Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 59 March 27, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group 

IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; and 

Polyether Polyols Production; Final Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435; FRL–9906–34– 

OA] 

RIN 2060–AR02 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Group IV Polymers and Resins; 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; 

and Polyether Polyols Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

conducted for nine source categories 

regulated under the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Group IV Polymers and 

Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production; and Polyether Polyols 

Production. Today’s action promulgates 

amendments concerning the following: 

Residual risk reviews; technology 

reviews; emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction; 

standards for previously unregulated 

hazardous air pollutant emission 

sources; revisions to require monitoring 

of pressure relief devices that release to 

the atmosphere; and electronic reporting 

of performance test results. This action 

also lifts the stay of requirements for 

process contact cooling towers at 

existing sources in one Group IV 

Polymers and Resins subcategory, 

issued on February 23, 2001. The 

revisions to the final rules maintain the 

level of environmental protection or 

emissions control on sources regulated 

by these rules. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

March 27, 2014. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this final rule was approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

March 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, William 

Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about these final rule 

amendments, contact Mr. Nick Parsons, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(E143–01), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5372; fax number: (919) 541–0246; 

email address: parsons.nick@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. 

Darcie Smith, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C159– 

02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2076; fax number: 

(919) 541–0840; email address: 

smith.darcie@epa.gov. For information 

about the applicability of these three 

NESHAP to a particular entity, contact 

Ms. Tavara Culpepper, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC 20004; 

telephone number: (202) 564–0902; 

email address: culpepper.tavara@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several 

acronyms and terms used to describe 

industrial processes, data inventories 

and risk modeling are included in this 

final action. While this may not be an 

exhaustive list, to ease the reading of 

this preamble and for reference 

purposes, the following terms and 

acronyms are defined here: 

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene 

AWP alternative work practice 

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HI hazard index 

HON National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

LDAR leak detection and repair 

MABS Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile 

Butadiene Styrene 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

MBS Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene 

Styrene 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OGI optical gas imaging 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

P&R IV Group IV Polymers and Resins 

PAI Pesticide Active Ingredient 

PCCT process contact cooling tower 

PEPO Polyether Polyols 

PET Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) 

ppm parts per million 

PRD pressure relief device 

PS Polystyrene 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAN Styrene Acrylonitrile 

SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TPA Terephthalic Acid 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information for This Final 

Rule 

III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendments 

A. What are the final rule amendments for 

the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards? 

B. What are the final rule amendments for 

the Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production MACT standards? 

C. What are the final rule amendments for 

the Polyether Polyols Production MACT 

standards? 

D. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common to 

the NESHAP 

A. How do the rules address startup, 

shutdown and malfunction? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17341 

B. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

V. 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 

affirmative defense provisions since 

proposal? 

C. What changes did we make to the PRD 

provisions since proposal? 

D. What changes did we make to the Group 

IV Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

since proposal? 

E. What changes did we make to the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

MACT standards since proposal? 

F. What changes did we make to the 

Polyether Polyols Production MACT 

standards since proposal? 

G. What other changes did we make since 

proposal? 

VI. Significant Public Comments and 

Rationale for Changes to the Proposed 

Rule 

A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring 

Requirements 

B. Startup and Shutdown Periods 

C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT 

Provisions for Previously-Unregulated 

Sources 

D. Technology Review 

VII. Impacts of the Final Rules 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the benefits? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

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 final 

changes in this action is available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0435). 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1268), the 

EPA proposed amendments to three 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP): 

Group IV Polymers and Resins (P&R IV); 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

(PAI); and Polyether Polyols Production 

(PEPO). This action presents the results 

and final decisions based on the EPA’s 

review of these three NESHAP. 

Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the EPA has completed 

residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTRs) for nine source categories 

covered by three separate regulations. 

Significant public comments and our 

responses are summarized in this 

preamble. A summary of the public 

comments on the proposal not 

presented in the preamble, and the 

EPA’s responses to those comments, is 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435). 

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to review these regulations (i.e., 

NESHAP) and revise them as necessary 

(taking into account developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies) no less frequently than 

every 8 years. Section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA requires the EPA to assess the 

remaining risks due to emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

these source categories and determine 

whether the emission standards provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health within 8 years of 

promulgation of the original standards. 

The amendments also address the 

following: Emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction; 

standards for previously unregulated 

HAP emission sources; revisions to 

require monitoring of pressure relief 

devices in organic HAP service that 

release to the atmosphere; and 

electronic reporting of performance test 

results. This action also lifts the stay of 

requirements for process contact cooling 

towers at existing sources in one P&R IV 

subcategory issued on February 23, 2001 

(66 FR 11233). 

2. Summary of Major Provisions 

The EPA has determined that no rule 

amendments are needed for these three 

NEHSAP based on the RTRs under CAA 

sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). 

However, the EPA is making revisions 

to all three NESHAP in three areas. 

First, the EPA is eliminating the 

exemption for periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (SSM), so 

that the emission standards in each rule 

apply at all times. Second, the EPA is 

requiring electronic reporting of 

performance test results. Finally, the 

EPA is requiring monitoring of pressure 

relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP 

service that release to the atmosphere. 

With regard to the NESHAP for P&R 

IV, the EPA is making revisions in three 

additional areas. First, the EPA is 

addressing certain emissions that were 

not previously regulated. Second, the 

EPA is providing alternative compliance 

demonstration methods during periods 

of startup and shutdown. Third, the 

EPA is lifting the stay of requirements 

for process contact cooling towers at 

existing sources in one P&R IV 

subcategory. 

3. Costs and Emission Reductions 

Table 1 below summarizes the costs 

and emission reductions for this action. 

See section VII of this preamble for 

further discussion of the costs and 

impacts. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR THE FINAL GROUP IV POLYMERS AND RESINS, 

PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PRODUCTION AND POLYETHER POLYOLS PRODUCTION NESHAP AMENDMENTS

NESHAP 

Number of 

affected 

plants 

Capital costs 

($) 

Annualized 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy) 

NESHAP: Group IV Polymers and Resins ...................................................... 31 $3,800,000 $566,000 N/A 

NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production ....................................... 18 1,500,000 222,000 N/A 

NESHAP for Polyether Polyols ........................................................................ 23 1,600,000 242,000 N/A 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Table 2 lists 

categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action. Table 2 is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this 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 the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source category NAICS Code 1

Group IV Polymers and Resins ................................................ Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production ..................................... 325211 

Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production 2.325211 

Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production ................ 325211 

Nitrile Resins Production 2 ........................................................ 325211 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Production ................................... 325211 

Polystyrene Production ............................................................ 325211 

Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production ............................................... 325211 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 325199, 325320 

Polyether Polyols Production 325199 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2There are no longer any operating facilities in either the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production or Nitrile Resins Production source categories, and none are anticipated to begin operation in the future. Therefore, this final rule does not address these source 

categories. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will be available on the Internet 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 

of this final action on the TTN’s policy 

and guidance page for newly proposed 

or promulgated rules at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of the final action and 

key technical documents on the project 

Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

pr4/pr4pg.html, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/polyol/polyolpg.html and http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pest/pestpg.html. 

Information on the overall RTR program 

is available at the following Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/

rtrpg.html. 

D. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 May 27, 2014. Under CAA 

section 307(b)(2), the requirements 

established by this final rule may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

William Jefferson Clinton Federal 

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 Information for This 

Final Rule 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, after the EPA 

has identified categories of sources 

emitting one or more of the HAP listed 

in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) 

calls for us to promulgate technologybased 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 technology-based 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 bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 consider control options 

that are more stringent than the floor, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17343 

1There are no longer any operating facilities in 

either the MABS Production or Nitrile Resins 

Production source categories, and none are 

anticipated to begin operation in the future. 

Therefore, this final rule does not address these 

source categories. 

2The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this 

approach of implementing CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an 

’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to 

readopt those standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’). 

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 emission 

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 technology-based 

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-based standards, CAA 

section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the 

risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and to revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety and other relevant factors, 

an adverse environmental effect. In 

doing so, the EPA may adopt standards 

equal to existing MACT standards if the 

EPA determines that the existing 

standards are sufficiently protective. 

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

Cir. 2008). 

On January 9, 2012, the EPA 

published a proposed rule for the PAI, 

PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards that 

took into consideration the RTR 

analyses (77 FR 1268). For these MACT 

standards, today’s action provides the 

EPA’s final determinations pursuant to 

the RTR provisions of CAA section 112. 

In addition, we are promulgating 

amendments for each of these NESHAP 

as follows: 

Group IV Polymers and Resins 

• Revisions to address certain 

emission sources not previously 

regulated under the standards. 

• Revisions to clarify requirements 

for Precompliance Reports. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

emissions during periods of SSM. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

performance test electronic reporting. 

• Revisions to allow for alternative 

compliance determination methods 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

• Revisions to the requirements 

related to PRDs. 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

• Revisions to the definition of 

‘‘pesticide active ingredient.’’ 

• Revisions to clarify requirements 

for Precompliance Plans. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

emissions during periods of SSM. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

performance test electronic reporting. 

• Clarifications to the provisions for 

packed-bed scrubbers. 

• Revisions to the requirements 

related to PRDs. 

Polyether Polyols Production 

• Revisions to clarify requirements 

for Precompliance Reports. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

emissions during periods of SSM. 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

performance test electronic reporting. 

• Revisions to the requirements 

related to PRDs. 

Section III of this preamble presents a 

summary of the final rule amendments 

for the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

Amendments 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards? 

The P&R IV MACT standards apply to 

major sources and regulate HAP 

emissions from seven thermoplastics 

production source categories: 

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), 

styrene acrylonitrile (SAN), methyl 

methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene 

styrene (MABS), methyl methacrylate 

butadiene styrene resin (MBS), 

polystyrene (PS), poly (ethylene 

terephthalate) (PET) and nitrile resin.1

Sources of HAP emissions from 

thermoplastics production include 

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. 

Only five of the seven P&R IV source 

categories have facility operations in the 

U.S.: ABS, SAN, MBS, PET and PS 

Production. For these five source 

categories, 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. Therefore, it is not necessary to 

revise the MACT standards pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f).2 We have also 

determined that there are no viable 

developments in HAP emission 

reduction practices, processes or control 

technologies to apply to the emission 

sources in these source categories, 

considering the technical feasibility, 

estimated costs, energy implications, 

non-air environmental impacts and 

emission reductions of the options 

identified. Therefore, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We are establishing standards at the 

MACT floor level of control for 

previously unregulated HAP emissions 

from equipment leaks and process 

contact cooling towers (PCCT) in the 

PET continuous terephthalic acid (TPA) 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory, which has one facility 

currently in operation. For equipment 

leaks, the standards being finalized are 

work practices that include performing 

a 2- to 3-hour leak check upon startup 

following an outage where changes have 

been made to the facility’s esterification 

equipment. This leak check is 

conducted by introducing hot ethylene 

glycol vapors into the system. Any leaks 

identified must be repaired by 

tightening flange bolts before 

introducing new materials into the 

process. For PCCT, the standard being 

finalized is a concentration limit of 

ethylene glycol in the PCCT at or below 

6.0 percent by weight, averaged on a 

daily basis over a rolling 14-day period 

of operating days. 

We are finalizing changes to the P&R 

IV MACT standards to eliminate the 

SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra 

Club v. EPA, the standards in this rule 

apply at all times. We have also revised 

Table 1 to subpart JJJ (the General 

Provisions applicability table) in several 

respects. For example, we have 

eliminated the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We have 

also eliminated or revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. The EPA has also made 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3See footnote 2. 

changes to the rule to remove or modify 

inappropriate, unnecessary or 

redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. Additionally, we 

are adding provisions to provide an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emission standards caused 

by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense. 

In establishing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and is 

establishing alternative compliance 

demonstration methods for those 

affected sources subject to emission 

limits expressed as mass emissions per 

mass product produced for continuous 

process vents. The final rule 

amendments (40 CFR 63.1315(a)(19) and 

(b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), 

(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), 

and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR 63.1318(b)(1) 

and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate 

compliance with the rule by either: (1) 

Keeping records that establish the raw 

material feed rate and production rate 

were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by 

dividing the emission rate during 

startup or shutdown by the rate of 

polymer produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero; or (3) 

keeping records that establish the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the rule 

were maintained at the level established 

to meet the emission limit at maximum 

representative operating conditions. See 

section VI.B of this preamble for greater 

detail regarding the commenters’ 

concerns regarding meeting standards 

for continuous process vents during 

startup and shutdown periods and our 

response to those concerns. 

We have also added requirements in 

40 CFR 63.1331(a)(9) to require 

monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP 

service that release to the atmosphere 

and clarify that pressure releases from 

such PRDs are prohibited. We have also 

added requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1335(e)(6)(xiii) to require reporting of 

any PRD releases to the atmosphere 

with the next periodic report. 

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 or 

operators of P&R IV facilities are 

required to submit electronic copies of 

applicable reports of performance tests 

to the EPA’s WebFIRE database through 

an electronic emissions test report 

structure called the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not require any additional 

performance testing, and applies only to 

those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. 

We have also clarified in 40 CFR 

63.1335(e)(3)(i) the requirements for 

Precompliance Reports where an initial 

Precompliance Report is needed after 

the compliance date for the rule. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

for the Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production MACT standards? 

The PAI manufacturing process 

consists of the production of active 

ingredients in insecticides, herbicides, 

fungicides and related products, which 

are typically then formulated with inert 

ingredients to create end-product 

pesticides for application. The PAI 

MACT standards apply only to the 

active ingredient production. 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), 

volatilization of HAP from wastewater 

streams, evaporation from dryers and 

dust from bag dumps. 

For the PAI source category, 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. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to revise 

the MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f).3 We have also 

determined that there are no viable 

developments in HAP emission 

reduction practices, processes or control 

technologies to apply to the emission 

sources in this source category, 

considering the technical feasibility, 

estimated costs, energy implications, 

non-air environmental impacts and 

emission reductions of the options 

identified. Therefore, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We are finalizing changes to the PAI 

MACT standards to eliminate the SSM 

exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, the standards in this rule apply 

at all times. We have also revised Table 

1 of subpart MMM (the General 

Provisions applicability table) in several 

respects. For example, we have 

eliminated the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We have 

also eliminated or revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. We have determined 

that facilities in this source category can 

meet the applicable emission standards 

at all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown, in compliance with the 

current MACT standards, and no 

additional standards are needed to 

address emissions during these periods. 

The EPA has also made changes to the 

rule to remove or modify inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant language in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. 

Additionally, we are adding provisions 

to provide an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

standards caused by malfunctions, as 

well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense. 

We have added requirements in 40 

CFR 63.1363(b)(4) to require monitoring 

of PRDs in organic HAP service that 

release to the atmosphere and clarify 

that pressure releases from such PRDs 

are prohibited. We have also added 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(h)(3)(v) 

to require reporting of any PRD releases 

to the atmosphere with the next 

periodic report. 

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 or 

operators of PAI facilities are required to 

submit electronic copies of applicable 

reports of performance tests to the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database through an electronic 

emissions test report structure called the 

ERT. This requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not require any additional 

performance testing, and applies only to 

those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. 

We have also clarified in 40 CFR 

63.1368(e) that sources may submit a 

Precompliance Plan to request 

alternative compliance options after the 

compliance date has passed or 

construction or preconstruction 

applications have already been 

submitted. 

In addition, we have added 

clarifications to the provisions for 

packed-bed scrubbers in 40 CFR 

63.1366(b)(1)(ii). We have also revised 

the definition for ‘‘pesticide active 

ingredient.’’ 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

for the Polyether Polyols Production 

MACT standards? 

The PEPO manufacturing process 

involves the reaction of ethylene oxide, 

propylene oxide or other cyclic ethers 

with compounds having one or more 

reactive hydrogens to form chemical 

products with repeating ether linkages 

(i.e., -R–O–R-). These polyether polyols 

do not have significant uses of their own 

but are used to make a variety of other 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17345 

4See footnote 2. 

products, such as polyurethane foams, 

microcellular products, surface coatings, 

elastomers, fibers, adhesives, sealants, 

surfactants, lubricants, degreasing 

agents, hydraulic fluids, cosmetics and 

pharmaceuticals. The HAP emission 

sources at PEPO facilities include 

process vents, storage vessels, 

equipment leaks and wastewater; and at 

some facilities, cooling towers or other 

heat exchangers. 

For these PEPO 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. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to revise 

the MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f).4 We have also 

determined that there are no viable 

developments in HAP emission 

reduction practices, processes or control 

technologies to apply to the emission 

sources in this source category, 

considering the technical feasibility, 

estimated costs, energy implications, 

non-air environmental impacts and 

emission reductions of the options 

identified. Therefore, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We are finalizing changes to the PEPO 

MACT standards to eliminate the SSM 

exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, the standards in this rule apply 

at all times. We have also revised Table 

1 of subpart PPP (the General Provisions 

applicability table) in several respects. 

For example, we have eliminated the 

incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We have also eliminated or 

revised certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

eliminated SSM exemption. We have 

determined that facilities in this source 

category can meet the applicable 

emission standards at all times, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown, in compliance with the 

current MACT standards, and no 

additional standards are needed to 

address emissions during these periods. 

The EPA has also made changes to the 

rule to remove or modify inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant language in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. 

Additionally, we are adding provisions 

to provide an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

standards caused by malfunctions, as 

well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense. 

We have added requirements in 40 

CFR 63.1434(c) to require monitoring of 

PRDs in organic HAP service that 

release to the atmosphere, and clarify 

that pressure releases from such PRDs 

are prohibited. We have also added 

requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1439(e)(6)(ix) for facilities to report 

when any PRD in organic HAP service 

releases to the atmosphere with the next 

periodic report. 

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 or 

operators of PEPO facilities are required 

to submit electronic copies of applicable 

reports of performance tests to the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database through an electronic 

emissions test report structure called the 

ERT. This requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not require any additional 

performance testing, and applies only to 

those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. 

We have also clarified in 40 CFR 

63.1439(e)(4)(i) the requirements for 

Precompliance Reports where an initial 

Precompliance Report is needed after 

the compliance date for the rule. 

D. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

Under CAA section 112(d), for new 

and existing sources subject to the PAI, 

PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards, the 

compliance date for the revised SSM 

requirements (other than PRD 

monitoring for existing sources and new 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 12, 

2012) and electronic reporting 

requirements is the effective date of the 

promulgated standards, March 27, 2014. 

We are finalizing these compliance 

dates because these requirements 

should be immediately implementable 

by the facilities upon the next 

occurrence of a malfunction or a 

performance test that is required to be 

submitted to the ERT. Available 

information suggests that the facilities 

should already be able to comply with 

the existing standards during periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for new 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 12, 

2012, and existing sources subject to the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT 

standards, the compliance date for PRD 

monitoring is 3 years from the effective 

date of the promulgated standards, 

March 27, 2017. This time is needed 

regardless of whether an owner or 

operator of a facility chooses to comply 

with the PRD monitoring provisions by 

installing PRD release indicator systems 

and alarms, employing parameter 

monitoring, or by routing releases to a 

control device. This time period will 

allow facilities to research equipment 

and vendors, purchase, install, test and 

properly operate any necessary 

equipment by the compliance date. 

For the existing facility in the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory subject to the 

P&R IV MACT standards, the 

compliance date for the new MACT 

standards applicable to equipment leaks 

and PCCTs is the effective date of the 

promulgated standards, March 27, 2014. 

We are finalizing this compliance date 

because the existing facility in this 

subcategory is already complying with 

the promulgated standards. 

IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common 

to the NESHAP 

A. How do the rules address startup, 

shutdown and malfunction? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

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

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emission standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We have eliminated the SSM 

exemption in these rules. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards 

in all three NESHAP apply at all times. 

We have also revised the General 

Provisions applicability tables in all 

three NESHAP, as applicable, in several 

respects, as is explained in more detail 

below. For example, we have eliminated 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that sources 

develop an SSM plan. We have also 

eliminated and revised certain NESHAP 

recordkeeping and reporting that is 

related to the eliminated SSM 

exemption, as described in detail in the 

proposed rule and summarized again 

here. 

In establishing the standards in these 

final rule amendments, the EPA has 

taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods and, for the reasons 

explained below, has not established 

alternate standards for these periods for 

the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT 

standards. 

For the P&R IV MACT standards, we 

received comments from industry that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

opine that it may not be possible to 

comply with emission limits at all times 

in the absence of an exemption for SSM 

periods. Specifically, the commenters 

asserted that emission limits expressed 

as a unit of mass emitted per unit of 

mass of product created for process 

vents or destruction efficiency standards 

could be exceeded during times of 

startup and shutdown. The commenters 

asserted this is due to the small amount 

of product being produced and/or lower 

rate of HAP emissions and higher rate 

of supplemental fuel sent to control 

devices during startup and shutdown 

periods. The commenters suggested that 

the EPA establish alternative startup 

and shutdown work practice standards, 

where meeting operating parameters 

could be used to comply with the rule 

in lieu of the production rate and 

destruction efficiency standards during 

startup and shutdown periods. Per the 

commenters, these operating parameters 

would be representative of the required 

level of control at continuous steadystate conditions, or routing to a control 

device that has been demonstrated to 

meet the necessary destruction 

efficiency standards at maximum 

operating conditions. 

The EPA evaluated the commenters’ 

concerns and disagrees that separate 

standards to address startup and 

shutdown periods are warranted. We 

agree that demonstrating compliance 

with a mass of emissions per mass of 

product produced limit may be 

problematic as production approaches 

zero, however. Therefore, we are 

establishing alternative compliance 

demonstration methods for those 

affected sources subject to emission 

limits expressed as mass emissions per 

mass product produced for continuous 

process vents. The final rule 

amendments (40 CFR 63.1315(a)(19) and 

(b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), 

(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), 

and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR 63.1318(b)(1) 

and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate 

compliance with the rule by either: (1) 

Keeping records that establish the raw 

material feed rate and production rate 

were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by 

dividing the emission rate during 

startup or shutdown by the rate of 

polymer produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero; or (3) 

keeping records that establish the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the rule 

were maintained at the level established 

to meet the emission limit at maximum 

representative operating conditions. See 

section VI.B of this preamble for greater 

detail regarding the commenters’ 

concerns regarding standards for 

continuous process vents during startup 

and shutdown periods and our response 

to those concerns. 

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 and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner . . .’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions 

occurring during periods of malfunction 

be factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under CAA 

section 112, emission standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and, for 

existing sources, generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the bestperforming 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the EPA to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing or best controlled sources 

when setting emission standards. 

Moreover, while the EPA accounts for 

variability in setting emission standards 

consistent with CAA section 112 case 

law, nothing in that case law requires 

the EPA 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. 

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 source categories 

amended with this action, and 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) 

(‘‘[T]he 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 Co. 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-bycase 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. Accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are significantly less stringent than 

levels achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, a result of a 

‘‘sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable’’ event and was not instead 

‘‘caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 

(definition of malfunction). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause a 

violation of the relevant emission 

standard. See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; 

Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (February 

22, 2013); State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy 

on Excess Emissions During Startup, 

Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (February 15, 1983). The 

EPA is therefore adding to the final 

rules an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

standards that are caused by 

malfunctions. (See 40 CFR 63.1312, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17347 

63.1361 and 63.1423 defining 

‘‘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; a source subject to the PAI, 

PEPO or P&R IV MACT standards must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1310(k), 

63.1360(k) and 63.1420(i). (See 40 CFR 

22.24). The added criteria are designed 

in part to ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the 

event that causes a violation of the 

emission standard meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and/or careless operation). 

For example, the final rule amendments 

provide that, to successfully assert the 

proposed affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that the violation was caused 

by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner. The added criteria also are 

designed to ensure that steps are taken 

to correct the malfunction, to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

63.1310(j)(4), 63.1360(e)(4) and 

63.1420(h)(4); and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, under the 

added criteria, the source must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

repairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when a violation occurred and 

that all possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation 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 may be assessed in accordance 

with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 

CFR 22.27). 

The EPA included in the final rule 

amendments for the PAI, PEPO and P&R 

IV source categories an affirmative 

defense in an attempt to balance a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulations, to ensure adequate 

compliance, while simultaneously 

recognizing that, despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The 

EPA must establish emission standards 

that ‘‘limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants on a continuous basis.’’ CAA 

section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) 

(defining ‘‘emission limitation’’ and 

‘‘emission standard’’). See generally, 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that emission 

standards are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that, even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission standard is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently 

upheld the EPA’s view that an 

affirmative defense provision is 

consistent with section 113(e) of the 

CAA. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. 

United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th 

Cir. March 25, 2013) (upholding the 

EPA’s approval of affirmative defense 

provisions in a CAA State 

Implementation Plan). While 

‘‘continuous’’ standards are required, 

there is also case law indicating, in 

many situations, it is appropriate for the 

EPA to account for the practical realities 

of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit 

acknowledged that, in setting standards 

under CAA section 111, ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See, also, Portland Cement Ass’n v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though these earlier cases may 

no longer represent binding precedent 

in light of the CAA 1977 amendments 

and intervening case law such as Sierra 

Club v. EPA, they nevertheless support 

the EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable and appropriate. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for 

a defense to civil penalties for violations 

that are proven to be beyond the control 

of the source. Through the incorporation 

of an affirmative defense, the EPA has 

formalized its approach to malfunctions. 

In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 

Circuit required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). See, 

also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(rejecting industry argument that 

reliance on the affirmative defense was 

not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser 

Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 

(D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an 

informal approach is adequate). The 

final affirmative defense provisions give 

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure 

that its emission standards are 

‘‘continuous,’’ as required by CAA 

section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and 

account for unplanned upsets and, thus, 

support the reasonableness of the 

standard as a whole. The EPA is 

promulgating the affirmative defense 

applicable to malfunctions under the 

delegation of general regulatory 

authority set out in section 301(a)(1) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), in order 

to balance this tension between 

provisions of the CAA and the practical 

reality, as case law recognizes, that 

technology sometimes fails. See 

generally, Citizens to Save Spencer 

County v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 

(D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section 301(a) 

authority to harmonize inconsistent 

guidelines related to the 

implementation of federal 

preconstruction review requirements). 

Refer to the explanations below and 

sections V and VI of this preamble and 

the Response to Comments document, 

available in the docket for this action, 

for further discussion regarding SSMrelated changes made to the PAI, PEPO 

and P&R IV MACT standards. 

1. General Duty 

For the PAI MACT standards, we are 

revising the General Provisions 

applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart 

MMM) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the second 

column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

describes the general duty to minimize 

emissions. Some of the language in that 

section is no longer necessary or 

appropriate in light of the elimination of 

the SSM exemption. Similarly, for the 

P&R IV and PEPO MACT standards, we 

are also removing this requirement at 40 

CFR 63.1310(j)(4) and 40 CFR 

63.1420(h)(4), respectively. For the P&R 

IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we 

are instead adding general duty 

regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4), 

63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4), 

respectively, that reflects the general 

duty to minimize emissions while 

eliminating the reference to periods 

covered by an SSM exemption. The 

current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

characterizes what the general duty 

entails during periods of SSM. With the 

elimination of the SSM exemption, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

there is no need to differentiate between 

normal operations, startup and 

shutdown, and malfunction events in 

describing the general duty. Therefore 

the language the EPA is promulgating 

does not include that language from 40 

CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are also revising the 

General Provisions applicability table 

(Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to 

Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart 

PPP, respectively) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

the second column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4), 

63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4). 

2. SSM Plan 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the second 

column to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these 

paragraphs require development of an 

SSM plan and specify SSM 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM plan. 

As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM 

exemptions. Therefore, affected units 

will be subject to an emission standard 

during such events. The applicability of 

a standard during such events will 

ensure that sources have ample 

incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and thus the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

3. Compliance With Standards 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the second 

column to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language 

of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources 

from non-opacity standards during 

periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 

court in Sierra Club vacated the 

exemptions contained in this provision 

and held that the CAA requires that 

some section 112 standard apply 

continuously. Consistent with Sierra 

Club, the EPA is revising standards in 

this rule to apply at all times. 

4. Performance Testing 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the second 

column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) 

describes performance testing 

requirements. The EPA is instead 

adding a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.1333(a), 

63.1365(b) and 63.1437(a). The 

performance testing requirements we 

are adding differ from the General 

Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

revised performance testing provisions 

do not allow performance testing during 

periods of startup or shutdown. As in 40 

CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests 

conducted under this subpart should 

not be conducted during malfunctions 

because conditions during malfunctions 

are often not representative of normal 

operating conditions. The EPA is adding 

language that requires the owner or 

operator to record the process 

information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner 

or operator make available to the 

Administrator such records ‘‘as may be 

necessary to determine the condition of 

the performance test’’ available to the 

Administrator upon request, but does 

not specifically require the information 

to be recorded. The regulatory text the 

EPA is adding to this provision builds 

on that requirement and makes explicit 

the requirement to record the 

information. 

5. Monitoring 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entries for § 63.8(c)(1)(i) 

and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the 

second column to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

For the PAI MACT standards, we are 

revising the General Provisions 

applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart 

MMM) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by 

changing the explanation in the third 

column. The final sentence in 40 CFR 

63.8(d)(3) refers to the General 

Provisions’ SSM plan requirement, 

which is no longer applicable. The EPA 

is adding the explanation that the 

program of corrective action should be 

included in the plan required under 40 

CFR 63.8(d)(2). 

6. Recordkeeping 

For the PAI MACT standards, we are 

revising the General Provisions 

applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart 

MMM) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the second 

column to a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA is 

promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) 

no longer apply. When applicable, the 

provision allows an owner or operator 

to use the affected source’s SSM plan or 

records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements of the startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction plan, specified in 40 

CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 

through (12). The EPA is eliminating 

this requirement because SSM plans 

will no longer be required, and therefore 

40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves 

any useful purpose for affected units. 

7. Reporting 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the 

second column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 

requirements for startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions. To replace the 

General Provisions reporting 

requirement, the EPA is adding 

reporting requirements to 40 CFR 

63.1335(b)(1)(ii), 63.1368(i) and 

63.1439(b)(1)(ii). The replacement 

language differs from the General 

Provisions requirement in that it 

eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 

stand-alone report. We are promulgating 

language that requires sources that fail 

to meet an applicable standard at any 

time to report the information 

concerning such events in the semiannual periodic report already required 

under these rules. We are promulgating 

that the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration and cause of such 

events (including unknown cause, if 

applicable), a list of the affected source 

or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17349 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

Examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available, or engineering 

judgment based on known process 

parameters. The EPA is promulgating 

this requirement to ensure that there is 

adequate information to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans will no longer be required. The 

final amendments therefore eliminate 

the cross reference to 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the 

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

We note that reporting a failure to 

meet an applicable standard could 

include malfunction events for which a 

source may choose to submit 

documentation to support an assertion 

of affirmative defense. If a source 

provides all the material required in 40 

CFR 63.1310(k), 63.1360(k) or 63.1420(i) 

to support an affirmative defense, the 

source need not submit the same 

information two times in the same 

report. While assertion of an affirmative 

defense is not mandatory and would 

occur only if a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense, the 

finalized affirmative defense also 

requires additional reporting that goes 

beyond these routine requirements 

related to a failure to meet an applicable 

standard for a reason other than a 

malfunction. 

For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT 

standards, we are revising the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart JJJ, Table 1 to Subpart MMM, 

and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, 

respectively) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

the second column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 

report for startups, shutdown and 

malfunctions when a source failed to 

meet an applicable standard but did not 

follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 

require owners or operators to report 

when actions taken during a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans will no longer be required. 

8. Pressure Relief Devices 

The original MACT standards 

recognized pressure releases from PRDs 

to be the result of malfunctions. PRDs 

are designed to remain closed during 

normal operation and only release as the 

result of unplanned and/or 

unpredictable events. A release from a 

PRD usually occurs during an over 

pressurization of the system. However, 

emissions vented directly to the 

atmosphere by PRDs in organic HAP 

service contain HAP that are otherwise 

regulated under the MACT standards 

that apply to these source categories. 

The original MACT standards for 

these source categories regulated PRDs 

through equipment leak provisions that 

applied only during non-release 

operations. In addition, the rules 

followed the EPA’s then-practice of 

exempting SSM events from otherwise 

applicable emissions standards. 

Consequently, with ‘‘pressure releases’’ 

being defined as HAP emitting events 

that occur during malfunctions, the 

original MACT standards did not 

restrict pressure releases from PRDs 

emitted directly to the atmosphere but 

instead treated them the same as all 

malfunctions through the SSM 

exemption provision. 

In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court determined 

that the SSM exemption violated the 

CAA. See section IV.A of this preamble 

for additional discussion. To ensure 

these standards are consistent with that 

decision, the final rule revisions remove 

the malfunction exemptions in the prior 

MACT standards. In addition, in order 

for our treatment of malfunction-caused 

pressure releases directly to the 

atmosphere to conform with the 

reasoning of the Court’s ruling, the final 

rule adds a provision stating that HAP 

emissions releases directly to the 

atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP 

service are prohibited. 

In the proposal, we proposed to 

eliminate the SSM exemption from the 

standards. In addition, we stated that 

under the proposed revised rule releases 

to the atmosphere from PRDs would 

constitute violations of the revised rule. 

However, although we proposed revised 

regulatory text to eliminate the SSM 

exemptions from the rules, we omitted 

a proposed regulatory provision that 

would have given effect to the proposed 

intended prohibition of such PRD 

releases. In order to give effect to the 

proposed prohibition, which we are 

finalizing in this action, we are adding 

express regulatory language in the final 

rule revisions that clarifies our intent 

that pressure releases from PRDs in 

organic HAP service to the atmosphere 

are prohibited. This is a necessary 

additional revision to give full effect to 

our elimination of the general 

exemption for malfunctions, in light of 

the Court’s reasoning in Sierra Club, and 

is similar to revisions that we have 

made in other rules in which the SSM 

exemption has been eliminated (see, 

e.g., NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride 

and Copolymers Production (77 FR 

22848, April 17, 2012)). As with any 

malfunction event under the revised 

rules, an owner or operator may assert 

an affirmative defense against civil 

penalties for a malfunction causing a 

prohibited pressure release from a PRD 

in organic HAP service to the 

atmosphere. 

To address potential releases from 

PRDs, we are further requiring facility 

owners or operators subject to these 

three MACT standards to employ 

monitoring capable of: (1) Identifying 

the pressure release; (2) recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release; and (3) notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. Owners or operators are 

required to keep records and report any 

pressure release and the amount of 

organic HAP released to the atmosphere 

with the next periodic report. 

Pressure release events from PRDs in 

organic HAP service to the atmosphere 

have the potential to emit large 

quantities of HAP. Where a release 

occurs, it is important to identify and 

mitigate it as quickly as possible. We 

recognize that industry has stated that 

they believe releases from PRDs 

sometimes occur in order to protect 

systems from failures that could 

endanger worker safety and the systems 

that the PRDs are designed to protect. 

We have provided a balanced approach 

designed to minimize emissions while 

recognizing that these events may be 

unavoidable even in a well-designed 

and maintained system. Therefore, we 

are requiring that sources monitor PRDs 

in organic HAP service using a device 

or monitoring system that is capable of 

identifying and recording the time and 

duration of each pressure release and of 

notifying operators that a release has 

occurred. For purposes of estimating the 

costs of this requirement, we assumed 

that operators would install electronic 

indicators on each PRD in organic HAP 

service that vents to the atmosphere to 

identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release. 

However, owners or operators could use 

a range of methods to satisfy these 

requirements, including the use of a 

parameter monitoring system that may 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

already have been in place (e.g., on the 

process and that is sufficient to notify 

operators immediately that a release is 

occurring, as well as recording the time 

and duration of the release). 

Based on our cost assumptions that 

the most expensive approach will be 

used, the nationwide capital cost of 

installing these monitors is $1.5 million, 

$1.6 million and $3.8 million for the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source 

categories, respectively. The total 

annualized cost of installing and 

operating these monitors is $222,000, 

$242,000 and $566,000 for the PAI, 

PEPO and P&R IV source categories, 

respectively. For a breakdown of the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source category 

costs and other costing information, see 

the memorandum, Revised Cost Impacts 

Associated with the Final Pressure 

Relief Device Monitoring Requirements 

for the Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production, Polyether Polyols 

Production, and Group IV Polymers and 

Resins Source Categories, available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0435). 

B. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

As stated in the proposal preamble 

(77 FR 1285, January 9, 2012), the EPA 

is taking a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

requiring owners or operators of PAI, 

PEPO and P&R IV facilities to submit 

electronic copies of certain required 

performance test reports. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

proposal, data will be collected by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

As discussed in the proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

ERT. The ERT will generate an 

electronic report package that will be 

submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site: (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be kept in hard copy. 

As mentioned in the proposal 

preamble, state, local and tribal agencies 

may benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of performance test data 

that will be available on the EPA 

WebFIRE database. Additionally, 

performance test data will become 

available to the public through 

WebFIRE. Having such data publicly 

available enhances transparency and 

accountability. For a more thorough 

discussion of electronic reporting of 

performance tests using direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the proposal (77 FR 1285– 

1286, January 9, 2012). 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies and the EPA significant 

time, money and effort while improving 

the quality of emission inventories and 

air quality regulations. 

V. Summary of Significant Changes 

Since Proposal 

A. What changes did we make to the 

risk assessments for these source 

categories since proposal? 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

us to determine whether certain 

emission standards reduce risk to an 

acceptable level and, once we have 

ensured that the risk is acceptable, 

whether the standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. First, we determine whether there 

is an acceptable risk. The EPA generally 

presumes the risk is acceptable if the 

maximum individual risk (MIR) of 

cancer is no higher than 100-in-1 

million. The EPA bases its overall 

judgment of acceptability on the MIR 

and a series of other health measures 

and factors. 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, the 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, the EPA evaluates whether 

the standards provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health by 

considering costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility and 

other relevant factors, in addition to 

those health measures and factors 

considered to determine acceptability. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

ensures that the standard is set at a level 

that provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect 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 cancer 

risks within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for 

chronic exposures to HAP with 

noncancer 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 three MACT standards were 

acceptable and, further, that the existing 

standards provided an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and no 

adverse environmental effects were 

expected as a result of HAP emissions 

from these source categories. Thus, we 

proposed that no additional controls 

would be required to address such risks. 

As a result of information received 

from commenters on the proposal, two 

additional facilities have been included 

in two of the P&R IV datasets. In 

addition, after proposal we asked 

several states to review the emissions 

data for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV 

facilities in their states. This review 

resulted in the addition and removal of 

several facilities across the three MACT 

standards, as well as changes to 

numerous emission points in the 

dataset. More information on the 

changes made to the dataset as a result 

of this review can be found in the 

memorandum, Emissions Data Used in 

Residual Risk Modeling: Pesticide 

Active Ingredient Production, Polyether 

Polyols Production, and Group IV 

Polymers and Resins, available in the 

docket for the this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0435). This updated dataset 

was used in the revised risk assessment 

for these source categories. A summary 

of the results of the revised risk 

assessment is provided below. 

For the ABS source category, the MIR 

decreased from 30- to 20-in-1 million, 

the annual cancer incidence increased 

from 0.003 to 0.009 cases per year, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value increased from 0.2 to 0.3, and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value 

decreased from 2 to 0.9, based on the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17351 

REL value for acetaldehyde. Table 3 

provides an overall summary of the 

revised inhalation risk assessment 

results for the ABS source category. 

TABLE 3—ABS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

6 ........................................ 20 20 95,000 0.009 0.3 0.3 HQREL = 0.9 acetaldehyde. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the ABS source category is the spleen. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the SAN source category, the MIR 

increased from 0.03- to 0.4-in-1 million, 

the annual cancer incidence increased 

from 0.000006 to 0.0003 cases per year, 

the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI value increased from 0.0002 to 

0.003, and the maximum off-site acute 

HQ value increased from 0.007 to 0.05, 

based on the REL value for methylene 

chloride. Table 4 provides an overall 

summary of the revised inhalation risk 

assessment results for the SAN source 

category. 

TABLE 4—SAN INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

3 ........................................ 0.4 0.4 0 0.0003 0.003 0.003 HQREL = 0.05 methylene 

chloride. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the SAN source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the MBS source category, the MIR 

increased from 0.4- to 1-in-1 million, the 

annual cancer incidence increased from 

0.00003 to 0.00009 cases per year, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value increased from 0.007 to 0.02, and 

the maximum off-site acute HQ value 

increased from 9 to 10, based on the 

ERPG–1 value for ethyl acrylate. Table 

5 provides an overall summary of the 

revised inhalation risk assessment 

results for the MBS source category. 

TABLE 5—MBS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

2 ........................................ 1 1 220 0.00009 0.02 0.02 HQERPG–1 = 10 ethyl acrylate. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MBS source category is the reproductive system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the PS source category, the MIR 

decreased from 2- to 0.08-in-1 million, 

the annual cancer incidence decreased 

from 0.00003 to 0.00001 cases per year, 

the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI value increased from 0.004 to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

0.006, and the maximum off-site acute 

HQ value stayed the same at 0.3, based 

on the REL value for styrene. Table 6 

provides an overall summary of the 

revised inhalation risk assessment 

results for the PS source category. 

TABLE 6—PS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

10 ...................................... 0.08 0.08 0 0.00001 0.006 0.006 HQREL = 0.3 styrene. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PS source category is the neurological system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the PET source category, the MIR 

increased from 9- to 10-in-1 million, the 

annual cancer incidence stayed the 

same at 0.002 cases per year, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value decreased from 0.5 to 0.4, and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value 

decreased from 8 to 4, based on the REL 

value for acetaldehyde. Table 7 provides 

an overall summary of the revised 

inhalation risk assessment results for 

the PET source category. 

TABLE 7—PET INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

13 ...................................... 10 10 2,300 0.002 0.4 0.4 HQREL = 4 acetaldehyde. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PET source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the PAI source category, the MIR 

decreased from 7- to 6-in-1 million, the 

annual cancer incidence decreased from 

0.001 to 0.0006 cases per year, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

stayed the same at 0.7, and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value 

decreased from 8, based on the REL 

value for ethylene glycol ethyl ether, to 

1, based on the REL value for 

formaldehyde. Table 8 provides an 

overall summary of the revised 

inhalation risk assessment results for 

the PAI source category. 

TABLE 8—PAI INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

18 ...................................... 6 7 370 0.0006 0.7 4 HQREL = 1 formaldehyde. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PAI source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

For the PEPO source category, the 

MIR stayed the same at 30-in-1 million, 

the annual cancer incidence stayed the 

same at 0.02 cases per year, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value decreased from 0.8 to 0.7, and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value 

decreased from 6 to 4, based on the REL 

value for acrolein. Table 9 provides an 

overall summary of the revised 

inhalation risk assessment results for 

the PEPO source category. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17353 

TABLE 9—PEPO INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

23 ...................................... 30 30 140,000 0.02 0.7 0.7 HQREL = 4 acrolein. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PEPO source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

The results of the revised risk 

assessment did not significantly change 

the maximum risk levels to the most 

exposed individual for these source 

categories and did not affect our 

determinations regarding risk 

acceptability and ample margin of 

safety. The full results of the revised 

risk assessment for the source categories 

can be found in the risk assessment 

documentation available in the docket 

for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435). 

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 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 doseresponse relationships is provided in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. See 

77 FR 1280–1282 (January 9, 2012). 

B. What changes did we make to the 

affirmative defense provisions since 

proposal? 

We proposed a 2-day notification 

requirement for asserting an affirmative 

defense in 40 CFR 63.1310(k) of subpart 

JJJ, 40 CFR 63.1360(k) of subpart MMM 

and 40 CFR 63.1420(i) of subpart PPP. 

Consistent with other recent actions by 

the EPA (e.g., NESHAP for Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers Production 

(77 FR 22848, April 17, 2012)), we have 

revised these sections in the final rules 

to allow an owner or operator of the 

affected source seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense, after experiencing 

an exceedance of its emission limit(s) or 

a violation of an emission standard 

during a malfunction, to submit a 

written report to the Administrator. The 

owner or operator may submit this 

report in the first periodic compliance 

report, deviation report or excess 

emissions report otherwise required 

after the initial occurrence of the 

violation of the relevant standard. 

However, if the next report is due less 

than 45 days after the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be 

included in the next report after that. 

This change provides sources with 

sufficient time to demonstrate that they 

have met the required affirmative 

defense criteria. In addition, we have 

revised the affirmative defense 

provisions to clarify that these 

provisions are applicable where there 

have been ‘‘violations of emission 

standards,’’ rather than ‘‘excess 

emissions,’’ during malfunctions. 

C. What changes did we make to the 

PRD provisions since proposal? 

We have clarified in each of the three 

MACT standards that new affected 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 12, 

2012, and existing affected sources have 

three years to comply with the PRD 

monitoring requirements. We proposed 

that facilities subject to these MACT 

standards would have to install a release 

indicator on each PRD in organic HAP 

service that releases to the atmosphere. 

In the final rules, we have revised this 

requirement so that facilities may 

comply with these requirements using 

existing parameter monitoring systems 

that notify operators immediately when 

a pressure release occurs. In the 

proposal, we proposed that a release to 

the atmosphere from a PRD was a 

violation of the rule. In the final rule, 

we have clarified that a pressure release 

to the atmosphere from a PRD in organic 

HAP service is prohibited. 

D. What changes did we make to the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards since proposal? 

The final rule P&R IV amendments 

take into account startup and shutdown 

periods by establishing alternative 

compliance demonstration methods for 

meeting standards for continuous 

process vents during startup and 

shutdown periods. 

We are also amending 40 CFR 63.14 

to add the test methods incorporated by 

reference for the technical standards we 

are finalizing for the PCCT at the one 

Group IV Polymers and Resins facility 

in the PET continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory. 

E. What changes did we make to the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

MACT standards since proposal? 

The final rule PAI amendments 

provide an alternative monitoring 

option for packed-bed scrubbers that 

allows the measurement of the liquid-togas ratio (according to 40 CFR 63.994(c)) 

in lieu of the scrubber liquid flow rate 

or pressure drop. 

We are also revising the definition of 

‘‘pesticide active ingredient’’ to reflect 

changes made to EPA Form 3540–16, 

subsequent to the promulgation of the 

MACT standards. The revised definition 

clarifies that PAI materials are identified 

by product classification codes used to 

represent PAIs, and are the same codes 

used in block 19 of the 1999 version of 

EPA Form 3540–16, the Pesticides 

Report for Pesticide-Producing 

Establishment. 

F. What changes did we make to the 

Polyether Polyols Production MACT 

standards since proposal? 

The final rule PEPO amendments 

have not been changed since proposal. 

G. What other changes did we make 

since proposal? 

We have revised the language of the 

PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards to 

require quarterly reporting only when 

there have been repeat excursions for 

the same equipment in consecutive 

semiannual reporting periods. 

Excursions can result from monitoring 

parameter levels being outside 

established ranges or from a lack of 

sufficient data to determine compliance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5See ‘‘Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended 

Rule 1173—Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum 

Facilities and Chemical Plants.’’ Planning, Rule 

Development and Area Sources, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District. May 15, 2007. 

6See http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/

index.cfm. 

with the emission limits. These 

excursions are considered violations of 

the standards and must be reported in 

the semiannual report. While we 

proposed to remove the one excursion 

per semiannual reporting period 

allowance from these subparts, this 

would result in facilities being required 

to perform quarterly reporting for the 

affected source if any point at that 

affected source experienced an 

excursion. This would be overly 

burdensome for both the facility and the 

reviewing agency and was not the 

intention of the original MACT 

standards. To remedy this situation, we 

are finalizing the removal of the oneexcursion-per-semiannual-reportingperiod allowance, but revising the 

reporting requirements to require 

quarterly reporting only when there 

have been repeat excursions for the 

same equipment in consecutive 

semiannual reporting periods. This will 

ensure enhanced reporting is carried out 

only for equipment with potential 

compliance issues. 

For each NESHAP, we have also 

clarified the requirements for 

Precompliance Reports/Plans where an 

initial Precompliance Report/Plan is 

needed after the compliance date for the 

rule. Since a Precompliance Report/Plan 

is only required where certain 

compliance options are chosen or 

alternative compliance options are being 

requested, not all existing sources 

would have submitted a Precompliance 

Report/Plan prior to the compliance 

date and not all new sources would 

have submitted one with the application 

for construction or reconstruction. The 

revisions added today clarify that 

sources may submit a Precompliance 

Report/Plan to request alternative 

compliance options after the 

compliance date has passed or 

construction or preconstruction 

applications have already been 

submitted. 

In addition, we have also made 

several technical corrections for each 

NESHAP. These amendments are being 

finalized to correct inaccuracies and 

oversights that were previously 

promulgated. 

VI. Significant Public Comments and 

Rationale for Changes to the Proposed 

Rule 

We received written comments from 

21 commenters during the comment 

period and three comment letters after 

the close of the comment period. The 

following is a summary of the 

significant comments received and our 

responses to these comments. The 

complete list of comments received and 

our responses to those comments can be 

found in the Response to Comments 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435). 

For the purposes of this document, 

the text within the comment summaries 

was provided by the commenter(s) and 

represents their opinion(s), regardless of 

whether the summary specifically 

indicates that the statement is from a 

commenter(s) (e.g., ‘‘The commenter 

states’’ or ‘‘The commenters assert’’). 

The comment summaries do not 

represent the EPA’s opinion unless our 

response to a comment expressly agrees 

with all of the comment or the relevant 

portion of that comment. 

A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring 

Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the EPA had not provided factual 

evidence or adequate justification for 

requiring control of emissions from 

PRDs. One commenter argued that the 

EPA provided no data to support the 

claim that a large number of releases 

occur and may emit large quantities of 

HAP, or to support the contention that 

releases are not being identified. Other 

commenters stated that the EPA had not 

conducted this portion of the 

rulemaking according to the procedures 

set out by the CAA for the establishment 

of MACT standards. Commenters added 

that they did not believe that the EPA 

has a legal obligation nor the discretion 

to promulgate the proposed PRD 

provisions because the PRD monitoring 

and reporting requirements were not 

derived from the technology reviews, in 

response to any residual risks detected, 

or the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation of the 

SSM provisions in the 40 CFR Part 63 

General Provisions. Some commenters 

opined that since the MACT standards 

were established without consideration 

of PRD emissions, it is inappropriate for 

the EPA to state that emissions from 

PRDs violate the 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), and such 

standards must contain compliance 

assurance provisions to make sure that 

they are practicably enforceable. 

Nothing in the CAA or its legislative 

history suggests that the EPA is 

prohibited from reviewing and revising 

MACT standards and their compliance 

assurance provisions, except as part of 

the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA 

section 112(f) reviews or an action taken 

in response to a ruling by a court. The 

amendments being finalized for PRD 

releases do not impose new emission 

standards for which a MACT analysis is 

required by the CAA. Instead, they 

prohibit releases to the atmosphere from 

PRDs in organic HAP service that are no 

longer appropriate following the 2008 

Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and impose 

additional monitoring requirements to 

address potential releases. 

As noted in a report prepared by the 

SCAQMD, releases from PRDs occur 

randomly and the emissions can only be 

approximated. Based on their analysis 

of refinery PRD reports of PRD releases 

from 9 facilities in their district, there 

were 8 PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 

that were estimated to release greater 

than 2,000 lbs of emissions to the 

atmosphere, and 8 PRD releases from 

2003 to 2006 that were estimated to 

release between 500 and 2,000 lbs of 

emissions to the atmosphere.5 The 

SCAQMD analysis focuses on volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

(which would also include organic HAP 

emissions). Additionally, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

Emission Event Reporting Database is 

populated with Emission Event Reports 

from both the refinery and chemical 

sectors where the reason for the report 

was due to a PRD release.6 These final 

amendments simply prohibit PRD 

releases to the atmosphere and require 

that these devices now be monitored to 

indicate when these releases occur and 

be reported, so that HAP emissions that 

may potentially occur from releases can 

be mitigated as soon as possible. 

Additionally, the final rule requirement 

to report PRD releases ensures that these 

releases will be reported nationally and 

not just in some states. 

An agency generally remains free to 

revise previously promulgated rules to 

correct newly identified problems, even 

in the absence of a remand from a Court. 

United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery 

Props., Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966). In 

light of, and consistent with, the 2008 

Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, the EPA is 

eliminating the SSM exemption in the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards 

and requiring that the standards in these 

rules apply at all times, including 

during periods of SSM. In addition, in 

order for our treatment of malfunctioncaused pressure releases to the 

atmosphere to conform with the 

reasoning of the Court’s ruling, the final 

rule adds a provision stating that HAP 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17355 

7See ‘‘Revised Cost Impacts Associated with the 

Final Pressure Relief Device Monitoring 

Requirements for the Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production, Polyether Polyols Production, and 

Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories.’’ 

Memorandum from EC/R Incorporated to Nick 

Parsons, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0435.) 

emissions releases to the atmosphere 

from PRDs in organic HAP service are 

prohibited. To prohibit these 

malfunction-caused releases, it is not 

necessary for us to set an emission 

standard that is based on a MACT floor 

or beyond-floor analysis (see section 

IV.A of this preamble); indeed, the EPA 

has consistently explained that we are 

not required to take malfunctions into 

account in setting standards or to devise 

standards that apply specifically to 

malfunction-caused emissions, such as 

PRD releases that cause HAP emissions 

only during malfunctions. However, 

based on comments received, we have 

modified the PRD monitoring provisions 

in the final rule. The final rule includes 

detection and pressure release 

management requirements that can be 

used by facilities to mitigate emissions 

during pressure release events from 

PRDs while allowing owners or 

operators greater flexibility based on 

their current equipment and operations. 

The final rule requires that sources 

monitor PRDs using a system that is 

capable of identifying and recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release and of immediately notifying 

operators that a release is occurring. As 

with any malfunction event, an 

affirmative defense against civil 

penalties would be available for a PRD 

release to the atmosphere if the facility 

can prove the elements of that defense. 

Comment: Several commenters 

reported that there are other approaches 

for monitoring PRDs, including 

continuous monitoring of process 

parameters, noting that many companies 

have process control computer systems 

that already have alarms to notify the 

operator of deviations from normal 

operations and automatically adjust 

process operations to prevent upsets. 

One commenter suggested that pressure 

relief valves with an upstream rupture 

disc should be considered to have 

adequate monitoring already because 

there is pressure monitoring of the space 

between the two. The commenter also 

suggested that monitoring of ambient air 

within the vicinity of a process for leaks 

be considered a valid alternative, as this 

would provide reasonable assurance 

that the opening of a relief device would 

be noticed. 

Another commenter opined that the 

EPA had not provided any information 

about the reliability or suitability of the 

wireless indicators on which the EPA 

based its PRD monitoring cost estimates. 

The commenter stated that the wireless 

indicators assumed in the cost analysis 

are similar to the ‘‘Burst Alert Sensors’’ 

used at one of the commenter’s 

facilities. The commenter notes these 

devices have limited applicability, such 

as an 8-inch maximum pipe diameter, 

and ¥40 °F to 185 °F temperature range, 

and the EPA has not provided any data 

or information on the use or reliability 

of these devices in chemical plants or 

the more specific types of facilities in 

the source categories addressed by the 

proposed rule. The commenter noted 

these monitors exhibit a high false alarm 

rate and issues in areas where freezing 

occurs. 

Commenters also expressed that the 

EPA provided no information in the 

proposed rule about which devices and 

types of data are acceptable for 

determining the duration of a PRD 

opening. 

Response: Based on technological and 

cost concerns expressed by industry, we 

have reassessed the proposed 

requirement to prescribe the use of 

release indicators and alarms for each 

PRD. We acknowledge that there are 

other valid and potentially less costly 

approaches for monitoring PRDs and 

determining when a pressure release 

from a PRD has occurred for the PAI, 

PEPO and P&R IV source categories. As 

there are other approaches we believe to 

be equally effective (and potentially 

more reliable under certain 

circumstances for these source 

categories) as the proposed indicators 

and alarms, we have added flexibility in 

the rules. The final rules allow each 

PRD in organic HAP service to be 

equipped with a device or system that 

is capable of identifying and recording 

the time and duration of each pressure 

release (e.g., rupture disk indicators, 

magnetic sensors, motion detectors on 

the pressure relief valve stem, flow 

monitors, and pressure monitors) in lieu 

of prescribing that PRDs be equipped 

with release indicators and alarms. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters stated that the EPA did not 

consider the burden of data collection 

from PRD monitors, operation and 

maintenance costs or the costs of 

installing electronic indicators for every 

pressure relief valve. Commenters also 

opined that the cost estimates that the 

EPA used ($5,000 to $10,000) for the 

cost of the proposed PRD monitoring 

units at proposal were low and provided 

PRD monitoring unit cost estimates 

ranging from $14,000 to $30,000 per 

unit. One commenter stated that the 

costs cited by the EPA are for wireless 

monitors only and that there may be 

cases where more expensive wired 

connections would be necessary. One 

commenter opined that the EPA’s 

estimate of $1,409 per PRD monitoring 

unit was lower than the SCAQMD 

document cited by the EPA (which 

includes costs ranging from $5,000 to 

$10,000 per PRD monitoring unit). 

A few commenters asserted that the 

EPA underestimated the number of 

PRDs that would be subject to PRD 

monitoring requirements for some 

facilities and companies. One 

commenter estimated that one of their 

facilities had 122 PRDs and one 

company reported an estimated 300 

PRDs for their 2 facilities that would be 

subject to the proposed MACT 

standards. 

One commenter stated that, based on 

historical PRD emissions release data 

from 2009 to 2011 at the facilities of the 

commenter’s company, there was one 

release event of 25 pounds. The 

commenter asserted that, considering 

these emissions data, their estimated 

cost of the proposed PRD monitoring 

requirements would be approximately 

$73,000/pound emissions released. 

Response: As noted above, based on 

comments received at proposal we 

reassessed both our cost analysis and 

PRD monitoring requirements. The final 

rules have been amended to allow each 

PRD in organic HAP service to be 

equipped with a device or system that 

is capable of identifying and recording 

the time and duration of each pressure 

release (e.g., rupture disk indicators, 

magnetic sensors, motion detectors on 

the pressure relief valve stem, flow 

monitors, and pressure monitors) in lieu 

of prescribing that PRDs be equipped 

with release indicators and alarms. 

Although we are adding flexibility to 

the monitoring options an owner or 

operator has for PRD releases for these 

source categories in the final rule 

amendments, we maintained, for the 

purposes of costing, that owners and 

operators would install electronic 

indicators on each relief device that 

vents to the atmosphere to identify 

releases when they occur. We recognize 

that facility operations and 

configurations will vary for differing 

facilities based on the number of PRDs 

in operation at a given facility and have 

attempted to address those variances in 

our revised costs.7 This would amount 

to approximately $1,409 per PRD. We 

have revised the estimate of PRD system 

costs based on an estimated cost per 

PRD monitoring device combined with 

source-category specific estimates of the 

number of PRDs. Based on a report 

prepared by the SCAQMD, the total cost 

of a PRD monitoring device is estimated 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

8See footnote 5. 

9See ‘‘Costs and Emission Reductions of the 

Proposed Standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.’’ 

Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to 

Jodi Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. April 13, 2011. (Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0037–1002.) 

10See footnote 7. 

to be in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 

(2007 dollars).8 For our analysis, we 

assumed the PRD monitoring device to 

cost in the midpoint of the range ($7,500 

[2007 dollars]), and we adjusted that 

cost to 2012 dollars ($8,345). Assuming 

a 10 year equipment life and 7% 

interest, the annualized PRD monitoring 

device cost is estimated to be 

approximately $1,185. At proposal, as 

one commenter acknowledges, we 

adopted an average facility cost of a PRD 

monitoring system, assuming 134 PRDs, 

to be $188,913 based on analyses 

performed for the proposed standards 

for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers source category.9 Based on 

PRD data and models that we have 

developed for the PAI, PEPO and P&R 

IV source categories, most facility 

operations subject to these source 

categories are anticipated to have less 

than 76 PRDs. Based on this 

information, we have adjusted our PRD 

monitoring system costs to range from 

an estimated $69,233 to $112,180 for 

these source categories, and the 

annualized monitoring system capital 

cost estimates per facility range from 

$9,800 to $15,900 for these source 

categories.10 Although our proposed 

and revised costs may be low for some 

facilities, the costs will likely be an 

overestimate for other facilities. 

Additionally, by allowing facilities the 

option to monitor parameters in order to 

detect PRD releases, we believe that our 

revised costs are conservative in that 

they reflect the upper range of our 

estimated PRD monitoring system costs 

per source category and presume that 

sources will choose to install electronic 

indicators and alarms versus complying 

with the rule by using parameter 

monitoring. However, it is highly likely 

that many sources will choose to install 

or use existing parameter monitoring 

systems (and not electronic indicators 

and alarms), and the cost of such a 

system would likely be less than the 

costs estimated for the use of electronic 

indicators and alarms. 

Cost-effectiveness numbers are 

estimated to evaluate the benefit of 

implementing a control measure; the 

final PRD monitoring requirements, 

although likely to result in a reduction 

in HAP emissions from the affected 

facilities, are being required to ensure 

continuous compliance with existing 

emission standards. Therefore, while we 

consider the costs of this monitoring 

technology to be reasonable, a costeffectiveness analysis that would be 

appropriate for a new emission standard 

imposing new control requirements to 

reduce HAP emissions by an estimable 

amount was not considered for this 

monitoring requirement. We have 

prohibited releases from PRDs because 

we believe it is inconsistent with the 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008) ruling. We consider PRD 

releases to be malfunctions and 

acknowledge these releases do not occur 

frequently and in specific cases may or 

may not result in significant releases to 

the atmosphere. 

B. Startup and Shutdown Periods 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the EPA provide a means to 

demonstrate compliance during startup 

and shutdown periods, including the 

establishment of work practices for 

subpart JJJ. The commenters stated that 

while emissions during startup and 

shutdown may not be higher than 

during normal operations, it may not be 

possible to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits for these 

specific periods. The commenters 

argued that, for units complying with a 

unit of mass emitted per unit of product 

produced or destruction efficiency 

standard, demonstrating compliance is 

problematic as production approaches 

zero. One commenter suggested a long 

averaging time, such as 30 days, be 

incorporated to resolve this problem. 

Commenters also suggested that a work 

practice standard could be established 

for these periods to require emissions 

during startup and shutdown be routed 

to an operating control device that has 

been demonstrated to achieve the 

required destruction efficiency or that 

facilities be allowed to demonstrate 

compliance by showing that control 

device operating parameters are 

maintained at a level that has been 

demonstrated to meet standards during 

continuous steady-state conditions. 

One commenter asserted that the EPA 

cannot speculate that facilities can meet 

the normal operations emissions 

limitation during periods of startup and 

shutdown and must conduct a thorough 

analysis of emissions from the best 

performing sources during startup and 

shutdown and base the standards on the 

results of that analysis. 

Response: We do not agree with 

commenters that alternative work 

practice standards should be established 

for P&R IV continuous process vents 

during startup and shutdown periods. 

The existing rule includes flexible 

continuous process vent control 

compliance options. Current regulations 

allow owners or operators to comply by 

meeting a production based limit, 

reducing emissions by 98 percent in a 

combustion device or to a concentration 

of 20 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv) on a dry basis (whichever is less 

stringent); combust the emissions in a 

boiler or process heater with a specified 

design heat input capacity or by 

introducing emissions into the flame 

zone; or combust emissions in a flare 

meeting specification requirements. 

Nonetheless, alternative compliance 

demonstration method options for 

meeting production-based limits are 

included in the final rule to address 

commenters’ concerns regarding 

meeting production-based limits as 

production approaches zero. The final 

rule allows owners or operators to 

demonstrate compliance with 

continuous process vent productionbased limits during startup and 

shutdown periods by either: (1) Keeping 

records that establish the raw material 

feed rate and production rate were both 

zero; (2) meeting the limit by dividing 

the emission rate during startup or 

shutdown by the rate of polymer 

produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero; or (3) 

keeping records that establish the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the rule 

were maintained at the level established 

to meet the emission limit at maximum 

representative operating conditions. We 

believe the addition of the alternative 

compliance demonstration method 

options for startup and shutdown 

periods addresses commenters’ 

concerns while meeting the intended 

emission reduction requirements. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

claimed the EPA should have performed 

a more thorough analysis of emissions 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

prior to proposal, as at that time we did 

not have information to suggest that 

sources could not meet the emission 

standards during these times. It is only 

as a result of commenter input that the 

EPA was made aware of potential issues 

with compliance during periods of 

startup and shutdown for sources 

subject to the P&R IV MACT standards, 

and, as previously stated, we have 

revised the final rule to account for 

these periods. 

C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT 

Provisions for Previously-Unregulated 

Sources 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the EPA does not have the authority 

to reconsider previously-issued MACT 

standards. The commenter states that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17357 

the EPA cannot reconsider aspects of 

previously issued MACT standards 

unrelated to ‘‘development in practices, 

processes, and control technologies,’’ 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). The 

commenter also states the EPA cannot 

change its mind about what standards 

are required to comply with CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3), nor recalculate 

a floor based on subsequent 

performance. The commenter adds 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, the EPA, and the public know 

what emissions limitations will apply to 

a source rather than having those 

limitations be subject to flux. The 

commenter states that even if the EPA 

had the authority to change the existing 

MACT standards, it could not 

reasonably make the revised standards 

effective immediately. The commenter 

notes that CAA section 112(i) allows for 

a compliance deadline of up to 3 years. 

Response: In Medical Waste Institute 

v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425–27 (D.C. Cir. 

2011), the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA 

may permissibly amend prior MACT 

determinations, including amendments 

to improperly promulgated floor 

determinations, using its authority 

under CAA section 129(a)(2), which is 

analogous to the authority in CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3). The lack of 

judicial invalidation on these issues is 

a distinction without a difference. 

National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633–34; see 

also Medical Waste Institute, 645 F. 3d 

at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on 

post-compliance data, permissible when 

originally-established floor was 

improperly established, and 

permissibility of the EPA’s action does 

not turn on whether the prior standard 

was remanded or vacated). See also our 

response in section VI.A above. The 

D.C. Circuit’s decision in Portland 

Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 

(D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms the EPA is not 

constrained by CAA section 112(d)(6) 

and it may reassess its standards more 

often, including revising MACT floors 

pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). 

The commenter is thus incorrect that 

the EPA lacks authority to set MACT 

standards under 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) for 

PCCT and equipment leaks from the 

PET continuous TPA high viscosity 

multiple end finisher subcategory that 

were not controlled under the initial 

P&R IV MACT standards. Put another 

way, if the EPA did not adopt a proper 

MACT standard initially, it is not 

amending a MACT standard but 

adopting one for the first time. That is 

the case here for PCCT and equipment 

leaks from the PET continuous TPA 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory that were not controlled 

under the initial P&R IV MACT 

standards. The EPA adopted no MACT 

standard for these emission points, an 

approach soundly rejected by the D.C. 

Circuit in National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 

633–34. Consequently, the EPA is not 

barred from making MACT floor and 

beyond-the-floor determinations and 

issuing MACT standards pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) in this 

rulemaking. 

The EPA is not invoking CAA section 

112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2) as its authority to 

promulgate the MACT standards for 

currently uncontrolled sources. Rather, 

the EPA is promulgating these MACT 

standards for the first time pursuant to 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the 

provisions that directly govern the 

promulgation of MACT standards. Using 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) ensures 

the process and considerations are those 

associated with initially establishing a 

MACT standard. Contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion that the EPA 

conducted new MACT floor analyses for 

standards currently in effect in setting 

MACT standards to address certain 

unregulated sources, the EPA is not 

establishing these MACT standards 

under section 112(d)(6). As explained 

above, the EPA is promulgating new 

standards, not reevaluating the original 

standards, under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

and (3). The EPA’s action to set MACT 

standards for PCCT and equipment 

leaks from the PET continuous TPA 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory, which were not regulated 

in the original MACT standards, is 

consistent with several recent 

rulemakings, in which we have 

addressed underlying defects or made 

other necessary revisions or 

clarifications in existing NESHAP under 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the 

provisions that directly govern the 

initial promulgation of MACT standards 

(see National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009, 

74 FR 55670; and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine 

Tank Vessel Loading Operations; 

Pharmaceuticals Production; and the 

Printing and Publishing Industry, April 

21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). 

The EPA proposed setting MACT 

standards for the first time for 

equipment leaks from the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory that were left 

unregulated in the original NESHAP. 

Establishing standards for these 

emission points does not involve 

developing a new MACT floor analysis 

for MACT standards currently in effect. 

In the original NESHAP, the EPA 

exempted sources producing PET using 

a continuous TPA high viscosity 

multiple end finisher process from the 

requirements for equipment leaks. The 

EPA established MACT standards for 

the other P&R IV source categories, but 

left unregulated this subcategory of PET 

production. Therefore, the EPA is 

establishing for the first time MACT 

standards for the PET continuous TPA 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory. Based on available data on 

the PET continuous TPA high viscosity 

multiple end finisher subcategory, the 

EPA performed the MACT floor and 

beyond-the floor analyses to determine 

the MACT standards for this 

subcategory. In doing so, the EPA did 

not reanalyze the MACT floor analysis 

for the standards established in the 

original NESHAP for the other P&R IV 

source categories. 

Regarding the proposed MACT 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) for PCCT from the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory, the EPA 

originally promulgated standards for 

this emission point in the original P&R 

IV MACT standards. However, these 

standards were a beyond-the-floor 

option and were subsequently stayed 

indefinitely. Based on available data on 

the PET continuous TPA high viscosity 

multiple end finisher subcategory, the 

EPA performed the MACT floor and 

beyond-the floor analyses to determine 

the MACT standards for this 

subcategory. The EPA then proposed to 

re-set the previously stayed MACT 

standard as an emission standard that 

reflects the MACT floor option. In doing 

so, the EPA did not reanalyze the MACT 

floor analysis for the standards 

established in the original NESHAP for 

the other P&R IV source categories. 

Comment: One commenter opined 

that the work practice equipment leak 

provisions the EPA proposed for PET 

sources using a continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher are 

unacceptable and that the EPA should 

set a no-leak standard since leak-less 

valves are available. The commenter 

asserted that the EPA has not 

demonstrated it is not technologically or 

economically practicable to measure 

and control fugitive emissions 

numerically, as required under section 

112(h). The commenter stated that the 

EPA must at least investigate 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11See ‘‘Houston, We Have a Problem—A 

Roadmap for Reducing Petrochemical Industry 

Toxic Emissions in the Lone Star State.’’ GalvestonHouston Association for Smog Prevention, Industry 

Professionals for Clean Air, Environmental Defense 

Fund, and Environmental Integrity Project. May 

2008. 

12See ‘‘Analysis of Emission Reduction 

Techniques for Equipment Leaks.’’ Memorandum 

from C. Hancy, RTI International, to Jodi Howard, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 

21, 2011. (Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0869–0029). 

13See ‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule.’’ 71 FR 

34422, June 14, 2006. 

measurement techniques, such as 

remote sensing, before reaching the 

conclusion that only work practice 

standards are ‘‘feasible.’’ The 

commenter urged the EPA to set both 

numerical and work practice standards 

for equipment leaks. The commenter 

also stated that under section 112(d)(2) 

the EPA must consider requiring 

facilities to enclose systems or processes 

to eliminate emissions and requiring 

capture of fugitive emissions, which it 

has not done. The commenter opined 

that the EPA must use the most up-todate leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

practices used in similar industries if 

the EPA determines that LDAR practices 

are the only way to control such 

emissions. The commenter also says 

that the EPA must set an absolute limit 

on how much of the equipment can be 

allowed to leak. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that the equipment leak 

standard set for PET sources using a 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher is inappropriate. This 

source of emissions was previously 

unregulated by the MACT standards, 

and we have established standards for 

these emissions for the first time. 

Following the procedures of CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3), we established 

the MACT floor based on the best 

performing facilities in the source 

category or subcategory. As there is only 

one facility in this source subcategory, 

the current practices at the facility 

represent the best performing facility in 

the subcategory and the MACT floor. 

We performed a beyond-the-floor 

analysis to consider other technology 

available, including the LDAR program 

required by the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON), which is the required 

level of control for other facilities 

subject to the P&R IV MACT standards, 

and found this program to not be cost 

effective. See the memorandum, ReEvaluation of Equipment Leak 

Emissions and Costs at PET Facilities, 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435–0059). We believe the HON LDAR 

program represents the most feasible 

and cost-effective beyond-the-floor 

option, as anything with more stringent 

requirements or more expensive 

equipment would only further increase 

the costs relative to the emission 

reductions. This was demonstrated in 

our analysis of leak-less valves 

performed as part of the ample margin 

of safety analysis for the PET source 

category, which showed very high costs 

relative to emission reductions for 

facilities that already have the HON 

LDAR program in place (see the 

memorandum, Impacts of Control 

Options to Address Residual Risks for 

the Pesticide Active Ingredient, 

Polyether Polyols, and Polymers and 

Resins IV Production Source Categories, 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435–0006)). In addition, as explained 

in the preamble to the proposed rule (77 

FR 1293), the established work practice 

standards are consistent with CAA 

section 112(h). Applying a measurement 

methodology to this class of sources is 

not technologically and economically 

feasible due to the number of openings 

and possible emission points, and 

because the fugitive emissions cannot be 

routed to a conveyance designed to 

capture such emissions. See the 

memorandum, Re-Evaluation of 

Equipment Leak Emissions and Costs at 

PET Facilities, available in the docket 

for this action (Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0435–0059). We also 

note that the EPA is not permitted to set 

both a numerical and work practice 

standard for an emission point. A work 

practice standard may only be 

established when it is not 

technologically and economically 

feasible to establish a numerical 

emission standard. See CAA section 

112(h). 

D. Technology Review 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

the EPA did not show that it looked for 

improvements in any of the 

technologies reviewed under section 

112(d)(6), and noted several such 

improvements. These improvements 

include leak-less valves, seal-less 

pumps, welded connections, and the 

use of passive optical gas imaging (OGI) 

devices to reduce equipment leaks. The 

commenter also stated that the EPA 

should also require lower leak 

definitions of 100 ppm for valves, 

connectors and other equipment; 500 

ppm for pumps, compressors, and 

pressure relief valves; tighter repair 

timelines of minimization of leaks 

within 24 hours of identification and 

repairs within seven days; and repairs 

using the best available technologies for 

frequent or high emissions leakers, all of 

which are the requirements in the 

California Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District and the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. 

For other emission sources, the 

commenter opined that the EPA must 

prohibit flaring and require complete 

capture through flare gas recovery 

systems because it is widely believed 

that flares do not reduce HAP emissions 

to the level previously understood and 

flares create new toxic air emissions. 

The commenter asserted the EPA should 

also require the use of remote sensing 

technology as a routine matter for all 

current sources, considering a 2009 

report showing reductions from the 

Texas Petrochemicals Houston plant 

using this technology. The commenter 

further asserted the EPA must consider 

developments noted in a 2008 report by 

the Environmental Integrity Project and 

other authors for control of fugitive 

emissions from storage tanks and 

wastewater and improved monitoring 

and repair for tanks.11

Response: 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 

standards were 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. 

The commenter suggested we analyze 

‘‘leak-less’’ technologies such as leakless valves, seal-less pumps, and welded 

connections. Packing combinations for 

valves and gaskets for flanges that 

significantly reduce emissions are in 

place in some facilities, particularly oil 

refineries. Facilities and packing 

manufacturers have created emission 

testing protocols for low leak packing in 

order to study and test their 

effectiveness.12 Costs for leak-less 

valves were previously estimated for the 

synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI).13

Using these estimates, we analyzed the 

costs associated with requiring leak-less 

valve technology for each of these 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17359 

14See ‘‘Supplemental Technology Review for 

Equipment Leaks in Group IV Polymers and Resins, 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and 

Polyether Polyols Production Source Categories.’’ 

Memorandum from EC/R Incorporated to Nick 

Parsons, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0435.) 

15See footnote 14. 16See footnote 14. 

source categories. Annual costs per 

source category ranged from $1.3 

million/yr to $30.1 million/yr per 

facility for each of the source categories, 

with total capital investments ranging 

from $9.2 million to $220 million. 

Emission reductions were assumed to be 

100 percent and ranged from 5.2 to 

123.4 tpy of HAP per source category, 

resulting in a cost effectiveness of 

$244,000/ton HAP. We do not consider 

this cost effectiveness to be reasonable 

and, as a result, do not consider leakless valves to be economically feasible. 

The commenter suggested we evaluate 

seal-less pump and welded connections. 

However, we do not have cost 

information that can be used to estimate 

costs for these technologies and the 

commenter did not provide such costs. 

The commenter suggested we evaluate 

OGI devices as an advancement in 

technology. We note that the General 

Provisions for NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.11(c) through (e) already allows the 

use of OGI as an alternative work 

practice (AWP) to the traditional LDAR 

monitoring program (e.g., EPA Method 

21). Section 63.11(c) through (e) allows 

the use of OGI along with an annual 

EPA Method 21 survey of all of the 

equipment. 

We conducted a technology review to 

assess lowering the leak definition for 

valves to the 100 ppm level used by Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD).14 We evaluated the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

retaining the leak definition of 500 ppm 

(as proposed) and a leak definition of 

100 ppm. According to our analysis, the 

incremental cost effectiveness for all 

three source categories ranged from 

$16,000/ton HAP to $18,000/ton HAP. 

We do not consider this to be cost 

effective. In our technology review, we 

also evaluated the BAAQMD program 

for tightening the repair timeline for 

components awaiting repair.15

According to our analysis, the cost 

effectiveness for all three source 

categories ranged from $11,000/ton HAP 

to $99,000/ton HAP. We do not consider 

this to be cost effective. As a result, the 

final rule retains the leak definition for 

valves of 500 ppm and the current 

repair schedule, as proposed. 

Also, as a part of our technology 

review, we conducted an analysis to 

determine the economic feasibility of 

lowering the leak definition for pumps 

to 500 ppm, as compared to the current 

leak definition of 2,000 ppm.16 We 

evaluated the incremental cost 

effectiveness between retaining the leak 

definition of 2,000 ppm (as proposed) 

and a leak definition of 500 ppm. 

According to our analysis, the 

incremental cost effectiveness for all 

three source categories was $29,000/ton 

HAP. We do not consider this to be cost 

effective and, as a result, the final rule 

retains the leak definition for pumps of 

2,000 ppm. 

The commenter suggested that we 

evaluate lowering the leak definition for 

pressure relief devices to 500 ppm. For 

all three source categories, the existing 

requirements for pressure relief devices 

already specify operation with no 

detectable emissions, defined as an 

instrument reading above 500 ppm. 

We are not at this point able to agree 

with the premise underlying the 

commenter’s suggestions that flaring 

should be entirely prohibited in the 

subject source categories in favor of 

complete capture through flare gas 

recovery systems. As further discussed 

elsewhere, the EPA is currently 

studying the performance of flares to 

control HAP emissions, and we do not 

yet have sufficient performance data for 

the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source 

categories. Therefore, we are not at this 

time prepared to finalize any changes to 

the currently applicable regulations 

pertaining to the performance of flares 

in the PAI, PEPO, and P&R IV source 

categories, including prohibiting flaring 

in favor of complete capture. We may 

explore whether to revise flare 

requirements in the future, if we 

conclude that new requirements are 

warranted and would be applicable to 

subject source categories. 

In the meantime, we note that none of 

the EPA’s MACT standards currently 

require the use of flare gas recovery 

systems, and the use of flare gas 

recovery systems, while prevalent in the 

petroleum refining source category, has 

not yet been demonstrated as being 

applicable to these or other chemical 

manufacturing source categories, 

primarily due to the variety of chemical 

compounds being sent to the flare (e.g., 

streams from multiple chemical 

manufacturing process units are often 

sent to the same flare header system). 

This issue would particularly need 

further analysis in order to consider the 

commenter’s suggestion, and we are not 

at this point prepared to resolve it. The 

commenter provided no data regarding 

this issue that would have enabled us to 

promulgate its suggested revision. Nor 

did the commenter provide data to 

support the assertion that flaring from 

these source categories ‘‘can create new 

toxic air emissions.’’ Therefore, the EPA 

is not presently able to agree with the 

commenter’s claim that the benefits of 

the use of flares, especially as a backup 

control device to reduce HAP emissions, 

are outweighed by secondary HAP 

emissions that may be caused by flaring, 

such that prohibiting flaring entirely is 

warranted at this point in the EPA’s 

continuing analysis. 

VII. Impacts of the Final Rules 

A. What are the air impacts? 

We are finalizing new emission 

standards for equipment leaks and 

PCCT in the PET continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory regulated by the P&R IV 

MACT standards at the MACT floor 

emissions levels currently achieved by 

the one facility in this subcategory. As 

a result, no additional emission 

reductions from equipment leaks and 

PCCT in this subcategory will be 

realized, although increases in 

emissions in the future will be 

prevented. For the final revisions to the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards 

regarding SSM and PRDs, these changes 

will result in fewer emissions during 

SSM periods and PRD releases or less 

frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. 

However, the emission reductions, 

while tangible, are difficult to quantify 

and are not included in our assessment 

of air quality impacts. Therefore, no 

quantifiable air quality impacts are 

expected to result from the final 

amendments to these three MACT 

standards. While we are unable to 

quantify these emission reductions, we 

expect that emissions will decrease as a 

result of this rulemaking. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the final amendments, facilities 

in the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source 

categories are expected to incur initial 

capital and annual recordkeeping and 

reporting costs associated with the PRD 

monitoring requirements and other 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. The capital costs for each 

facility were estimated based on 

available information on the subject 

source categories and data collected for 

other EPA projects. The total annual 

costs for the PAI source category are 

estimated to be $222,000. The total 

annual costs for the PEPO source 

category are estimated to be $242,000. 

For the P&R IV source categories, the 

total annual costs are estimated to be 

$566,000. The memorandum titled, 

Revised Cost Impacts Associated with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the Final Pressure Relief Device 

Monitoring Requirements for the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, 

Polyether Polyols Production, and 

Group IV Polymers and Resins Source 

Categories, includes a complete 

description of the cost estimate methods 

used for this analysis and is available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0435). 

Though the cost savings cannot be 

monetized, consistent with Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ issued on 

January 18, 2011, the electronic 

reporting requirements being finalized 

in this action for performance test 

reports are expected to reduce the 

burden for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV 

facilities in the future by cutting back on 

the recordkeeping costs and the costs 

that would be associated with fewer or 

less-substantial data collection requests 

(due to performance test information 

being readily available on the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database). Although the use of 

electric reporting may reduce the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

facilities in the future, facilities will still 

incur annualized costs, on net, due to 

these final amendments. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

We estimate that there will be no 

more than a 0.01-percent price change 

and a similar reduction in output 

associated with this action. This is 

based on the costs of the rule and the 

responsiveness of producers and 

consumers to supply and demand 

elasticities for the industries affected by 

this action. The impacts to affected 

firms will be low because the annual 

compliance costs are small when 

compared to the annual revenues for the 

affected parent firms (much less than 1 

percent for each). The impacts to 

affected consumers should also be 

small. Thus, there will not be any 

significant economic impacts on 

affected firms and their consumers as a 

result of this final action. 

D. What are the benefits? 

As explained in the air quality 

impacts section, we are finalizing new 

emission standards for equipment leaks 

and PCCT in the PET continuous TPA 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory regulated by the P&R IV 

MACT standards at the MACT floor 

emissions levels currently achieved by 

the one facility in this subcategory. As 

a result, no additional emission 

reductions from equipment leaks and 

PCCT in this subcategory will be 

realized, although increases in 

emissions in the future will be 

prevented. For the final revisions to the 

PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards 

regarding SSM and PRDs, these changes 

will result in fewer emissions during 

SSM periods and PRD releases or less 

frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. 

However, the emission reductions, 

while tangible, are difficult to quantify 

and are not included in our assessment 

of health benefits. As a result, there are 

no quantifiable emission reductions 

associated with the final amendments 

for these three MACT standards and, 

therefore, there are no quantifiable 

health benefits to associate with 

reduced emissions. While we are unable 

to quantify these emission reductions, 

as a result of this rulemaking we expect 

reductions in the actual and potential 

cancer risks and non-cancer health 

effects due to emissions of HAP from 

these source categories. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the final rule have been 

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 in this rulemaking are 

based on the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

The OMB previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

being amended with this final rule (i.e., 

40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJ, MMM and 

PPP) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The OMB control numbers 

for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

For these final rules, the EPA is 

adding affirmative defense to the 

estimates of burden in the ICR for these 

rules. 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, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$1,584 annually per MACT standard, 

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 the EPA. The EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only 

incurred if there has been a 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 the 

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 for this 

estimate, as source owners or operators 

previously operated their facilities in 

recognition that they were exempt from 

the requirement to comply with 

emission standards during 

malfunctions. Even if the historical 

records were an appropriate basis for 

this estimate, they would still lead us to 

believe that the number of instances in 

which source operators might avail 

themselves of the affirmative defense 

will be extremely small. The records 

indicate that only a small number of 

excess emissions events reported by 

source operators would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and that only a subset 

of excess emissions events caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17361 

defense, resulting in no more than an 

estimated 1 or 2 such occurrences for all 

sources subject to subparts JJJ, MMM 

and PPP over the 3-year period covered 

by this ICR. We expect to gather 

information on such events in the future 

and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. 

1. Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

Standards 

For the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards, an ICR document 

prepared by the EPA for the 

amendments to the standards has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2457.02. 

Burden changes associated with these 

amendments result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

cooling towers and equipment leak 

provisions for one facility, and PRD 

monitoring systems and affirmative 

defense provisions for all facilities 

subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 31 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart JJJ. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart JJJ is estimated to be 459 labor 

hours at a cost of $26,000 per year. The 

initial capital costs per facility (based on 

PRD monitoring system costs) range 

from $13,000 to $112,000. The 

annualized capital costs per facility 

range between $1,800 to $16,000 based 

on a 10-year equipment lifespan. There 

is no estimated change in annual burden 

to the federal government for these 

amendments. 

2. Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production MACT Standards 

For the Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production MACT standards, an ICR 

document prepared by the EPA for the 

amendments to the standards has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1807.07. 

Burden changes associated with these 

amendments result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with PRD 

monitoring systems and affirmative 

defense provisions for all facilities 

subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 18 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MMM. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart MMM is estimated to be 229 

labor hours at a cost of $20,000 per year. 

The initial capital costs per facility 

(based on PRD monitoring system costs) 

range from $12,700 to $82,000. The 

annualized capital costs per facility 

range from $1,800 to $11,700 based on 

a 10-year equipment lifespan. There is 

no estimated change in annual burden 

to the federal government for these 

amendments. 

3. Polyether Polyols Production MACT 

Standards 

For the Polyether Polyols Production 

MACT standards, an ICR document 

prepared by the EPA for the 

amendments to the standards has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1811.09. 

Burden changes associated with these 

amendments result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with PRD 

monitoring systems and affirmative 

defense provisions for all facilities 

subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 23 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart PPP. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart PPP is estimated to be 292 labor 

hours at a cost of $18,000 per year. The 

initial capital costs per facility (based on 

PRD monitoring system costs) range 

from $29,000 to $69,000. The 

annualized capital costs per facility 

range from $4,100 to $9,800 based on a 

10-year equipment lifespan. 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 the 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 this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. According to the SBA small 

business standards definitions, for the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins source 

categories, which have the NAICS code 

of 325211 (i.e., Plastics Material and 

Resin Manufacturing), the SBA small 

business size standard is 750 

employees. For the PEPO source 

category, which has the NAICS code of 

325199 (i.e., All Other Basic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing), the SBA 

small business size standard is 1,000 

employees. For the PAI source category, 

which has the NAICS codes of 325199 

(i.e., All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing) and 325320 (i.e., 

Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing), the SBA 

small business size standards are 1,000 

employees and 500 employees, 

respectively. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

There are no affected small businesses 

in any source category affected by the 

final rule. Virtually all of the companies 

affected by this rule are large integrated 

corporations that are not considered to 

be small entities per the definitions 

provided in this section. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities that 

could potentially be impacted by this 

rule in the future. The final 

requirements for PRD monitoring have 

been revised to provide facilities with 

greater flexibility based on their current 

equipment and operations. In addition, 

the final malfunction recordkeeping 

requirement was designed to provide all 

affected facilities, including small 

entities, with a means of supporting an 

affirmative defense in the event of a 

violation occurring during a 

malfunction. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

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. None of the 

affected facilities are owned or operated 

by state governments, and the 

requirements discussed in today’s 

notice will not supersede state 

regulations that are more stringent. The 

burden to the respondents and the states 

is approximately $977,000 for the three 

MACT standards addressed in this final 

rule. 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. Although Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action, the EPA solicited comments on 

this action from tribal officials, but 

received none. 

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 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action will not relax the 

control measures on existing regulated 

sources, and EPA’s risk assessments 

(included in the docket for this action) 

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 subject to Executive 

Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise 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 the EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action involves technical 

standards. The EPA has elected to use 

ASTM D2908–74 or 91 and ASTM 

D3370–76 or 95a for the PCCT at the one 

Group IV Polymers and Resins facility 

in the PET continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory. No applicable VCS were 

identified for these methods. 

Under section 63.7(f) and section 

63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures in the final 

rule. 

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. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. To 

examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the level of the 

standards for each source category, we 

performed a comparative analysis of the 

demographics of the population within 

the vicinity of the facilities in these 

source categories (i.e., within a 3-mile 

radius) and the national average 

demographic distributions. Our analysis 

shows that most demographic categories 

are within 2 percentage points of 

national averages, except for the African 

American population, which exceeds 

the national average by 6 percentage 

points (18 percent versus 12 percent). 

The EPA has determined that the 

current health risks posed by emissions 

from these source categories are 

acceptable and provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health and 

prevent adverse environmental effects. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this final rule 

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 

rule 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 March 27, 

2014. 

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17363 

Dated: January 31, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is amending Title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 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 A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (g)(28) and 

(29); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(30) 

through (84) as (g)(40) to (94); and 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (g)(28) 

through (39). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(28) ASTM D2908–74, Standard 

Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic 

Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection 

Gas Chromatography, Approved June 

27, 1974, IBR approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(29) ASTM D2908–91, Standard 

Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic 

Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection 

Gas Chromatography, Approved 

December 15, 1991, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1329(c). 

(30) ASTM D2908–91(Reapproved 

2001), Standard Practice for Measuring 

Volatile Organic Matter in Water by 

Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, 

Approved December 15, 1991, IBR 

approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(31) ASTM D2908–91(Reapproved 

2005), Standard Practice for Measuring 

Volatile Organic Matter in Water by 

Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, 

Approved December 1, 2005, IBR 

approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(32) ASTM D2908–91(Reapproved 

2011), Standard Practice for Measuring 

Volatile Organic Matter in Water by 

Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, 

Approved May 1, 2011, IBR approved 

for § 63.1329(c). 

(33) ASTM D3173–03 (Reapproved 

2008), Standard Test Method for 

Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal 

and Coke, (Approved February 1, 2008), 

IBR approved for table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD and table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ. 

(34) ASTM D3257–93, Standard Test 

Methods for Aromatics in Mineral 

Spirits by Gas Chromatography, IBR 

approved for § 63.786(b). 

(35) ASTM D3370–76, Standard 

Practices for Sampling Water, Approved 

August 27, 1976, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1329(c). 

(36) ASTM D3370–95a, Standard 

Practices for Sampling Water from 

Closed Conduits, Approved September 

10, 1995, IBR approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(37) ASTM D3370–07, Standard 

Practices for Sampling Water from 

Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 

2007, IBR approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(38) ASTM D3370–08, Standard 

Practices for Sampling Water from 

Closed Conduits, Approved October 1, 

2008, IBR approved for § 63.1329(c). 

(39) ASTM D3370–10, Standard 

Practices for Sampling Water from 

Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 

2010, IBR approved for § 63.1329(c). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJ—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.1310 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) 

introductory text, (a)(4)(iv), and 

(a)(4)(vi); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (j); and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1310 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Emission points and equipment. 

The affected source also includes the 

emission points and components 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 

(vi) of this section that are associated 

with each applicable group of one or 

more TPPU constituting an affected 

source. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Each process contact cooling 

tower used in the manufacture of poly 

(ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) that 

is associated with a new affected source. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Components required by, or 

utilized as a method of compliance 

with, this subpart, which may include 

control devices and recovery devices. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Components and equipment that 

do not contain organic HAP and are 

located within a TPPU that is part of an 

affected source; 

* * * * * 

(d) Processes excluded from the 

affected source. The processes specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section are not part of the affected 

source and are not subject to the 

requirements of both this subpart and 

subpart A of this part: 

* * * * * 

(j) Applicability of this subpart. (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. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in subpart H of this part, as referred to 

in § 63.1331, 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 

§ 63.1331 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) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner or operator to make any 

further efforts to reduce emissions if 

levels required by the applicable 

standard have been achieved. 

Determination of whether a source is 

operating in compliance with operation 

and maintenance requirements will be 

based on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(k) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed 

if the owner or operator fails to meet 

their burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

the owner or operator must timely meet 

the reporting requirements in paragraph 

(k)(2) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation 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; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that 

explains how it has met the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section. This affirmative 

defense report shall be included in the 

first periodic compliance report, 

deviation report, or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance report, deviation 

report, or excess emission report is due 

less than 45 days after the initial 

occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be 

included in the second compliance 

report, deviation report, or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

■ 4. Section 63.1311 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text and (d)(6); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(7). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1311 Compliance dates and 

relationship of this subpart to existing 

applicable rules. 

* * * * * 

(b) New affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after March 29, 1995 

shall be in compliance with this subpart 

(except § 63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial 

start-up or by June 19, 2000, whichever 

is later, except that new affected sources 

whose primary product, as determined 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in 

compliance with § 63.1331 (except 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial start-up 

or August 6, 2002, whichever is later. 

New affected sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

March 25, 1995, but on or before 

January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance 

with the pressure relief device 

monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii) no later than March 

27, 2017. New affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after January 9, 2012, 

shall be in compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii) upon initial startup 

or by March 27, 2014, whichever is 

later. 

(c) Existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with this subpart (except 

for § 63.1331 for which compliance is 

covered by paragraph (d) of this section) 

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, except that the 

compliance date for the provisions 

contained in § 63.1329 is extended to 

March 27, 2014, for existing affected 

sources whose primary product, as 

determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.1310(f), is PET using a 

continuous terephthalic acid high 

viscosity multiple end finisher process. 

(d) Except as provided for in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this 

section, existing affected sources shall 

be in compliance with § 63.1331 no later 

than June 19, 2001, unless an extension 

has been granted pursuant to paragraph 

(e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (5) of this section, existing 

affected sources whose primary product, 

as determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.1310(f), is PET shall be 

in compliance with § 63.1331 (except 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) no later than August 

6, 2002. 

(7) Compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring provisions of 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii) shall occur no later 

than March 27, 2017. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1312 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, alphabetically, the term 

‘‘Pressure relief device or valve 

(§ 63.161)’’ and removing the term 

‘‘Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan (§ 63.101)’’ in paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Adding the definition for 

‘‘Affirmative defense’’ in alphabetical 

order in paragraph (b). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1312 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1315 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(19); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1315 Continuous process vents 

provisions. 

(a) For each continuous process vent 

located at an affected source, the owner 

or operator shall comply with the 

requirements of §§ 63.113 through 

63.118, with the differences noted in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (19) of this 

section for the purposes of this subpart, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17365 

except as provided in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(19) During periods of startup or 

shutdown, as an alternative to using the 

procedures specified in § 63.116, an 

owner or operator of an affected source 

or emission unit subject to an emission 

limit expressed as mass emissions per 

mass product may demonstrate 

compliance with the limit in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(19)(i), (ii), or (iii) of 

this section. 

(i) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(ii) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 

(iii) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in § 63.113(a)(1) or (2) 

were maintained at the level established 

to meet the emission limit at maximum 

representative operating conditions. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Not allow organic HAP emissions 

from the collection of continuous 

process vents at the affected source to be 

greater than 0.000590 kg organic HAP/ 

Mg of product. Compliance with this 

paragraph (b)(2) shall be determined 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1333(b). During periods of startup 

or shutdown, as an alternative to using 

the procedures specified in § 63.1333(b), 

an owner or operator of an affected 

source or emission unit subject to an 

emission limit expressed as mass 

emissions per mass product may 

demonstrate compliance with the limit 

in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(i), 

(ii), or (iii) of this section. 

(i) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(ii) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1333(b). Keep records 

of this calculation. 

(iii) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section were maintained at the level 

established to meet the emission limit at 

maximum representative operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1316 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A), 

(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), 

and (c)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1316 PET and polystyrene affected 

sources—emissions control provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Organic HAP emissions from all 

continuous process vents in each 

individual material recovery section 

shall, as a whole, be no greater than 

0.018 kg organic HAP per Mg of product 

from the associated TPPU(s)); or 

alternatively, organic HAP emissions 

from all continuous process vents in the 

collection of material recovery sections 

within the affected source shall, as a 

whole, be no greater than 0.018 kg 

organic HAP per Mg product from all 

associated TPPU. During periods of 

startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of 

an affected source or emission unit 

subject to an emission limit expressed 

as mass emissions per mass product 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

limit in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(2) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 

(3) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) 

of this section were maintained at the 

level established to meet the emission 

limit at maximum representative 

operating conditions. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Organic HAP emissions from all 

continuous process vents in each 

individual polymerization reaction 

section (including emissions from any 

equipment used to further recover 

ethylene glycol, but excluding 

emissions from process contact cooling 

towers) shall, as a whole, be no greater 

than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of 

product from the associated TPPU(s); or 

alternatively, organic HAP emissions 

from all continuous process vents in the 

collection of polymerization reaction 

sections within the affected source 

shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02 

kg organic HAP per Mg product from all 

associated TPPU(s). During periods of 

startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of 

an affected source or emission unit 

subject to an emission limit expressed 

as mass emissions per mass product 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

limit in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(2) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 

(3) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) 

of this section were maintained at the 

level established to meet the emission 

limit at maximum representative 

operating conditions. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Organic HAP emissions from all 

continuous process vents associated 

with the esterification vessels in each 

individual raw materials preparation 

section shall, as a whole, be no greater 

than 0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of 

product from the associated TPPU(s); or 

alternatively, organic HAP emissions 

from all continuous process vents 

associated with the esterification vessels 

in the collection of raw material 

preparation sections within the affected 

source shall, as a whole, be no greater 

than 0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of 

product from all associated TPPU(s). 

Other continuous process vents (i.e., 

those not associated with the 

esterification vessels) in the collection 

of raw materials preparation sections 

within the affected source shall comply 

with § 63.1315. During periods of 

startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of 

an affected source or emission unit 

subject to an emission limit expressed 

as mass emissions per mass product 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

limit in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(2) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) 

of this section were maintained at the 

level established to meet the emission 

limit at maximum representative 

operating conditions. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Organic HAP emissions from all 

continuous process vents in each 

individual polymerization reaction 

section (including emissions from any 

equipment used to further recover 

ethylene glycol, but excluding 

emissions from process contact cooling 

towers) shall, as a whole, be no greater 

than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of 

product from the associated TPPU(s); or 

alternatively, organic HAP emissions 

from all continuous process vents in the 

collection of polymerization reaction 

sections within the affected source 

shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02 

kg organic HAP per Mg of product from 

all associated TPPU(s). During periods 

of startup or shutdown, as an alternative 

to using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of 

an affected source or emission unit 

subject to an emission limit expressed 

as mass emissions per mass product 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

limit in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(2) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 

(3) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) 

of this section were maintained at the 

level established to meet the emission 

limit at maximum representative 

operating conditions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Organic HAP emissions from all 

continuous process vents in each 

individual material recovery section 

shall, as a whole, be no greater than 

0.0036 kg organic HAP per Mg of 

product from the associated TPPU(s); or 

alternatively, organic HAP emissions 

from all continuous process vents in the 

collection of material recovery sections 

within the affected source shall, as a 

whole, be no greater than 0.0036 kg 

organic HAP per Mg of product from all 

associated TPPU(s). During periods of 

startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of 

an affected source or emission unit 

subject to an emission limit expressed 

as mass emissions per mass product 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

limit in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) Keep records establishing that the 

raw material introduced and product 

discharged rates were both zero. 

(B) Divide the organic HAP emission 

rate during startup or shutdown by the 

rate of polymer produced from the most 

recent performance test associated with 

a production rate greater than zero 

according to § 63.1318(b)(1). Keep 

records of this calculation. 

(C) Keep records establishing that the 

operating parameters of the control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limit in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of 

this section were maintained at the level 

established to meet the emission limit at 

maximum representative operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1318 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a sentence after the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text and before Equation 1; 

and 

■ b. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (c). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 63.1318 PET and polystyrene affected 

sources—testing and compliance 

demonstration provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * During periods of startup or 

shutdown, as an alternative to using 

Equation 1 of this subpart, the owner or 

operator may divide the emission rate of 

total organic HAP or TOC during startup 

or shutdown by the rate of polymer 

produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero to 

determine compliance with the 

emission limit. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) Compliance with mass emissions 

per mass product standards. * * * 

During periods of startup or shutdown, 

as an alternative to using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator may 

divide the emission rate of total organic 

HAP or TOC during startup or 

shutdown by the rate of polymer 

produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero to 

comply with the emission limit. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.1319 is amended by 

revising the heading of paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1319 PET and polystyrene affected 

sources—recordkeeping provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Records demonstrating compliance 

with temperature limits for final 

condensers. * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.1324 is amended by 

revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1324 Batch process vents— 

monitoring equipment. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) * * * 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 other than 

malfunctions. * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1329 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(c) introductory text; and adding 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1329 Process contact cooling towers 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Existing affected source 

requirements. The owner or operator of 

an existing affected source subject to 

this section who manufactures PET 

using a continuous terephthalic acid 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

process and who is subject or becomes 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, 

shall maintain an ethylene glycol 

concentration in the process contact 

cooling tower at or below 6.0 percent by 

weight averaged on a daily basis over a 

rolling 14-day period of operating days. 

* * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1) requires 

the use of ASTM D2908–74 or 91, 

‘‘Standard Practice for Measuring 

Volatile Organic Matter in Water by 

Aqueous-Injection Gas 

Chromatography,’’ ASTM D2908–91 

(2011), D2908–91 (2005), D2908–91 

(2001), D2908–91, or D2908–74 (all 

standards incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14) may be used. 

(ii) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1)(i) 

requires the use of ASTM D3370–76 or 

95a, ‘‘Standard Practices for Sampling 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17367 

Water from Closed Conduits,’’ ASTM 

D3370–10, D3370–08, D3370–07, 

D3370–95a, or D3370–76 (all standards 

incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) 

may be used. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.1331 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(9); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1331 Equipment leak provisions. 

(a) Except § 63.165 and as provided 

for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, the owner or operator of each 

affected source shall comply with the 

requirements of subpart H of this part, 

with the differences noted in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (13) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(9) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. Except as specified in 

paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

operating and pressure release 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section for 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service. Except as specified 

in paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, 

the owner or operator must also comply 

with the pressure release management 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(a)(9)(iii) of this section for all pressure 

relief devices in organic HAP service. 

(i) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(ii) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service, comply with 

paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(A) or (B) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(A) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure release to verify 

that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background, 

except as provided in § 63.171. 

(B) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable after a pressure release, but 

no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release, except as provided in 

§ 63.171. 

(iii) Pressure release management. 

Except as specified in paragraph 

(a)(9)(iv) of this section, pressure 

releases to the atmosphere from 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service are prohibited, and the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for 

all pressure relief devices in organic 

HAP service. 

(A) For each pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service, the owner or 

operator must equip each pressure relief 

device with a device(s) or use a 

monitoring system that is capable of: 

(1) Identifying the pressure release; 

(2) Recording the time and duration of 

each pressure release; and 

(3) Notifying operators immediately 

that a pressure release is occurring. The 

device or monitoring system may be 

either specific to the pressure relief 

device itself or may be associated with 

the process system or piping, sufficient 

to indicate a pressure release to the 

atmosphere. Examples of these types of 

devices and systems include, but are not 

limited to, a rupture disk indicator, 

magnetic sensor, motion detector on the 

pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, 

or pressure monitor. 

(B) If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service releases to 

atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of organic 

HAP released during each pressure 

release event and report this quantity as 

required in § 63.1335(e)(6)(xiii). 

Calculations may be based on data from 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

alone or in combination with process 

parameter monitoring data and process 

knowledge. 

(iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

control device, process, or drain system. 

If a pressure relief device in organic 

HAP service is designed and operated to 

route all pressure releases through a 

closed vent system to a control device, 

process, or drain system, the owner or 

operator is not required to comply with 

paragraphs (a)(9)(i), (ii), or (iii) (if 

applicable) of this section. Both the 

closed vent system and control device 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.172. The drain 

system (if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.136. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Each affected source producing 

PET using a continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher process 

shall monitor for leaks upon startup 

following an outage where changes have 

been made to equipment in gas/vapor or 

light liquid service. This leak check 

shall consist of the introduction of hot 

ethylene glycol vapors into the system 

for a period of no less than 2 hours 

during which time sensory monitoring 

of the equipment shall be conducted. 

(2) A leak is determined to be 

detected if there is evidence of a 

potential leak found by visual, audible, 

or olfactory means. 

(3) When a leak is detected, it shall be 

repaired as soon as practical, but not 

later than 15 days after it is detected, 

except as provided in § 63.171. 

(i) The first attempt at repair shall be 

made no later than 5 days after each 

leak is detected. 

(ii) Repaired shall mean that the 

visual, audible, olfactory or other 

indications of a leak have been 

eliminated; that no bubbles are observed 

at potential leak sites during a leak 

check using soap solution; or that the 

system will hold a test pressure. 

(4) When a leak is detected, the 

following information shall be recorded 

and kept for 2 years and reported in the 

next periodic report: 

(i) The instrument and the equipment 

identification number and the operator 

name, initials or identification number. 

(ii) The date the leak was detected 

and the date of first attempt to repair the 

leak. 

(iii) The date of successful repair of 

the leak. 

■ 13. Section 63.1332 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1332 Emissions averaging provisions. 

* * * * * 

(f) Debits and credits shall be 

calculated in accordance with the 

methods and procedures specified in 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, 

respectively, and shall not include 

emissions during periods of monitoring 

excursions, as defined in § 63.1334(f). 

For these periods, the calculation of 

monthly credits and debits shall be 

adjusted as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) No credits would be assigned to 

the credit-generating emission point. 

(2) Maximum debits would be 

assigned to the debit-generating 

emission point. 

(3) The owner or operator may 

demonstrate to the Administrator that 

full or partial credits or debits should be 

assigned using the procedures in 

paragraph (l) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.1333 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and (a)(1) introductory 

text; and 

■ b. Adding a sentence after the third 

sentence of paragraph (b) introductory 

text and before Equation 49. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1333 Additional requirements for 

performance testing. 

(a) 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 and in 

accordance with § 63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), 

(e)(2), (e)(4), (g), and (h), with the 

exceptions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (5) of this section and the 

additions specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (d) of this section. 

Representative conditions exclude 

periods of startup and shutdown unless 

specified by the Administrator or an 

applicable subpart. The owner or 

operator may not conduct performance 

tests during periods of malfunction. The 

owner or operator must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, the owner or operator 

shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. Sections 63.1314 

through 63.1330 also contain specific 

testing requirements. 

(1) Performance tests shall be 

conducted according to the provisions 

of § 63.7(e)(2), except that 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. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * During periods of startup or 

shutdown, as an alternative to using 

Equation 49 of this subpart, the owner 

or operator may divide the emission rate 

of total organic HAP or TOC during 

startup or shutdown by the rate of 

polymer produced from the most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero to 

comply with the emission limit. * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1334 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(1) introductory text and 

paragraph (f)(1)(v); 

■ b. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(2) introductory text and 

paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B); 

■ c. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(3) introductory text and 

the last sentence of paragraph (f)(3)(i) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(4); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6); 

■ f. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(7); and 

■ g. Removing paragraph (g). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1334 Parameter monitoring levels and 

excursions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(v) The periods listed in paragraphs 

(f)(1)(v)(A) and (B) of this section are not 

considered to be part of the period of 

control or recovery device operation, for 

the purposes of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and 

(iii) of this section. 

(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) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Subtract the time during the 

periods of monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

and zero (low-level) and high-level 

adjustments from the total amount of 

time determined in paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the 

operating time used to determine if 

monitoring data are insufficient. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

(i) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

(5) With respect to continuous process 

vents complying with the temperature 

limits for final condensers specified in 

§ 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(ii), an 

excursion has occurred when the daily 

average exit temperature exceeds the 

appropriate condenser temperature 

limit. For each excursion, the owner or 

operator shall be deemed out of 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart. The periods listed in 

paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii) of this 

section are not considered to be part of 

the period of operation for the 

condenser for purposes of determining 

the daily average exit temperature. 

(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. 

(6) With respect to new affected 

sources producing SAN using a batch 

process, an excursion has occurred 

when the percent reduction calculated 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1333(c) is less than 84 percent. For 

each excursion, the owner or operator 

shall be deemed out of compliance with 

the provisions of this subpart. The 

periods listed in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and 

(ii) of this section are not considered to 

be part of the period of control or 

recovery device operation for purposes 

of determining the percent reduction. 

(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. 

(7) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart. 

■ 16. Section 63.1335 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (d) introductory text; 

■ c. Revising the paragraph (d)(7); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d)(10); 

■ e. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e) introductory text; 

■ f. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e)(3) introductory text; 

■ g. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(3)(i); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(v); 

■ i. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(3)(viii); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B); 

■ k. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(5) introductory text; 

■ l. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(xii); 

■ m. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (e)(6) introductory text; 

■ n. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(B); 

■ o. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(E), 

(e)(6)(xii)(A)(1), and (e)(6)(xii)(D); 

■ p. Adding paragraphs (e)(6)(xiii) and 

(e)(9); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17369 

■ q. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

■ r. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); 

■ s. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and 

■ t. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and 

(iv). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1335 General recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting. (i) Records of malfunctions. 

The owner or operator shall keep the 

records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure record the date, time, and 

duration of each failure. 

(B) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(C) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1310(j)(4), and any corrective 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(ii) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time, 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Recordkeeping and 

documentation. Owners or operators 

required to keep continuous records 

shall keep records as specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this 

section, unless an alternative 

recordkeeping system has been 

requested and approved as specified in 

paragraph (g) of this section, and except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this 

section. If a monitoring plan for storage 

vessels pursuant to § 63.1314(a)(9) 

requires continuous records, the 

monitoring plan shall specify which 

provisions, if any, of paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (10) of this section apply. * * * 

(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 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. 

* * * * * 

(10) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, keep records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(10)(i) through (v) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that the owner or 

operator elects to equip with a closedvent system and control device, subject 

to the provisions in § 63.1331(a)(9)(iv). 

(ii) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1331(a)(9)(i). 

(iii) A list of identification numbers 

for pressure relief devices equipped 

with rupture disks, subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1331(a)(9)(ii)(B). 

(iv) The dates and results of the 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, monitoring following a pressure 

release for each pressure relief device 

subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(i) and (ii). The results 

shall include: 

(A) The background level measured 

during each compliance test. 

(B) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each piece of equipment 

during each compliance test. 

(v) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii), keep records of each 

pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(B) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(C) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

calculations used for determining this 

quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(e) Reporting and notification. In 

addition to the reports and notifications 

required by subpart A of this part as 

specified in Table 1 of this subpart, the 

owner or operator of an affected source 

shall prepare and submit the reports 

listed in paragraphs (e)(3) through (9) of 

this section, as applicable. * * * 

(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 

§ 63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or wishing to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1334(c) or (d), shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) 

of this section. * * * 

(i) Submittal dates. * * * To submit 

a Precompliance Report for the first time 

after the compliance date to request an 

extension for compliance; request 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, alternative continuous 

monitoring and recordkeeping or 

alternative controls; request approval to 

use engineering assessment to estimate 

emissions from a batch emissions 

episode, as described in 

§ 63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or to request to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1334(c) or (d), the owner or 

operator shall notify the Administrator 

at least 90 days before the planned 

change is to be implemented; the change 

shall be considered approved if the 

Administrator either approves the 

change in writing, or fails to disapprove 

the change in writing within 45 days of 

receipt. 

* * * * * 

(v) The owner or operator shall report 

the intent to use alternative emission 

standards to comply with the provisions 

of this subpart in the Precompliance 

Report. The Administrator may deem 

alternative emission standards to be 

equivalent to the standard required by 

the subpart, under the procedures 

outlined in § 63.6(g). 

* * * * * 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according 

to the procedures contained in 

§ 63.1334(c) or (d), as specified in 

paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) Notification of Compliance Status. 

* * * For pressure relief devices subject 

to the requirements of 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii), the owner or 

operator shall submit the information 

listed in paragraph (e)(5)(xii) of this 

section in the Notification of 

Compliance Status within 150 days after 

the first applicable compliance date for 

pressure relief device monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(xii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, a description of 

the device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release, and a 

description of how the owner or 

operator will determine the information 

to be recorded under paragraphs 

(d)(10)(v)(B) and (C) of this section (i.e., 

the duration of the pressure release and 

the methodology and calculations for 

determining of the quantity of total HAP 

emitted during the pressure release). 

(6) Periodic Reports. For existing and 

new affected sources, the owner or 

operator shall submit Periodic Reports 

as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 

through (xiii) of this section. In 

addition, for equipment leaks subject to 

§ 63.1331, with the exception of 

§ 63.1331(c), the owner or operator shall 

submit the information specified in 

§ 63.182(d) under the conditions listed 

in § 63.182(d), and for heat exchange 

systems subject to § 63.1328, the owner 

or operator shall submit the information 

specified in § 63.104(f)(2) as part of the 

Periodic Report required by this 

paragraph (e)(6). * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) The daily average values or batch 

cycle daily average values of monitored 

parameters for unexcused excursions, as 

defined in § 63.1334(f). * * * 

(E) The information in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section for reports of 

malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

(xii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) A control or recovery device for a 

particular emission point or process 

section has one or more excursions, as 

defined in § 63.1334(f), in two 

consecutive semiannual reporting 

periods; or 

* * * * * 

(D) After quarterly reports have been 

submitted for an emission point for 1 

year without one or more excursions 

occurring (during that year), the owner 

or operator may return to semiannual 

reporting for the emission point or 

process section. 

(xiii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, Periodic Reports 

must include the information specified 

in paragraphs (e)(6)(xiii)(A) through (C) 

of this section. 

(A) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1331(a)(9), report confirmation that 

all monitoring to show compliance was 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(B) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to § 63.1331(a)(9)(ii), report any 

instrument reading of 500 ppm above 

background or greater, more than 5 

calendar days after the pressure release. 

(C) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1331(a)(9)(iii), report each pressure 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

following information: 

(1) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(2) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(3) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(4) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(5) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

* * * * * 

(9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) 

or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

data during periods of operation (e.g., a 

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler), and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. * * * 

(ii) The monitoring system generates, 

updated at least hourly throughout each 

operating day, a running average of the 

monitoring values that have been 

obtained during that operating day, and 

the capability to observe this running 

average is readily available to the 

Administrator on-site during the 

operating day. The owner or operator 

shall record the occurrence of any 

period meeting the criteria in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. All instances in an operating 

day constitute a single occurrence. 

(A) The running average is above the 

maximum or below the minimum 

established limits; and 

(B) The running average is based on 

at least six 1-hour average values. 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data is the expected 

operating condition based on past 

experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), 

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. * * * 

(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 this paragraph 

(h). For any calendar week, if 

compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) 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 operation. 

(iv) For purposes of paragraph (h) of 

this section, an excursion means that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17371 

the daily average (or batch cycle daily 

average) value of monitoring data for a 

parameter is greater than the maximum, 

or less than the minimum established 

value. 

■ 17. Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Removing entries § 63.1(a)(6)–(8) 

and § 63.1(a)(9); 

■ b. Adding entries § 63.1(a)(6) and 

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9); 

■ c. Revising entries § 63.1(c)(4), 

§ 63.6(e), § 63.6(e)(1)(i), and 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

■ d. Adding entry § 63.6(e)(3); 

■ e. Removing entries § 63.6(e)(3)(i), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), § 63.6(e)(3)(i)(B), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), § 63.6(e)(3)(ii), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(iii), § 63.6(e)(3)(iv), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(v), § 63.6(e)(3)(vi), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(vii), § 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), § 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(viii), and § 63.6(e)(3)(ix); 

■ f. Revising entries § 63.6(f)(1), 

§ 63.7(e)(1), § 63.8(c)(1)(i), 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), and § 63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

■ g. Adding entry § 63.10(d)(5); 

■ h. Removing entries § 63.10(d)(5)(i) 

and § 63.10(d)(5)(ii); and 

■ i. Removing footnote (a). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJ AFFECTED SOURCES

Reference Applies to Subpart JJJ Explanation 

*******

§ 63.1(a)(6) ..................................... Yes .................................................

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) .............................. No .................................................. [Reserved.]. 

*******

§ 63.1(c)(4) ..................................... No .................................................. [Reserved.]. 

*******

§ 63.6(e) ......................................... Yes ................................................. Except as otherwise specified for individual paragraphs. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................. No .................................................. See § 63.1310(j)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. No ..................................................

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... No ..................................................

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... No ..................................................

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1333(a). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. No ..................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. No ..................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ No ..................................................

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1335(b)(1)(ii) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

Subpart MMM—[Amended] 

■ 18. Section 63.1360 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e) heading, 

(e)(1) introductory text, (e)(3), and (e)(4); 

and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1360 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(e) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

Each provision set forth 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. 

* * * * * 

(3) 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. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner or operator to make any 

further efforts to reduce emissions if 

levels required by the applicable 

standard have been achieved. 

Determination of whether a source is 

operating in compliance with operation 

and maintenance requirements will be 

based on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

* * * * * 

(k) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed 

if the owner or operator fails to meet 

their burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17372 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

the owner or operator must timely meet 

the reporting requirements in paragraph 

(k)(2) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation 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; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that 

explains how it has met the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section. This affirmative 

defense report shall be included in the 

first periodic compliance report, 

deviation report, or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of 

the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

■ 19. Section 63.1361 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Affirmative defense’’; 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Group 1 

process vent’’ by removing the word 

‘‘hydogen’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘hydrogen’’; and 

■ c. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Pesticide active ingredient or PAI’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1361 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, 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. 

* * * * * 

Pesticide active ingredient or PAI 

means any material that is an active 

ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA 

section 2(a); that is used to produce an 

insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end 

use pesticide product; that consists of 

one or more organic compounds; and 

that must be labeled in accordance with 

40 CFR part 156 for transfer, sale, or 

distribution. These materials are 

typically described by North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) Codes 325199 and 32532 (i.e., 

previously known as Standard 

Industrial Classification System Codes 

2869 and 2879). These materials are 

identified by product classification 

codes 01, 21, 02, 04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 

in block 19 on the 1999 version of EPA 

form 3540–16, the Pesticides Report for 

Pesticide-Producing Establishments. 

The materials represented by these 

codes are: insecticides; insecticidefungicides; fungicides; herbicides; 

herbicide-fungicides; plant regulators; 

defoliants, desiccants; or multi-use 

active ingredients. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Section 63.1362 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1362 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(i) Opening of a safety device. The 

owner or operator that opens a safety 

device, as defined in § 63.1361, is not 

exempt from applicable standards in 

order to avoid unsafe conditions. If 

opening a safety device results in the 

failure to meet any applicable standard, 

the owner or operator must still comply 

with the general duty to minimize 

emissions. If opening a safety device 

results in a deviation or excess 

emissions, such events must be reported 

as specified in § 63.1368(i). If the owner 

or operator attributes the event to a 

malfunction and intends to assert an 

affirmative defense, the owner or 

operator is subject to § 63.1360(k). 

* * * * * 

■ 21. Section 63.1363 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(4); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A), 

(g)(2)(iii)(A), and (g)(2)(iii)(B); 

■ e. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (g)(6) 

introductory text; 

■ g. Adding paragraph (g)(11); 

■ h. Adding a sentence after the first 

sentence of paragraph (h)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ i. Adding paragraph (h)(2)(iv); 

■ j. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(3)(i); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(J); and 

■ l. Adding paragraph (h)(3)(v). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1363 Standards for equipment leaks. 

* * * * * 

(b) References. The owner or operator 

shall comply with the provisions of 

subpart H of this part as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section and with paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section for pressure relief devices. * * * 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

comply with §§ 63.164, 63.166, 63.169, 

63.177, and 63.179 of subpart H of this 

part in their entirety, except that when 

these sections reference other sections 

of subpart H of this part, the owner or 

operator shall comply with the revised 

sections as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (3), and (4) of this section. 

Section 63.164 of subpart H of this part 

applies to compressors. Section 63.166 

of subpart H of this part applies to 

sampling connection systems. Section 

63.169 of subpart H of this part applies 

to: pumps, valves, connectors, and 

agitators in heavy liquid service; 

instrumentation systems; and pressure 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17373 

relief devices in liquid service. Section 

63.177 of subpart H of this subpart 

applies to general alternative means of 

emission limitation. Section 63.179 of 

subpart H of this part applies to 

alternative means of emission limitation 

for enclosed-vented process units. 

* * * * * 

(4) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. Except as specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

operating and pressure release 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section for 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service. Except as specified 

in paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, 

the owner or operator must also comply 

with the pressure release management 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(iii) of this section for all pressure 

relief devices in organic HAP service. 

(i) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(ii) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service, comply with 

paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) or (B) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(A) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure release to verify 

that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background, 

except as provided in § 63.171. 

(B) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable after a pressure release, but 

no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release, except as provided in 

§ 63.171. 

(iii) Pressure release management. 

Except as specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(iv) of this section, pressure 

releases to the atmosphere from 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service are prohibited, and the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(b)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for 

all pressure relief devices in organic 

HAP service. 

(A) For each pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service, the owner or 

operator must equip each pressure relief 

device with a device(s) or use a 

monitoring system that is capable of: 

(1) Identifying the pressure release; 

(2) Recording the time and duration of 

each pressure release; and 

(3) Notifying operators immediately 

that a pressure release is occurring. The 

device or monitoring system may be 

either specific to the pressure relief 

device itself or may be associated with 

the process system or piping, sufficient 

to indicate a pressure release to the 

atmosphere. Examples of these types of 

devices and systems include, but are not 

limited to, a rupture disk indicator, 

magnetic sensor, motion detector on the 

pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, 

or pressure monitor. 

(B) If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service releases to 

atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of organic 

HAP released during each pressure 

release event and report this quantity as 

required in paragraph (h)(3)(v) of this 

section. Calculations may be based on 

data from the pressure relief device 

monitoring alone or in combination 

with process parameter monitoring data 

and process knowledge. 

(iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

control device, process, or drain system. 

If a pressure relief device in organic 

HAP service is designed and operated to 

route all pressure releases through a 

closed vent system to a control device, 

process, or drain system, the owner or 

operator is not required to comply with 

paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) (if 

applicable) of this section. Both the 

closed vent system and control device 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.172. The drain 

system (if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.136. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) A list of identification numbers 

for equipment that the owner or 

operator elects to equip with a closedvent system and control device, subject 

to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(iv) 

or (c)(7) of this section or § 63.164(h). 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) A list of identification numbers 

for pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this 

section. 

(B) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices equipped with 

rupture disks, subject to the provisions 

of paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) * * * 

(A) * * * The written procedures must 

be maintained at the plant site. * * * 

(6) Records of compressor and 

pressure relief device compliance tests. 

The dates and results of each 

compliance test required for 

compressors subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.164(i) and the dates and results of 

the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, monitoring following a 

pressure release for each pressure relief 

device subject to the provisions in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. The results shall include: 

* * * * * 

(11) Records of pressure releases to 

the atmosphere from pressure relief 

devices. For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, keep 

records of each pressure release to the 

atmosphere, including the following 

information: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(ii) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(iii) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

calculations used for determining this 

quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(h) * * * 

(2) Notification of compliance status 

report. * * * For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4)(iii) of this section, the owner or 

operator shall submit the information 

listed in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this 

section in the Notification of 

Compliance Status within 150 days after 

the first applicable compliance date for 

pressure relief device monitoring. * * * 

(iv) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, a description of 

the device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release, and a 

description of how the owner or 

operator will determine the information 

to be recorded under paragraphs 

(g)(11)(ii) and (iii) of this section (i.e., 

the duration of the pressure release and 

the methodology and calculations for 

determining of the quantity of total HAP 

emitted during the pressure release). 

(3) * * * 

(i) A report containing the 

information in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) 

through (v) of this section shall be 

submitted semiannually. * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(J) The results of all monitoring to 

show compliance with §§ 63.164(i) and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17374 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

63.172(f) conducted within the 

semiannual reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(v) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, Periodic Reports 

must include the information specified 

in paragraphs (h)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, report 

confirmation that all monitoring to 

show compliance was conducted within 

the reporting period. 

(B) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, 

report any instrument reading of 500 

ppm above background or greater, more 

than 5 calendar days after the pressure 

release. 

(C) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, 

report each pressure release to the 

atmosphere, including the following 

information: 

(1) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(2) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(3) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(4) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(5) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

■ 22. Section 63.1364 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1364 Compliance dates. 

(a) * * * 

(1) An owner or operator of an 

existing affected source must comply 

with the provisions in this subpart 

(except § 63.1363(b)(4)(iii)) by December 

23, 2003. Compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring provisions of 

§ 63.1363(b)(4)(iii) shall occur no later 

than March 27, 2017. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance dates for new and 

reconstructed sources. An owner or 

operator of a new or reconstructed 

affected source must comply with the 

provisions of this subpart (except 

§ 63.1363(b)(4)(iii)) on June 23, 1999 or 

upon startup, whichever is later. New or 

reconstructed affected sources that 

commenced construction after 

November 10, 1997, but on or before 

January 9, 2012, must be in compliance 

with the pressure relief device 

monitoring provisions of 

§ 63.1363(b)(4)(iii) no later than March 

27, 2017. New or reconstructed sources 

that commenced construction after 

January 9, 2012, must be in compliance 

with the pressure relief device 

monitoring provisions of 

§ 63.1363(b)(4)(iii) upon initial startup 

or by March 27, 2014, whichever is 

later. 

■ 23. Section 63.1365 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h)(3). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1365 Test methods and initial 

compliance procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) Test methods and conditions. 

When testing is conducted to measure 

emissions from an affected source, the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be 

used. Compliance and performance tests 

shall be performed 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 and as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(10) and (11) of this section. 

Representative conditions exclude 

periods of startup and shutdown unless 

specified by the Administrator or an 

applicable subpart. The owner or 

operator may not conduct performance 

tests during periods of malfunction. The 

owner or operator must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, the owner or operator 

shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 63.1366 is amended by 

adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) introductory text; 

and revising paragraph (b)(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1366 Monitoring and inspection 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Scrubbers. * * * Alternatively, for 

halogen scrubbers, the owner or 

operator may comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.994(c). 

* * * * * 

(8) Violations. Exceedances of 

parameters monitored according to the 

provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), 

(b)(1)(iv) through (ix), and (b)(5) of this 

section, or excursions as defined by 

paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, constitute violations of the 

operating limit according to paragraphs 

(b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

Exceedances of the temperature limit 

monitored according to the provisions 

of paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or 

exceedances of the outlet concentrations 

monitored according to the provisions 

of paragraph (b)(1)(x) of this section 

constitute violations of the emission 

limit according to paragraphs (b)(8)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. Exceedances of 

the outlet concentrations monitored 

according to the provisions of paragraph 

(b)(5) of this section constitute 

violations of the emission limit 

according to the provisions of paragraph 

(b)(8)(iii) of this section. 

(i) For episodes occurring more than 

once per day, exceedances of 

established parameter limits or 

excursions will result in no more than 

one violation per operating day for each 

monitored item of equipment utilized in 

the process. 

(ii) For control devices used for more 

than one process in the course of an 

operating day, exceedances or 

excursions will result in no more than 

one violation per operating day, per 

control device, for each process for 

which the control device is in service. 

(iii) Exceedances of the 20 or 50 ppmv 

TOC outlet emission limit, averaged 

over the operating day, will result in no 

more than one violation per day per 

control device. Exceedances of the 20 or 

50 ppmv HCl and chlorine outlet 

emission limit, averaged over the 

operating day, will result in no more 

than one violation per day per control 

device. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 63.1367 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1367 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Records of malfunctions. (i) In the 

event that an affected unit fails to meet 

an applicable standard, record the 

number of failures. For each failure 

record the date, time, and duration of 

each failure. 

(ii) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(iii) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1360(e)(4), and any corrective 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17375 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

* * * * * 

(e) The owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to the 

requirements for heat exchanger systems 

in § 63.1362(g) shall retain the records 

as specified in § 63.104(f)(1)(i) through 

(iv). 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 63.1368 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the seventh sentence of 

paragraph (e) introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (i); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (p). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1368 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Precompliance plan. * * * To 

change any of the information submitted 

in the Precompliance plan or to submit 

a Precompliance plan for the first time 

after the compliance date, the owner or 

operator shall notify the Administrator 

at least 90 days before the planned 

change is to be implemented; the change 

shall be considered approved if the 

Administrator either approves the 

change in writing, or fails to disapprove 

the change in writing within 90 days of 

receipt of the change. * * * 

(i) Reports of malfunctions. If a source 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

report such events in the Periodic 

Report. Report the number of failures to 

meet an applicable standard. For each 

instance, report the date, time, and 

duration of each failure. For each failure 

the report must include a list of the 

affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

* * * * * 

(p) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs (p)(1) 

or (2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(2) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

■ 27. Table 1 to Subpart MMM 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), and 

§ 63.6(e)(3); 

■ c. Removing entry § 63.6(f); 

■ d. Adding entries § 63.6(f)(1) and 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3); 

■ e. Revising entry § 63.7(e)(1); 

■ f. Removing entry § 63.8(b)(3)–(c)(3); 

■ g. Adding entries § 63.8(b)(3), 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i), § 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii), and § 63.8(c)(2)–(3); 

■ h. Revising entry § 63.8(d)–(f)(3); 

■ i. Removing entry § 63.10(c); 

■ j. Adding entries § 63.10(c)(1)–(14) 

and § 63.10(c)(15); and 

■ k. Revising entry § 63.10(d)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM 

Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Explanation 

*******

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................. No .................................................. See § 63.1360(e)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) No. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) Yes. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1365(b). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(b)(3) Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) No. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) No. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) Yes. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(d)–(f)(3) ............................... Yes ................................................. Except the last sentence of § 63.8(d)(3), which shall be replaced with 

‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ for the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(14) Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) No. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM—Continued 

Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Explanation 

*******

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1368(i) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

Subpart PPP—[Amended] 

■ 28. Section 63.1420 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(4) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and 

(c)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Revising the heading for paragraph 

(e)(8); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (h); and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1420 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

(a) * * * 

(4) The affected source also includes 

the emission points and components 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 

(vi) of this section that are associated 

with a PMPU (or a group of PMPUs) 

making up an affected source, as 

defined in § 63.1423. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Components required by or 

utilized as a method of compliance with 

this subpart, which may include control 

techniques and recovery devices. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Components and equipment that 

do not contain organic HAP or that 

contain organic HAP as impurities only 

and are located at a PMPU that is part 

of an affected source. 

* * * * * 

(d) Processes excluded from the 

affected source. The processes specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section are not part of the affected 

source and are not subject to the 

requirements of both this subpart and 

subpart A of this part. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(8) Requirements for flexible process 

units that are not PMPUs. * * * 

(h) Applicability of this subpart. (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 nonoperation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, as referred 

to in the equipment leak provisions in 

§ 63.1434, 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 § 63.1434 

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 applicable to such items of 

equipment. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner or operator to make any 

further efforts to reduce emissions if 

levels required by the applicable 

standard have been achieved. 

Determination of whether a source is 

operating in compliance with operation 

and maintenance requirements will be 

based on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(i) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed 

if the owner or operator fails to meet 

their burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

the owner or operator must timely meet 

the reporting requirements in paragraph 

(i)(2) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation 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; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17377 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that 

explains how it has met the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

(i)(1) of this section. This affirmative 

defense report shall be included in the 

first periodic compliance report, 

deviation report, or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of 

the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

■ 29. Section 63.1422 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (d)(2)(iv); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d)(6); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(1). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1422 Compliance dates and 

relationship of this rule to existing 

applicable rules. 

* * * * * 

(b) New affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after September 4, 1997 

shall be in compliance with this subpart 

(except § 63.1434(c)(3)) upon initial 

start-up or by June 1, 1999, whichever 

is later. New affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after September 4, 1997, 

but on or before January 9, 2012, shall 

be in compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1434(c)(3) by March 27, 2017. New 

affected sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance 

with the pressure relief device 

monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1434(c)(3) upon initial startup or by 

March 27, 2014, whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as provided for in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this 

section, existing affected sources shall 

be in compliance with § 63.1434 no later 

than December 1, 1999 unless an 

extension has been granted as specified 

in paragraph (e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * The request for a compliance 

extension shall contain the information 

specified in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and 

(B). * * * 

(6) Compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring provisions of 

§ 63.1434(c)(3) shall occur no later than 

March 27, 2017. 

(e) * * * 

(1) A request for an extension of 

compliance shall include the data 

described in § 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and (B). 

* * * * * 

■ 30. Section 63.1423 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the terms ‘‘Relief valve 

(subpart G)’’ and ‘‘Start-up, shutdown, 

and malfunction plan (subpart F)’’ and 

adding the terms ‘‘Pressure release 

(subpart H)’’ and ‘‘Pressure relief device 

or valve (subpart H)’’ in paragraph (a); 

and 

■ b. Revising the definition for ‘‘Process 

vent’’ and adding the definition for 

‘‘Affirmative defense’’ in alphabetical 

order to paragraph (b). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1423 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, 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. 

* * * * * 

Process vent means a point of 

emission from a unit operation having a 

gaseous stream that is discharged to the 

atmosphere either directly or after 

passing through one or more 

combustion, recovery, or recapture 

devices. A process vent from a 

continuous unit operation is a gaseous 

emission stream containing more than 

0.005 weight-percent total organic HAP. 

A process vent from a batch unit 

operation is a gaseous emission stream 

containing more than 225 kilograms per 

year (500 pounds per year) of organic 

HAP emissions. Unit operations that 

may have process vents are condensers, 

distillation units, reactors, or other unit 

operations within the PMPU. Process 

vents exclude pressure relief device 

discharges, gaseous streams routed to a 

fuel gas system(s), and leaks from 

equipment regulated under § 63.1434. A 

gaseous emission stream is no longer 

considered to be a process vent after the 

stream has been controlled and 

monitored in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 31. Section 63.1427 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (j)(2) 

introductory text; and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (k)(3)(ii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1427 Process vent requirements for 

processes using extended cookout as an 

epoxide emission reduction technique. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

maintain the records specified in 

paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Notification of each batch cycle 

when the time and duration of epoxide 

emissions before the end of the ECO, 

recorded in accordance with paragraph 

(j)(2)(v) of this section, exceed the time 

and duration of the emission episodes 

during the initial epoxide emission 

percentage reduction determination, as 

recorded in paragraph (j)(1)(viii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Section 63.1428 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(2)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1428 Process vent requirements for 

group determination of PMPUs using a 

nonepoxide organic HAP to make or modify 

the product. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Where the recalculated TRE index 

value is less than or equal to 1.0, or, 

where the TRE index value before the 

process change was greater than 4.0 and 

the recalculated TRE index value is less 

than or equal to 4.0 but greater than 1.0, 

the owner or operator shall submit a 

report as specified in the process vent 

reporting and recordkeeping provisions 

in § 63.1430(i) or (j), and shall comply 

with the appropriate provisions in the 

process vent control requirements in 

§ 63.1425 by the dates specified in 

§ 63.1422 (the section describing 

compliance dates for sources subject to 

this subpart). 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Section 63.1429 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (c) introductory text; and 

■ b. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (d)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.1429 Process vent monitoring 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Monitoring of bypass lines. * * * 

Equipment such as low leg drains, high 

point bleeds, analyzer vents, openended valves or lines, and pressure 

relief devices needed for safety purposes 

are not subject to paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) For each parameter monitored 

under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall 

establish a level, defined as either a 

maximum or minimum operating 

parameter as denoted in Table 7 of this 

subpart (the table listing the operating 

parameters for which monitoring levels 

are required to be established for 

process vent streams), that indicates that 

the combustion, recovery, or recapture 

device is operated in a manner to ensure 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart. The level shall be established 

in accordance with the procedures 

specified in § 63.1438(a) through (d), as 

applicable. * * * 

■ 34. Section 63.1430 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(d)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1430 Process vent reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * In addition, monitoring data 

recorded during periods of nonoperation of the process (or specific 

portion thereof) resulting in cessation of 

organic HAP emissions shall not be 

included in computing the daily 

averages. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Section 63.1434 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and the last 

sentence of paragraph (d); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1434 Equipment leak provisions. 

(a) The owner or operator of each 

affected source shall comply with the 

HON equipment leak requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H for all 

equipment in organic HAP service, 

except § 63.165 and as specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(c) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. Except as specified in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

operating and pressure release 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure 

relief devices in organic HAP gas or 

vapor service. Except as specified in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the 

owner or operator must also comply 

with the pressure release management 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section for all pressure 

relief devices in organic HAP service. 

(1) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(2) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service, comply with 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(i) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure release to verify 

that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background, 

except as provided in § 63.171. 

(ii) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable after a pressure release, but 

no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release, except as provided in 

§ 63.171. 

(3) Pressure release management. 

Except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section, pressure releases to the 

atmosphere from pressure relief devices 

in organic HAP service are prohibited, 

and the owner or operator must comply 

with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section for all pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service. 

(i) For each pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service, the owner or 

operator must equip each pressure relief 

device with a device(s) or use a 

monitoring system that is capable of: 

(A) Identifying the pressure release; 

(B) Recording the time and duration 

of each pressure release; and 

(C) Notifying operators immediately 

that a pressure release is occurring. The 

device or monitoring system may be 

either specific to the pressure relief 

device itself or may be associated with 

the process system or piping, sufficient 

to indicate a pressure release to the 

atmosphere. Examples of these types of 

devices and systems include, but are not 

limited to, a rupture disk indicator, 

magnetic sensor, motion detector on the 

pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, 

or pressure monitor. 

(ii) If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service releases to 

atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of organic 

HAP released during each pressure 

release event and report this quantity as 

required in § 63.1439(e)(6)(ix). 

Calculations may be based on data from 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

alone or in combination with process 

parameter monitoring data and process 

knowledge. 

(4) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

control device, process, or drain system. 

If a pressure relief device in organic 

HAP service is designed and operated to 

route all pressure releases through a 

closed vent system to a control device, 

process, or drain system, the owner or 

operator is not required to comply with 

paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or (3) (if 

applicable) of this section. Both the 

closed vent system and control device 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.172. The drain 

system (if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.136. 

(d) * * * The Initial Notification shall 

be submitted no later than June 1, 2000 

for existing sources. 

* * * * * 

■ 36. Section 63.1437 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1437 Additional requirements for 

performance testing. 

(a) Performance testing shall be 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (g), 

and (h), with the exceptions specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section and the additions specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

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. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown unless specified by the 

Administrator or an applicable subpart. 

The owner or operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

must record the process information 

that is necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Upon request, the 

owner or operator shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17379 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(1) Performance tests shall be 

conducted according to the general 

provisions’ performance testing 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(2), except that 

for all emission sources except process 

vents from batch unit operations, 

performance tests shall be conducted 

during maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process 

achievable during one of the time 

periods described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) 

of this section, without causing any of 

the situations described in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section to occur. 

* * * 

■ 37. Section 63.1438 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) 

introductory text and (e)(2); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(v), 

(f)(3)(ii)(B), and the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(4); and 

■ c. Removing paragraph (g). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1438 Parameter monitoring levels and 

excursions. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Each excursion, as defined in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(2)(i)(A), (f)(2)(ii), 

(f)(3)(i), and (f)(4) of this section, 

constitutes a violation of the provisions 

of this subpart in accordance with 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) Each excursion, as defined in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), 

(f)(2)(i)(B), and (f)(3)(ii) of this section 

constitutes a violation of the operating 

limit. 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Periods of non-operation of the 

affected source (or portion thereof), 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies, are not 

considered to be part of the period of 

combustion, recovery, or recapture 

device operation, for the purposes of 

paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Subtract the time during the 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or portion thereof), resulting in 

cessation of the emissions to which the 

monitoring applies, from the total 

amount of time determined above in 

paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, to 

obtain the operating time used to 

determine if monitoring data are 

insufficient. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * For each excursion, the 

owner or operator shall be deemed out 

of compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart, in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 38. Section 63.1439 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c); 

■ b. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (d) introductory text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(7); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d)(10); 

■ e. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e) introductory text; 

■ f. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (e)(3) introductory text; 

■ g. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e)(4) introductory text; 

■ h. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(4)(i); 

■ i. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (e)(4)(ii); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(v); 

■ k. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(4)(vi); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(vii)(B); 

■ m. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(5) introductory text; 

■ n. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(5)(vii); 

■ o. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(viii); 

■ p. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e)(6) introductory text; 

■ q. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(D)(3), 

(e)(6)(iii)(E), (e)(6)(viii)(A)(1), and 

(e)(6)(viii)(D); 

■ r. Adding paragraphs (e)(6)(ix) and 

(e)(9); 

■ s. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

■ t. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); 

■ u. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and 

■ v. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and 

(h)(2)(iv). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1439 General recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting. (i) Records of malfunctions. 

The owner or operator shall keep the 

records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure record the date, time, and 

duration of each failure. 

(B) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(C) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1420(h)(4), and any corrective 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(ii) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time, 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Subpart H requirements. The 

owner or operator of an affected source 

shall comply with the HON equipment 

leak reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

H, except as specified in § 63.1434(b) 

through (h). 

(d) Recordkeeping and 

documentation. The owner or operator 

required to keep continuous records 

shall keep records as specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this 

section, unless an alternative 

recordkeeping system has been 

requested and approved as specified in 

paragraph (g) of this section, and except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this 

section. If a monitoring plan for storage 

vessels pursuant to § 63.1432(i) requires 

continuous records, the monitoring plan 

shall specify which provisions, if any, of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this 

section apply. * * * 

(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 any other periods 

during process or combustion, recovery, 

or recapture 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. 

* * * * * 

(10) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, keep records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(10)(i) through (v) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that the owner or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

operator elects to equip with a closedvent system and control device, subject 

to the provisions in § 63.1434(c)(4). 

(ii) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1434(c)(1). 

(iii) A list of identification numbers 

for pressure relief devices equipped 

with rupture disks, subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1434(c)(2)(ii). 

(iv) The dates and results of the 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, monitoring following a pressure 

release for each pressure relief device 

subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.1434(c)(1) and (2). The results shall 

include: 

(A) The background level measured 

during each compliance test. 

(B) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each piece of equipment 

during each compliance test. 

(v) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1434(c)(3), keep records of each 

pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(B) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(C) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

calculations used for determining this 

quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(e) Reporting and notification. In 

addition to the reports and notifications 

required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 

as specified in this subpart, the owner 

or operator of an affected source shall 

prepare and submit the reports listed in 

paragraphs (e)(3) through (9) of this 

section, as applicable. * * * 

(3) * * * The General Provisions’ 

Initial Notification requirements in 

§ 63.9(b)(2) and (3) shall not apply for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(4) Precompliance Report. The owner 

or operator of an affected source 

requesting an extension for compliance; 

requesting approval to use alternative 

monitoring parameters, alternative 

continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, or alternative controls; 

or requesting approval to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according 

to the procedures contained in 

§ 63.1438(c) or (d) shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) 

of this section. * * * 

(i) * * * To submit a Precompliance 

Report for the first time after the 

compliance date to request an extension 

for compliance; request approval to use 

alternative monitoring parameters, 

alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, or alternative controls; 

or request approval to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according 

to the procedures contained in 

§ 63.1438(c) or (d), the owner or 

operator shall notify the Administrator 

at least 90 days before the planned 

change is to be implemented; the change 

shall be considered approved if the 

Administrator either approves the 

change in writing, or fails to disapprove 

the change in writing within 45 days of 

receipt. 

(ii) * * * The request for a 

compliance extension shall include the 

data outlined in the General Provisions’ 

compliance requirements in 

§ 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and (B), as required in 

§ 63.1422(e)(1). 

* * * * * 

(v) The owner or operator shall report 

the intent to use an alternative emission 

standard to comply with the provisions 

of this subpart in the Precompliance 

Report. The Administrator may deem an 

alternative emission standard to be 

equivalent to the standard required by 

the subpart, under the procedures 

outlined in the General Provisions’ 

requirements for use of an alternative 

nonopacity emission standard, in 

§ 63.6(g). 

* * * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(B) Supplements to the Precompliance 

Report may be submitted to request 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4)(iii) of this section; to use 

alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4)(iv) of this section; or to use 

alternative controls, as specified in 

paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of 

§ 63.1434(c)(3), the owner or operator 

shall submit the information listed in 

paragraph (e)(5)(viii) of this section in 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

within 150 days after the first applicable 

compliance date for pressure relief 

device monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(vii) * * * An owner or operator who 

transfers a Group 1 process vent for 

disposal pursuant to § 63.113(i) shall 

include in the Notification of 

Compliance Status the name and 

location of the transferee, and the 

identification of the Group 1 process 

vent. 

(viii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, a description of 

the device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release, and a 

description of how the owner or 

operator will determine the information 

to be recorded under paragraphs 

(d)(10)(v)(B) and (C) of this section (i.e., 

the duration of the pressure release and 

the methodology and calculations for 

determining of the quantity of total HAP 

emitted during the pressure release). 

(6) Periodic Reports. For existing and 

new affected sources, the owner or 

operator shall submit Periodic Reports 

as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 

through (ix) of this section. * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(3) For gas streams sent for disposal 

pursuant to § 63.113(i) or for process 

wastewater streams sent for treatment 

pursuant to § 63.132(g), reports of 

changes in the identity of the treatment 

facility or transferee. 

(E) The information in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section for reports of 

malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) A combustion, recovery, or 

recapture device for a particular 

emission point or process section has 

one or more excursions, as defined in 

§ 63.1438(f), in two consecutive 

semiannual reporting periods; or 

* * * * * 

(D) After quarterly reports have been 

submitted for an emission point for 1 

year without one or more excursions 

occurring (during that year), the owner 

or operator may return to semiannual 

reporting for the emission point or 

process section. 

(ix) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, Periodic Reports 

must include the information specified 

in paragraphs (e)(6)(ix)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1434(c), report confirmation that all 

monitoring to show compliance was 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(B) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to § 63.1434(c)(2), report any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater, more than 5 calendar days 

after the pressure release. 

(C) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17381 

§ 63.1434(c)(3), report each pressure 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

following information: 

(1) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(2) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(3) The quantity of total HAP emitted 

during the pressure release and the 

method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(4) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(5) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

* * * * * 

(9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) 

or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

data during periods of operation (e.g., a 

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler), and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. * * * 

(ii) The monitoring system generates, 

updated at least hourly throughout each 

operating day, a running average of the 

monitoring values that have been 

obtained during that operating day, and 

the capability to observe this running 

average is readily available to the 

Administrator on-site during the 

operating day. The owner or operator 

shall record the occurrence of any 

period meeting the criteria in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. All instances in an operating 

day constitute a single occurrence. 

(A) The running average is above the 

maximum or below the minimum 

established limits; and 

(B) The running average is based on 

at least six 1-hour average values. 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data are the expected 

operating condition based on past 

experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), 

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The owner or operator shall retain 

the records specified in paragraph (h)(1) 

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 (iv) 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 

operation. 

(iv) For the purposes of paragraph (h) 

of this section, an excursion means that 

the daily average of monitoring data for 

a parameter is greater than the 

maximum, or less than the minimum 

established value. 

■ 39. Table 1 to Subpart PPP of Part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(6)-(8) and 

63.1(a)(9); 

■ b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 

63.1(a)(7)–(9); 

■ c. Revising entries 63.1(c)(4), 63.6(e), 

63.6(e)(1)(i), and 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

■ d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3); 

■ e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i), 

63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), 63.6(e)(3)(i)(B), 

63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), 63.6(e)(3)(ii), 

63.6(e)(3)(iii), 63.6(e)(3)(iv), 

63.6(e)(3)(v), 63.6(e)(3)(vi), 

63.6(e)(3)(vii), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A), 

63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), 

63.6(e)(3)(viii), and 63.6(e)(3)(ix); 

■ f. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 

and 63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

■ g. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5); 

■ h. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 

63.10(d)(5)(ii); and 

■ i. Removing footnote (a). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART PPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPP AFFECTED

SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart PPP Explanation 

*******

63.1(a)(6) ....................................... Yes. ................................................

63.1(a)(7)–(9) ................................. No .................................................. Reserved. 

*******

63.1(c)(4) ........................................ No .................................................. Reserved. 

*******

63.6(e) ............................................ Yes ................................................. Except as otherwise specified for individual paragraphs. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................. No .................................................. See § 63.1420(h)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. No. .................................................

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... No. .................................................

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... No. .................................................


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
17382 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART PPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPP AFFECTED

SOURCES—Continued 

Reference Applies to subpart PPP Explanation 

*******

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1437(a). 

*******

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. No. .................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. No. .................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ No. .................................................

*******

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1439(b)(1)(ii) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

■ 40. Table 2 to Subpart PPP of part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the title; 

■ b. Adding entries 63.107 and 63.153; 

and 

■ c. Revising entry 63.160–63.182. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 2 OF SUBPART PPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF HON PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPP AFFECTED SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart PPP Explanation 

Applicable 

section of 

subpart PPP 

Subpart F: 

* * * * * * * 

63.107 ............................... No ........................................... .................................................................................................. ........................

*******

Subpart G: 

*******

63.153 ............................... No ........................................... .................................................................................................. 63.1421 

Subpart H: 

63.160–63.182 .................. Yes .......................................... Subpart PPP affected sources shall comply with all requirements of subpart H, with the differences noted in 

63.1422(d), 63.1422(h), and 63.1434.

63.1434 

* * * * * * * 

■ 41. Table 7 to Subpart PPP of part 63 

is amended by revising the title to read 

as follows: 

Table 7 of Subpart PPP of Part 63— 

Operating Parameters for Which 

Monitoring Levels Are Required To 

Be Established for Process Vent 

Streams 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–04305 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3