 2060-AO91 FnlRule 20110330 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600; ] 

RIN 2060–AO91 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing 

and Publishing Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action for four national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) that regulate 12 

industrial source categories evaluated in our risk and 

technology review. The four NESHAP include: National Emissions 

Standards for Group I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber 

Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene 

Propylene Rubber Production, HypalonTM Production, Neoprene 

Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene 

Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene 

Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing 

and Publishing Industry. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 193

 For some source categories, EPA is finalizing our decisions 

concerning the residual risk and technology reviews. For the 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and the Group I 

Polymers and Resins NESHAP, EPA is finalizing emission standards 

to address certain emission sources not previously regulated 

under the NESHAP. EPA is also finalizing changes to the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP to correct an editorial error. 

For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction and promulgating provisions 

addressing electronic submission of emission test results. 

DATES: This final action is effective on [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the 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 www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 193

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number 

for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

Refining and Chemicals Group (E143–01), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–4516; fax number: (919) 685–3219; and e-mail 

address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the modeling 

methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C539–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5499; fax number: (919) 541–

0840; and e-mail address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of these four NESHAP to a 

particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in 

Table 1 to this preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 193

Table 1 – List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in 

This Action 

NESHAP for: OECA Contact1 OAQPS Contact2

Group I 

Polymers and 

Resins 

Marcia Mia 

(202) 564-7042 

mia.marcia@epa.gov

Nick Parsons 

(919) 541-5372 

parsons.nick@epa.gov

Marine Tank 

Vessel Loading 

Operations 

Maria Malave 

(202) 564-7027 

malave.maria@epa.gov

Steve Shedd 

(919) 541-5397 

shedd.steve@epa.gov

Pharmaceuticals 

Production 

Marcia Mia 

(202) 564-7042 

mia.marcia@epa.gov

Nick Parsons 

(919) 541-5372 

parsons.nick@epa.gov

The Printing 

and Publishing 

Industry 

Rafael Sanchez 

(202) 564-7028 

sanchez.rafael@epa.gov

David Salman 

(919) 541-5402 

salman.dave@epa.gov

1

 OECA stands for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 

2 OAQPS stands for EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background Information Document. On October 21, 2010 (75 FR 

65068), EPA proposed revisions to six NESHAP that regulate 16 

industrial source categories evaluated in our risk and 

technology review. The six NESHAP and industrial source 

categories are: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers 

and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; 

Pharmaceuticals Production; The Printing and Publishing 

Industry; and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration. In this action, we are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 193

finalizing decisions for four of these NESHAP--Group I Polymers 

and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; 

Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing and Publishing 

Industry. We will finalize our decisions for the Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

NESHAP and the Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration in a future rulemaking.1

 A 

summary of the public comments on the proposal, and EPA’s 

responses to the comments, is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2010-0600. 

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Rules 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers 

 and Resins source categories? 

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank 

 Vessel Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals 

 Production source category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and 

 Publishing Industry source category? 

E. What are the requirements during periods of startup, 

 shutdown, and malfunction? 

F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test 

                                                           

1

 We addressed two additional source categories as part of this proposed rule, 

Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks and 

Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration, and 

we plan to take final action on those two source categories in June 2011. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 193

 results to EPA? 

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the 

 standards? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 

A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these 

 source categories since proposal? 

B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins 

 MACT since proposal? 

C. What changes did we make to the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 

 Operations MACT since proposal? 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

A. EPA’s Authority Under CAA Section 112 

B. Group I Polymers and Resins 

C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Rules 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

 Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

 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 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 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

 Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates 

the changes in this action is available in the docket. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 193

Table 2 – NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Final Action 

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS1

Code 

MACT2

Code 

Group I Polymers 

and Resins 

Butyl Rubber Production 325212 1307 

Epichlorohydrin 

Elastomers Production

325212 1311 

Ethylene Propylene 

Rubber Production

325212 1313 

HypalonTM Production 325212 1315 

Neoprene Production 325212 1320 

Nitrile Butadiene 

Rubber Production

325212 1321 

Polybutadiene Rubber 

Production

325212 1325 

Polysulfide Rubber 

Production

325212 1332 

Styrene Butadiene 

Rubber and Latex 

Production 

325212 1339 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 4883 0603 

Pharmaceuticals Production 3254 1201 

The Printing and Publishing Industry 32311 0714 

1 North American Industry Classification System 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Table 2 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 categories listed. 

To determine whether your facility would be affected, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. 

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any of 

these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 193

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action will also be available on the World 

Wide Web (www) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed and 

promulgated rules at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on the residual risk 

and technology review (RTR) web page at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information 

includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and 

other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

C. Judicial Review. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

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 [INSERT DATE 60 

DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not 

be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 193

brought by 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 us to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to 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 to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios 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 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 193

from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us 

to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are 

those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP 

at a rate of 10 tons per year (TPY) or more, or 25 TPY or more 

of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts), and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards. 

For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements, which are referred to as 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 that is 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, we must also 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 193

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 

promulgating MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs us to 

consider the application of measures, processes, methods, 

systems, or techniques 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; and/or are design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards. 

In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake 

two different analyses, as required by the CAA: section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us to review these technologybased standards, and to revise them “as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years; and within 

8 years after promulgation of the technology standards, CAA 

section 112(f) calls for us to calculate the risk to public 

health remaining after application of the technology-based 

standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 193

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. 

In doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT 

standards if EPA determines that the existing standards are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). 

 On October 21, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule and 

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register for these four NESHAP that took into consideration the 

RTR analyses. For these NESHAP -- Group I Polymers and Resins, 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, Pharmaceuticals 

Production, and The Printing and Publishing Industry -- this 

action provides EPA’s final determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112. In addition, we are promulgating 

amendments as follows: 

• For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and 

Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), EPA is finalizing revisions to address 

certain emission sources not currently regulated under the 

standards. 

• For the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, EPA is 

finalizing changes to correct an editorial error. 

• For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 193

requirements in each NESHAP related to emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). 

• For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions to 

requirements in each NESHAP related to electronic 

reporting. 

III. Summary of the Final Rules 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers 

and Resins source categories? 

 The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins were promulgated on 

September 5, 1996 (62 FR 46925), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart U. The Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards apply 

to major sources and regulate HAP emissions from nine source 

categories: Butyl Rubber Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers 

Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, HypalonTM

Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) 

Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber 

Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production. 

 The Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards regulate HAP 

emissions resulting from the production of elastomers (i.e., 

synthetic rubber). An elastomer is a synthetic polymeric 

material that can stretch to at least twice its original length 

and then return rapidly to approximately its original length 

when released. Elastomers are produced via a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 193

polymerization/copolymerization process, in which monomers 

undergo intermolecular chemical bond formation to form a very 

large polymer molecule. Generally, the production of elastomers 

entails four processes: (1) Raw material (i.e., solvent) 

storage and refining; (2) polymer formation in a reactor (either 

via the solution process, where monomers are dissolved in an 

organic solvent, or the emulsion process, where monomers are 

dispersed in water using a soap solution); (3) stripping and 

material recovery; and (4) finishing (i.e., blending, aging, 

coagulation, washing, and drying). 

 Sources of HAP emissions from elastomers production include 

raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end 

process operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. 

The “front-end” processes include pre-polymerization, reaction, 

stripping, and material recovery operations; and the “back-end” 

process includes all operations after stripping (predominantly 

drying and finishing). Typical control devices used to reduce 

organic HAP emissions from front-end process vents include 

flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and 

condensers. Emissions from storage vessels are controlled by 

floating roofs or by routing them to a control device. 

 While emissions from back-end process operations can be 

controlled with control devices such as incinerators, the most 

common method of reducing these emissions is the pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 193

prevention method of reducing the amount of residual HAP that is 

contained in the raw product going to the back-end operations. 

Emissions from wastewater are controlled by a variety of 

methods, including equipment modifications (e.g., fixed roofs on 

storage vessels and oil water separators; covers on surface 

impoundments, containers, and drain systems), treatment to 

remove the HAP (steam stripping, biological treatment), control 

devices, and work practices. 

Emissions from equipment leaks are typically reduced by 

leak detection and repair work practice programs, and in some 

cases, by equipment modifications. 

For these five Group I Polymers and Resins2 source 

categories--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; HypalonTM

Production; Polybutadiene Rubber Production; Styrene Butadiene 

Rubber and Latex Production; and NBR Production--we have 

determined that the current MACT standards reduce risk to an 

acceptable level, provide an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health, and prevent adverse environmental effects. We 

are, therefore, re-adopting the existing MACT standards to 

                                                           

2 We previously re-adopted the existing MACT standards to satisfy 

section 112(f) of the CAA for four Group I Polymers and Resins 

source categories – Neoprene Rubber Production; Ethylene 

Propylene Rubber Production; Butyl Rubber Production; and 

Polysulfide Rubber Production. See 73 FR 76220, published 

December 16, 2008. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 193

satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also determined that 

there have been no significant developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies since promulgation of the 

MACT standards, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to 

revise the MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).3

 

We are eliminating the subcategories in the Butyl Rubber 

source category (Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber) because the 

technical differences that distinguished the subcategories when 

the original rule was developed no longer exist. The existing 

requirements for facilities producing either butyl rubber or 

halobutyl rubber as the primary product are identical, and, 

therefore, the removal of the subcategory distinction does not 

affect these requirements. The source category remains named 

Butyl Rubber Production. We are establishing standards at the 

MACT floor level of control for previously unregulated 

hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions from front-end process vents 

in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source 

categories. We are also establishing standards at the MACT 

floor level of control for previously unregulated back-end 

process operations in the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, 

Neoprene, and Butyl Rubber source categories. 

                                                           

3 We note there are no longer any operating facilities in the 

United States that produce HypalonTM, and we do not anticipate 

that any will begin operation in the future.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 193

The numerical emission standards that are being finalized 

in this action for new and existing major source facilities in 

the Group 1 Polymers and Resins source categories are shown in 

Table 3 of this preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Table 3 – Numerical Emission Standards for Existing and New Major Sou

Group 1 Polymers and Resins Source Categories 

Process Type 

P&R I Source Category 

Emissions Standard 

Front-end process vents 

Limit of Mg HCl per Mg elastomer produced 

Butyl Rubber Production 

ൌ

1.74 כ ሻ ݎݕ݃ܯ 2010 ݅݊ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ݈ܥܪሺ

ݎݕ݃ܯ 2010 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ݎܾܾ݁ݑݎ ݈ݕݐݑܾ

Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production 

ൌ

݃ܯ 27

ݎݕ

2010 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ݎܾܾ݁ݑݎ ݈݁݊݁ݕ݌݋ݎ݌ ݈݁݊݁ݕ݄ݐ݁

Back-end process operations 

 Limit of Mg organic HAP per Mg elastomer producButyl Rubber Production 

ൌ

ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ ܲܣܪ ݃ܽ݊݅ܿݎ݋ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋݊ܿݑ ൅ ݁݀ݏݏܽ݌ݕܾ ൅ ݈݈݁݀݋ݎݐ݊݋ܿሺ

ݎݕ݃ܯ 2009 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ݎܾܾ݁ݑݎ ݈ݕݐݑܾ

Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production 

ൌ

݃ܯ 51

ݎݕ

2009 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ݎ݉݁݋ݐݏ݈݁ܽ ݅݊ݎ݀ݕ݄݋ݎ݋݄݈݅ܿ݌݁

Neoprene Rubber Production 

ൌ

݃ܯ 30

ݎݕ

ݎݕ݃ܯ 2007 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ݎܾܾ݁ݑݎ ݁݊݁ݎ݌݋݊݁
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 193

NBR Production 

ൌ

݃ܯ 2.4

ݎݕ

ݎݕ݃ܯ 2009 ݅݊ ܿ݁݀ݑ݀݋ݎ݌ ܴܤܰ
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

We are finalizing changes to the Group I Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These 

changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart U to indicate 

that several requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. We are 

adding provisions to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, 

removing the SSM plan requirement, removing the explanation of 

applicability of emissions standards during periods of SSM, 

revising the definition of initial start-up to remove references 

to malfunctions, clarifying the required conditions for 

performance tests, and revising the SSM–associated monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require reporting 

and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also 

adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against 

civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense.

We are also requiring the electronic submittal of 

performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

owners and operators of Group I Polymers and Resins facilities 

are required to submit electronic copies of applicable reports 

of performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE database through an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 193

electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit performance 

test data electronically to 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 anticipate that the front-end process vent limits will 

not require additional control to meet the floor-level standards 

for HCl emissions from front-end process operations at the 

facilities in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber 

source categories. We anticipate that facilities in the Butyl 

Rubber, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, Neoprene Rubber, and NBR 

source categories will not require additional control to meet 

the floor-level standards for the back-end process operations. 

To demonstrate compliance with the front-end process vent 

HCl emissions provisions of the final rule, the facility owner 

or operator will be required to submit an initial notification 

of the calculated front-end HCl limit for the facility and to 

perform and record monthly calculations of the mass of HCl 

emissions and the mass of elastomer product produced. These 

recorded monthly calculations are required to be submitted in 

the semi-annual compliance reports already required by existing 

provisions of the rule. 

To demonstrate compliance with the back-end process 

operation provisions of the final rule, the facility owner or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 193

operator will be required to submit an initial notification of 

the calculated back-end limit for the facility, and to perform 

and record monthly calculations of the mass of HAP emissions and 

the mass of elastomer product produced. These recorded monthly 

calculations are required to be submitted in the semi-annual 

compliance reports already required by existing provisions of 

the rule. 

The final changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards are not expected to result in substantial emissions 

reduction or economic impacts. We have determined that 

facilities in the Group 1 Polymers and Resins categories can 

meet the applicable emissions limits at all times, including 

periods of startup and shutdown, with the exception of the 

organic HAP emissions limits applicable to front-end process 

vents at facilities in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene 

Rubber source categories. We have determined that facilities in 

the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories 

cannot meet the applicable organic HAP emission limits 

applicable to continuous front-end process vents during periods 

of shutdown. Therefore, we are establishing alternative 

emissions limits during these periods. No substantial changes 

in costs to industry are predicted. 

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank 

Vessel Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 193

 MTVLO are loading operations conducted at marine terminals 

in which liquid commodities, such as crude oil, gasoline, and 

other fuels or chemicals, are pumped from the terminal’s large, 

above-ground storage tanks through a network of pipes into a 

storage compartment (tank) on the vessel. Emissions occur as 

vapors are displaced from the tank as it is being filled. Most 

MTVLO facilities are either independent terminals or are 

associated with synthetic organic chemical manufacturers or with 

petroleum refineries (although MTVLO at petroleum refineries are 

part of the Petroleum Refinery source category). 

For these MTVLO facilities, we have determined that the 

current MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and 

prevent adverse environmental effects. We are, therefore, readopting the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) 

of the CAA. We have also determined that the costs of the only 

significant development in practices, processes, or control 

technologies since promulgation of the MACT standards is 

disproportionate to the emission reduction that would be 

achieved, and we are not adopting additional technology 

standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to 

require standards for two subcategories of MTVLO facilities for 

which the current MTVLO MACT standards do not include emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 193

standards. These subcategories are facilities with MTVLO that 

emit less than 10/25 TPY of HAP that are located at a major 

source of HAP emissions and facilities located more than 0.5 

miles from shore. For these source categories, we are adding a 

requirement for the facilities to perform submerged fill. This 

requirement is the MACT floor level of control. 

We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to 

eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1 in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart Y to indicate that several requirements of 

the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to periods of SSM 

do not apply. We are adding provisions to the MTVLO MACT 

standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, 

clarifying the required conditions for performance tests, and 

revising the SSM–associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping 

for periods of malfunction. We are also adding provisions to 

provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as 

well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. 

Additionally, we are requiring the electronic submittal of 

performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

owners and operators of MTVLO are required to submit electronic 

copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 193

WebFIRE database through an electronic emissions test report 

structure called the ERT. This requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 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.   The final changes to the MTVLO MACT 

standards will have little or no impact on HAP emissions or 

costs because facilities currently use submerged fill, as 

required by Coast Guard regulations.4

 

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals 

Production source category?

 The pharmaceutical manufacturing process consists of 

chemical production operations that produce drugs and 

medications. These operations include chemical synthesis 

(deriving a drug’s active ingredient) and chemical formulation 

(producing a drug in its final form). Emissions occur from 

breathing and withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, 

venting of process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used 

to transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization 

of HAP from wastewater streams. 

For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the 

support documents in the docket, we have determined that the 

                                                           

4

 46 CFR 153.282. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 193

current MACT standards for Pharmaceutical Production facilities 

reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the 

existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. 

We have also determined that there have been no significant 

developments in practices, processes, or control technologies 

since promulgation of the MACT standards, and that, therefore, 

it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6). 

We are finalizing changes to the Pharmaceutical Production 

MACT standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes 

revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG to indicate that 

several requirements of the 40 CFR General Provisions related to 

periods of SSM and do not apply. We are adding provisions to 

the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards to operate in a 

manner that minimizes emissions, removing the SSM plan 

requirement, removing the exemption provisions for periods of 

SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), requiring that delay of equipment leak 

repair plans be contained in a separated document, clarifying 

the required conditions for performance tests, and revising the 

SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods 

of malfunction. We are also adding provisions to provide an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 193

affirmative defense against civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria 

for establishing the affirmative defense. 

We are also requiring the electronic submittal of 

performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

owners and operators of Pharmaceuticals Production facilities 

are required to submit electronic copies of applicable reports 

of performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE database through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. This 

requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 

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 also finalizing a correction to an editorial error 

in 40 CFR 63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). This section 

incorrectly provides that only one of the three listed criteria 

must be met for the inlet to the equalization tank to be 

considered the inlet to the biological treatment process. The 

final correction specifies that all of the criteria must be met. 

These revisions to the Pharmaceutical Production MACT 

standards are not expected to result in substantial emissions 

reduction or economic impacts. We have determined that 

facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 193

emissions standards at all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown, are in compliance with the current MACT standard. 

No substantial changes in costs to industry are predicted. The 

correction to the editorial error may result in minimal costs to 

add or move equipment and may also result in some small amount 

of emission reductions for any facility that was meeting only 

one or two of the three listed criteria. However, as the intent 

of the current MACT standards at the time they were promulgated 

was to require facilities to meet all three criteria, the costs 

and emission reductions associated with this requirement were 

factored into the impacts of the MACT standards at the time the 

standards were promulgated in 1998. See 63 FR 50287. 

D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and 

Publishing Industry source category?

 Printing and publishing facilities are those facilities 

that use rotogravure, flexography, and other methods, such as 

lithography, letterpress, and screen printing, to print on a 

variety of substrates, including paper, plastic film, metal 

foil, and vinyl. The Printing and Publishing Industry MACT 

standards include two subcategories: (1) publication 

rotogravure printing and (2) product and packaging rotogravure 

and wide-web flexographic printing. Emissions occur from the 

evaporation of solvents in the inks and from cleaning solvents. 

The emission points include printing presses and associated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 193

dryers and ink and solvent storage. 

For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the 

support documents in the docket, we have determined that the 

current MACT standards for Printing and Publishing facilities 

reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the 

existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. 

We have also determined that the costs of the only significant 

development in practices, processes, or control technologies 

since promulgation of the MACT standards is disproportionate to 

the emission reduction that would be achieved, and, therefore, 

we are not adopting additional technology standards pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We are finalizing changes to the Printing and Publishing 

Industry MACT standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These 

changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK to indicate 

that several requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. We are 

adding provisions to the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT 

standards requiring sources to operate in a manner that 

minimizes emissions, removing the SSM plan requirement, 

clarifying the required conditions for performance tests, and 

revising the SSM–associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 193

reporting requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping 

for periods of malfunction. We are also adding provisions to 

provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as 

well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. 

We are also requiring the electronic submittal of 

performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

owners and operators of printing and publishing facilities are 

required to submit electronic copies of applicable reports of 

performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE database through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 

ERT. This requirement to submit performance test data 

electronically to 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. 

These revisions to the Printing and Publishing Industry 

MACT standards are not expected to result in substantial 

emissions reduction or economic impacts. We have determined 

that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 

emissions standards at all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown, are in compliance with the current MACT standards. 

No substantial changes in costs to industry are predicted. 

E. What are the requirements during periods of startup, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 193

shutdown, and malfunction?

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in 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), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, 

the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is part of a regulation, 

commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that EPA 

promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated 

into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the 

requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 

112 emission standards during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), did not directly affect all the NESHAP 

rules being addressed, the legality of source category-specific 

SSM provisions, such as those in all four NESHAP rules, are 

called into question based on the reasoning in that decision. 

We have eliminated the SSM exemptions in these four NESHAP. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA’s standards in these 

rules will apply at all times. We have eliminated or revised 

certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that were 

related to the SSM exemption that no longer applies. EPA has 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 193

attempted to ensure that we have not included in the regulatory 

language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in light of the removal of the SSM exemption. 

EPA has not established different standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for three of the four NESHAP addressed in 

this rule because we believe compliance with the standards is 

achievable during these periods. In the case of MTVLO, loading 

of marine tank vessels occurs in “batches,” and general practice 

is for the loading operators to test out the vapor control 

system before it is attached to the tank vessel. In the case of 

the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards, we expect the 

difference in emission levels during periods of startup and 

shutdown are insignificant and that facilities in this source 

category should be able to comply with the standards during 

these times. In the case of the Printing and Publishing MACT 

standards, we believe there are sufficiently long averaging 

times incorporated into the emissions limits that facilities 

should be able to comply during periods of startup and shutdown. 

In the case of Group I Polymers and Resins, one commenter stated 

that organic HAP emissions that are required to be sent to 

emissions control equipment (i.e., flares) may not be able to 

comply with the MACT standards during periods of shutdown. The 

commenter stated that they may not always be able to route some 

of their process vents to a flare during periods of shutdown due 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 193

to the low pressure or low heating value in the process vent. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that it is not possible to comply 

with the applicable standard during periods of shutdown, and has 

provided an alternative standard applicable during these times. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner...” (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has 

determined that CAA section 112 does not require that emissions 

that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into 

development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA section 

112, emissions 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 Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

standards. Moreover, while EPA accounts for variability in 

setting emissions standards consistent with the CAA section 112 

case law, nothing in that case law requires the Agency to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 193

consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. CAA Section 112 

uses the concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit 

in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best 

controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that is 

malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as 

malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events. Further, 

accounting for malfunctions 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) (EPA 

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 193

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, the goal of a best controlled or 

best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions 

could lead to standards that are significantly less stringent 

than levels that are achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. 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 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, 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. EPA 

would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 

the CAA section 112 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). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 193

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail, and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is, therefore, adding to the 

final rules, an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. 

See 40 CFR 63.482 (Group I Polymers and Resins), 63.561 (MTVLO), 

63.822 (The Printing and Publishing Industry), 63.1251 

(Pharmaceuticals Production). The regulations define 

“affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. We also have added other 

regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary 

to establish this affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 63.480 (Group 

I Polymers and Resins), 40 CFR 63.560 (MTVLO), 40 CFR 63.820 

(The Printing and Publishing Industry), 40 CFR 63.1250 

(Pharmaceuticals Production). The source must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that it has met all of the elements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 193

set forth in affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 22.24. The 

criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit 

meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and/or careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions 

“[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure 

of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner...” The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps 

are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible 

steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions 

on ambient air quality, the environment and human health...” In 

any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense, and, if the 

respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 193

may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see 

also 40 CFR part 22.77). 

F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test 

results to EPA?

EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 

reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for 

many other purposes, including compliance determinations, 

emission factor development, and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these required reviews, EPA has 

found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, but 

also for regulatory agencies, and source owners and operators, 

to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of 

varied locations for data storage and varied data storage 

methods. In recent years, though, performance test data in 

electronic format have become readily available, making it 

possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that 

would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. 

In this action, as a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility, EPA 

is requiring the electronic submittal of select performance test 

data. Specifically, EPA is requiring owners and operators of 

sources subject to these MACT standards to submit electronic 

copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 193

WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in developing emission factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. Data 

entry will be through an electronic emissions test report 

structure called the ERT. 

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not the only electronic 

interface that can be used to submit performance test data to 

the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very 

straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

The requirement to submit performance test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing, and would apply to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. The 

ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of 

the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. When a facility 

submits performance test data to CDX, there will be no 

additional requirements for performance test data compilation. 

Moreover, we believe that industry will benefit from this new 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 193

electronic data submittal requirement. Having these data, EPA 

will be able to develop improved emission factors, make fewer 

information requests, and promulgate better regulations. The 

information to be reported is already required for the existing 

test methods, and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to 

the test method. 

One major advantage of submitting performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store 

much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule 

that also clearly states what testing information would be 

required. Another important benefit of submitting these data to 

EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it should 

substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 

activities in the future. When EPA has performance test data in 

hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data 

collection requests in conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology reviews. This results 

in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and EPA 

(in terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests 

and assessing the results). 

 State, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from 

electronic data submission as their review of the data will be 

more streamlined and accurate, because they would not have to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 193

re-enter the data to assess the calculations and verify the data 

entry. Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data will greatly improve the 

overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the 

emission factor is based, and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. A 

common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that 

emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. By receiving and incorporating data 

for most performance tests, EPA will be able to ensure that 

emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range 

of operational practices. 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, and tribal agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and 

effort while improving the quality of emission inventories, and, 

as a result, air quality regulations. 

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the 

standards?

 The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in 

this action are effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. For 

the MACT standards being addressed in this action, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 193

compliance date for the revised SSM requirements is the 

effective date of the standards, [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

The electronic reporting requirements for the four MACT 

standards being addressed in this action are effective on 

January 1, 2012. For the Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards, the compliance date for existing sources for the new 

MACT standards applicable to front-end and back-end process 

operations is 1 year from the effective date of the standards, 

[INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. For the Marine 

Tank Vessel Loading Operations MACT standards, the compliance 

date for the new requirements for submerged fill is 1 year from 

the effective date of the standards, [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM 

DATE OF PUBLICATION]. The compliance date for the corrected 

provision in the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards is 

the effective date of the standards, [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. Beyond the revised SSM and electronic reporting 

requirements, there are no changes to The Printing and 

Publishing Industry MACT standards. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 

A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these 

source categories since proposal?

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine whether 

certain emissions reduce risk to an acceptable level, and once 

we have ensured that the risk is acceptable, whether the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 193

standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. First 

we determine whether there is an acceptable risk. EPA 

generally presumes that, if the maximum individual risk (MIR) 

is no higher than 100-in-1 million, that risk is acceptable. 

In addition to MIR, EPA also considers a series of other health 

measures and factors to complete an overall judgment on 

acceptability. In some cases, these health measures and 

factors taken together may provide a more realistic description 

of the magnitude of risk in the exposed population than MIR 

alone. If the risk is unacceptable, EPA must require 

additional controls, without consideration of cost, to ensure 

an acceptable level of risk. After determining that the level 

of risk is acceptable, EPA evaluates whether the standards 

provide an ample margin of safety by considering costs and 

economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, and 

other relevant factors, in addition to those health measures 

and factors considered to determined acceptability. 

Considering all of these factors, EPA ensures that the standard 

is set at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 

At proposal, we conducted risk assessments that provided 

estimates of the MIR posed by the allowable and actual HAP 

emissions from each source in a category, the distribution of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 193

cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, 

hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with non-cancer 

health effects, and hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to 

HAP with non-cancer health effects. We found that the residual 

risks to public health from all source categories subject to 

these four MACT standards were acceptable, and, further, that 

the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and posed no adverse environmental 

effects. Thus, we proposed that no additional controls would 

be required to address such risks. Specifically, we found that 

the lifetime cancer risk to the individual most exposed to 

emissions from each of these seven source categories5 was less 

than 100-in-1 million for both the actual emissions and the 

emissions that would occur if emissions from the source 

categories were at the maximum levels allowed by the standards. 

                                                           

5

 The seven source categories for which we conducted RTR are 

Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; Polybutadiene Rubber 

Production; Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production; and 

NBR Production; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 

Pharmaceuticals Production; and Printing and Publishing. We did 

not conduct RTR for four of the Group I Polymers and Resins 

source categories (Butyl Rubber Production; Ethylene Propylene 

Rubber Production; Polysulfide Rubber Production; and Neoprene), 

because we previously re-adopted the existing MACT standard to 

satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. See 73 FR 76220, published 

December 16, 2008. In addition, we did not conduct RTR for 

HypalonTM Production, because there are no longer any facilities 

operating in the United States. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 193

Additional analyses showed that the cancer incidence and number 

of people with cancer risk over 1-in-1 million were low. In 

addition, a review of the acute non-cancer exposures showed 

that none of these seven source categories posed an appreciable 

risk of acute non-cancer health effects to public health. We 

also determined that HAP emissions from these source categories 

were not expected to result in adverse environmental effects. 

To support our decisions regarding acceptability and ample 

margin of safety in the proposal, we also conducted risk 

assessments that accounted for HAP emissions from entire 

facilities at which a source covered by one of the standards 

under review was located. With the exception of two facilities 

with MTVLO on-site that had facility-wide risks greater than 

100-in-1 million, based on the data we had at that time, we 

concluded, for purposes of the proposal, that the facility-wide 

risk for sources in the four source categories was also 

relatively low. As a result of data and information received 

from commenters on the proposal, we now project the highest 

facility-wide risk with MTVLO on-site is approximately 90-in-1 

million. 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all 

risk assessments, including those performed for the source 

categories addressed in these final rules. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 193

conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health-protective. A discussion of the uncertainties in 

the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships is provided 

in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 75 FR 65081-65083. 

B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins 

MACT since proposal?

We are eliminating the subcategories (i.e., Butyl Rubber 

and Halobutyl Rubber) in the Butyl Rubber source category 

because we agree with commenters who stated that both facilities 

in the Butyl Rubber source category now produce halobutyl rubber 

as the primary product, and the technical differences that 

distinguished the subcategories no longer exist. The current 

MACT standards for facilities in this source category are not 

affected by the removal of the subcategory distinction because 

the existing standards are identical for each subcategory. In 

October 2010, we proposed the same standards for both 

subcategories for the front-end process operations. However, we 

proposed different standards for each subcategory for the backend process operations. Considering that both facilities would 

now be identified as being part of one source category by 

primary product determination, it would not be appropriate to 

finalize the proposed requirements that were based on analyses 

of each facility in its own subcategory. To address the two 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 193

facilities together in one Butyl Rubber source category, we reevaluated the emissions reductions, costs, and other impacts of 

controls for both the back-end operations and the front-end 

process vents for these two facilities. For the front-end 

process vents, we had proposed beyond-the-floor standards for 

both the Butyl Rubber subcategory and the Halobutyl Rubber 

subcategory, along with the Ethylene Propylene Rubber source 

category. Based on our revised analyses, we are setting 

requirements for the combined Butyl Rubber source category at 

the MACT floor level of control. The requirements for the 

Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category are also being set at 

the MACT floor level of control. For the back-end process 

operations, we had proposed beyond-the-floor standards for the 

Butyl Rubber subcategory, and the MACT floor level of control 

for the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. Based on our revised 

analyses, we are setting requirements for the combined Butyl 

Rubber source category at the MACT floor level of control. 

 We are finalizing our proposal to set standards at the 

MACT floor level of control for back-end process operations in 

the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, and Neoprene source 

categories. However, based on information we received during 

the comment period, we have revised some of the MACT floor 

limits for these source categories. Information received for 

the only facility in the Neoprene Rubber Production source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 193

category corrected the emissions rate of one HAP emissions 

source, and we have revised the MACT floor limit for that 

source category to reflect the corrected emissions rate. We 

also received information during the comment period for the one 

facility in the NBR source category, which showed that, due to 

the different grades of product produced, the rate of emissions 

per unit of production varies. Similarly, the one facility in 

the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers source category also expected to 

have variations in the rate of emissions per unit of 

production, based on its different grades of product produced. 

Considering this variation in emissions, we increased the limit 

of the MACT floor for these source categories to allow for the 

observed variability in emissions per unit of production. We 

also added factors to account for variation in emissions per 

unit of production for the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene 

Rubber source categories, based on information received for the 

facilities in this source category. 

C. What changes did we make to the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 

Operations MACT since proposal?

We proposed the MACT floor as submerged fill for the two 

subcategories not previously regulated (facilities emitting 

less than 10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those “offshore” 

facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore). 

Additionally, under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 193

of the existing MTVLO MACT, and as setting the beyond-the-floor 

MACT standards for the two subcategories not previously 

regulated, we proposed that existing facilities loading 1 

million barrels per year (bbl/yr) of gasoline install vapor 

controls, either meeting 97-percent control, or the equivalent 

emission limit of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/l). 

We are finalizing the proposed MACT floor work practice to 

require submerged fill of liquids into marine tank vessels at 

those previously unregulated sources. However, as a result of 

information received during the comment period, we are not 

finalizing the requirements we proposed under the technology 

review requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), the beyond the 

floor and technology review requirements for vapor control 

technology for facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr. 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

In the proposed action, we requested public comments on our 

residual risk reviews, our technology reviews, proposed 

amendments to delete the startup and shutdown exemptions and the 

malfunction exemption, the control of unregulated HAP, and 

clarification of rule provisions. We received written comments 

from 104 commenters. Our responses to the public comments that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 193

changed the basis for our decisions or are otherwise significant 

are provided below.6 

A. EPA’s Authority Under CAA Section 112

 Comment: We received comments both in favor of and 

objecting to EPA’s consideration of various factors in 

determining acceptable risk. Some commenters argue that the 

two-step process developed to address residual risk and 

determine “ample margin of safety” in the Benzene NESHAP should 

be preserved. Commenters also request that EPA continue to use 

its discretion to determine that a maximum cancer risk of 100-

in-1 million is acceptable. Another commenter supports EPA’s 

commitment to avoid establishing inflexible decision points for 

acceptable risks or ample margin of safety. Commenters also 

debate whether EPA has the authority to evaluate, or should, as 

a matter of policy, evaluate facility-wide risk, demographic 

assessments, and risks based on actual or allowable emissions. 

 Response: For the four rules we are finalizing, our 

evaluation of facility-wide risk, demographics, and allowable 

emissions did not change our decisions about acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. Therefore, comments on how these 

                                                           

6

 See Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Group I 

Polymers and Resins, Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 

Pharmaceutical Production, and The Printing and Publishing 

NESHAP (March 2011), for summaries of other comments and our 

responses to them. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 193

factors were used by EPA in determining acceptable risks are not 

germane to these final rules. We note, however, that section 

112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to address residual risk and 

interpret “ample margin of safety” as developed in the Benzene 

NESHAP.7

 In both the Benzene NESHAP and our Residual Risk 

Report8 to Congress, we explain that we do not define “rigid 

line(s) of acceptability” and that we will consider a series of 

other health measures and factors in determining if risk is 

acceptable. Our authority to use the two-step process laid out 

in the Benzene NESHAP, and to consider a variety of measures of 

risk to public health is discussed more thoroughly in the 

preamble to the proposal. See 75 FR 65071 – 65073. 

Comment: Some commenters state that our review under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) should be limited to only advances in work 

practices and control technologies, and should not include 

emission points not regulated by the existing MACT standard. 

Expanding rule applicability should not be considered, as it has 

nothing to do with developments in practices, processes, or 

                                                           

7

 See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 

Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). 

8

 See Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001 (March 

1999). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 193

control technologies and is not indicated in the CAA as a basis 

for the technology review. The commenter states that EPA 

already made applicability determinations in the original MACT 

rules by evaluating the floor and beyond-the-floor options, and 

nothing in the CAA warrants review of these determinations. The 

commenters also state these changes should only be considered in 

the CAA section 112(f) risk review to reduce risks. 

Some commenters stated that a review under CAA section 

112(d)(6) is not required if the post-MACT emissions levels 

result in risks that are deemed to be protective of public 

health with an ample margin of safety. Furthermore, they stated 

that EPA should exempt source categories from CAA section 

112(d)(6) review once this level has been achieved. They add 

that the review under CAA section 112(d)(6) should be considered 

an extension of the main purpose of CAA section 112, which is to 

reduce the public’s exposure to air toxics, and not to impose 

new technology just because it is available. One commenter 

states that it was the intent of Congress for the MACT standards 

to ultimately reduce risk from sources to a level considered 

acceptable, and there is no legislative history to suggest that 

Congress expected EPA to revise MACT standards after these 

levels had been achieved. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 193

Another commenter states an opposing view, saying that, in 

keeping with the context of CAA section 112(d), which requires 

technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reduction achievable, CAA section 112(d)(6) serves as 

an on-going ratchet to continually require EPA to update 

standards to keep pace with new technology. The commenter 

states that the decision of the Court in the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON)9

 ruling, while not requiring recalculation of the 

floor for that standard, did so only for that MACT because there 

were no new developments in practices, processes, or control 

technologies, and expressly declined to decide whether EPA was 

required to recalculate the floors for other instances where 

there were such developments. 

Response: We note that we do not consider unregulated 

emission points under CAA section 112(d)(6). To the extent 

there are unregulated emission points, we set standards under 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We are not revising any of the 

four MACT rules in this notice pursuant to the CAA section 

112(d)(6) review. Instead, for the newly regulated emissions 

points in the Group I Polymers and Resins source categories and 

in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations source category we 

                                                           

9 NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 193

are promulgating MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2)-

(3). 

In our CAA section 112(d)(6) review of pre-existing 

standards, we consider both improvements in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that we may have previously 

considered, as well as practices, processes, or control 

technologies that are new, or were unknown to us when the 

original MACT rule was developed. Because incremental changes 

in the practices, processes, or control technologies can have a 

significant impact on emissions, these changes are considered in 

our analysis of whether to revise the MACT standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(6). In considering both existing and new 

practices, processes, and control technologies, we consider 

costs and other factors in determining whether it is “necessary” 

to revise the existing standard. 

We disagree with the view that a determination under CAA 

section 112(f) of an ample margin of safety and no adverse 

environmental effects alone will, in all cases, cause us to 

determine that a revision is not necessary under CAA section 

112(d)(6). In some cases, even if risk factors remain the same 

from one round of CAA section 112(d)(6) review to another, 

changes in costs or availability of control technology may be 

sufficient to alter a previous conclusion about whether to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 193

impose further controls. We also disagree with the assertion 

that the HON Court’s ruling that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not 

require re-calculation of MACT floors was limited to instances 

in which there have not been developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies. In fact, the Court was 

quite clear on this point, and declined to rule only on whether 

it was appropriate for EPA to consider costs and risks in 

conducting CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews, as the issue was 

rendered moot by the litigants’ failure to preserve it. See 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1084 (“It has been argued that EPA was 

obliged to completely recalculate the maximum achievable control 

technology—in other words, to start from scratch. We do not 

think the words ‘review, and revise as necessary’ can be 

construed reasonably as imposing any such obligation. Even if 

the statute did impose such an obligation, petitioners have not 

identified any post-1994 technological innovations that EPA has 

overlooked.”). 

Comment: Commenters state that EPA does not have the 

authority under CAA section 112(d)(2) or (3) to later review and 

possibly revise the MACT determination once a MACT determination 

has been made for a source category. Several commenters state 

that EPA only has the authority to revisit the rulemaking if a 

timely legal challenge to the standard is lodged. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 193

commenters further note they are not aware of any instance where 

EPA has revisited a beyond-the-floor analysis in the absence of 

a Court decision, rule vacatur, or settlement agreement. 

Commenters also state that reassessing MACT standards and 

imposing more stringent requirements would also be inconsistent 

with Congress’s desire for finality evident in the judicial 

review provisions of CAA section 307(b), which provides that 

challenges to MACT standards must be raised within 60 days of 

their promulgation, assuring that regulated entities, EPA, and 

the public know what emissions limitations will apply to a 

source rather than having those limitations be subject to flux. 

 In contrast, one commenter states that it is appropriate 

and essential that EPA establish control for all emissions 

sources, including sources that previously had “no control” 

floors, under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter states that 

EPA should continue to do this for all MACT standards. 

Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must 

promulgate technology-based standards that reflect the maximum 

degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts). Nothing in the CAA or its 

legislative history suggests that EPA is prohibited from 

reviewing and revising MACT standards, except as part of the CAA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 193

section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f) reviews. Where we 

identify emission points that were erroneously not previously 

regulated under a MACT rule, we may identify MACT floor and 

beyond-the-floor control options for existing and new sources. 

An agency generally remains free to revise improperly 

promulgated or otherwise unsupportable rules, even in the 

absence of a remand from a Court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. 

Callery Props., Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966) (“An agency, like 

a court, can undo what is wrongfully done by virtue of its 

order.”); Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825-26 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(“[I]t is generally accepted that in the absence of a specific 

statutory limitation, an administrative agency has the inherent 

authority to reconsider its decisions.”). Agencies have 

particularly broad authority to revise their regulations to 

correct their errors. Last Best Beef, LLC v. Dudas, 506 F.3d 

333, 340 (4th Cir. 2007); Friends of the Boundary Water 

Wilderness v. Bosworth, 437 F.3d 815, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (“It is 

widely accepted that an agency may, on its own initiative, 

reconsider its interim or even final decisions, regardless of 

whether the applicable statute and agency regulations expressly 

provide for such review.”) (citations omitted). Moreover, an 

agency may reconsider its methodologies and application of its 

statutory requirements and may even completely reverse course, 

regardless of whether a court has determined that its original 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 193

regulation is flawed, so long as the agency explains its bases 

for doing so. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual 

Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television 

Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1810 (2009); Nat’l Cable & 

Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981-

82 (2005) (internal citations omitted): (“’An initial agency 

interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the 

contrary, the agency . . . must consider varying interpretations 

and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis,’ Chevron, 

supra at 863-864[], for example, in response to changed factual 

circumstances, or a change in administration. That is, no 

doubt, why in Chevron itself, this Court deferred to an agency 

interpretation that was a recent reversal of agency policy.”) 

Here, both the Polymers and Resins I and the Marine Tank 

Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP, as originally promulgated, did 

not contain MACT standards for certain significant HAP emissions 

points, and, we are, therefore, appropriately promulgating 

standards for those emissions points under CAA sections 

112(d)(2)-(3) for the first time. CAA section 112(d)(6) and CAA 

section 112(f)(2) do not govern the initial establishment of the 

MACT standards. This approach is consistent with other recent 

actions that establish MACT standards for the first time for 

significant emissions points that had not been previously 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 193

addressed by CAA section 112 (d) standards. See, e.g., National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum 

Refineries; Final Rule, 74 FR 55670, 556773-74 (October 28, 

2009). 

B. Group 1 Polymers and Resins

Comment: One commenter states that, due to changes made at a 

facility since MACT promulgation, the facility would no longer 

fall into the Butyl Rubber subcategory, based on the primary 

product made, and would be in the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. 

(The Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber subcategories comprise 

the Butyl Rubber source category.) However, the unit at this 

facility that produces halobutyl rubber as the primary product 

is a flexible operations unit that produces three major 

products, one of which is still butyl rubber, and, therefore, 

emits significantly different emissions from the only other 

halobutyl rubber facility in the United States, which produces 

halobutyl rubber exclusively. Commenters recommend EPA revise 

the Butyl Rubber source category descriptions to distinguish 

between halobutyl rubber-only and flexible units, and to apply 

primary product determinations only at the category level, and 

not the subcategory level. The commenters further state that, 

if these facilities are not separated into different 

subcategories and are both included in the Halobutyl Rubber 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 193

subcategory, the current proposal and supporting analyses will 

not be applicable, and new analyses and proposal will be needed. 

Response: Currently there are only two facilities in the 

United States that produce either butyl or halobutyl rubber. 

Since one of these facilities can produce both butyl rubber and 

halobutyl rubber, and since halobutyl rubber is the primary 

product for both of these facilities, we have concluded that 

there is no longer a need to maintain the subcategory 

distinction in the Butyl Rubber source category in the current 

MACT standards. Therefore, we have removed the subcategories of 

Halobutyl Rubber and Butyl Rubber in the Butyl Rubber source 

category, and both facilities that were in these subcategories 

will now be included in the Butyl Rubber source category. The 

Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards create separate 

source categories or subcategories by requiring different 

standards for different types of primary products. In the final 

rule, we have removed the language that distinguishes halobutyl 

rubber as a separate product type, which has the effect of 

removing the subcategories from the Butyl Rubber source 

category. While the existing MACT standards have identical 

requirements for the Butyl and Halobutyl Rubber subcategories, 

we proposed different requirements for these subcategories for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 193

back-end process operations, and common requirements for the 

front-end process vents at proposal. 

With the removal of the subcategory distinction, we have 

revised our analyses of the emissions reductions, costs, and 

other impacts of controls for both the front-end and back-end 

process operations for these two facilities. Based on these 

analyses, we determined that the beyond-the-floor standards for 

front-end process operations that were proposed separately for 

both the Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber subcategories, which 

are a 98-percent reduction in organic HAP, and a 99-percent 

reduction in hydrogen halides and halogens, are not costeffective for the Butyl Rubber source category. We are setting 

requirements for the combined front-end process operations for 

the Butyl Rubber source category at the MACT floor level of 

control. For the back-end process operations, we proposed 

beyond-the-floor standards for the Butyl Rubber subcategory, and 

the MACT floor level of control for the Halobutyl Rubber 

subcategory. Based on our revised analyses, the beyond-thefloor level of control, which is a 98-percent reduction in 

organic HAP, is not cost-effective for the Butyl Rubber source 

category. We are setting requirements for the combined back-end 

process operations for the Butyl Rubber source category at the 

MACT floor level of control. The current MACT standards are not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 193

affected by the removal of the subcategory distinction because 

the existing standards are identical for each subcategory. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, if a facility was 

subject to MACT standards limiting HCl emissions from its frontend process vents in the Butyl Rubber source category and the 

Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category, then it would be 

unacceptable business practice to route those emissions to the 

proposed shared control device. A shared control device would 

limit operating flexibility, cause lost business due to shutdown 

of both units for expected maintenance of thermal oxidizers and 

halogen scrubbers, and the potential for lost business, excess 

emissions, and dual violations from both units from unplanned 

shutdowns. The commenter states that EPA, therefore, needs to 

consider separate controls for each unit, a spare thermal 

oxidizer and halogen scrubber, or the significant lost business 

and other costs and emission impacts of having a shared control 

device in the beyond-the-floor costs analysis for the proposed 

control. The commenter estimates that the costs for the units 

to be controlled separately are $20,600/ton HCl emissions 

reduced for the unit in the Butyl Rubber source category (note 

that the commenter refers to this as the halobutyl rubber unit, 

since that is the product being produced), and $51,000/ton HCl 

emissions reduced for the unit in the Ethylene Propylene Rubber 

source category. Commenters also stated that the proposed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 193

beyond-the-floor MACT standards to control front-end process 

vents in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source 

categories are not cost-effective and should not be finalized. 

One commenter provided data showing costs to range from 

$16,900/ton of HAP emissions reduced to $80,100/ton of HAP 

emissions reduced to meet the proposed front-end process vent 

MACT standards. 

Response: We disagree with the claim that the CAA 

precludes our taking note of the co-location of these units in 

estimating the costs to control the HCl from these units. 

Nevertheless, based on information received during the comment 

period, we recalculated separate source category cost estimates 

for control of HCl from ethylene propylene rubber and butyl 

rubber units for the one facility where these units are colocated. The changes from the estimate at proposal primarily 

include using a recuperative thermal oxidizer rather than a 

direct flame incinerator, and including additional ductwork and 

pumps needed to convey emissions to the control devices. We 

estimate that, considered separately, the cost to control the 

ethylene propylene rubber front-end process vents would be 

approximately $19,000/ton HCl emissions reduced, and the cost to 

control the butyl rubber front-end process vents would be 

approximately $12,000/ton HCl emission reduced. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 193

Comment: Commenters state that the proposed beyond-thefloor MACT standards to control the back-end process vents in 

the Butyl Rubber source category are not cost-effective, and 

should not be finalized. One commenter provided data showing 

costs to range from $72,300/ton of HAP emissions reduced to 

$75,600/ton of HAP emissions reduced to meet the proposed backend process vent MACT standards. 

Response: With the removal of the subcategory distinction, 

we revised our analyses of the emissions reductions, costs, and 

other impacts of the beyond-the-floor option identified at 

proposal. This beyond-the-floor option would require the 

ducting of emissions from the uncontrolled back-end process 

operations to a control device for the two facilities now in the 

Butyl Rubber source category. In this revised analysis, we 

considered information provided during the comment period 

regarding the types of oxidizers and ducting equipment that 

would be needed for the facilities in this source category for 

the beyond-the-floor control option, as well as the provided 

information on process flow rates. From the revised analysis, 

we estimate that thermal oxidizers would achieve an emissions 

reduction of 98 percent, resulting in a decrease in hexane 

emissions of approximately 66 TPY. The capital costs of this 

option are estimated to be approximately $3.5 million, total 

annual costs are estimated to be approximately $1.5 million, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 193

the cost-effectiveness values would be approximately $23,000 per 

ton of HAP emissions reduced. We believe the costs of this 

beyond-the-floor option are not reasonable, given the level of 

emission reduction. Therefore, we are finalizing the MACT floor 

level of emissions. We have determined that the MACT floor 

level of control for the source category is a production-based 

limit reflecting each source’s organic HAP emissions divided by 

its total elastomer product leaving the stripper in 2009, 

multiplied by a variability factor of 1.35. In establishing the 

floor-level limit, the variability factor was included to 

account for the historic variability in the amount of emissions 

per unit of production at these facilities. 

Comment: Commenters noted that the emissions from back-end 

process operations for facilities in the Epichlorohydrin 

Elastomers, NBR, and Butyl Rubber source categories, and HCl 

emissions from front-end process operations in the Ethylene 

Propylene Rubber and Butyl Rubber source categories will vary 

only by the mass of polymer product produced, because there is 

only one facility in each source category. The commenters note 

that the proposed MACT standards were based on emissions data 

and associated production levels for certain years. These 

commenters state that it is not appropriate to set the standards 

in this way, as it does not allow for variability in the 

manufacturing process, or the potential for the production of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 193

different product mixes and volumes in the future. One 

commenter suggests using 2008 emissions, and, perhaps, other 

recent years of data in setting the limits. Another commenter 

suggests that EPA look at the statistical variation over time, 

and, if EPA revisits the current subcategorization scheme within 

the Butyl Rubber source category, then EPA should also consider 

variability in source design and operation. The commenter also 

notes that , over the last 10 years, emissions from back-end 

process vents varied by up to 43 percent from their levels in 

2006 due to factors such as weather conditions, grade slate 

changes (such as product grade or slight variations in product 

type), and process and control device reliability/service. Both 

commenters submitted additional emissions data for EPA’s 

consideration. 

Response: We have adjusted the emissions limits in the 

final rule to better account for process variability and other 

factors for the front-end process vent MACT limits in the Butyl 

Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories and the 

back-end MACT limits for the Butyl Rubber, Epichlorohydrin 

Elastomers, and NBR source categories.10 For the Butyl Rubber 

source category, up to 10 years of annual emissions and annual 

production data were submitted for the two facilities in the 

                                                           

10 See Regulatory Alternative Impacts for Group I Polymers and 

Resins (March 2011) in the docket. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 193

source category. These data showed that the emissions per unit 

production varied up to 74 percent higher for HCl from front-end 

process vents than that reported in 2010, and varied up to 35 

percent higher for back-end process vents than that reported for 

2009. To account for this variability, we included a 

variability factor of 74 percent over the HCl emissions per unit 

production in 2010 in the front-end process operations limit, 

and a variability factor of 35 percent over the emissions per 

unit production in 2009 in the back-end process operations limit 

for this source category. For the Ethylene Propylene Rubber 

source category, historical annual emissions and annual 

production data were submitted for the one affected facility in 

the source category. These data showed that the emissions per 

unit production varied up to 39 percent higher for HCl from 

front-end process vents than reported in 2010. To account for 

this variability, we included a variability factor of 39 percent 

over the HCl emissions per unit production in 2010 in the frontend process operations limit. Similarly, for the NBR source 

category, historical annual emissions and production data were 

submitted after the comment period for the one facility in the 

source category. While this facility recently installed 

emissions control systems beyond those required to meet the 

current MACT requirements, after these control were in place, 

the data showed that emissions per unit production varied up to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 193

42 percent higher than that reported for 2009. To account for 

this variability, we included a variability factor of 42 percent 

over the emissions per unit production in 2009 in the back-end 

process operations limit for this source category. For the 

Epichlorohydrin Elastomers source category, historical annual 

emissions indicative of the expected variation of emissions was 

unavailable. Due to the similarities between the NBR and 

Epichlorohydrin Elastomers facilities in the equipment used, and 

how they operate their back-end processes, however, the same 42-

percent variability factor was applied to the emissions per unit 

production in 2009 in the back-end process operations limit. 

Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should provide an 

allowance for maintenance of any thermal oxidizer required to be 

installed. One commenter notes that a regenerative thermal 

oxidizer (RTO) requires maintenance that sometimes necessitates 

that the RTO be bypassed. The commenter notes that back-end 

process vents at existing sources in the Butyl Rubber source 

category are currently permitted to allow bypass emissions 

during maintenance work on the control device up to the 

permitted limit with the use of purchased Emission Reduction 

Credits in Texas, and an allowance for bypass emissions is 

included in the unit operating permit in Louisiana. The 

commenter suggests that the MACT standards for the back-end 

process vents should recognize that bypassing currently occurs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 193

for RTO-controlled emissions, and allow for it in the MACT 

standards. 

Response: We recognize that bypassing currently occurs. 

However, the Court has made clear that MACT standards must apply 

at all times. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). The emission 

limits we are finalizing for the back-end process operations are 

in the format of a 12-month rolling average, and, therefore, 

facilities may bypass only provided that they are in continuous 

compliance with the standards. 

Comment: Commenters requested that EPA clarify the 

definition of back-end processes specifically to exclude 

operations that have essentially no HAP emission potential, such 

as handling and storage of finished products. They stated that 

it would also be helpful for the Agency to clarify that surge 

control vessels, equipment leaks, storage vessels, and 

wastewater, which are regulated by the Group I Polymers and 

Resins MACT, are not included in the definition of back-end 

processes. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that the proposed 

definition of back-end processes was unclear, and that surge 

control vessels, equipment leaks, storage vessels, and 

wastewater are regulated in the existing Group I Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, and that handling and storage of finished 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 193

products is not part of the back-end process operations. We 

have revised the language in the final rule accordingly. 

Comment: Commenters request clarification that, in the 

absence of allowing 4 years for compliance, the first compliance 

demonstration would be 24 months after the publication date for 

emission limits, based on a 12-month rolling average. This 

would allow for data collection to begin in the first month 

after the compliance date (13th month after promulgation) and 

provide for 1 year of data to be used in the compliance 

demonstration. One commenter requested that compliance not be 

determined on less than a 12-month basis, because this would 

limit the variability allowed for in the rolling 12-month limit. 

Response: We agree with the commenter that compliance 

should be determined on a 12-month basis. The first time 12 

months of data will be available will be in the 13th month after 

the compliance date, which is the 25th month after the 

publication date. To demonstrate compliance, the 12-month 

rolling average information must be included in the first 

periodic report that occurs after 12 months of data have been 

collected. We have clarified the timing of the compliance 

demonstration in the final rule language. 

C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 193

Comment: Commenters stated that there were errors in the 

2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data set, and that EPA 

significantly overestimated the MIR for the MTVLO source 

category for each of these facilities due to data errors. 

Response: At proposal, we found that the current MACTbased standards both provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects, 

and, therefore, did not make any changes to the existing 

standards due to the risk analysis. We found that three 

facilities had MIR greater than 1-in-1 million (values of 10-, 

20-, and 20-in-1 million) for the MTVLO source category. We 

identified two facilities with facility-wide MIR greater than 

100–in-1 million (each with values of 200). Using new data 

obtained since proposal, we corrected the errors noted by the 

commenters for both MTVLO emission sources and other emission 

sources at the facilities. We found incorrect latitudes and 

longitudes for some emission sources, incorrect emissions 

reported for some sources, or incorrectly identified HAP. We 

updated the 2005 NEI data sets for each facility with corrected 

data, and conducted a reanalysis of the risk using the corrected 

data set. The revised risk assessment results show no 

facilities with MTVLO have a facility-wide risk of greater than 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 193

100-in-1 million.11 Based on 2005 emissions data, MTVLO source 

category emissions from one facility result in a MIR of 50-in-1 

million (20 percent from benzene and 80 percent from butadiene), 

however, this facility reports in its public comments an 89- 

percent reduction in benzene emissions and a 97-percent 

reduction in butadiene emissions between years 2006 and 2009. 

Based on this information, the revised MIR associated with 

actual MTVLO emissions from this facility is less than 1-in-1 

million.12 No other facility has MTVLO emissions resulting in a 

MIR greater than 1-in-1 million. The corrections to the 

emission data files and risk results are included in memoranda 

in the docket. 

Comment: One commenter noted that it is not clear whether 

offshore loading terminals at refineries would be exempt from 

proposed changes to MTVLO MACT. The commenter recommended rule 

text changes for 40 CFR 63.560(d)(6). The commenter noted that 

their facility may be one of the few (or only) offshore loading 

terminals in the United States, meaning the cost analysis and 

controls selected for this subcategory by the MTVLO MACT 

                                                           

11 Of the two facilities with MTVLO that previously showed 

facility-wide risks exceeding 100-in-1 million, the revised risk 

assessment results show one facility has facility-wide risks of 

70-in-1 million, and the other has facility-wide risks of 40-in1 million. 

12 For this facility, reported actual and allowable emission are 

the same; therefore, the MIR is the same for both. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 193

proposal are likely to set a precedent in the Refinery RTR rule 

process. 

Response: We have considered the comment and agree that 

the proposed rule was not clear. Therefore, this final rule 

clarifies applicability for petroleum refineries. 

Comment: Three commenters supported submerged fill 

requirements. One commenter supported the requirement for 

submerged fill for previously-exempt subcategories, and stated 

that submerged fill is cost-effective. One commenter agreed 

with EPA’s decision to establish submerged fill as the MACT 

floor. The Commenter noted that submerged fill, as defined by 

the Coast Guard, has been standard industry practice for some 

time, reduces HAP emissions, and eliminates static electricity 

from free-falling cargo, thereby enhancing operational safety. 

One commenter suggested that if additional control is needed, a 

work practice standard (submerged fill) should be adopted for 

the offshore loading subcategory instead of 99-percent efficient 

vapor control systems. 

Response: The commenters agree with the proposal to 

require submerged fill as the floor level of control for the two 

subcategories not previously regulated (those facilities 

emitting less than 10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those 

facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore). We have 

included the submerged fill requirement in the final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 193

Comment: One commenter noted the discussion in the 

preamble is confusing concerning whether the proposed 1 million 

bbl/yr threshold is a MACT measure, or a reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) measure. The preamble states that the 

existing MACT standards require vapor recovery control for at 

least 10 million bbl/yr of gasoline, however, this provision is 

in the RACT provisions of the existing rule. Furthermore, the 

commenter asserts that the proposal preamble justifies the 

proposed new 1 million bbl/yr threshold on a volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) RACT basis rather than a HAP (MACT) basis, and 

describes the lower threshold as a beyond-the-floor MACT measure 

for the two previously-exempt subcategories. In addition, the 

commenter noted that the throughput threshold for a major source 

is 5 million bbl/yr, and asked how a facility only loading 1 

million bbl/yr could be considered a major source, and subject 

to MACT. The commenter stated that the preamble discussion 

should be consistent with both the basis presented for 

justification of this measure, and the language of the rule. 

Response: The proposed and final rules only pertain to the 

MACT requirements in the rule that address major sources of HAP; 

no changes were proposed for the RACT requirements.13 While the 

                                                           

13  RACT and MACT requirements are both included in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart Y – National Emission Standards of Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 193

commenter noted that a particular throughput would be required 

to define a major source of HAP, the throughput levels for MTVLO 

were not defined with the intent of identifying a major source. 

Applicability for the current rule is two-fold: (1) is the 

facility, as a whole, a major source of HAP; and (2) does the 

facility conduct MTVLO. 

We agree that the discussion in the proposed preamble 

regarding the gasoline throughput thresholds used to analyze the 

proposed 1 million bbl/yr gasoline threshold was not clear (75 

FR 65115). As discussed below, we have not included a 

requirement for MTVLO facilities with a throughput of 1 million 

bbl/yr of gasoline to install and operate vapor recovery 

controls in the final rule. 

Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA’s costeffectiveness determination for the beyond-the-floor MACT is 

flawed/not accurate, and noted concerns that the cost analysis 

is based on information from one vendor, for one control 

technology, for a single facility, and assumed installation 

costs. One commenter stated that EPA’s cost information was 

limited. One commenter indicated that beyond-the-floor MACT 

options must be cost-effective in reducing HAP, and since EPA’s 

estimated cost was $74,000/ton HAP emissions reduced, it is not 

cost-effective, and, thus, illegal to promulgate this 

requirement as a MACT measure. The commenter stated that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 193

real cost, based on corrected values of HAP content, would be 

$180,000/ton HAP emissions reduced. The commenter requested 

that EPA rescind the proposed action. 

Commenters stated that the EPA does not have the authority 

to consider non-HAP emission reductions in conducting a review 

of existing MACT standards under CAA section 112(d). The 

commenters noted that, in setting MACT standards, the CAA 

expressly forbids EPA from considering the co-benefits of nonHAP emissions reductions, and the MACT floor must be based on 

the HAP emission reductions achieved; any beyond-the-floor 

standard may be based only on consideration of the cost of 

achieving HAP emission reductions, and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. 

Response: As discussed earlier, we established and 

proposed the MACT floor as submerged fill for the two 

subcategories not previously regulated (facilities emitting less 

than 10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those “offshore” 

facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore). 

Additionally, under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review 

of the existing MTVLO MACT, and as setting the beyond-the-floor 

MACT standards for the two subcategories not previously 

regulated, we proposed that existing facilities loading 1 

million bbl/yr of gasoline, install vapor controls either 

meeting 97-percent control, or the equivalent emission limit of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 193

10 mg/l (10 milligrams of total organic compound emissions per 

liter of gasoline loaded). At proposal, we estimated the cost 

and emissions reductions for installing vapor controls for 

facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline, and we 

estimated a cost of $74,000/ton HAP emissions reduction (190 TPY 

HAP emissions reduction) and $5,500/ton VOC emissions reduction 

(2,600 TPY VOC emissions reduction). 

As discussed in the cost section of the response to comment 

and the cost memoranda in the docket, we received and considered 

the comments on the control costs, emission rate differences for 

ships and barges, additional costs for offshore facilities, and 

the HAP content in gasoline. All those factors change the costeffectiveness calculations. Based on information received as 

part of the comments, we reevaluated the costs used at proposal. 

The revised costs and emissions for the proposed threshold of 1 

million bbl/yr gasoline are as high as $500,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced (1.9 tons of HAP reduced annually per 

facility) for loading ships offshore. Looking at a less 

stringent threshold for the final rule of 7 million bbl/yr of 

gasoline loaded would likely achieve little or no HAP or VOC 

emission reductions, since many facilities near that threshold 

were required to install controls under the current rule. We 

agree with commenters that these costs are unreasonable. 

Therefore, we are not including the proposed vapor controls for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 193

loading 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline requirement in the final 

rule. We disagree with the commenter that we cannot consider 

VOC benefits, but, given that we are not requiring these 

additional vapor controls for HAP, the issue is now moot. 

Comment: One commenter stated that VOC and HAP emission 

rates from ships and barges at their facility are lower than EPA 

uses in its cost-effectiveness determinations. EPA used the 

uncontrolled gasoline loading emissions factor for barges (3.4 

pounds (lb) VOC/1,000 gallons (gal) loaded), but should use the 

emissions factor for ocean-going ships and barges (1.8 lb 

VOC/1,000 gal loaded); AP-42 notes in Chapter 5 that vapor 

saturation is much lower in ship and barge loading. 

Response: We agree with the commenter that the emission 

factors for ships and barges, as applicable to the type of 

marine vessel being loaded, should be considered for estimating 

VOC and HAP emissions. We have revised the emission estimates 

using the barge and ship emission factors from AP-42. 

Comment: One commenter noted that HAP content in the vapor 

phase is 3.0 percent, and not the 7.3 percent determined by EPA 

in the proposal. The commenter provided the analysis showing 

the calculations, based on conventional gasoline, where the 

commenter assumed no methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the 

gasoline; no change to the total partial pressure; and benzene 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 193

concentration of 1.8 percent. Another commenter stated the HAP 

emissions factor is approximately 50 percent of the EPA factor. 

Response: In the proposal, we determined that the HAP 

content in the vapor phase of gasoline of 7.3 percent (based on 

2006 gasoline composition) was appropriate, and used 7.3 percent 

in our emissions estimates for gasoline loading at MTVLO. We 

reviewed and considered the data provided by the commenter, and 

reviewed HAP content information from several other sources that 

have more recent gasoline composition data. We conducted a 

reanalysis of the HAP content, looking at both conventional and 

reformulated gasoline, considering the phase-out of MTBE and the 

requirements for reduced benzene content. Based on the revised 

analysis, we concluded that a good typical value for HAP content 

in the vapor is 5.0 percent. The revised analysis of HAP 

content in gasoline is in a memorandum in the docket. 

Comment: Commenters argued that lean oil absorption 

technology is not capable of meeting the rule efficiency, is not 

in common use for MTVLO, and must be demonstrated as an 

effective technology for MTVLO. One commenter cited an instance 

where lean oil absorption installed on MTVLO was unable to meet 

control requirements in their permit. The commenter stated that 

lean oil absorption is typically used in smaller applications. 

Commenters stated that EPA must provide actual performance data 

for lean oil absorption technology in the MTVLO source category. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 193

Response: Lean oil absorption systems are not new control 

technologies for MTVLO. Lean oil absorption was discussed as a 

vapor recovery device, in addition to refrigeration (condenser) 

systems and carbon adsorption systems, for marine vessel loading 

in the 1987 National Research Council, Committee on Control and 

Recovery of Hydrocarbons Vapors from Ships and Barges report, 

Controlling Hydrocarbon Emissions from Tank Vessel Loading. 

Lean oil absorption also was discussed in the 1992 proposal, 

Technical Support Document for MTVLO (EPA-450/3-92-001a), and 

has been installed as vapor recovery devices for MTVLO. While 

we have not selected a beyond-the-floor option as MACT, we would 

like to clarify that lean oil absorption systems were included 

in the cost analysis for the beyond-the-floor option, because 

lean oil absorption systems achieving an emission reduction 

efficiency of 97 percent are used by at least one MTVLO 

facility, and because the units are a relatively less expensive 

control technology option that has the added benefit of 

recovered product. 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Requirements

 Comment: Two commenters state that EPA offers little 

support for the assertion that it is reasonable to interpret CAA 

section 112 as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in 

setting emissions standards, or that malfunctions are not a 

distinct operating mode. The commenters state that it does not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 193

make sense for EPA to assert that malfunctions are part of 

normal operations, but then exclude emissions from these parts 

of normal operations in the determination of the emissions 

limits. The commenters state that, due to the unplanned nature 

and variety of potential malfunctions, it would be difficult, if 

not impossible, for EPA to gather data and set an emissions 

standard for periods of malfunction. Due to these difficulties, 

the commenters suggest that, under the authority of CAA section 

112(h), EPA prescribe alternative design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards where it is not feasible to 

set or enforce a numerical emissions limit. The commenters add 

that there are work practices that can be identified as being 

the best to minimize emissions during a malfunction, and EPA 

must acknowledge the fact that even the best-performing sources 

experience malfunction events. 

Response: EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does 

not require that emissions that occur during periods of 

malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 193

sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 

that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining 

the level “achieved” by the best performing or best controlled 

sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while EPA 

accounts for variability in setting emissions standards 

consistent with the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that 

case law requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of 

that analysis. 

CAA section 112 uses the concept of “best controlled” and 

“best performing” unit in defining the level of stringency that 

CAA section 112 performance standards must meet. Applying the 

concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that 

is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as 

malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events. Accounting for 

malfunctions 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) (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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 193

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, 

the goal of a best controlled or best performing source is to 

operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of the source, 

and accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are 

significantly less stringent than levels that are achieved by a 

well-performing non-malfunctioning source. EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112, and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

Comment: Several commenters argued that emissions limits 

should not apply during SSM events, while other commenters 

stated that SSM emissions should be included in calculations of 

emissions and standards. Commenters suggested that requiring 

continuous compliance during periods of SSM constitutes beyondthe-floor requirements, and the Agency should have to justify 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 193

this more stringent level of control, because facilities would 

need to install redundant control systems and bypass systems. 

They further stated that, in order to assure that SSM are 

appropriately accommodated, EPA must either assure that the data 

on which the standard is based include representative data from 

such periods, or, alternatively, set a separate work practice 

standard to properly accommodate SSM, and they cited case law 

supporting establishment of special SSM provisions. Further, 

several commenters stated that compliance with emissions 

standards during malfunction events will be difficult to gauge 

since emissions testing during such events is nearly impossible, 

given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of malfunctions. 

The commenters contended that the rules could have the effect of 

forcing units to choose between safety and compliance with 

emissions requirements. The commenters stated that, for some 

affected units, malfunctions, by their very nature, create 

unsafe conditions which can lead to excessive combustible 

mixtures that can result in explosions, equipment damage, and 

personnel hazards. Commenters also noted that some of the MACT 

standards included in this action did not rely exclusively upon 

the General Provisions, and, thus, were not immediately affected 

by the Court’s vacatur of the SSM exemptions in the General 

Provisions. The commenters pointed out that, given that these 

categories were not immediately affected, EPA is not compelled 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 193

to remove the exemptions that are established within these 

individual category-specific MACT standards. 

Other commenters expressed support for requiring continuous 

compliance with the MACT standards, including periods of SSM. 

They noted that malfunctions are also preventable, and, thus, 

there should be no relief from the standards during these 

events. 

Response: At this time, we are not promulgating separate 

emission standards for periods of startup and shutdown for three 

of the four categories addressed in this rule, because we 

believe compliance with the standards is achievable during these 

periods. In the case of the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT 

standards, we expect the difference in emission levels during 

periods of startup and shutdown are insignificant, and that 

facilities in this source category should be able to comply with 

the standards during these times. In the case of the Printing 

and Publishing MACT standards, we believe there are sufficiently 

long averaging times incorporated into the emissions limits that 

facilities should be able to comply during periods of startup 

and shutdown. In the case of MTVLO, loading of marine tank 

vessels occurs in “batches,” and general practice is for the 

loading operators to test out the vapor control system before it 

is attached to the tank vessel. In the case of Group I Polymers 

and Resins, one commenter stated that organic HAP emissions that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 193

are required to be sent to emissions control equipment (i.e., 

flares) may not be able to comply with the MACT standards during 

periods of shutdown. The commenter stated that they may not 

always be able to route some of their process vents to a flare 

during periods of shutdown due to low pressure or low heat 

content in the process vent. EPA agrees with the commenter that 

it is not possible to comply with the applicable standard during 

periods of shutdown, and is establishing alternative emissions 

standards that apply during these periods. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner...” (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct 

operating mode, and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such 

times do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 

112 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Also refer to section III.E of this preamble, and the response 

to comments document available in the docket for this action for 

additional discussion of this issue. 

Comment: Commenters on the Group I Polymers and Resins 

MACT disagreed with EPA’s statement that the proposed rules will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 193

reduce the reporting burden associated with having to prepare 

and submit an SSM report. The commenters also state that the 

claims EPA makes that EPA is not proposing any new paperwork 

requirements is false if a facility wants to claim an 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense provision contains 

much more onerous reporting and implied recordkeeping 

requirements than the existing rules. The commenters state that 

EPA needs to account for the information collection burden 

associated with affirmative defense in the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for the SSM portion of the Group I 

Polymers and Resins MACT, and otherwise comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Response: As discussed in section VII.B of this preamble, 

EPA is providing the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, and is 

providing administrative adjustments to the ICR for the MACT 

standards subject to these final rules that show what the 

notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might 

entail. 

Comment: Two commenters note that, in making changes to 

the rules to exclude the SSM exemption and add the general duty 

clause to the MACT standards, three of the six MACT standards in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 193

the proposal include the statement that “the general duty to 

minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to 

make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required 

by this standard have been achieved,” but the other three do not 

(i.e., Group I Polymers and Resins, MTLVO, and Printing and 

Publishing Industry MACT standards). The commenters state that 

this clarifying language should be included in all six 

standards. 

Response: We agree that this language should be included 

in each of the six MACT standards, and we have added this 

clarifying language to 40 CFR 63.823(b) in the Printing and 

Publishing Industry MACT standards and 40 CFR 63.562(e) in the 

MTVLO MACT standards. However, we find that 40 CFR 63.483 in 

the Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT standards already includes 

this language, and we have not revised the proposed language. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Rules 

The final changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins, 

MTVLO, Pharmaceuticals Production, and the Printing and 

Publishing Industry MACT standards are not estimated to have any 

significant emission reductions, costs, or other impacts.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 193

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a “significant regulatory action.” This action 

is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal 

and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rules 

have be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The information requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 

all operators subject to national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 193

made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B. 

 These final rules would require maintenance inspections of 

the control devices, but would not require any notifications or 

reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The 

recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information 

needed to determine compliance. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts U, Y, KK, and GGG. An affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can 

demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 

satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 

CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable, and 

not caused by poor maintenance and or careless operation) and 

where the source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. 

In addition, the source must meet certain notification and 

reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a 

written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the 

Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and 

requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 193

For two of the rules promulgated, National Emissions 

Standards for Group I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber 

Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene 

Propylene Rubber Production, HypalonTM Production, Neoprene 

Production, NBR Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, 

Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and 

Latex Production); and Pharmaceuticals Production, EPA is adding 

affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of 

the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative 

defense position adopted by a source, EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to these two ICR that show what the 

notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might 

entail. EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports, 

and records, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141, 

and is based on the time and effort required of a source to 

review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document 

the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes 

time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission 

to EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden, 

because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 193

violation, and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions 

could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and 

maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for 

a particular source. It is important to note that EPA has no 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that 

would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or 

operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 

emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of 

excess emission events reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to result from a malfunction 

(based on the definition above), and only a subset of excess 

emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus, we believe 

the number of instances in which source operators might be 

expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than 2 or 

3 such occurrences for all sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subparts U and GGG over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 193

We expect to gather information on such events in the future, 

and will revise this estimate as better information becomes 

available. 

With respect to MTVLO and Printing and Publishing source 

categories, operations would not proceed or continue if there is 

a malfunction of a control device, and, thus, it is unlikely 

that a control device malfunction would cause an exceedance of 

any emission limit. The existing MTVLO rule requires the vapor 

displaced during loading of the vessel be sent to vapor 

processors that meet specified efficiency standards. In 

discussions with industry, and at plant visits, the industry 

reports that marine vessels are not allowed to start loading 

until the vapor collection and processor system has been 

thoroughly checked for proper operation. If the loading 

equipment, and the vapor collection and possessor system are not 

properly operating, the vessel is not allowed to load. In 

addition, if processor system settings are not maintained during 

vessel loading, loading is automatically stopped. Therefore, we 

believe there is no burden to the industry for the affirmative 

defense provisions added to the final rule. Additionally, an 

ICR document (number 1679.08) was prepared and submitted for the 

October 21, 2010, proposed rule that included burdens associated 

with testing, reporting, and recordkeeping for the proposed 

lowering of the threshold for when additional vapor collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 193

and processor systems are required. In this action we are not 

requiring the lower threshold for additional vapor collection 

and processor systems. However, submerged fill requirements are 

added in the final rule, and are already being met under Coast 

Guard rules, thus, there is no additional ICR burden associated 

with the final rule for MTVLO. 

For Printing and Publishing, we do not believe that 

printing and publishing facilities have excess emissions caused 

by malfunctions. Printing presses and control devices are 

interlocked. If the control device is not operating, the press 

cannot start printing. If the control device stops operating, 

the press stops printing. Also, given the characteristics of 

the affected units at printing and publishing sources, EPA does 

not believe that any other type of malfunction could conceivably 

cause excess emissions. 

Therefore, sources within these two source categories are 

not expected to have any need or use for the affirmative 

defense. Thus, for these source categories, EPA is not 

assigning any burden associated with affirmative defense. 

For the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards, an ICR 

document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the standards has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 2410.02, which has been revised 

since the proposed estimate assigned EPA ICR number 2410.01. 

Burden changes associated with these amendments result from the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 193

reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the affirmative 

defense provisions added to the rule; the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated with the new back-end 

process operation emission limits for Epichlorohydrin 

Elastomers, Neoprene Rubber, NBR, and Butyl Rubber Production 

source categories; and the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements associated with the new HCl emission limits for the 

front-end process vents for the Ethylene Propylene Rubber and 

Butyl Rubber Production source categories. The respondents’ 

annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments is estimated to be 251 labor 

hours at a cost of $12,222 per year. The annual burden for the 

Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) for these amendments is 

estimated to be 9 labor hours at a cost of $408 per year. 

For the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards ICR 

document prepared by EPA, which has been revised to include the 

amendments to the standards, has been assigned EPA ICR number 

1781.06. Burden changes associated with these amendments result 

from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the 

affirmative defense provisions added to the rule. The change in 

respondents’ annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 

associated with these amendments for this collection (averaged 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 193

over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 20 labor hours at a cost of $2,094 

per year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the 

Federal government for these amendments. 

 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. When these ICR are approved by OMB, the Agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal 

Register to display the OMB control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements contained in the final 

rules. 

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 impact of these final rules 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 193

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

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-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of these final rules 

on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This final action will not impose any requirements on 

small entities. These final rules will not change the level of 

any emission standard, or impose emission measurements or 

reporting requirements on small entities beyond those specified 

in existing regulations. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

These rules 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 one year. Thus, these rules are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

These rules are also not subject to the regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. They contain no requirements that apply to such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 193

governments or impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. These final rules primarily affect private industry, and 

do not impose significant economic costs on State or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 193

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action would not relax the control measures on 

existing regulated sources, and EPA’s risk assessments (included 

in the docket for the proposed rules) demonstrate that the 

existing regulations are health protective. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse energy effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will 

not create any new requirements for sources in the energy 

supply, distribution, or use sectors. Further, we have 

concluded that these final rules are not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 193

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 

the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involved technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA has determined that these final rules will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, 

because they do not affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. To examine the potential for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 193

any environmental justice issues that might be associated with 

each source category, we evaluated the distributions of HAPrelated cancer and non-cancer risks across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups within the populations living 

near the facilities where these source categories are located. 

Our analyses also show that, for all the source categories 

evaluated, there is no potential for an adverse environmental 

effect or human health multipathway effects, and that acute and 

chronic non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. Our additional 

analysis of facility-wide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risks for all source categories are within 

the range of acceptable risks, and that the maximum chronic noncancer risks are unlikely to cause health impacts. Our 

additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed 

population may show disparities in risks between demographic 

groups for all three categories, but EPA has determined that, 

although there may be a disparity in risks between demographic 

groups, no group is exposed to unacceptable level of risk. 

The rules would not relax the control measures on emissions 

sources regulated by the rules, and, therefore, would not 

increase risks to any populations exposed to these emissions 

sources. 

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 193

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing these final rules and other required 

information to the United States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the final rules in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 

it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 

“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rules 

will be effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION].
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing 

and Publishing Industry--Page 103 of 193

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

______________ 

Dated: 

________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 193

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 

Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 U-–[AMENDED] 

 2. Section 63.480 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§63.480 Applicability and designation of affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(j) Applicability of this subpart. Paragraphs (j)(1) 

through (4) of this section shall be followed during periods of 

non-operation of the affected source or any part thereof. 

(1) The emission limitations set forth in this subpart and 

the emission limitations referred to in this subpart shall apply 

at all times except during periods of non-operation of the 

affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 

cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. 

However, if a period of non-operation of one portion of an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 193

affected source does not affect the ability of a particular 

emission point to comply with the emission limitations to which 

it is subject, then that emission point shall still be required 

to comply with the applicable emission limitations of this 

subpart during the period of non-operation. For example, if 

there is an overpressure in the reactor area, a storage vessel 

that is part of the affected source would still be required to 

be controlled in accordance with the emission limitations in 

§63.484. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of 

this part, as referred to in §63.502, shall apply at all times, 

except during periods of non-operation of the affected source 

(or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and 

depressurized, resulting in cessation of the emissions to which 

§63.502 applies. 

(3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with this 

subpart during times when emissions (or, where applicable, 

wastewater streams or residuals) are being routed to such items 

of equipment if the shutdown would contravene requirements of 

this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. 

(4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 193

affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, 

as defined in §63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden of 

proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 

injunctive relief. 

(i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph 

(j)(4)(ii) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that: 

(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and 

usual manner; and could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design, or better operation and maintenance 

practices; did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and were not 

part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; 

(B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 193

shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; 

(C) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 

(D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; 

(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; 

(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation, if at all possible, consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices; 

(G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; 

(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 193

(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, 

and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. 

The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

(ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 

than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or 

operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also 

submit a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of 

the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this 

subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (j)(4)(i) of this section. The owner or operator may 

seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days 

by submitting a written request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 193

extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or 

operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance. 

3. Section 63.481 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§63.481 Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to 

existing applicable rules. 

* * * * * 

(c) With the exceptions provided in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3) of this section, existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with this subpart no later than June 19, 2001, as 

provided in §63.6(c), unless an extension has been granted as 

specified in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) Existing affected sources producing epichlorohydrin 

elastomer, butyl rubber, neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadiene 

rubber shall be in compliance with the applicable emission 

limitation in §63.494(a)(4) no later than [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

 (2) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber and 

ethylene propylene rubber shall be in compliance with 

§63.485(q)(1) no later than [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 193

(3) Compliance with §63.502 is covered by paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.482 is amended by removing the definition of 

“halobutyl rubber,” adding in alphabetical order a definition 

for “affirmative defense,” revising the definitions of “backend,” “butyl rubber,” “elastomer product,” “initial start-up,” 

and “product” in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§63.482 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

 (b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Back-end refers to the unit operations in an EPPU following 

the stripping operations. Back-end process operations include, 

but are not limited to, filtering, coagulation, blending, 

concentration, drying, separating, and other finishing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 193

operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does 

not include storage and loading of finished product or emission 

points that are regulated under §§63.484, 63.501, or 63.502 of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 Butyl rubber means a copolymer of isobutylene and other 

monomers. Typical other monomers include isoprene and 

methylstyrene. A typical composition of butyl rubber is 

approximately 85- to 99-percent isobutylene, and 1- to 15-

percent other monomers. Most butyl rubber is produced by 

precipitation polymerization, although other methods may be 

used. Halobutyl rubber is a type of butyl rubber elastomer 

produced using halogenated copolymers. 

* * * * * 

Elastomer product means one of the following types of 

products, as they are defined in this section: 

 (1) Butyl Rubber; 

 (2) Epichlorohydrin Elastomer; 

 (3) Ethylene Propylene Rubber; 

 (4) HypalonTM; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 193

 (5) Neoprene; 

 (6) Nitrile Butadiene Rubber; 

 (7) Nitrile Butadiene Latex; 

 (8) Polybutadiene Rubber/Styrene Butadiene Rubber by 

Solution; 

 (9) Polysulfide Rubber; 

 (10) Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion; and 

 (11) Styrene Butadiene Latex. 

* * * * * 

 Initial start-up means the first time a new or 

reconstructed affected source begins production of an elastomer 

product, or, for equipment added or changed as described in 

§63.480(i), the first time the equipment is put into operation 

to produce an elastomer product. Initial start-up does not 

include operation solely for testing equipment. Initial startup does not include subsequent start-ups of an affected source 

or portion thereof following shutdowns, or following changes in 

product for flexible operation units, or following recharging of 

equipment in batch operation. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 193

Product means a polymer produced using the same monomers, 

and varying in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators, etc.); 

catalysts; or in the relative proportions of monomers, that is 

manufactured by a process unit. With respect to polymers, more 

than one recipe may be used to produce the same product, and 

there can be more than one grade of a product. As an example, 

styrene butadiene latex and butyl rubber each represent a 

different product. Product also means a chemical that is not a 

polymer, is manufactured by a process unit. By-products, 

isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace 

contaminants are not considered products. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.483 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§63.483 Emission standards.

(a) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this 

subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment 

and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 

The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 

owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 193

emissions if levels required by this standard have been 

achieved. Determination of whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator which may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source. Except as allowed under 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, the owner or 

operator of an existing or new affected source shall comply with 

the provisions in: 

(1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels; 

(2) Section 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents; 

(3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for batch front-end 

process vents; 

(4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for back-end process 

operations; 

(5) Section 63.501 for wastewater; 

(6) Section 63.502 for equipment leaks; 

(7) Section 63.504 for additional test methods and 

procedures; 

(8) Section 63.505 for monitoring levels and excursions; 

and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 193

(9) Section 63.506 for general reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.484 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§63.484 Storage vessel provisions. 

* * * * * 

 (b) * * * 

(4) Storage vessels located downstream of the stripping 

operations at affected sources subject to the back-end residual 

organic HAP limitation located in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), 

that are complying through the use of stripping technology, as 

specified in §63.495; 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.485 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (q) introductory text, and (q)(1) 

introductory text; 

b. Adding paragraphs (q)(1)(iii) through (q)(1)(vi); and 

c. Adding paragraph (w) to read as follows: 

§63.485 Continuous front-end process vent provisions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 193

* * * * * 

(q) Group 1 halogenated continuous front-end process vents 

must comply with the provisions of §63.113(a)(1)(ii) and 

§63.113(c), with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (q)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Group I halogenated continuous front-end process vents 

at existing affected sources producing butyl rubber or ethylene 

propylene rubber using a solution process are exempt from the 

provisions of §63.113(a)(1)(ii) and §63.113(c) if the conditions 

in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section are met, and 

shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (q)(1)(iii) 

through (vi) of this section. Group I halogenated continuous 

front-end process vents at new affected sources producing butyl 

rubber or ethylene propylene rubber using a solution process are 

not exempt from §63.113(a)(1)(ii) and §63.113(c). 

* * * * * 

(iii) The average HCl emissions from all front-end process 

operations at affected sources producing butyl rubber and 

ethylene propylene rubber using a solution process shall not 

exceed the limits determined in accordance with paragraphs 

(q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for any consecutive 12-

month period. The specific limitation for each elastomer type 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 193

shall be determined based on the calculation or the emissions 

level provided in paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this 

section divided by the base year elastomer product that leaves 

the stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant has no 

stripper(s)). The limitation shall be calculated and submitted 

in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(A) For butyl rubber, the HCl emission limitation shall be 

calculated using the following equation: 

BRHClEL ൌ 

HClଶ଴ଵ଴

Pଶ଴ଵ଴

1.74 כ

Where: 

HCl2010 = HCl emissions in 2010, megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 

BRHClEL = Butyl rubber HCl emission limit, Mg HCl 

emissions/Mg butyl rubber produced 

P2010 = Total elastomer product leaving the stripper in 2010, 

Mg/yr 

1.74 = variability factor, unitless 

(B) For ethylene propylene rubber using a solution 

process, the HCl emission limitation, in units of Mg HCl 

emissions per Mg of ethylene propylene rubber produced, shall be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 193

calculated by dividing 27 Mg/yr by the mass of ethylene 

propylene rubber produced in 2010, in Mg. 

(iv) If the front-end process operation is subject to a 

HCl emission limitation in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this 

section, the owner and operator must submit the information 

specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) The applicable HCl emission limitation determined in 

accordance with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this 

section shall be submitted no later than 180 days from the date 

of publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal 

Register. 

(B) Beginning with the first periodic report required to 

be submitted by §63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months after 

the compliance date, the total mass of HCl emitted for each of 

the rolling 12-month periods in the reporting period divided by 

the total mass of elastomer produced during the corresponding 

12-month period, determined in accordance with paragraph 

(q)(1)(v) of this section. 

(v) Compliance with the HCl emission limitations 

determined in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this 

section shall be demonstrated in accordance with paragraphs 

(q)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 193

(A) Calculate your HCl emission limitation in accordance 

with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, as 

applicable, record it, and submit it in accordance with 

paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(B) Each month, calculate and record the HCl emissions 

from all front-end process operations using engineering 

assessment. Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited 

to, the following: 

(1) Use of material balances; 

(2) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment 

design, such as pump or blower capacities; 

(3) Estimation of HCl concentrations based on saturation 

conditions; and 

(4) Estimation of HCl concentrations based on grab samples 

of the liquid or vapor. 

(C) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product 

produced. 

(D) Each month, calculate and record the sum of the HCl 

emissions and the mass of elastomer produced for the previous 

calendar 12-month period. 

(E) Each month, divide the total mass of HCl emitted for 

the previous calendar 12-month period by the total mass of 

elastomer produced during this 12-month period. This value must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 193

be recorded in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(vi) of this 

section and reported in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of 

this section. 

(vi) If the front-end process operation is subject to an 

HCl emission limitation in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall maintain the records 

specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this 

section. 

(A) The applicable HCl emission limitation determined in 

accordance with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(B) The HCl emissions from all front-end process 

operations for each month, along with documentation of all 

calculations, and other information used in the engineering 

assessment to estimate these emissions. 

(C) The mass of elastomer product produced each month. 

(D) The total mass of HCl emitted for each 12-month period 

divided by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-

month period, determined in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(v) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 193

(w) Shutdown. (1) During periods of shutdown, a Group 1 

continuous front-end process vent at an existing affected source 

producing butyl rubber or ethylene propylene rubber using a 

solution process must be routed to a flare until either the 

organic HAP concentration in the vent is less than 50 ppmv, or 

the vent pressure is below 103.421 kPa. 

8. Section 63.489 is amended by revising paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii)(C) to read as follows: 

§63.489 Batch front-end process vents—monitoring equipment. 

* * * * * 

 (b) * * * 

 (4) * * * 

 (ii) * * * 

 (C) The owner or operator may prepare and implement a gas 

stream flow determination plan that documents an appropriate 

method which will be used to determine the gas stream flow. The 

plan shall require determination of gas stream flow by a method 

which will at least provide a value for either a representative 

or the highest gas stream flow anticipated in the scrubber 

during representative operating conditions. The plan shall 

include a description of the methodology to be followed and an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 193

explanation of how the selected methodology will reliably 

determine the gas stream flow, and a description of the records 

that will be maintained to document the determination of gas 

stream flow. The owner or operator shall maintain the plan as 

specified in §63.506(a). 

* * * * * 

9. Section 63.491 is amended by revising paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§63.491 Batch front-end process vents—recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (2) * * * 

 (ii) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (lowlevel) and high-level adjustments shall not be included in 

computing the batch cycle daily averages. In addition, 

monitoring data recorded during periods of non-operation of the 

EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of 

organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing the 

batch cycle daily averages. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 193

* * * * * 

10. Section 63.493 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.493 Back-end process provisions. 

 Owners and operators of new and existing affected sources 

shall comply with the requirements in §§63.494 through 63.500. 

Owners and operators of affected sources whose only elastomer 

products are latex products, liquid rubber products, or products 

produced in a gas-phased reaction process, are not subject to 

the provisions of §§63.494 through 63.500. If latex or liquid 

rubber products are produced in an affected source that also 

produces another elastomer product, the provisions of §§63.494 

through 63.500 do not apply to the back-end operations dedicated 

to the production of one or more latex products, or to the backend operations during the production of a latex product. Table 

8 to this subpart contains a summary of compliance alternative 

requirements for the emission limits in §63.494(a)(1)-(3) and 

associated requirements. 

11. Section 63.494 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(4); 

d. Revising paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 193

e. Adding paragraph (a)(6); 

f. Revising paragraph (b); 

g. Revising paragraph (c); and 

h. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§63.494 Back-end process provisions—residual organic HAP and 

emission limitations. 

 (a) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP 

content of all grades of styrene butadiene rubber produced by 

the emulsion process, polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene 

rubber produced by the solution process, and ethylene-propylene 

rubber produced by the solution process that is processed, shall 

be measured after the stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if 

the plant has no stripper(s)), as specified in §63.495(d), and 

shall not exceed the limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section, as applicable. Owners or operators 

of these affected sources shall comply with the requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section using either 

stripping technology, or control or recovery devices. The 

organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations at 

affected sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin 

elastomer, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not 

exceed the limits determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) 

of this section, as applicable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 193

* * * * * 

 (4) The organic HAP emissions from back-end processes at 

affected sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin 

elastomer, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not 

exceed the limits determined in accordance with paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section for any consecutive 12-

month period. The specific limitation for each elastomer type 

shall be determined based on the calculation or the emissions 

level provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this 

section divided by the base year elastomer product that leaves 

the stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant has no 

stripper(s)). The limitation shall be calculated and submitted 

in accordance with §63.499(f)(1). 

(i) For butyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation 

shall be calculated using the following equation: 

BREL ൌ 

Ceଶ଴଴ଽ ൅ Beଶ଴଴ଽ ൅ UCeଶ଴଴ଽ

Pଶ଴଴ଽ

1.35 כ

Where: 

Be2009 = Bypass emissions in 2009, Mg/yr 

BREL = Butyl rubber emission limit, Mg organic HAP 

emissions/Mg butyl rubber produced 

Ce2009 = Controlled emissions in 2009, Mg/yr 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 193

P2009 = Total elastomer product leaving the stripper in 2009, 

Mg/yr 

UCe2009 = Uncontrolled emissions in 2009, Mg/yr 

1.35 = variability factor, unitless 

(ii) For epichlorohydrin elastomer, the organic HAP 

emission limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg 

of epichlorohydrin elastomer produced, shall be calculated by 

dividing 51 Mg/yr by the mass of epichlorohydrin elastomer 

produced in 2009, in Mg. 

(iii) For neoprene, the organic HAP emission limitation, 

in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of neoprene 

produced, shall be calculated by dividing 30 Mg/yr by the mass 

of neoprene produced in 2007, in Mg. 

(iv) For nitrile butadiene rubber, the organic HAP 

emission limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg 

of nitrile butadiene rubber produced, shall be calculated by 

dividing 2.4 Mg/yr by the mass of nitrile butadiene rubber 

produced in 2009, in Mg. 

 (5) For EPPU that produce both an elastomer product with a 

residual organic HAP limitation listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section, and a product listed in paragraphs 

(a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, only the residual HAP 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 193

content of the elastomer product with a residual organic HAP 

limitation shall be used in determining the monthly average 

residual organic HAP content. 

* * * * * 

 (6) There are no back-end process operation residual 

organic HAP or emission limitations for HypalonTM and polysulfide 

rubber production. There are also no back-end process operation 

residual organic HAP limitations for latex products, liquid 

rubber products, products produced in a gas-phased reaction 

process, styrene butadiene rubber produced by any process other 

than a solution or emulsion process, polybutadiene rubber 

produced by any process other than a solution process, or 

ethylene-propylene rubber produced by any process other than a 

solution process. 

 (b) If an owner or operator complies with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section using stripping technology, compliance shall be 

demonstrated in accordance with §63.495. The owner or operator 

shall also comply with the recordkeeping provisions in §63.498, 

and the reporting provisions in §63.499. 

 (c) If an owner or operator complies with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 193

section using control or recovery devices, compliance shall be 

demonstrated using the procedures in §63.496. The owner or 

operator shall also comply with the monitoring provisions in 

§63.497, the recordkeeping provisions in §63.498, and the 

reporting provisions in §63.499. 

 (d) If the owner or operator complies with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section using a flare, the owner or operator of an affected 

source shall comply with the requirements in §63.504(c). 

12. Section 63.495 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and 

d. Adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§63.495 Back-end process provisions—procedures to determine 

compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using stripping 

technology and organic HAP emissions limitations. 

 (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in §63.494(a)(1) through (3) using 

stripping technology, compliance shall be demonstrated using the 

periodic sampling procedures in paragraph (b) of this section, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 193

or using the stripper parameter monitoring procedures in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or operator shall 

determine the monthly weighted average residual organic HAP 

content for each month in which any portion of the back-end of 

an elastomer production process is in operation. A single 

monthly weighted average shall be determined for all back-end 

process operations at the affected source. 

 (b) * * * 

 (5) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using 

the equation in paragraph (f) of this section. All 

representative samples taken and analyzed during the month shall 

be used in the determination of the monthly weighted average. 

* * * * * 

(g) Compliance with the organic HAP emission limitations 

determined in accordance with §63.494(a)(4) shall be 

demonstrated in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of 

this section. 

(1) Calculate your organic HAP emission limitation in 

accordance with §63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), as applicable, 

record it, and submit it in accordance with §63.499(f)(1). 

(2) Each month, calculate and record the organic HAP 

emissions from all back-end process operations using engineering 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 193

assessment. Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited 

to, the following: 

(i) Previous test results, provided the test was 

representative of current operating practices. 

(ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data obtained under 

conditions representative of current process operating 

conditions. 

 (iii) Design analysis based on accepted chemical 

engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical 

methods include, but are not limited to: 

(A) Use of material balances; 

(B) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment 

design, such as pump or blower capacities; 

(C) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on 

saturation conditions; and 

(D) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on grab 

samples of the liquid or vapor. 

(3) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product 

produced. 

(4) Each month, calculate and record the sums of the 

organic HAP emissions and the mass of elastomer produced for the 

previous calendar 12-month period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 193

(5) Each month, divide the total mass of organic HAP 

emitted for the previous calendar 12-month period by the total 

mass of elastomer produced during this 12-month period. This 

value must be recorded in accordance with §63.498(e) and 

reported in accordance with §63.499(f)(2). 

13. Section 63.496 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and 

d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§63.496 Back-end process provisions—procedures to determine 

compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using control 

or recovery devices. 

 (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in §63.494(a)(1) through (3) using 

control or recovery devices, compliance shall be demonstrated 

using the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

Previous test results conducted in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (6) of this section may be used to determine 

compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 193

 (c) * * * 

 (2) A facility is in compliance if the average of the 

organic HAP contents calculated for all three test runs is below 

the residual organic HAP limitations in §63.494(a)(1) through 

(3). 

(d) An owner or operator complying with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in §63.494(a)(1) through (3) using a 

control or recovery device, shall redetermine the compliance 

status through the requirements described in paragraph (b) of 

this section whenever process changes are made. The owner or 

operator shall report the results of the redetermination in 

accordance with §63.499(d). For the purposes of this section, a 

process change is any action that would reasonably be expected 

to impair the performance of the control or recovery device. 

For the purposes of this section, the production of an elastomer 

with a residual organic HAP content greater than the residual 

organic HAP content of the elastomer used in the compliance 

demonstration constitutes a process change, unless the overall 

effect of the change is to reduce organic HAP emissions from the 

source as a whole. Other examples of process changes may 

include changes in production capacity or production rate, or 

removal or addition of equipment. For the purposes of this 

paragraph, process changes do not include: Process upsets; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 193

unintentional, temporary process changes; or changes that reduce 

the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer. 

14. Section 63.497 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading to §63.497; 

b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and 

c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§63.497 Back-end process provisions—monitoring provisions for 

control and recovery devices used to comply with residual 

organic HAP limitations. 

(a) An owner or operator complying with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in §63.494(a)(1) through (3) using 

control or recovery devices, or a combination of stripping and 

control or recovery devices, shall install the monitoring 

equipment specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator of an affected source with a 

controlled back-end process vent using a vent system that 

contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from 

the control or recovery device used to comply with §63.494(a)(1) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 193

through (3), shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this 

section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds, 

analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, and pressure relief 

valves needed for safety purposes are not subject to this 

paragraph. 

* * * * * 

15. Section 63.498 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

c. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

d. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; 

e. Revising paragraph (b)(3); 

f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; 

g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; 

h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B); 

i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(E); and 

j. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§63.498 Back-end process provisions—recordkeeping. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 193

 (a) Each owner or operator shall maintain the records 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), and paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this section, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

 (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a 

residual organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), 

whether compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or 

by control or recovery devices. 

(4) If the back-end process operation is subject to an 

emission limitation in §63.494(a)(4), the organic HAP emission 

limitation calculated in accordance with §63.494(a)(4)(i) 

through (iv), as applicable. 

 (b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation 

using stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP 

limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating 

compliance using the periodic sampling procedures in §63.495(b), 

shall maintain the records specified in paragraph (b)(1), and in 

paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

 (3) If the organic HAP contents for all samples analyzed 

during a month are below the appropriate level in §63.494(a), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 193

the owner or operator may record that all samples were in 

accordance with the residual organic HAP limitations in 

§63.494(a)(1) through (3), rather than calculating and recording 

a monthly weighted average. 

 (c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation 

using stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP 

limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating 

compliance using the stripper parameter monitoring procedures in 

§63.495(c), shall maintain the records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

 (d) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation 

using control or recovery devices to comply with a residual 

organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), shall 

maintain the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) 

of this section. The recordkeeping requirements contained in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) pertain to the results of the 

testing required by §63.496(b), for each of the three required 

test runs. 

* * * * * 

 (5) * * * 

 (ii) * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 193

 (B) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (lowlevel) and high-level adjustments, shall not be included in 

computing the hourly or daily averages. In addition, monitoring 

data recorded during periods of non-operation of the EPPU (or 

specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of organic HAP 

emissions, shall not be included in computing the hourly or 

daily averages. Records shall be kept of the times and 

durations of all such periods and any other periods of process 

or control device operation when monitors are not operating. 

* * * * * 

 (E) For flares, records of the times and duration of all 

periods during which the pilot flame is absent, shall be kept 

rather than daily averages. The records specified in this 

paragraph are not required during periods when emissions are not 

routed to the flare. 

* * * * * 

(e) If the back-end process operation is subject to an 

organic HAP emission limitation in §63.494(a)(4), the records 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section. 

 (1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation 

determined in accordance with §63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 193

 (2) The organic HAP emissions from all back-end process 

operations for each month, along with documentation of all 

calculations and other information used in the engineering 

assessment to estimate these emissions. 

 (3) The mass of elastomer product produced each month. 

 (4) The total mass of organic HAP emitted for each 12-

month period divided by the total mass of elastomer produced 

during the 12-month period, determined in accordance with 

§63.495(g)(5). 

16. Section 63.499 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; 

d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and 

e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.499 Back-end process provisions—reporting. 

 (a) * * * 

 (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a 

residual organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 193

whether compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or 

by control or recovery devices. 

(b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation 

using stripping to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation 

in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance by 

stripper parameter monitoring, shall submit reports as specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each owner or operator of an affected source with a 

back-end process operation control or recovery device that shall 

comply with a residual organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) 

through (3), shall submit the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status specified in §63.506(e)(5). 

* * * * * 

(d) Whenever a process change, as defined in §63.496(d), 

is made that causes the redetermination of the compliance status 

for the back-end process operations subject to a residual 

organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through (3), the owner 

or operator shall submit a report within 180 days after the 

process change, as specified in §63.506(e)(7)(iii). The report 

shall include: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 193

* * * * * 

 (f) If the back-end process operation is subject to an 

organic HAP emission limitation in §63.494(a)(4), the owner and 

operator must submit the information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation 

determined in accordance with §63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), 

shall be submitted no later than 180 days from the date of 

publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal 

Register. 

(2) Beginning with the first periodic report required to 

be submitted by §63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months after 

the compliance date, the total mass of organic HAP emitted for 

each of the rolling 12-month periods in the reporting period 

divided by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 

corresponding 12-month period, determined in accordance with 

§63.495(g)(5). 

17. Section 63.501 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§63.501 Wastewater provisions. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 193

 (c) * * * 

 (2) Back-end streams at affected sources that are subject 

to a residual organic HAP limitation in §63.494(a)(1) through 

(3) and that are complying with these limitations through the 

use of stripping technology. 

18. Section 63.502 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 

and (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§63.502 Equipment leak and heat exchange system provisions. 

 (a) Equipment leak provisions. The owner or operator of 

each affected source, shall comply with the requirements of 

subpart H of this part, with the exceptions noted in paragraphs 

(b) through (m) of this section. Surge control vessels required 

to be controlled by subpart H may, alternatively, comply with 

the Group 1 storage vessel provisions specified in §63.484. 

 (b) * * * 

 (4) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers located 

downstream of the stripping operations at affected sources 

subject to the back-end residual organic HAP limitation located 

in §63.494(a)(1) through (3) that are complying through the use 

of stripping technology, as specified in §63.495; 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 193

§63.503--[AMENDED] 

19. Section 63.503 is amended by removing and reserving 

paragraph (f)(1). 

20. Section 63.504 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§63.504 Additional requirements for performance testing. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Performance tests shall be conducted at maximum 

representative operating conditions achievable during one of the 

time periods described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, 

without causing any of the situations described in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section to occur. Upon request, the owner or 

operator shall make available to the Administrator such records 

as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 

tests. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 63.505 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (e)(4); 

b. Revising paragraph (g)(1); 

c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(A); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 193

d. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(B); 

e. Removing paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(C) through (g)(1)(v)(E); 

f. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) introductory text; 

and 

g. Adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§63.505 Parameter monitoring levels and excursions. 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (4) An owner or operator complying with the residual 

organic HAP limitations in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 

§63.494 using stripping, and demonstrating compliance by 

stripper parameter monitoring, shall redetermine the residual 

organic HAP content for all affected grades whenever process 

changes are made. For the purposes of this section, a process 

change is any action that would reasonably be expected to impair 

the performance of the stripping operation. For the purposes of 

this section, examples of process changes may include changes in 

production capacity or production rate, or removal or addition 

of equipment. For purposes of this paragraph, process changes 

do not include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary 

process changes; or changes that reduce the residual organic HAP 

content of the elastomer. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 193

* * * * * 

 (g) * * * 

 (1) With respect to storage vessels (where the applicable 

monitoring plan specifies continuous monitoring), continuous 

front-end process vents, aggregate batch vent streams, back-end 

process operations complying with §63.494(a)(1) through (3) 

through the use of control or recovery devices, and process 

wastewater streams, an excursion means any of the three cases 

listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iii) of this 

section. * * * 

 (v) * * * 

 (A) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or 

 (B) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or 

portion thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies. 

 (2) * * * 

 (ii) * * * 

 (B) Subtract the time during the periods of monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (lowlevel) and high-level adjustments from the total amount of time 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 193

determined in paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain 

the operating time used to determine if monitoring data are 

insufficient. 

* * * * * 

(j) Excursion definition for back-end operations subject 

to §63.494(a)(4). An excursion means when the total mass of 

organic HAP emitted for any consecutive 12-month period divided 

by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-month 

period, determined in accordance with §63.495(g), is greater 

than the applicable emission limitation, determined in 

accordance with §63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv) and submitted in 

accordance with §63.499(f)(1). 

22. Section 63.506 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

b. Revising paragraph (d)(7); 

c. Revising paragraph (e)(3) introductory text; 

d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(viii); 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B); 

f. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(E); 

g. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C); 

i. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 193

j. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii); 

k. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A); and 

l. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§63.506 General recordkeeping and reporting provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Malfunction records. Each owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to this subpart shall maintain records 

of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation 

(i.e., process equipment), air pollution control equipment, or 

monitoring equipment. Each owner or operator shall maintain 

records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.483(a)(1), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

* * * * * 

 (d) * * * 

(7) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in 

paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be 

included in any average computed under this subpart. Records 

shall be kept of the times and durations of all such periods and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 193

any other periods during process or control device or recovery 

device operation when monitors are not operating. 

(i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or 

(ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or 

portion thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected 

sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting 

approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative 

continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative 

controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to 

estimate emissions from a batch emissions episode, as described 

in §63.488(b)(6)(i); wishing to establish parameter monitoring 

levels according to the procedures contained in §63.505(c) or 

(d); shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. The 

Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in 

paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (vii) of this section, as 

appropriate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 193

* * * * * 

(viii) [Reserved] 

(ix) * * * 

(B) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be 

submitted to request approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this 

section; to use alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this 

section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(v) of this section; to use engineering assessment to 

estimate emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified 

in paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures 

contained in §63.505(c) or (d), as specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(vii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 193

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with §63.483(a)(1), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting 

unrealistic or impossible data during periods of normal 

operation (e.g., a temperature reading of −200 °C on a boiler), 

and will alert the operator by alarm or other means. The owner 

or operator shall record the occurrence. All instances of the 

alarm or other alert in an operating day constitute a single 

occurrence. 

(ii) * * * 

(C) The running average reflects a period of normal 

operation. 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting 

unchanging data during periods of normal operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of unchanging data is the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 193

expected operating condition based on past experience (e.g., pH 

in some scrubbers), and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. The owner or operator shall record the occurrence. 

All instances of the alarm or other alert in an operating day 

constitute a single occurrence. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, 

for the duration specified in paragraph (h) of this section. 

For any calendar week, if compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section does not result in retention of a 

record of at least one occurrence or measured parameter value, 

the owner or operator shall record and retain at least one 

parameter value during a period of normal operation. 

(iv) * * * 

(A) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(i)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance test, as defined in §63.2 

and as required in this subpart, you must submit performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 193

test data, except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

(2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 

requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) of this section must be sent 

to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 

§63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner 

or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

23. Table 1 to Subpart U of part 63 is amended by: 

a. Removing entry 63.6(e); 

b. Revising entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

c. Revising entry 63.6(e)(2); 

d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3); 

e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i) through 63.6(e)(3)(ix); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 193

f. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); and 

e. Revising entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.10(d)(5)(i) to read 

as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART U OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL 

PROVISIONS TO SUBPART U AFFECTED SOURCES 

Reference Applies to subpart U Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

§63.6(e)(1)(i) No See §63.483(a)(1) 

for general duty 

requirement. Any 

cross reference to 

§63.6(e)(1)(i) in 

any other general 

provision 

incorporated by 

reference shall be 

treated as a cross 

reference to 

§63.483(a)(1). 

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) No 

* * * * * * * 

§63.6(e)(2) No [Reserved.]. 

§63.6(e)(3) No 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 193

§63.6(f)(1) No 

* * * * * * * 

§63.7(e)(1) No 

See §63.504(a)(1). 

Any crossreference to 

§63.7(e)(1) in any 

other general 

provision 

incorporated by 

reference shall be 

treated as a 

cross-reference to 

§63.504(a)(1). 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(d)(5)(i) No 

* * * * * * * 

24. Table 5 to Subpart U of part 63 is amended by removing 

the entries for HBR: 

Table 5 to Subpart U of Part 63--Known Organic HAP Emitted From 

the Production of Elastomer Products 

[Known organic HAP emitted from the production of elastomer 

products] 

Organic 

HAP/chemical 

name (CAS 

No.) 

Elastomer Product/Subcategory 

B

R 

EP

I 

EP

R 

HY

P 

NE

O 

NB

L 

NB

R 

PBR/SBR

S 

PS

R 

SB

L 

SBR

E 

Acrylonitrile 

(107131) X X 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 193

1,3 Butadiene 

(106990) X X X X X 

Carbon 

Disulfide X X X X X 

Carbon 

Tetrachloride 

(56235) X 

Chlorobenzene 

(108907) X 

Chloroform 

(67663) X 

Chloroprene 

(126998) X 

Epichlorohydr

in (106898) X 

Ethylbenzene 

(100414) X X 

Ethylene 

Dichloride 

(107062) X 

Ethylene 

Oxide (75218) X X 

Formaldehyde 

(50000) X X 

Hexane 

(110543) X X X 

Methanol 

(67561) X X 

Methyl 

Chloride 

(74873) X X 

Propylene 

Oxide (75569) X 

Styrene 

(100425) X X X 

Toluene 

(108883) X X X X 

Xylenes 

(1330207) X 

Xylene (m-) 

(108383) X 

Xylene (o-) 

(95476) X 

Xylene (p-) 

(106423) X 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 193

CAS No. = Chemical Abstract Service Number. 

BR = Butyl Rubber. 

EPI = Epichlorohydrin Rubber. 

EPR = Ethylene Propylene Rubber. 

HYP = HypalonTM. 

NEO = Neoprene. 

NBL = Nitrile Butadiene Latex. 

NBR = Nitrile Butadiene Rubber. 

PBR/SBRS = Polybutadiene and Styrene Butadiene Rubber by 

Solution. 

PSR = Polysulfide Rubber. 

SBL = Styrene Butadiene Latex. 

SBRE = Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion. 

* * * * * 

Subpart Y-–[AMENDED] 

25. Section 63.560 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

b. Revising paragraph (d)(6); and 

c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§63.560 Applicability and designation of affected source. 

 (a) * * * 

(4) Existing sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 

tons must meet the submerged fill standards of 46 CFR 153.282. 

This submerged fill requirement does not apply to petroleum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 193

refineries. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to marine 

tank vessel loading operations at existing offshore loading 

terminals, as that term is defined in §63.561, however existing 

offshore loading terminals must meet the submerged fill 

standards of 46 CFR 153.282. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

 (iv) Existing sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 

tons, and existing offshore loading terminals, shall comply with 

the submerged fill requirements in paragraph (a)(4) and (d)(6) 

of this section by [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. 

* * * * * 

 26. Table 1 to subpart Y of part 63 is amended by: 

 a. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); 

 b. Removing entry 63.7(e); 

 c. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4); 

 d. Removing entries 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), and 

63.(c)(1)(iii); 

 e. Adding entry 63.8(c)(1); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 193

 f. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(i); 

 g. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii); 

 h. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(ii)-(iii); 

 i. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(iii); 

 j. Removing entry 63.10(c)(10)-(13); and 

 k. Adding entries 63.10(c)(10)-(11) and 63.10(c)(12)-(13) 

to read as follows: 

Table 1 of §63.560—General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Y 

Reference 

Applies to 

affected 

sources in 

subpart Y 

Comment 

* * * * * * * 

63.6(f)(1) No 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) No 

See 63.563(b)(1). Any cross 

reference to 63.7(e)(1) in any 

other general provision 

incorporated by reference shall be 

treated as a cross-reference to 

63.563(b)(1). 

63.7(e)(2)-(4) Yes 

63.8(c)(1) No 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(b)(2)(i)- No See 63.567(m). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 193

(ii) 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(c)(10)–

(11) 

No 

See 63.567(m) for reporting 

malfunctions. Any cross-reference 

to 63.10(c)(10) or 63.10(c)(11) in 

any other general provision 

incorporated by reference shall be 

treated as a cross-reference to 

63.567(m). 

63.10(c)(12)–

(13) 

Yes 

* * * * * * * 

27. Section 63.561 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order a definition for “affirmative defense” to read as follows: 

§63.561 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 193

28. Section 63.562 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text; and 

b. Adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: 

§63.562 Standards. 

* * * * * 

 (e) Operation and maintenance requirements for air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring equipment for affected sources. 

At all times, owners or operators of affected sources shall 

operate and maintain a source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator which may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

(7) In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to 

a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 193

that are caused by a malfunction, as defined in §63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the 

respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph 

(e)(7)(ii) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that: 

(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and 

usual manner; and could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and were 

not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; 

(B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 193

(C) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 

(D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; 

(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; 

(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; 

(G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; 

(H) At all times, the affected facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; 

and 

(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, 

and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 193

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. 

The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

 (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 

business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, 

if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking 

to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit a written 

report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(7)(i) of 

this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of 

this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a 

written request to the Administrator before the expiration of 

the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject 

to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 193

 29. Section 63.563 is amended by revising paragraph 

(b)(1) to read as follows: 

§63.563 Compliance and performance testing. 

* * * * * 

 (b) * * * 

(1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test 

shall be conducted using the procedures listed in §63.7 of 

subpart A of this part according to the applicability in Table 1 

of §63.560, the procedures listed in this section, and the test 

methods listed in §63.565. The initial performance test shall 

be conducted within 180 days after the compliance date for the 

specific affected source. During this performance test, sources 

subject to MACT standards under §63.562(b)(2), (3), (4), and 

(5), and (d)(2) shall determine the reduction of HAP emissions, 

as VOC, for all combustion or recovery devices other than 

flares. Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Upon request, the owner or 

operator shall make available to the Administrator such records 

as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 

tests. Sources subject to RACT standards under §63.562(c)(3), 

(4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall determine the reduction of VOC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 193

emissions for all combustion or recovery devices other than 

flares. 

* * * * * 

30. Section 63.567 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (m); and 

b. Adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§63.567 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(m) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded shall be stated in a semiannual 

report. The report must also include a description of actions 

taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 

affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.562(e), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

The report, to be certified by the owner or operator or other 

responsible official, shall be submitted semiannually and 

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of 

each calendar half. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 193

(n)(1) Performance tests performed on or after [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION], and within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, as defined in §63.2, and as 

required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, 

except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the ERT (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

(2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 

requirements in paragraph (n)(1) of this section must be sent to 

the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. 

If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or 

operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (n)(1) of this 

section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

Subpart KK--[AMENDED] 

 31. Section 63.820 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 193

§63.820 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, 

as defined in §63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden of 

proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 

injunctive relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner; and could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and did not stem from any activity or event that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 193

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and were 

not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; 

(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; 

(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation, if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 193

(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; 

(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(ix) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct 

and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. 

The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 

business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, 

if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking 

to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit a written 

report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 193

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of 

this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a 

written request to the Administrator before the expiration of 

the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject 

to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance. 

 32. Section 63.822 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order a definition for “affirmative defense” to paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§63.822 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

33. Section 63.823 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.823 Standards: General. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 193

 (a) Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to 

the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating 

the applicability of the general provisions requirements to this 

subpart KK. 

 (b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject 

to this subpart must at all times operate and maintain that 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Determination of whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator, which may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source. 

 34. Section 63.827 is amended by adding introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§63.827 Performance test methods. 

 Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 

representative performance of the affected source for the period 

being tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 193

available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary 

to determine the conditions of performance tests. 

* * * * * 

35. Section 63.829 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and 

(h) to read as follows: 

§63.829 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

 (g) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject 

to this subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process 

equipment), air pollution control equipment, or monitoring 

equipment. 

 (h) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject 

to this subpart shall maintain records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.823(b), including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. 

36. Section 63.830 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(5); 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 193

b. Adding paragraph (b)(6)(v); and 

c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§63.830 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

 (b) * * * 

 (5) [Reserved] 

 (6) * * * 

 (v) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with §63.823(b), including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance test, as defined in §63.2 

and as required in this subpart, you must submit performance 

test data, except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 193

Data Exchange by using the ERT (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

(2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 

§63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner 

or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section in paper format. 

 37. Table 1 to Subpart KK of part 63 is amended by: 

 a. Removing entry 63.6(e); 

 b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3); 

 c. Removing entry 63.6(f); 

 d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3); 

 e. Removing entry 63.7; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 193

 f. Adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)-

(e)(4); 

 g. Removing entry 63.8(d)-(f); 

 h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-

(f); 

 i. Removing entries 63.10(b)(1)-(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10)-

(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5); 

 j. Adding entries 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 

63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv), 63.10(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10), 

63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14), 63.10(c)(15), 63.10(d)(4), 

and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KK OF PART 63--APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL 

PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KK 

General provisons 

reference 

Applicable to 

subpart KK 

Comment 

* * * * * * * 

§63.6(e)(1)(i) No. See 63.823(b) for 

general duty 

requirement. Any 

cross-reference to 

63.6(e)(1)(i) in any 

other general 

provision incorporated 

by reference shall be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 193

treated as a crossreference to 

63.823(b). 

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) No. 

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes. 

§63.6(e)(2) No. Section reserved. 

§63.6(e)(3) No. 

§63.6(f)(1) No. 

§63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3) Yes. 

* * * * * * * 

§63.7(a)-(d) Yes. 

§63.7(e)(1) No. See 63.827 

introductory text. 

Any cross-reference to 

63.7(e)(1) in any 

other general 

provision incorporated 

by reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 63.827 

introductory text. 

§63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4) Yes. 

* * * * 

* * * 

§63.8(d)(1)-(2) Yes. 

§63.8(d)(3) Yes, except 

for last 

sentence. 

§63.8(e)-(f) Yes. 

* * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 193

* * * 

§63.10(b)(1) Yes. 

§63.10(b)(2)(i) No. 

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) No. See 63.829(g) for 

recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of 

malfunctions. See 

63.829(h) for 

recordkeeping of 

actions taken during 

malfunction. Any 

cross-reference to 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) in any 

other general 

provision incorporated 

by reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 

63.829(g). 

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes. 

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(b)(2)(v) 

No. 

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(b)(2)(xiv) 

Yes. 

§63.10(b)(3) Yes. 

* * * * 

* * * 

§63.10(c)(10) No. See 63.830(b)(6)(v) 

for reporting 

malfunctions. Any 

cross-reference to 

63.10(c)(10) in any 

other general 

provision incorporated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 193

by reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 

63.830(b)(6)(v). 

§63.10(c)(11) No. See 63.830(b)(6)(v) 

for reporting 

malfunctions. Any 

cross-reference to 

63.10(c)(11) in any 

other general 

provision incorporated 

by reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 

63.830(b)(6)(v). 

§63.10(c)(12)-

(c)(14) 

Yes. 

§63.10(c)(15) No. 

* * * * 

* * * 

§63.10(d)(4) Yes. 

§63.10(d)(5) No. 

* * * * 

* * * 

Subpart GGG-–[AMENDED] 

38. Section 63.1250 is amended by revising paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§63.1250 Applicability. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 178 of 193

(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) Each provision set 

forth in this subpart shall apply at all times, except that the 

provisions set forth in §63.1255 of this subpart shall not apply 

during periods of nonoperation of the PMPU (or specific portion 

thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized 

resulting in the cessation of the emissions to which §63.1255 of 

this subpart applies. 

(2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with the 

emissions limitations of this subpart during times when 

emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or 

residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment, if the 

shutdown would contravene emissions limitations of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. This paragraph does not 

apply if the owner or operator must shut down the equipment to 

avoid damage to a PMPU or portion thereof. 

(3) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this 

subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment 

and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 

The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 

owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce 

emissions if levels required by this standard have been 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 193

achieved. Determination of whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator which may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source. 

(4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, 

as defined in §63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if owner or operator fails to meet the burden of 

proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 

injunctive relief. 

(i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph 

(g)(4)(ii) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that: 

(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and 

usual manner; and could not have been prevented through careful 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 193

planning, proper design, or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and were 

not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; 

(B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; 

(C) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 

(D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; 

(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; 

(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 193

(G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; 

(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, 

and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. 

The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

(ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 

business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, 

if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking 

to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit a written 

report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 193

this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of 

this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a 

written request to the Administrator before the expiration of 

the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject 

to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance. 

* * * * * 

39. Section 63.1251 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order a definition for “affirmative defense” to read as follow: 

§63.1251 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

40. Section 63.1255 is amended by revising paragraph 

(g)(4)(v)(A) to read as follow: 

§63.1255 Standards: Equipment leaks. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 193

* * * * * 

 (g) * * * 

 (4) * * * 

 (v) * * * 

 (A) The owner or operator may develop a written procedure 

that identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. 

The written procedures shall be included in a document that is 

maintained at the plant site. Reasons for delay of repair may 

be documented by citing the relevant sections of the written 

procedure. 

* * * * * 

41. Section 63.1256 is amended by revising paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) introductory text, and removing paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) 

and (iv) to read as follows: 

§63.1256 Standards: Wastewater. 

* * * * * 

 (a) * * * 

 (4) * * * 

 (i) The owner or operator shall prepare a description of 

maintenance procedures for management of wastewater generated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 193

from the emptying and purging of equipment in the process during 

temporary shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair 

(i.e., a maintenance turnaround) and during periods which are 

not shutdowns (i.e., routine maintenance). The descriptions 

shall be included in a document that is maintained at the plant 

site and shall: 

* * * * * 

42. Section 63.1257 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text and the first sentence of paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) to read as follows: 

§63.1257 Test methods and compliance procedures. 

(a) General. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of 

this section, the procedures specified in paragraphs (c), (d), 

(e), and (f) of this section are required to demonstrate initial 

compliance with §§63.1253, 63.1254, 63.1256, and 63.1252(e), 

respectively. The provisions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (3) 

apply to performance tests that are specified in paragraphs (c), 

(d), and (e) of this section. The provisions in paragraph 

(a)(5) of this section are used to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the alternative standards specified in 

§§63.1253(d) and 63.1254(c). The provisions in paragraph (a)(6) 

of this section are used to comply with the outlet concentration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 193

requirements specified in §§63.1253(c), 63.1254(a)(2)(i), and 

(a)(3)(ii)(B), 63.1254(b)(i), and 63.1256(h)(2). Performance 

tests shall be conducted under such conditions representative of 

performance of the affected source for the period being tested. 

Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (2) * * * 

 (iii) * * * 

 (A) * * * 

 (6) * * * 

 (ii) The owner or operator may consider the inlet to the 

equalization tank as the inlet to the biological treatment 

process if the wastewater is conveyed by hard-piping from either 

the last previous treatment process or the point of 

determination to the equalization tank; and the wastewater is 

conveyed from the equalization tank exclusively by hard-piping 

to the biological treatment process and no treatment processes 

or other waste management units are used to store, handle, or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 193

convey the wastewater between the equalization tank and the 

biological treatment process; and the equalization tank is 

equipped with a fixed roof and a closed-vent system that routes 

emissions to a control device that meets the requirements of 

§63.1256(b)(1)(i) through (iv) and §63.1256(b)(2)(i). * * * 

* * * * * 

 43. Section 63.1258 is amended by removing paragraph 

(b)(8)(iv). 

§63.1258--[AMENDED] 

 44. Section 63.1259 is amended by revising paragraph 

(a)(3) to read as follows: 

§63.1259 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

 (a) * * * 

 (3) Malfunction records. Each owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to this subpart shall maintain records 

of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation 

(i.e., process equipment), air pollution control equipment, or 

monitoring equipment. Each owner or operator shall maintain 

records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1250(g)(3), including 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 193

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

* * * * * 

 45. Section 63.1260 is amended by: 

 a. Revising paragraph (a); 

 b. Revising paragraph (i); and 

 c. Adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§63.1260 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

 (a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply 

with the reporting requirements of paragraphs (b) through (n) of 

this section. Applicable reporting requirements of §§63.9 and 

63.10 are also summarized in Table 1 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (i) The owner or operator shall submit a report of the 

number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which 

caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to 

be exceeded. The report must also include a description of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 193

actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 

affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.1250(g)(3), including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. The report shall be submitted on the same schedule 

as the periodic reports required under paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(n)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance test, as defined in §63.2 

and as required in this subpart, you must submit performance 

test data, except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using the ERT (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

(2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) of this section must be sent 

to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 

§63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner 

or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 193

require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (n)(1) of this 

section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

 46. Table 1 to Subpart GGG is amended by: 

 a. Removing entry 63.6(e); 

 b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 

63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3); 

 c. Removing entry 63.6(f)-(g); 

 d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)-(3), 63.6(g); 

 e. Removing entry 63.7(e); 

 f. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4); 

 g. Removing entry 63.8(d); 

 h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2) and 63.8(d)(3). 

 i. Removing entry 63.10(c)-(d)(2); 

 j. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10), 

63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-(14), 63.10(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(1)-

(2); 

 k. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4-5); and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 193

 l. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) to read as 

follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart GGG of Part 63—General Provisions 

Applicability to Subpart GGG 

General 

provisions 

reference 

Summary of 

requirements 

Applies 

to 

subpart 

GGG Comments 

* * * * * * * 

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Requirements 

during periods 

of startup, 

shutdown, and 

malfunction 

No See 63.1250(g)(3) for 

general duty 

requirement. Any 

cross-reference to 

63.6(e)(1)(i) in any 

other general 

provision 

incorporated by 

reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 

63.1250(g)(3). 

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Malfunction 

correction 

requirements 

No 

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Enforceability 

of operation and 

maintenance 

requirements 

Yes 

§63.6(e)(2) Reserved No Section reserved 

§63.6(e)(3) Startup, 

shutdown, and 

No 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 193

malfunction plan 

requirements 

* * * * * * * 

63.6(f)(1) 

Applicability of 

nonopacity 

emission 

standards 

No 

63.6(f)(2)-(3) 

Methods of 

determining 

compliance and 

findings 

compliance 

Yes 

63.6(g) 

Use of an 

alternative 

nonopacity 

emission 

standard 

Yes 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) 

Conduct of 

performance 

tests 

No 

See 63.1257(a) text. 

Any cross-reference 

to 63.7(e)(1) in any 

other general 

provision 

incorporated by 

reference shall be 

treated as a crossreference to 

63.1257(a). 

63.7 (e)(2)-(4) 

Performance 

tests 

requirements 

Yes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 193

* * * * * * * 

63.8(d)(1)-(2) 

CMS quality 

control program 

requirements 

Yes 

63.8(d)(3) 

CMS quality 

control program 

recordkeeping 

requirements 

Yes, 

except 

for last 

sentence.

* * * * * * * 

63.10(c)(1)-(9) 

Additional 

recordkeeping 

requirements for 

sources with 

continuous 

monitoring 

systems 

Yes 

63.10(c)(10) 

Malfunction 

recordkeeping 

requirement 

No 

Subpart GGG specifies 

recordkeeping 

requirements. 

63.10(c)(11) Malfunction 

corrective 

action 

recordkeeping 

requirement 

No Subpart GGG specifies 

recordkeeping 

requirements. 

63.10(c)(12)- 

(14) 

Additional 

recordkeeping 

requirements for 

sources with 

continuous 

monitoring 

systems 

Yes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 193

63.10(c)(15) Additional SSM 

recordkeeping 

requirements 

No 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(d)(1)-(2) General 

reporting 

requirements 

Yes 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(d)(4) Progress report 

requirements 

Yes 

63.10(d)(5) Startup, 

shutdown, and 

malfunction 

report 

requirements 

No Subpart GGG specifies 

reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * * *