Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39013 

and contingency provisions), and 

essentially carries forward all of the 

control measures and contingency 

provisions relied upon in the earlier 

plan. We also find that the TAPA, a 

former nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment area, continues to qualify 

for the LMP option and that therefore 

the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

adequately demonstrates maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS through 

documentation of monitoring data 

showing maximum CO levels less than 

85% of the NAAQS and continuation of 

existing control measures. We believe 

the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan to be 

sufficient to provide for maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the TAPA over the 

second 10-year maintenance period and 

to thereby satisfy the requirements for 

such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). 

If finalized as proposed, our approval 

will make Federally enforceable the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan’s 

contingency provisions, which are 

slightly modified from the 

corresponding provisions in the 1996 

CO Maintenance Plan. 

In connection with the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan, we are proposing to 

approve the statutory provision, ARS 

section 41–3017.01, that extends the life 

of the State’s VEI program (applicable to 

the TAPA and Phoenix metropolitan 

areas) until the end of 2016, and that 

was submitted to EPA as a revision to 

the Arizona SIP on June 22, 2009, based 

on our expectation that the Arizona 

Legislature will extend the VEI program 

beyond 2016. 

We also find that the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan qualifies for 

evaluation as an limited maintenance 

plan under our LMP policy in light of 

low monitored CO levels in the TAPA 

and therefore propose to approve the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. If 

finalized as proposed, PAG (the area’s 

MPO), the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the Federal Transit 

Administration will not be required to 

satisfy the regional emissions analysis 

under 40 CFR 93.118 and/or 40 CFR 

93.119 in determining conformity of 

transportation plans and programs in 

the TAPA. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this document and on issues relevant to 

EPA’s proposed action. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action proposes to 

approve State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 21, 2009. 

Kathleen H. Johnson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–18693 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0028; FRL–8939–5] 

RIN 2060–AN46 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Chemical Preparations 

Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants from the 

chemical preparations area source 

category. These proposed emissions 

standards for new and existing sources 

reflect EPA’s proposed determination 

regarding the generally available control 

technology or management practices for 

the source category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2009, unless a 

public hearing is requested by August 

17, 2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rules, written comments must 

be received by September 21, 2009. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before September 

4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0028, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web Site. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0028 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for 

Chemical Preparations Manufacturing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0028. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web Site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: 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., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Area Source NESHAP for Chemical 

Preparations Manufacturing Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, 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 Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Warren Johnson, Outreach and 

Information Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (C404– 

05), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

5124; fax number: (919) 541–0242; email address: Johnson.warren@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What source categories are affected by 

the proposed standards? 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available controls? 

D. What existing national standards apply 

to this source category? 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my 

source? 

B. When must I comply with the proposed 

standards? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

D. What are the compliance requirements? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements? 

IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source category? 

B. How did we select the affected source? 

C. How did we address metal HAP 

emissions in this rule? 

D. How was GACT determined? 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

F. Why did we decide to exempt this area 

source category from title V permitting 

requirements? 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards include: 

Category NAICS 

Code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Spice and Extract Manufacturing ................ 311942 Area source facilities that manufacture salt products containing trace mineral additives. 

All other basic organic chemical manufacturing.325199 Area source facilities that manufacture products containing metal compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel. 

Paint and coating manufacturing ................ 325510 Area source facilities that manufacture products containing metal compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39015 

Category NAICS 

Code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

All other miscellaneous chemical product 

and preparation manufacturing.

325998 Area source facilities that manufacture products containing metal compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel. These include, but are not limited to, fluxes, 

water treatment chemicals, rust preventatives and plating chemicals, concrete additives, gelatin, and drilling fluids. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Chemical 

preparation operations described by the 

NAICS codes 325199 and 325510 may 

be subject to area source regulations for 

chemical manufacturing (40 CFR 

Subpart VVVVVV) or paint and allied 

products (40 CFR Subpart CCCCCCC). 

To address this potential for overlap, the 

requirements specified in Subpart 

VVVVVV or Subpart CCCCCCC, as 

applicable, supersede the requirements 

specified in this subpart. Therefore, if 

the particular chemical preparation 

operation is subject to regulation by 

either of these other area source rules, 

then the operation must comply with 

the requirements specified in Subpart 

VVVVVV or CCCCCCC, as applicable, 

and not the requirements of the 

proposed chemical preparations area 

source regulation. To determine 

whether operations at your facility 

would be regulated by this action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.11579 of subpart 

BBBBBBB (NESHAP for Area Sources: 

Chemical Preparations Industry). If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity or operations at your 

facility, consult either the air permit 

authority for the entity or your EPA 

regional representative as listed in 40 

CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 

Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0028. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed rule by August 17, 2009, we 

will hold a public hearing on August 20, 

2009. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony at the hearing, or 

inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 

held, should contact Ms. Christine 

Adams at (919) 541–5590 at least two 

days in advance of the hearing. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held at 

10 a.m. at EPA’s Campus located at 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 

nearby. 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires us to establish national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and 

area sources of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) that are listed for regulation 

under CAA section 112(c). A major 

source emits or has the potential to emit 

10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any 

single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. An area source is 

a stationary source that is not a major 

source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, 

as the result of emissions from area 

sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. EPA implemented this 

provision in 1999 in the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 

38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in 

the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that 

pose the greatest potential health threat 

in urban areas, and these HAP are 

referred to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’ 

Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list 

sufficient categories or subcategories of 

area sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. We also implemented these 

requirements through the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy. A primary 

goal of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technology or 

management practices (GACT) by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have almost 40 percent of 

firms classified as small businesses 

according to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) standards in 13 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1Currently, we believe that all existing chemical 

preparation entities would be classified primarily 

under NAICS 325998 and 311942, which define 

small businesses as those with 500 employees or 

less. Should any entities with primary NAICS 

325199 be subject to the proposed standards, the 

small business definition for these entities would be 

those with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

CFR 121.201. For this source category, 

small businesses are defined as those 

with fewer than 500 employees.1

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

employed by those sources are 

transferable and generally available to 

area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category being considered. Finally, as 

noted above, in determining GACT for 

a particular category of area sources, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of using available control 

technologies and management practices 

on sources in that category. 

We are proposing these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for a number of 

source categories listed pursuant to 

section 112(c)(3) and (k) by October 15, 

2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01– 

1537, D.D.C., March 2006). 

B. What source categories are affected 

by the proposed standards? 

We listed the chemical preparations 

manufacturing source category under 

CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series 

of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 

FR 70427) to the original source 

category list included in the 1999 

Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. 

The decision to include this source 

category on the section 112(c)(3) area 

source category list is based on 1990 

emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the 

baseline year for that listing. Section 

112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. The chemical preparations 

source category was listed for its 

contributions toward meeting the 90 

percent requirement for the following 

metal HAP: Compounds of chromium 

(Cr), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and 

lead (Pb), referred to hence forth in this 

preamble as ‘‘target HAP.’’ 

This area source category comprises 

those establishments that conduct 

industrial operations that mix, mill, 

blend and/or extrude chemicals that 

contain the target HAP in their 

manufacturing processes during the 

production of chemical preparations. 

These manufacturing processes turn 

various dry and/or wet ingredients into 

chemical preparations. Chemical 

preparations, which are defined in the 

subpart, are a wide variety of 

compounds that may often be used as an 

intermediate in the manufacture of other 

products, such as fluxes and rubber 

compounding chemicals, or sold as a 

product, such as water treatment 

chemicals and drilling fluids. Chemical 

reactions typically do not occur in the 

manufacturing of chemical preparations. 

Emission points associated with these 

types of operations include sources such 

as Banbury mixers, mixing or blending 

tanks, extruders, and roll mills. 

This source category does not include 

those establishments that are covered by 

other area source NESHAP, such as 

paint and allied coatings, or 

establishments that mix, mill, blend 

and/or extrude chemicals that do not 

contain the target HAP. Based on 

current information, we believe there 

are 26 affected facilities in the source 

category. All of these facilities have 

relatively diverse chemical product 

lines, capacities and processes. We 

believe that 10 of these existing facilities 

are considered small businesses, which 

are defined by the SBA as businesses of 

less than 500 employees. 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available 

controls? 

When target HAP are present in the 

chemicals used to produce chemical 

preparations, the emission sources are 

comprised of some or all of the 

following equipment: mixers, blenders, 

mixing or blending tanks, rolling or 

grinding mills, and extruders. 

Despite their wide variety of products, 

these facilities use similar processing 

operations and common control 

strategies. Most of the production 

equipment at all of these facilities is 

well controlled as a result of State 

requirements which focus on particulate 

matter (PM) emission reductions. The 

control technologies employed to 

control PM emissions among similar 

types of process equipment remains 

consistent, since the focus is on PM 

emissions reductions. Since the target 

HAP are emitted as a particulate, and 

are a subset of PM, the existing control 

technologies which control PM, and 

hence target HAP, emissions from 

similar processes is consistent across 

facilities. For example, dry mixing 

operations will often use fabric filters to 

control PM emissions so that the 

captured dust may be re-used in the 

process. Likewise, wet scrubbers are 

typically used in situations where the 

captured wet material can be returned to 

the process either as-is or after being 

sent through a spray dryer. 

D. What existing national standards 

apply to this source category? 

There are no existing national 

standards that apply to activities in the 

chemical preparations source category 

as defined in this subpart. However, it 

is important to note that the NAICS 

codes for this source category, 311942, 

325199, 325510, and 325998, are 

comprised of sources that produce a 

wide variety of products and that some 

of the processes for producing those 

products are covered under other 

NESHAP or area source regulations. 

We have tried to minimize the 

potential for overlap issues with these 

other national standards by precisely 

defining the source category for this 

rule. In addition to specifying the nature 

of the activities conducted at the 

affected facility, the definition specifies 

the type of HAP that must be contained, 

contacted, or processed in the various 

manufacturing processes for those 

processes to be subject to the rule. 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to 

my source? 

The proposed subpart BBBBBBB 

standards would apply to all existing or 

new manufacturing operations located 

at an area source that produce chemical 

preparations by mixing, milling, 

blending and/or extruding chemical 

compounds containing target HAP. The 

standards do not apply to research and 

development facilities, as defined in 

section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. 

B. When must I comply with the 

proposed standards? 

All existing area sources subject to 

this proposed rule would be required to 

comply with the rule requirements no 

later than one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. New sources would be 

required to comply with the rule 

requirements on the date the final rule 

is published in the Federal Register or 

upon startup of the facility, whichever 

is later. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39017 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

The proposed standards for new and 

existing affected sources establish a PM 

control device percent reduction 

efficiency requirement and require all 

process vent streams from mixing, 

blending, milling and extruding 

equipment in target HAP service to be 

routed through a PM control device that 

meets the specified efficiency 

requirement. The proposed standards 

will be met through the use of a vent 

stream collection system and control 

device, such as a wet scrubber or fabric 

filter, meeting the specified percent 

reduction efficiency requirement. 

Sources must maintain and operate a 

control device which achieves the 

specified removal efficiency in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications and must maintain and 

inspect the vent collection system and 

control devices on a regular basis. 

New sources must demonstrate 

compliance with the PM control device 

percent reduction efficiency 

requirement through control device 

performance testing, manufacturer’s 

control device performance guarantee 

information, or engineering 

calculations. The proposed standards 

allow existing sources to use the same 

three methods to demonstrate 

compliance, but existing sources may 

use the results of performance tests 

previously conducted, provided that the 

performance test was conducted using 

the reference test method specified in 

the proposed rule, represents the control 

device’s normal operations (per 

manufacturer’s recommendations) and 

was conducted within the last 5 years. 

D. What are the compliance 

requirements? 

The owner or operator of both new 

and existing sources would be required 

to submit an Initial Notification of 

Applicability that states they are subject 

to the regulation within 120 days of the 

effective date of the rule and a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 60 days after the applicable 

compliance date to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. Facilities would be required 

to comply continuously with the 

standards (to route emissions to a 

control device that achieves 95 percent 

PM emission reductions) during all 

operations that emit target HAP, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown of these operations. 

Compliance on a continuous basis is 

determined on the basis of a three-hour 

rolling average, i.e., parameters for each 

three-hour period are determined by 

averaging the control device operating 

parameters for each hour during the 

three-hour period including startup and 

shutdown. If a source is processing 

target HAP materials (i.e., in target HAP 

service) for a period less than 3 hours, 

then the control device operating 

parameters are averaged over the period 

that the target HAP is being processed. 

Under the proposed rule, sources will 

determine their compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements by 

continuously monitoring specified 

operating parameters. Sources must also 

comply with specified periodic 

inspection procedures for vent 

collection systems and control devices, 

and must submit semi-annual 

compliance summary reports. 

For the reasons specified in section IV 

of this preamble, EPA has determined 

that it is appropriate to use particulate 

matter emissions as a surrogate for target 

HAP emissions for all emission points 

in this source category, i.e., mixers, 

mixing and blending tanks, mills, and 

extruders. As described above, to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements, 

existing sources will be allowed to use 

the results of performance tests 

previously conducted provided the test 

was conducted using the specified 

reference test method, represents the 

control device’s normal operations (per 

manufacturer’s recommendations) and 

was conducted within the last 5 years. 

As also described above (and in Table 

2 of the proposed regulations), in lieu of 

a performance test, both new and 

existing sources may use control device 

manufacturer’s performance guarantees 

or engineering calculations to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements. Due 

to the wide variety of operations 

conducted at facilities in the chemical 

preparations industry, it is possible that 

affected facilities could have target HAP 

present in all, or only some, of the 

process emissions. Therefore, each 

facility will be required to identify and 

document periods of operation in which 

chemical preparations operations are 

processing target HAP-containing 

materials and to document that the vent 

collection system and control device 

were operating properly during these 

periods when the equipment is in target 

HAP service. Daily, monthly and annual 

inspections are required to ensure 

proper maintenance and operation of 

the vent collection system and control 

device components. Records of the 

inspection activities and corrective 

actions must be maintained to 

document compliance with these 

management practices. 

Continuous compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements is 

demonstrated through both control 

device parameter monitoring and 

keeping records of periods where the 

chemical preparations operation is in 

target HAP service. The control device 

manufacturer’s recommended (or those 

conditions present during the 

performance test, if a test was 

performed) pressure drop, scrubber 

water supply pressure, and flow rate, as 

appropriate, depending on the device 

used to control emissions, must be 

maintained for each PM control device. 

As mentioned above, the source must 

document that each control device was 

being operated normally, according to 

the device manufacturer’s 

recommendations, during periods of 

processing target HAP-containing 

materials. Records of calibration and 

accuracy checks of the continuous 

parameter monitoring system must be 

maintained to document proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

monitoring system. 

E. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

The owner or operator of new and 

existing sources would be required to 

comply with the requirements of the 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A) identified in Table 6 of this 

proposed rule. The General Provisions 

include specific requirements for 

notifications, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. We are proposing that the 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

submit an Initial Notification of 

Applicability and a Notification of 

Compliance Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the 

General Provisions. These notifications 

are needed for EPA to determine 

applicability of the standard to a 

particular source and a source’s initial 

compliance with specific rule 

requirements. Sources would also be 

required to submit semi-annual 

compliance summary reports which 

document both compliance with the 

requirements of this rule and any 

deviations from compliance with any of 

those requirements. 

Owners and operators would be 

required to maintain the records 

specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in 

addition, would be required to maintain 

records of all inspection and monitoring 

data, including: 

• Records of particulate matter 

control device operating parameters. For 

fabric filters, the parameter is the 

pressure drop across the device. For wet 

scrubbers, the parameters are the water 

supply pressure and water flow rate. 

• Records of periods of target HAP 

processing that demonstrate, along with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the particulate matter control device 

operating parameters above, that the 

control device is being operated within 

the manufacturer’s specifications while 

compounds containing target HAP are 

being processed. 

• Records of control device make, 

model, and the installation date of each 

such piece of equipment. 

• A copy of any performance 

guarantee certificate provided by the 

control device manufacturer. 

• Records of inspections of vent 

collection systems and control devices. 

• Records of calibration and accuracy 

checks for the continuous parameter 

monitoring systems. 

• Records of engineering calculations 

or test results to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the control device 

removal efficiency requirement. 

IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source 

category? 

As described in section II.B, we listed 

the chemical preparations source 

category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on 

November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The 

decision to include this source category 

on the area source category list was 

based on data from the CAA section 

112(k) inventory, which represents 1990 

urban air information. The chemical 

preparations source category was listed 

as contributing a percentage of the total 

area source emissions for the following 

urban HAP: metal compounds for 

chromium, lead, manganese and nickel 

(the ‘‘target HAP’’). For this source 

category, we gathered information on 

the production operations, emission 

sources, and prevalent emission 

controls employed by sources, through 

reviews of published literature, and 

reviews of construction and operating 

permits. We also held discussions with 

industry representatives and State 

permitting organizations. This research 

confirmed that the chemical 

preparations source category emits the 

listed target HAP and that the existing 

add-on controls are effective controls for 

reducing target HAP emissions. 

B. How did we select the affected 

source? 

Affected source means the collection 

of equipment and processes in the 

source category or subcategory to which 

the subpart applies. For the chemical 

preparations source category, the 

affected source is comprised of the 

following process equipment when the 

equipment contains, contacts, or is 

processing target HAP: mixers, mixing 

and blending tanks, mills, and 

extruders. 

After reviewing the gathered 

information discussed above, we 

identified 26 facilities that reported 

emissions of target HAP. These 26 

facilities manufactured a wide range of 

chemical preparations, including, for 

example, fluxes, concrete additives, rust 

preventatives, drilling fluids, and 

gelatin. Some of these products contain 

target HAP, while other materials being 

produced using the same equipment 

may not. Despite the wide variety of 

products produced at these facilities, 

some common processing operations 

and control strategies became evident 

after further facility permit review and 

contact with some of the facilities. For 

example, fabric filters would often be 

used to control PM emissions from dry 

mixing operations, and wet scrubbers 

would be used in situations where the 

wet material could either be mixed back 

into the raw materials or sent through a 

spray dryer and then combined with 

raw materials. 

Our research indicates that each 

facility utilizes at least one of the listed 

operations. Therefore, we define the 

affected source as consisting of any (one 

or more) of these operations when the 

operation contains, contacts, or 

processes compounds containing target 

HAP to produce a chemical preparation. 

By specifying periods of production 

where the equipment is ‘‘in target HAP 

service,’’ we are able to clarify 

applicability to the periods of operation 

where emissions of target HAP would 

occur, thereby avoiding any burden to 

those operations or entities that are not 

processing target HAP-containing 

materials. 

We also realized the potential for 

overlap with other rules, especially the 

area source standards for chemical 

manufacturing (40 Part 63 Subpart 

VVVVVV) and paint and allied products 

(40 Part 63 Subpart CCCCCCC). We 

have, therefore, exempted chemical 

preparation operations that are subject 

to the requirements of Subpart VVVVVV 

or Subpart CCCCCCC, as applicable, 

from the requirements of the proposed 

chemical preparations regulation. 

C. How did we address metal HAP 

emissions in this rule? 

For this proposed rule, we have 

selected PM as a surrogate for the target 

metal HAP, primarily because the target 

HAP are emitted as a wet or dry stack 

particulate (the target HAP are a subset 

of the particulate matter). As a result, a 

vent collection system and control 

device that is effectively controlling PM 

will also effectively control target HAP 

since these HAP are a fractional 

constituent of the PM being controlled. 

Further, based on the available 

information, we believe that specifying 

specific emission or reduction limits for 

each target HAP would not achieve any 

greater reduction in emissions of the 

target HAP than the control devices 

already achieve using PM as a surrogate. 

We also believe it would create a 

significant economic burden for the 

affected sources and permit authorities 

if this proposed rule required sources to 

demonstrate compliance with a specific 

limit for each of the target HAP 

compounds. Based on our knowledge of 

the relationship between PM as a whole 

and the target HAP, we believe that 

demonstrating compliance with the 

proposed PM reduction requirements 

will ensure that appropriate reductions 

in emissions of target HAP are achieved. 

D. How was GACT determined? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards that provide 

for the use of GACT to control chemical 

preparations area source category HAP 

emissions. As noted in section II.A of 

this preamble, the statute allows the 

Agency to establish standards for area 

sources listed pursuant to section 112(c) 

based on GACT. The statute does not set 

any condition precedent for issuing 

standards under section 112(d)(5) other 

than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that 

EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), 

which is the case here. 

We gathered available data from a 

variety of sources, e.g., State and local 

permits and regulations mandating a 

specific level of control, regarding 

existing affected sources in the chemical 

preparations source category in order to 

determine the types of controls being 

used and the level of control generally 

achieved by those controls. Our analysis 

of that information revealed that all of 

the identified affected sources are well 

controlled because they employ some 

type of particulate matter control. The 

most common controls used were wet 

scrubbers and fabric filters. Based on 

our available permit background 

information for the chemical 

preparations source category and 

control device technical references, we 

found that existing PM control 

technologies (primarily fabric filters and 

wet scrubbers) in this category achieve 

between 93 and 98 percent PM 

reduction efficiency, with a median 

facility that achieves 95 percent PM 

reduction efficiency. We considered 

requiring controls for this category that 

achieve 98 percent PM emission 

reductions, but found that this would 

likely force a majority of existing 

sources to install new controls at an 

incremental cost to some facilities of 

over $400,000/ton for the additional 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39019 

target HAP reduction, which we believe 

is unreasonable. In addition, while 

fabric filter technology is capable of 

achieving 98 percent PM reductions, we 

are not certain that available wet 

scrubber technology can achieve a 98 

percent PM reduction. We considered 

requiring controls for this category that 

achieve 93 percent PM emission 

reductions, but believe that all existing 

facilities could achieve 95 percent PM 

reduction efficiency without requiring 

the installation of new emission control 

equipment. We recognize that some 

existing facilities may need to conduct 

new performance testing on existing 

controls to demonstrate 95 percent PM 

emission reduction performance, but we 

believe that 95 percent PM reduction 

efficiency, that is represented by the 

median facility control technology, best 

represents GACT for this source 

category. Based on this information, we 

have determined that GACT for this 

source category consists of a vent 

collection system to collect emissions 

from process operations, and an 

associated particulate matter control 

device, such as a fabric filter or wet 

scrubber that is achieving a 95 percent 

reduction in PM emissions. 

While our information indicates that 

all of the target HAP emissions points at 

identified existing sources are currently 

controlled with PM control devices, we 

are requesting comment on whether 

some chemical preparations operations 

are currently uncontrolled. We 

considered whether we should require 

the use of PM controls on ancillary 

processes (beyond mixers, mixing and 

blending tanks, mills, and extruders) at 

existing affected sources but concluded 

that these operations are beyond the 

scope of the original source category 

listing. We also recognize that there may 

be a point where installing PM controls 

would be economically or technically 

infeasible regardless of the size of the 

facility, especially where very low 

quantities of PM are being emitted. To 

address these issues, we analyzed 

permit information and applicable State 

regulations to determine if there were 

any PM concentration limits that would 

serve as a reasonable alternative to the 

percent reduction requirement. We 

found that, for chemical preparations 

affected sources, in most instances State 

permits do not specify a limit or control 

performance requirement beyond 

simply routing PM emissions to a 

control device. However, in a few 

situations, one State has specified a 0.03 

grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ 

dscf) PM concentration limit at the 

outlet of the control devices, the 

calculations for which are based on a 98 

percent PM reduction assumption and 

site specific data. We are not certain if 

the site specific data in these cases is 

sufficient on which to base a nationwide 

equivalent emission limit, and are, 

therefore, requesting comment on 

whether an emission limit of 0.03 gr/ 

dscf should be included in the final rule 

as an alternative compliance option. 

Commenters should include with their 

comments any data they believe 

supports an emission limit of 0.03 gr/ 

dscf as a compliance alternative in the 

final rule. 

We have also considered whether new 

sources should have a PM reduction 

requirement that is greater than 95 

percent. Based on our analysis of 

information we gathered from permits, 

technical references, and comparisons 

to similar area source requirements, we 

believe that it may be possible for GACT 

for new sources to be greater than 95 

percent PM reduction. However, we 

currently do not have enough 

information for the chemical 

preparations source category to confirm 

that this level of control would be 

‘‘generally available’’ for potential new 

affected sources. Therefore, we are also 

requesting comment on whether greater 

than 95 percent PM reduction is an 

economically feasible level of control 

for new sources. 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

We are proposing initial compliance 

demonstrations, monitoring, 

inspections, reporting, notification, and 

recordkeeping requirements sufficient to 

assure compliance with the rule as 

proposed. These requirements are 

based, in part, on requirements imposed 

on several facilities within the chemical 

preparations source category by State 

permits or regulations and on our 

general understanding, based on years 

of experience, of how control devices 

perform and can be effectively 

monitored. As is the case with many of 

our rules, we are proposing to use data 

from the monitoring of certain 

parameters which we have found to be 

indicative of the effective operation of 

collection systems and control devices 

to demonstrate compliance. The 

parameter monitoring requirements, 

together with vent collection system and 

control device inspection requirements, 

are intended to ensure that the 

information necessary to establish that 

emissions controls are maintained and 

operated properly on a continuing basis 

is collected and reported. We believe 

the proposed requirements will both 

assure compliance with the emission 

reduction requirements of this proposed 

rule and minimize the burden on 

facilities that must implement them. 

We are proposing that compliance 

with the requirements for mixers, 

mixing and blending tanks, mills and 

extruders in target HAP service be 

demonstrated by continuously 

monitoring particulate matter control 

device operating parameters. If a fabric 

filter is utilized, then the pressure drop 

of the fabric filter, as specified by the 

manufacturer or measured during the 

most recent compliance demonstration, 

is the monitored parameter. For a wet 

scrubber, monitoring of the water 

supply pressure and scrubbing water 

flow rate are proposed. The monitoring 

of these parameters will demonstrate 

that the device is being operated in 

accordance with the control device 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

consistent with its operation during the 

most recent compliance demonstration, 

whichever is applicable. Particulate 

matter hoods or vent collection systems 

routing the emissions to the control 

device must be designed to capture PM 

to the extent practicable from the 

emission point. Daily, monthly, and 

annual inspection and recordkeeping 

requirements will be used to 

demonstrate that the vent collection 

system and control device are being 

properly maintained. 

For the initial PM percent reduction 

efficiency compliance demonstration, 

the owner or operator of a facility 

subject to existing source standards 

would be allowed to use the results 

from prior performance tests as long as 

the performance test was conducted 

using the reference test method 

specified in the proposed rule, provided 

that the performance test represents the 

control device’s normal operating 

conditions (per manufacturer’s 

recommendations) and was conducted 

within the last 5 years. We believe that 

this will help to reduce the compliance 

burden for existing sources while at the 

same time providing adequate 

assurances that the results reflect the 

actual operating efficiency of the control 

device. Initial compliance with the 

proposed requirement to employ a PM 

control device with a PM reduction 

efficiency of 95 percent to control PM 

emissions from the identified emission 

points at both new and existing sources 

can be demonstrated using the results of 

PM control device performance tests, 

PM control device manufacturer 

performance guarantees, or engineering 

calculations. As discussed above, for 

existing sources, we are proposing to 

allow the use of the results of previous 

performance tests so long as those tests 

meet the specified criteria. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

F. Why did we decide to exempt this 

area source category from title V 

permitting requirements? 

For the reasons described below, we 

are proposing to exempt affected 

sources in the chemical preparations 

area source category from title V 

permitting requirements unless the 

source is otherwise required to have a 

title V permit. That is, we are proposing 

that being subject to the chemical 

preparations area source rule would not 

itself trigger the need to obtain a title V 

permit. Section 502(a) of the CAA 

provides that the Administrator may 

exempt an area source category (in 

whole or in part) from title V if (s)he 

determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. See CAA section 502(a). In 

December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, or 

portion thereof, such that an exemption 

from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 

75320, December 19, 2005 (Exemption 

Rule). 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source 

category are: (1) Whether title V would 

result in significant improvements to 

the compliance requirements, including 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting, that are proposed for an area 

source category (70 FR 75323); (2) 

whether title V permitting would 

impose significant burdens on the area 

source category and whether the 

burdens would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the sources may have in 

obtaining assistance from permitting 

agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) whether the 

costs of title V permitting for the area 

source category would be justified, 

taking into consideration any potential 

gains in compliance likely to occur for 

such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 

whether there are implementation and 

enforcement programs in place that are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

NESHAP for the area source category, 

without relying on title V permits (70 

FR 75326). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further explained 

that we considered on ‘‘a case-by-case 

basis the extent to which one or more 

of the four factors supported title V 

exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether 

considered together those factors 

demonstrated that compliance with title 

V requirements would be ‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’ on the category, consistent 

with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 

FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination, and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category, or portion 

thereof. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting an area 

source category would adversely affect 

public health, welfare or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. As explained below, we 

propose that title V permitting is 

unreasonably burdensome for the area 

source category at issue in this proposed 

rule. We have also determined that the 

proposed exemptions from title V would 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare and the environment. Our 

rationale for this decision follows. 

In considering whether to exempt 

sources in the chemical preparations 

category from title V requirements, we 

first compared the title V monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements (factor one) to the 

requirements in the proposed NESHAP 

for the area source category. The 

proposed rule requires facilities to route 

all process vent streams from specified 

equipment in target HAP service to an 

add-on PM control device with a 

demonstrated percent reduction 

efficiency of 95 percent. Continuous 

compliance with this requirement 

would be demonstrated using 

parametric monitoring of the vent 

collection system and control device 

and identifying processing periods of 

target HAP-containing materials. For 

add-on control devices the proposed 

rule specifies the monitoring 

parameter(s) and averaging periods for 

each type of control device. The 

proposed rule would require that the 

owner/operator maintain the 3-hour 

average (or overall average, for periods 

in target HAP service less than 3 hours) 

pressure drop across the control device 

or the water supply pressure and 

scrubbing liquor flow rate, as 

appropriate to the control device, within 

the manufacturer’s recommended range 

for the control device, or within the 

range established during the most recent 

performance test. Sources would 

demonstrate initial compliance using 

one of the following methods: Conduct 

initial performance tests, use the results 

of previous performance tests meeting 

specified requirements for existing 

sources only, use and maintain records 

of control device manufacturer’s 

guarantees, or use and maintain records 

of engineering calculations. Existing 

sources would be allowed to use 

previously conducted performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance provided 

they were conducted using the reference 

test method specified in the proposed 

rule, were conducted within the past 

five years and reflect the control 

device’s normal operating conditions. 

The proposed rule also requires the 

preparation of a semi-annual 

compliance certification report which 

would identify any deviations from the 

rule requirements that occurred during 

the reporting period and submission of 

this report to the permitting agency. The 

semi-annual report would call attention 

to those facilities in need of inspection 

in the same way as the reporting 

requirements in a title V permit. In 

addition, records sufficient to ensure 

that the compliance requirements are 

followed and that any needed corrective 

actions are taken would be required. 

Therefore, this proposed rule contains 

monitoring requirements that constitute 

periodic monitoring sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

As part of the first factor, in addition 

to monitoring, we have considered the 

extent to which title V could potentially 

enhance compliance for area sources 

covered by this proposed rule through 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. We have considered the 

various title V recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, including 

requirements for a 6-month monitoring 

report, deviation reports, and an annual 

certification as specified in 40 CFR 70.6 

and 71.6. For any affected area source in 

this category, this proposed rule would 

require an Initial Notification of 

Applicability and a Notification of 

Compliance Status. This proposed rule 

also requires owners or operators of 

affected facilities to certify compliance 

with a requirement that vent streams 

from specified equipment in target HAP 

service be routed to a control device 

with a demonstrated PM percent 

reduction efficiency of 95 percent on an 

annual basis. In addition, owners or 

operators of affected facilities must 

maintain records showing compliance 

with all of the proposed rule’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39021 

requirements and provide a report to the 

permitting agency if any deviation 

occurs. The information in the deviation 

report is similar to the information that 

must be provided in the deviation 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). 

We acknowledge that title V might 

impose some additional compliance 

requirements on this category, but we 

believe the monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements of this 

proposed NESHAP for the chemical 

preparations source category would be 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

provisions of this NESHAP, and that the 

application of title V would not 

significantly improve compliance. 

For the second factor, we determined 

whether title V permitting would 

impose a significant burden on the area 

sources in the category and whether that 

burden would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the source may have in 

obtaining assistance from the permitting 

agency. Subjecting any source to title V 

permitting imposes certain burdens and 

costs that do not exist outside of the title 

V program. EPA estimates that the 

average cost of obtaining and complying 

with a title V permit is $65,700 per 

source for a 5-year permit period, 

including fees. See Information 

Collection Request for Part 70 Operating 

Permit Regulations, January 2007, EPA 

ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not 

have specific estimates for the burdens 

and costs of permitting sources in the 

chemical preparations area source 

category; however, there are certain 

activities associated with the part 70 

and 71 rules that are required of all 

sources. These activities are mandatory 

and impose burdens on the facility. 

They include reading and 

understanding permit program guidance 

and regulations; obtaining and 

understanding permit application forms; 

answering follow-up questions from 

permitting authorities after the 

application is submitted; reviewing and 

understanding the permit; collecting 

records; preparing and submitting 

monitoring reports on a 6-month or 

more frequent basis; preparing and 

submitting prompt deviation reports, as 

defined by the State, which may include 

a combination of written, verbal, and 

other communications methods; 

collecting information, preparing, and 

submitting the annual compliance 

certification; preparing applications for 

permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 

needed, preparing and submitting 

applications for permit revisions. In 

addition, although not required by the 

permit rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity described here. For a more 

comprehensive list of requirements 

imposed on part 70 sources (hence, 

burden on sources), see the 

requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, 

and 70.7. 

In assessing the second factor for 

facilities in the chemical preparations 

area source category, we estimated that 

10 out of the 26 facilities that would be 

affected by this proposed rule are small 

businesses, all with fewer than 500 

employees. We believe that these small 

sources lack both the technical 

resources to comply with permitting 

requirements and the financial 

resources needed to hire the necessary 

staff or outside consultants to provide 

those resources. As discussed 

previously, title V permitting would 

impose significant costs on these area 

sources, and, accordingly, we believe 

that title V would be a significant 

burden for sources in this category. 

Almost 40 percent are small businesses 

with limited resources, and under title 

V, they would be subject to numerous 

mandatory activities with which they 

would have difficulty complying, 

whether they were issued a standard or 

a general permit. Thus, we conclude 

that factor two supports title V 

exemption for this category. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. In discussing the second factor, 

we explained that the costs of 

compliance with title V would impose 

a significant burden on many of the 26 

facilities estimated to be affected by the 

proposed rule. Although title V might 

impose additional requirements, as 

discussed in more detail above, we 

believe that the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this proposed NESHAP 

would assure compliance with the 

emission standards imposed in the 

NESHAP as proposed. In addition, 

below in our consideration of the fourth 

factor, we find that there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to assure compliance 

with the NESHAP. Because the costs, 

both economic and non-economic, of 

compliance with title V are high, and 

the potential for gains in compliance is 

low, title V permitting is not justified for 

this source category. Accordingly, the 

third factor supports title V exemption 

for this area source category. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining if title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome is whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. EPA 

has implemented regulations that 

provide states the opportunity to take 

delegation of area source NESHAP, and 

we believe that states delegated 

programs are sufficient to assure 

compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have 

adequate programs to enforce the 

section 112 regulations and provide 

assurances that they will enforce all 

NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 

program). 

We also noted that EPA retains 

authority to enforce this NESHAP 

anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 

and 114. Also, states and EPA often 

conduct voluntary compliance 

assistance, outreach, and education 

programs (compliance assistance 

programs), which are not required by 

statute. We determined that these 

additional programs will supplement 

and enhance success in complying with 

these proposed standards. We believe 

that together the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated states 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above are sufficient 

to assure compliance with these 

proposed standards without relying on 

title V permitting. 

In light of all the information 

presented here, we believe that there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the proposed 

standards without relying on title V 

permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for this area 

source category strongly supports the 

proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome. While title 

V might add some additional 

compliance requirements if imposed, 

we believe that this would not result in 

significant improvements in compliance 

with this proposed rule because the 

proposed rule requirements are 

specifically designed to assure 

compliance with the emission standards 

imposed on this area source category. 

We further maintain that the economic 

and non-economic costs of compliance 

with title V would impose a significant 

burden on the sources in the chemical 

preparations area source category. We 

determined that the high relative costs 

would not be justified given that there 

is likely to be little or no potential gain 

in compliance if title V were required. 

And, finally, there are adequate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to assure compliance 

with these proposed standards. Thus, 

we propose that title V permitting is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for this 

area source category. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting this 

area source category from title V 

requirements would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Exemption of this area 

source category from title V 

requirements would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would remain the same if a 

permit were required. The title V permit 

program does not impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. As stated in 

our consideration of factor one for this 

category, title V would not lead to 

significant improvements in the 

compliance requirements applicable to 

existing or new area sources. 

Furthermore, we explained in the 

Exemption Rule that requiring permits 

for a relatively small number of area 

sources could, at least in the first few 

years of implementation, potentially 

adversely affect public health, welfare, 

or the environment by shifting State 

agency resources away from assuring 

compliance by major sources with 

existing permits to issuing new permits 

for these area sources, potentially 

reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. Based on the above 

analysis, we conclude that title V 

exemptions for these area sources will 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare, or the environment for all of the 

reasons explained above. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt this area source 

category from title V permitting 

requirements. 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

Since 1990, the performance of the 

PM control technology utilized by the 

chemical preparations industry has not 

advanced significantly. We believe, 

however, that market forces, such as the 

economic benefits inherent in 

minimizing raw material or product 

losses from dust emissions, have 

encouraged widespread use of these 

controls. Further improvements in 

formulations of products produced by 

the chemical preparations industry, 

such as reduction or elimination of lead 

chromate in certain products, have 

enabled the industry to further reduce 

their air impacts. Therefore, while this 

proposed rule does not require air 

emission reductions from existing 

sources beyond those currently being 

achieved by affected sources, we believe 

that this proposed rule reflects 

significant reductions in emissions 

since 1990 based on the use of effective 

PM control technology together with a 

reduction in the use of target HAP by 

the industry. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

All existing chemical preparations 

industry facilities are expected to 

currently be achieving the level of 

control required by the proposed 

standards. That is, we believe that all 

existing sources currently route vent 

streams from specified equipment in 

target HAP use through a PM control 

device with a PM percent reduction 

efficiency of 95 percent. Although this 

proposed rule contains requirements for 

new area sources, we are not aware of 

any new area sources being constructed 

now or planned in the next 3 years, and, 

consequently, we did not estimate any 

cost impacts for new sources. Therefore, 

no additional air pollution control 

devices would be required. No other 

capital costs are associated with this 

proposed rule and no operational and 

maintenance costs are expected because 

we believe that facilities are already 

following the manufacturer’s 

instructions for proper operation and 

maintenance of pollution control 

devices and vent collection systems. 

The annual cost of monitoring 

(including inspections), reporting, and 

recordkeeping for this proposed rule is 

estimated to be approximately $6,800 

per facility per year after the first year. 

The costs are, therefore, expected to be 

less than 1 percent of revenues. The 

annual estimate includes 20 hours per 

facility per year for preparing 

semiannual compliance reports. 

The additional cost of one-time 

activities during the first year of 

compliance is estimated to be 

approximately $2,400 per facility. This 

includes labor hours for reading and 

understanding the rule, preparation of 

the Initial Notification of Applicability, 

preparation of the Notification of 

Compliance Status, development of a 

record system, and personnel training, 

for an industry-wide average estimate of 

approximately 32 hours per facility in 

the first year for one-time activities. The 

resulting total hours for one-time 

activities, ongoing inspections, 

recordkeeping and semiannual 

compliance reporting activities for the 

first year of compliance are 113 hours 

per facility. 

Information on our cost impact 

estimates on the sources in the chemical 

preparations area source category is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0028.) 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

The only measurable costs 

attributable to these proposed standards 

are associated with the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. These proposed standards 

are estimated to impact a total of 26 area 

source facilities. We estimate that 

approximately 38 percent (10 of 26) of 

these facilities are small entities as 

defined by the SBA. Our analysis 

indicates that compliance with this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant adverse impact on any 

facilities, large or small, since these 

costs are less than 1 percent of revenues 

for each facility. 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

No detrimental secondary impacts are 

expected to occur from compliance with 

the proposed rule by chemical 

preparations industry sources because 

all facilities are currently achieving the 

GACT level of control. No additional 

solid waste would be generated as a 

result of the PM emissions collected and 

there are no additional energy impacts 

associated with the operation of control 

devices at chemical preparations 

industry sources. We expect no increase 

in the generation of wastewater or other 

water quality impacts. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined that this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to the OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted to OMB for approval 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39023 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2356.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

based on the requirements in EPA’s 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

General Provisions are mandatory 

pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded in 

accordance with CAA section 114(c) 

and the Agency’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

This proposed NESHAP would 

require sources in the chemical 

preparations area source category to 

submit an Initial Notification of 

Applicability and a Notification of 

Compliance Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the 

General Provisions (subpart A) and to 

conduct continuous parametric 

monitoring, vent collection system and 

control device inspections, and submit 

semi-annual compliance reports. The 

annual burden for this information 

collection averaged over the first three 

years of this ICR is estimated to be a 

total of 2,372 labor hours per year at a 

cost of approximately $176,000 or 

approximately $6,800 per facility. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0028]. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after August 5, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by September 4, 2009. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as (1) a small business 

that is engaged in the manufacturing of 

chemical preparations 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule is estimated to 

impact all new and 26 existing chemical 

preparations area source facilities. We 

estimate that 10 of these facilities may 

be small entities. We have determined 

that small entity compliance costs, as 

assessed by the facilities’ cost-to-sales 

ratio, are expected to be less than 1 

percent. The costs are so small that the 

impact is not expected to be significant. 

Although this proposed rule contains 

requirements for new area sources, we 

are not aware of any new area sources 

being constructed now or planned in the 

next 3 years, and, consequently, we did 

not estimate any impacts for new 

sources. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to minimize 

the impact of this proposed rule on 

small entities. The standards represent 

practices and controls that are common 

throughout the chemical preparations 

industry. The standards also require 

only the essential recordkeeping and 

reporting needed to demonstrate and 

verify compliance. These standards 

were developed based on information 

obtained from consultation with small 

business representatives at the State and 

national level and industry 

representatives that are affiliated with 

small businesses. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, and Tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, Tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

This action 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. The 

proposed rules contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments, and 

impose no obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule 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. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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). This action would not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified area 

sources and not Tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

final rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects because energy 

requirements will not be significantly 

impacted by additional monitoring 

requirements. There are no additional 

pollution controls that would consume 

energy required by this proposed rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

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 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 

2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, and 

5A. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to these EPA methods. The 

search identified 16 voluntary 

consensus standards that were 

potentially applicable for this rule in 

lieu of EPA reference methods. EPA has 

decided to use ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

3B. EPA determined the 15 other 

candidate VCS (ASTM D3154–00 

(2006), ASTM D3464–96 (2007), ASTM 

D3796–90 (2004), ISO 10780:1994, 

ASME B133.9–1994 (2001), ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19–10–1981 Part 10, ISO 

10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, 

ASTM D5835–95 (2007), ASTM D6522– 

00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 

(1999), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ 

ASME PTC–38–1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M–98 (2005), CAN/CSA 

Z223.1–M1977) identified for measuring 

emissions of pollutants or their 

surrogates subject to emission standards 

in the proposed rule would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. No applicable voluntary 

consensus standards were identified for 

EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, and 

5A. 

Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart 

A of the General Provisions, a source 

may apply to EPA for permission to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

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 U.S. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed 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. 

This proposed rule will establish 

national standards for the chemical 

preparations area source category. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart BBBBBBB to read as follows: 

Subpart BBBBBBB—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: Chemical 

Preparations Industry 

Sec. 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

63.11579 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.11580 What are my compliance dates? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements 

63.11581 What are my standards? 

63.11582 What are my compliance 

requirements? 

63.11583 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

63.11584 What are my initial and 

continuous compliance management 

practice requirements? 

63.11585 What are my notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39025 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11586 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

63.11587 What General Provisions sections 

apply to this subpart? 

63.11588 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63— 

Emission Reduction Requirements 

Table 2 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance Demonstration 

Methods With the Emission Reduction 

Requirements in Table 1 

Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63—Test 

Methods 

Table 4 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance Demonstration 

Methods With the Emission Reduction 

Requirements in Table 1 

Table 5 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63— 

Reporting Requirements 

Table 6 to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63— 

General Provisions 

Subpart BBBBBBB—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Area Sources: Chemical Preparations 

Industry 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11579 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you meet all of the following conditions: 

(1) You own or operate a chemical 

preparations facility (as defined in 

§ 63.11588, ‘‘What definitions apply to 

this subpart?’’), 

(2) The chemical preparations facility 

is a stationary area source of hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) (as defined in 

§ 63.2), and 

(3) The chemical preparations facility 

has at least one chemical preparations 

operation in target HAP service (as 

defined in § 63.11588, ‘‘What 

definitions apply to this subpart?’’). 

(b) The affected source is all chemical 

preparations operations (as defined in 

§ 63.11588, ‘‘What definitions apply to 

this subpart?’’) located at a facility that 

meets the criteria specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(1) An affected source is existing if 

you commenced construction, as 

defined in § 63.2, of the affected source 

before August 5, 2009. 

(2) An affected source is new if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction, as defined in § 63.2, of 

the affected source on or after August 5, 

2009. 

(c) On and after August 5, 2009, if 

your chemical preparations operation 

becomes a major source, as defined in 

§ 63.2, you must continue to meet the 

requirements of this subpart in addition 

to any maximum achievable control 

technology standards which may apply 

at that time. 

(d) This subpart does not apply to 

research and development facilities, as 

defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(e) You are exempt from the 

obligation to obtain a permit under 40 

CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided 

you are not otherwise required by law 

to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) 

or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the 

previous sentence, you must 

continuously comply with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(f) You are exempt from the 

requirements specified in this subpart if 

the chemical preparations operations at 

your facility are subject to the 

requirements specified in subpart 

VVVVVV or subpart CCCCCCC of this 

part. 

§ 63.11580 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions in this subpart no later than 

[insert date one year after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register]. 

(b) If you start up a new affected 

source on or before [insert the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must achieve 

compliance with this subpart no later 

than [insert the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register]. 

(c) If you start up a new affected 

source after [insert the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must achieve 

compliance with this subpart upon 

startup of your affected source. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.11581 What are my standards? 

You must meet the emission standard 

in Table 1 to this subpart and the 

management practices in § 63.11584 of 

this subpart that apply to you. These 

standards apply at all times. 

§ 63.11582 What are my compliance 

requirements? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements specified in Table 1 of this 

subpart as follows: 

(1) Using the methods specified in 

Table 2 of this subpart, or 

(2) For existing sources only, using 

the results of an emissions test 

conducted in the past 5 years, provided 

the test meets the following 

requirements. 

(i) The test was conducted under 

conditions that represent normal 

operation. 

(ii) The test was performed using the 

methods specified in Table 3 of this 

subpart. 

(iii) The test was conducted with a 

minimum of three separate test runs, as 

specified in § 63.7(e)(3). 

(b) If you choose to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements in Table 1 of this subpart 

by conducting an emissions test, you 

must follow the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of 

this section and include the results in 

your Notification of Compliance Status 

Report (NOCSR) in accordance with 

§ 63.11585(b)(3). 

(1) You must conduct the tests under 

conditions that represent normal 

operation. 

(2) You must perform the test using 

the methods specified in Table 3 of this 

subpart. 

(3) You must conduct a minimum of 

three separate test runs for each 

performance test required in this 

section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). 

(4) You must use the following 

equation to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission reduction 

requirements specified in Table 1 of this 

subpart: 

RE = [(Ci¥Co)/Ci]*100 

where: 

RE = particulate matter removal efficiency, 

percent. 

Ci = concentration of particulate matter at 

inlet of control device, gr/dscf. 

Co = concentration of particulate matter at 

outlet of control device, gr/dscf. 

(c) If you choose to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements specified in Table 1 of this 

subpart by providing control device 

manufacturer’s performance guarantee 

information, then you must include the 

following information in your NOCSR 

(in accordance with § 63.11585(b)(3)). 

(1) Control device make, model, and 

installation date. 

(2) Performance guarantee certificate 

provided by the control device 

manufacturer. 

(3) If a filter is used to control 

particulate matter, performance 

guarantee information for the fabric or 

fiber filters used in the control device. 

(d) If you choose to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements specified in Table 1 of this 

subpart by providing engineering 

calculations, then the calculations and 

supporting documentation must contain 

the items specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (d)(5) of this section. These 

calculations and supporting 

documentation must be included in 

your NOCSR (in accordance with 

§ 63.11585(b)(3)). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Calculations and supporting 

documentation, such as delivery 

receipts, production logs and raw 

material safety data sheets that quantify 

the amount of target HAP in the raw 

materials used in chemical preparations 

operations in the calendar year prior to 

the compliance date. 

(2) Calculations and supporting 

documentation, such as sales receipts, 

production logs and product material 

safety data sheets (MSDS) for target 

HAP-containing products that quantify 

the amount of target HAP in products of 

the chemical preparations operations in 

the calendar year prior to the 

compliance date. 

(3) Calculations and supporting 

documentation of target HAP raw 

material losses from the chemical 

preparations operations that were not 

contained in products, solid or liquid 

waste streams, or recycled back into the 

chemical preparations operation prior to 

any vent collection system or particulate 

matter control device in the calendar 

year prior to the compliance date. This 

quantity is the amount of target HAPcontaining particulate matter in the 

uncontrolled air emissions from the 

chemical preparations operation (Qi). 

(4) Calculation and supporting 

documentation, such as manufacturer 

guarantees, of quantities of target HAPcontaining particulate matter captured 

by the vent collection system and 

particulate matter control device for the 

calendar year prior to the compliance 

date (Qo). 

(5) Use the results of the calculations 

from paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this 

section in following equation to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements 

specified in Table 1 of this subpart: 

RE = [(Qi¥Qo)/Qi]*100 

where: 

RE = particulate matter removal efficiency, 

percent. 

Qi = annual amount of particulate matter in 

uncontrolled emissions, pounds per 

year. 

Qo = annual amount of particulate matter 

captured by control device, pounds per 

year. 

§ 63.11583 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

(a) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance, you must establish and 

maintain site-specific control device 

parameter values that indicate proper 

operation of the control device to meet 

the emissions reduction requirements 

according to your monitoring plan 

established under paragraph (g) of this 

section, as specified in Table 4 of this 

subpart. 

(b) Data recorded during monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, or 

periods of inactivity of the chemical 

preparation operation resulting in 

cessation of emissions to which the 

monitoring applies may not be used in 

data averages and calculations to 

establish operating levels, nor may such 

data be used in fulfilling a minimum 

data availability requirement. You must 

operate the continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) during all 

other periods when the process 

equipment is in target HAP service and 

use all the data collected during these 

periods in assessing the operation of the 

process vent collection system and 

control device. 

(c) You must install, calibrate, 

operate, and maintain each control 

device CPMS according to 

manufacturer’s specifications, and as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(c)(5) of this section. 

(1) The CPMS must be maintained 

and operated in a manner consistent 

with good air pollution control practices 

at all times. 

(2) The CPMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 

(3) To determine the 3-hour average, 

you must: 

(i) Have data from at least three of 

four equally spaced data values for that 

hour from a CPMS, except as stated in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(ii) Determine each successive 3-hour 

average from all recorded readings for 

each 3-hour period, except as stated in 

paragraph (b) of this section. You must 

have at least two of the three hours for 

that period using only hourly values 

that are based on valid data (i.e., not 

described by paragraph (b) of this 

section). 

(4) For production periods in target 

HAP service less than 3 hours, you 

must: 

(i) Have valid data from at least three 

of four equally spaced data values for 

each hour from a CPMS that is not outof-control according to your 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

(ii) Determine the average from all 

recorded readings for the production 

period, except as stated in § 63.11583(b). 

(5) You must record the results of 

each calibration and validation check of 

the CPMS. 

(d) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

of paragraph (c) of this section and the 

following: 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or 

as close as possible to, a position that 

provides a representative measurement 

of the pressure. 

(2) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.12 

kiloPascals or a transducer with a 

minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 

percent of the pressure range. 

(3) Check pressure tap for plugging 

daily. Perform an accuracy check at 

least quarterly or following an operating 

parameter deviation: 

(i) According to the manufacturer’s 

procedures; or 

(ii) By comparing the sensor output to 

redundant sensor output. 

(4) Conduct calibration checks any 

time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range or install a new 

pressure sensor. 

(5) At least monthly or following an 

operating parameter deviation, perform 

a leak check of all components for 

integrity, all electrical connections for 

continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage. 

(6) At least quarterly or following an 

operating parameter deviation, perform 

visible inspections on all components if 

redundant sensors are not used. 

(7) You must record the results of the 

inspections and accuracy and 

calibration checks specified in 

paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(6) of this 

section in accordance with § 63.11585. 

(e) As an alternative to installing the 

CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, you may install a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 

that measures inlet and outlet PM 

concentrations around the control 

device and meets the requirements 

specified in § 63.8 and the applicable 

performance specifications of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

(f) For each monitoring system 

required in this section, you must 

develop and make available for 

inspection by the permitting authority, 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring 

plan that addresses the following: 

(1) Selection and justification of the 

monitored parameter that indicates 

proper operation of the control device to 

meet the emissions limitation, if the 

parameter measured is something other 

than pressure drop. 

(2) Installation of the CPMS at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of particulate matter emissions 

(e.g., on the last control device); 

(3) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the parametric signal 

analyzer and the data collection and 

reduction system; and 

(4) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria 

according to the manufacturer (e.g., 

calibrations). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39027 

(g) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address the 

following: 

(1) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations or the general 

requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), 

(c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8); 

(2) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations; and 

(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i) and the requirements 

of § 63.11585. 

(h) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CPMS in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(i) You must operate and maintain the 

CPMS in continuous operation, and 

collect parametric data at all times that 

emissions are routed to the monitored 

control device, except for system 

breakdowns, repairs, maintenance 

periods, instrument adjustments, or 

checks to maintain precision and 

accuracy, calibration checks and zero 

and span adjustments. 

§ 63.11584 What are my initial and 

continuous compliance management 

practice requirements? 

(a) For each new and existing affected 

source, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance by conducting the 

inspection activities in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section and ongoing compliance 

by conducting the inspection activities 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(1) Initial vent collection system and 

particulate control device inspections. 

You must conduct an initial inspection 

of each vent collection system and 

particulate control device according to 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

record the results of each inspection 

according to paragraph (b) of this 

section and perform corrective action 

where necessary. You must conduct 

each inspection no later than 60 days 

after your applicable compliance date 

for each control device which has been 

operated within 60 days following the 

compliance date. For a control device 

which has not been installed or 

operated within 60 days following the 

compliance date, you must conduct an 

initial inspection prior to startup of the 

control device. 

(i) For each wet particulate control 

system, you must verify the presence of 

water flow to the control equipment. 

You must also visually inspect the vent 

collection system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks (as defined in 

§ 63.11588, ‘‘What definitions apply to 

this subpart?’’) and inspect the interior 

of the control equipment (if applicable) 

for structural integrity and the condition 

of the control system. 

(ii) For each dry particulate control 

system, you must visually inspect the 

vent collection system ductwork and 

dry particulate control unit for leaks (as 

defined in § 63.11588, ‘‘What 

definitions apply to this subpart?’’). You 

must also inspect the inside of each dry 

particulate control unit for structural 

integrity and condition. 

(iii) An initial inspection of the 

internal components of a wet or dry 

particulate control system is not 

required if there is a record that an 

inspection has been performed within 

the past 12 months and any 

maintenance actions have been 

resolved. 

(2) Ongoing vent collection system 

and particulate control device 

inspections. Following the initial 

inspections, you must perform periodic 

inspections of each vent collection 

system and PM control device according 

to the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. You must 

record the results of each inspection 

according to paragraph (b) of this 

section and perform corrective action 

where necessary. 

(i) You must inspect and maintain 

each wet control system according to 

the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) You must conduct a daily 

inspection to verify the presence of 

water flow to the wet particulate control 

system. 

(B) You must conduct monthly visual 

inspections of the vent collection 

system ductwork and wet particulate 

control equipment for leaks (as defined 

in § 63.11588, ‘‘What definitions apply 

to this subpart?’’). 

(C) You must conduct inspections of 

the interior of the wet control system (if 

applicable) to determine the structural 

integrity and condition of the control 

equipment every 12 months. 

(ii) You must inspect and maintain 

each dry particulate control unit 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(A) You must conduct monthly visual 

inspections of the vent collection 

system ductwork for leaks (as defined in 

§ 63.11588, ‘‘What definitions apply to 

this subpart?’’). 

(B) You must conduct inspections of 

the interior of the dry particulate control 

unit for structural integrity and to 

determine the condition of the fabric 

filter (if applicable) every 12 months. 

(b) You must record the information 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(6) of this section for each inspection 

activity. 

(1) The date, place, and time; 

(2) Person conducting the activity; 

(3) Method of inspection; 

(4) Operating conditions during the 

activity; 

(5) Results; and 

(6) Description of any correction 

actions taken. 

(c) 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 this standard have 

been achieved. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

§ 63.11585 What are my notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) What General Provision 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements must I meet? 

You must meet the requirements of 40 

CFR part 63 subpart A according to 

Table 4. 

(b) What notifications must I submit 

and when? (1) Initial Notification of 

Applicability. If you own or operate an 

existing affected source, you must 

submit an initial notification of 

applicability as required by § 63.9(b)(2) 

no later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. If you own or operate 

a new affected source, you must submit 

an initial notification of applicability 

required by § 63.9(b)(2) no later than 

120 days after initial start-up of 

operation or 120 days after the date of 

publication of in the Federal Register, 

whichever is later. The initial 

notification of applicability must 

include the information specified in 

§ 63.9(b)(2)(i)–(iii). 

(2) Notification of Intent to conduct a 

Performance Test. If you elect to 

conduct a performance test, you must 

submit a notification of intent to 

conduct a performance test at least 60 

calendar days before the performance 

test is scheduled to begin, as required in 

§ 63.7(b)(1). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39028 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Notification of Compliance Status 

Report (NOCSR). You must submit a 

NOCSR according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You 

must submit the NOCSR, including the 

performance test results, if applicable, 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the applicable 

compliance date specified in § 63.11580 

or completion of the performance test, 

whichever is sooner. The NOCSR must 

include the information in 

§ 63.9(h)(2)(i)(A)–(G) necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standard as of the applicable 

compliance date. 

(4) If you have an existing source and 

are using data from a previouslyconducted performance test to serve as 

documentation of compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements of this 

subpart, you must submit the test data 

in lieu of the initial performance test 

results with the NOCSR required under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(c) What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(1) You must submit compliance 

reports as specified in Table 5 to this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(2) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each compliance 

report specified in Table 5 to this 

subpart according to the following 

dates: 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.11580 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the first calendar 

half after the compliance date that is 

specified for your source in § 63.11580. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31, whichever date 

follows the end of the first calendar half 

after the compliance date that is 

specified for your affected source in 

§ 63.11580. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the semiannual 

reporting period. 

(3) The compliance report must 

contain the following information: 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the content of the 

report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) If there are no deviations from the 

emission reduction requirements 

specified in Table 1, a statement that 

there were no deviations from the 

emission reduction requirements during 

the reporting period. 

(v) If there were no periods during 

which the CPMS was out-of-control as 

defined by the manufacturer’s 

recommendations, a statement that there 

were no periods during which the 

CPMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period. 

(vi) A description of any changes in 

CPMS, processes, or controls since the 

last reporting period or for the first 

compliance report, since the notification 

of compliance status report. 

(4) For each deviation, as defined in 

§ 63.11588, including any deviations 

that occur during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, you must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, and 

the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (x) of this section. 

(i) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(ii) The date and time that each CPMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(iii) The date, time and duration that 

each CPMS was out-of-control. 

(iv) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction or during another period. 

(v) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(vi) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(vii) A summary of the total duration 

of CPMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CPMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(viii) A brief description of the 

process units. 

(ix) A brief description of the CPMS. 

(x) The date of the latest CPMS 

certification or audit. 

(5) If acceptable to both the 

Administrator and you, you may submit 

reports and notifications electronically. 

(d) What records must I maintain? 

(1) You must maintain the following 

records: 

(i) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification of Applicability or NOCSR 

that you submitted, according to the 

requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(ii) Records of performance tests and 

performance evaluations as required in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(iii) Records of CPMS calibration 

checks and adjustments and 

maintenance performed on CPMS as 

required by § 63.10(b)(2)(x) and (xi). 

(iv) Records of CPMS as required by 

§ 63.10(c) and § 63.11583(c)(5). 

(v) Records of all inspections as 

required by § 63.11583(c)(5), 

§ 63.11583(d)(7) and § 63.11584(b). 

(vi) Records of the site-specific 

monitoring plan developed according to 

§ 63.11583(a). 

(vii) Records of particulate control 

device manufacturing specifications and 

recommendations. 

(2) You must maintain the records 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(ii) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each recorded 

action. 

(iii) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

recorded action according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records 

offsite for the remaining 3 years. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11586 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or a 

delegated authority such as your State, 

local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your State, local, or Tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if implementation and enforcement 

of this subpart has been delegated. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the following 

authorities are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA: 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.11579, 63.11580, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39029 

63.11581, 63.11582, 63.11583, and 

63.11584. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

§ 63.11587 What General Provisions 

sections apply to this subpart? 

You must comply with the 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A) according to 

Table 6 of this subpart. 

§ 63.11588 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Chemical preparation means a 

product, or intermediate used in the 

manufacture of other products, 

manufactured in a process operation 

described by one or more of the 

following NAICS codes, with specific 

criteria, as follows: 325998 if the 

operations manufactures target HAPcontaining products or intermediates; 

311942 if the operation manufactures 

products containing trace mineral 

additives; 325199 if the operation is not 

covered by the chemical manufacturing 

area source regulation (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart VVVVVV); 325510 if the 

operation is not covered by the paint 

and allied products area source 

regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CCCCCCC). 

Chemical preparations facility means 

any facility-wide collection of chemical 

preparation operations. 

Chemical preparations operation 

means the collection of mixing, 

blending, milling, and extruding 

equipment used to manufacture 

chemical preparations. A chemical 

preparation operation may include all, 

or only some, of the equipment listed 

above, depending on the chemical 

preparation being manufactured. Mixing 

and blending equipment may be used to 

process either wet or dry materials, or 

a combination of wet and dry materials. 

Milling equipment includes, but is not 

limited to, various types of rolling mills, 

rotary mills, and grinders. Extruding 

equipment, for the purposes of this 

subpart, includes direct and indirect 

extruders, spray driers, and prilling 

towers. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

management practice established by this 

subpart; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement a 

requirement in this subpart and that is 

included in the operating permit for any 

affected source required to obtain such 

a permit; or 

(3) Fails to meet any emissions 

limitation or management practice in 

this subpart during startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction. 

In target HAP service means that 

equipment in the chemical preparation 

operation either contains, contacts, or is 

processing target HAP-containing 

materials. 

Leak means a break in the integrity of 

the vent collection or control device 

system (i.e., in the duct work, piping, 

etc.) such that visual particulate 

emissions, liquids or residue form 

outside the vent collection system or 

control device. 

Process vent stream means a gas 

stream from any equipment in target 

HAP service at the point where that gas 

stream is discharged from a vent 

collection system to the inlet of a 

control device. 

Research and development equipment 

means any equipment whose primary 

purpose is to conduct research and 

development to develop new processes 

and products, where such equipment is 

operated under the close supervision of 

technically trained personnel and is not 

engaged in the manufacture of products 

for commercial sale in commerce, 

except in a de minimis manner. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in § 63.2. 

Target HAP means metal compounds 

for chromium, lead, manganese, and 

nickel. 

Target HAP-containing means raw 

materials, intermediates, or products 

that contain one or more target HAP. 

Any material that contains compounds 

of chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts 

greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 

weight (as the metal), or manganese 

compounds in amounts greater than or 

equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the 

metal) is considered to be target HAPcontaining. Target HAP content is 

shown in the formulation data provided 

by the manufacturer or supplier, such as 

the Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material. 

Vent collection system means hoods, 

enclosures, ductwork and fans utilized 

to remove particulate emissions from 

chemical preparations operations work 

areas. 

Tables to Subpart BBBBBBB of Part 63 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

For each * * * You must * * * Using * * * 

Process Vent Stream ........................... Route all process vent streams from equipment in 

target HAP service to a PM control device with 

a PM percent reduction efficiency of 95%.

Vent collection system and PM control device, 

such as a wet scrubber or fabric filter, that are 

maintained and operated per manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODS WITH THE EMISSION

REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 1 

If you are demonstrating compliance with the 

* * * You must demonstrate initial compliance by one of the following methods * * * 

Requirement to route all process vent streams 

from equipment in target HAP service to a 

PM control device with a PM percent reduction efficiency of 95%.

(1) Perform a particulate matter emissions test using the methods listed in Table 3 to this subpart; or 

(2) Provide performance guarantee information from the control device manufacturers that certifies the device is capable of reducing particulate matter concentrations by 95%; or, 

(3) Provide engineering calculations, such as mass balance and flow rate calculations, capable 

of demonstrating that the control device is capable of reducing particulate matter concentration from the chemical preparations operation process vent streams by 95%. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39030 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—TEST METHODS

For * * * You must use * * * 

1. Selecting the sampling locations a and the number of traverse points .................................. EPA test method 1 or 1A in appendix A to part 

60. 

2. Determining the velocity and volumetric flow rate ................................................................. EPA test method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as appropriate, in appendix A to part 60. 

3. Determining the gas molecular weight used for flow rate determination .............................. EPA test method 3, 3A, 3B, as appropriate, in appendix A to part 60. 

4. Measuring the moisture content of the stack gas .................................................................. EPA test method 4 in appendix A to part 60. 

5. Measuring the PM emissions ................................................................................................. EPA test method 5A in appendix A to part 60. 

aThe sampling locations must be located at the outlet of the process equipment (or control device, if applicable), prior to any releases to the 

atmosphere. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODS WITH THE

EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 1 

If you are demonstrating compliance with the 

. . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

Requirement to route all vent streams from 

equipment in target HAP service to a PM 

control device with a PM percent removal efficiency of 95%.

a. Identifying periods when the chemical preparations operation is in target HAP service. 

These include: 

1. Production records showing the dates and times the chemical preparations operation is 

processing target HAP-containing materials, and 

2. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) of target HAP-containing materials being processed. 

b. Monitoring, with a CPMS, and maintaining records of data verifying that the vent collection 

system and control device were operated within the range of parameters established to 

comply with the emission reduction requirements (i.e., according to manufacturer’s recommendations or at the conditions used during the most recent performance test) while the 

chemical preparations operation was in target HAP service. The control device monitoring 

data is averaged over a 3-hour period or over all valid data points, if the chemical preparations operation is in target HAP service for less than 3 hours at a time. Monitored parameters may include electricity supply to vent collection system fans, pressure drop across the 

control device, or scrubber liquor flow to the control device, as appropriate to the particulate 

matter control device being used. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

If you are demonstrating compliance with the 

. . . You must submit a compliance report that contains . . . 

Requirement to route all process vent streams 

from equipment in target HAP service to a 

PM control device with a PM percent reduction efficiency of 95%.

a. Documentation of periods when the chemical preparations operation is in target HAP service. The documentation includes: 

1. Production records showing the dates and times the chemical preparations operation is 

processing target HAP-containing materials, and 

2. MSDS of target HAP-containing materials being processed. 

b. For the periods in target HAP service identified in a. above: 

1. A statement that there were no deviations from the requirement to route all process 

vent streams from equipment in target HAP service to a PM control device with a PM 

percent reduction efficiency of 95% during the reporting period, if there are no deviations that apply to you. 

2. If there were no periods during which the process vent collection system and control 

device was not operating normally (i.e., according to manufacturer’s recommendations 

or at the conditions used during the most recent performance test), a statement that 

there were no periods during which the vent collection system and control device were 

not being operated normally during the reporting period. 

3. If you have a deviation from the requirement to route all process vent streams from 

equipment in target HAP service to a PM control device with a PM percent reduction efficiency of 95% or periods where the vent collection system or control device were not 

operated normally, the report must contain the information specified in § 63.11585(b). 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Subject Applies to subpart 

BBBBBBB 

§ 63.1 ............................................................. Applicability ................................................................................................ Yes. 

§ 63.2 ............................................................. Definitions ................................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.3 ............................................................. Units and Abbreviations ............................................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.4 ............................................................. Prohibited Activities .................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.5 ............................................................. Construction/Reconstruction ...................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(a)–(d) .................................................. Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements .................. Yes. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39031 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART BBBBBBB OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart 

BBBBBBB 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................................. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ............................................... No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii)–(iii) ......................................... Operation and Maintenance Requirements ............................................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) .................................................... [Reserved] ..................................................................................................

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. ................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................................................... Compliance with Non-opacity Emissions Standards—Applicability ........... No. 

§ 63.6(h) ........................................................ Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards .................................................. No. Subpart BBBBBBB 

does not contain 

opacity or VE standards. 

§ 63.6(i) ......................................................... Compliance Extension ............................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ......................................................... Presidential Compliance Exemption .......................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7 ............................................................. Performance Testing Requirements .......................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) .................................................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements ................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) .................................................... Performance Specifications ....................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) .................................................... [Reserved] ..................................................................................................

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................................................... Monitoring with Flares ................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) .................................................... Monitoring ................................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............................................. Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems .................................. Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) .................................................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance ....................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ................................................. CMS maintenance ...................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................................ Spare Parts for CMS Malfunction .............................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............................................... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements ................... No. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................................. Monitoring System Installation ................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) .................................................... CMS Requirements .................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .................................................... COMS Minimum Procedures ..................................................................... No. Subpart BBBBBBB 

does not contain 

opacity or VE standards. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) .................................................... CMS Requirements .................................................................................... Yes. Only if you used 

CEMS to demonstrate compliance. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) .............................................. CMS Requirements .................................................................................... Yes. Only if you used 

CEMS to demonstrate compliance. 

§ 63.8(d) ........................................................ CMS Quality Control .................................................................................. Yes. Only if you used 

CEMS to demonstrate compliance. 

§ 63.8(e)–(g) .................................................. CMS Performance Evaluation .................................................................... Yes. Only if you used 

CEMS to demonstrate compliance. 

§ 63.9 ............................................................. Notification Requirements .......................................................................... Yes. Except Initial Notification shall be submitted in accordance 

with the schedule in 

§ 63.11585. 

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(viii)–(xi), (c), (e)(1), 

(e)(2)(i), (f).

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ............................................ Yes. 

§ 63.11 ........................................................... Control Device and Work Practice Requirements ..................................... Yes. 

§ 63.12 ........................................................... State Authority and Delegations ................................................................ Yes. 

§ 63.13 ........................................................... Addresses of State Air Pollution Control Agencies and EPA Regional 

Offices.

Yes. 

§ 63.14 ........................................................... Incorporations by Reference ...................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.15 ........................................................... Availability of Information and Confidentiality ............................................ Yes. 

§ 63.16 ........................................................... Performance Track Provisions ................................................................... No. 

[FR Doc. E9–18537 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39032 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 410, 411, 414, 415, and 

485 

[CMS–1413–CN2] 

RIN 0938–AP40 

Medicare Program; Payment Policies 

Under the Physician Fee Schedule and 

Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical errors in the proposed rule 

entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Payment 

Policies Under the Physician Fee 

Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B 

for CY 2010’’ which appeared in the 

July 13, 2009 Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aucha Prachanronarong, (410) 786– 

1879. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Summary of Errors 

In FR Doc. E9–15835 of July 13, 2009, 

there were technical errors that are 

identified and corrected in the 

Correction of Errors section below. 

In the Physician Quality Reporting 

Initiative section of the preamble to the 

proposed rule (section II.G.2.), we 

inadvertently omitted eight measures in 

our discussion of the new individual 

quality measures proposed for 2010. 

II. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. E9–15835 of July 13, 2009 

(74 FR 33520), make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 33574, second column, 

first full paragraph, the number ‘‘168’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘176.’’ 

2. On page 33580, bottom fourth of 

the page, third column, last paragraph, 

the number ‘‘22’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘30.’’ 

3. On page 33581, 

a. Top of the page, 

(1) Second column, first paragraph, 

line 11, the number ‘‘22’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘30.’’ 

(2) Third column, first full paragraph, 

(a) Line 3, the phrase ‘‘16 of these 22 

measures’’ is corrected to read ‘‘24 of 

these 30 measures.’’ 

(b) Line 6, the number ‘‘16’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘24.’’ 

b. Bottom two-thirds of the page, in 

Table 19—New Individual Quality 

Measures Proposed for 2010, after the 

last measure titled ’’ HIV/AIDS: 

Sexually Transmitted Diseases— 

Syphilis Screening’’ add the following 

measures: 

Measure title 

NQF endorsement status as 

of 5/1/09 

AQA adoption 

status as of 1/ 

31/09 

Measure developer Reporting 

mechanism(s) 

Functional Communication Measure: Spoken Language Comprehension.Yes ................. No .................. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Attention ........................... Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Memory ............................. Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Motor Speech ................... Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Reading ............................ Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Spoken Language Expression.Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Writing .............................. Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Functional Communication Measure: Swallowing ........................ Yes ................. No .................. ASHA .............................. Registry. 

Authority: Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare— 

Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program. 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Dawn Smalls, 

Executive Secretary to the Department. 

[FR Doc. E9–18840 Filed 8–3–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 635 

[Docket No. 080724902–9663–01] 

RIN 0648–AX07 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

North and South Atlantic Swordfish 

Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

adjust the North and South Atlantic 

swordfish quotas for the 2009 fishing 

year (January 1, 2009, through December 

31, 2009) to account for underharvests, 

and to transfer 18.8 metric tons (mt) 

dressed weight (dw) to Canada per the 

2006 and 2008 International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

recommendations 06–03 and 08–02. In 

addition, NMFS proposes to include 

minor regulatory modifications and 

clarifications, eliminate an existing 

sunset provision in the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps time/ 

area closure, and establish a small time/ 

area closure in the Gulf of Mexico called 

the ‘‘Edges 40 Fathom Contour.’’ These 

changes could impact fishermen with a 

commercial swordfish, HMS Angling, or 

Charter/Headboat (CHB) permit who 

fish for Atlantic swordfish. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

may be submitted at a public hearing 

(oral or written), or via mail, or fax by 

September 4, 2009. 

The public hearing dates and times 

are: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS