Thursday, 

October 29, 2009 

Part IV 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources; Final Rule 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other 

additives to the process. 

2 ‘‘Table 1’’ refers to Table 1 in the final rule. 

3Collectively, the Table 1 organic and metal HAP 

are referred to as the ‘‘chemical manufacturing 

urban HAP’’ or ‘‘Table 1 HAP.’’ 

4The CMPU is defined by a facility’s production 

of materials described by NAICS code 325. A 

facility producing such a material (or family of 

materials) may use more than one train or series of 

equipment to make it. All equipment (i.e., unit 

operation) used to produce a specific product (as 

well as all the vents and activities associated with 

making this product) are considered to be part of 

a single CMPU for purposes of this rule. For 

example, facility X makes a pharmaceutical product 

that requires the use of methylene chloride as a 

solvent. The product is produced in any of three 

different size reactors, depending on the quantity 

needed or equipment availability. All of the 

reactors; other process equipment (e.g., for 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334; FRL–8972–6] 

RIN 2060–AM19 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national 

emission standards for the control of 

hazardous air pollutants for nine area 

source categories in the chemical 

manufacturing sector: Agricultural 

Chemicals and Pesticides 

Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Production, Industrial 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, 

Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments 

Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic 

Materials and Resins Manufacturing, 

Pharmaceutical Production, and 

Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The 

standards and associated requirements 

for the nine area source categories are 

combined in one subpart. This final rule 

establishes emission standards in the 

form of management practices for each 

chemical manufacturing process unit as 

well as emission limits for certain 

subcategories of process vents and 

storage tanks. The rule also establishes 

management practices and other 

emission reduction requirements for 

subcategories of wastewater systems and 

heat exchange systems. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, 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. 

Randy McDonald, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

5402; fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address: mcdonald.randy@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. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information for this Final 

Rule 

III. Summary of Major Changes Since 

Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Emission Standards 

C. Initial Compliance 

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

(SSM) 

F. Title V 

IV. Summary of Final Rule 

A. Applicability 

B. Compliance Dates 

C. Standards 

D. Initial Compliance Requirements 

E. Continuous Compliance Requirements 

F. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

V. Summary of Comments and Responses 

A. Applicability 

B. Compliance Dates 

C. Standards 

D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) 

H. Title V Permitting 

VI. Impacts of Final Area Source 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? 

VII. 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 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action are 

shown in the table below. This final rule 

applies to each chemical manufacturing 

process unit (CMPU) that uses as 

feedstocks,1 generates as byproducts, or 

produces as products any of the 

following 15 hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP): 1,3-butadiene; 1,3- 

dichloropropene; acetaldehyde; 

chloroform; ethylene dichloride; 

methylene chloride; hexachlorobenzene; 

hydrazine; quinoline (i.e., ‘‘chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP’’ or 

‘‘Table 12 organic HAP’’); or compounds 

of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, or nickel (i.e., ‘‘chemical 

manufacturing metal urban HAP’’ or 

‘‘Table 1 metal HAP’’). Consistent with 

the proposed rule, the standards do not 

apply to hydrogen halide and halogen 

HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, chlorine, 

and hydrogen fluoride) at affected 

sources, except when these HAP are 

generated in combustion-based emission 

control devices that are used to meet the 

proposed standards for organic HAP on 

Table 1.3 The affected source for this 

rule is the facility-wide collection of 

CMPUs that use, generate, or produce 

one or more of the Table 1 HAP and the 

wastewater systems and heat exchange 

systems associated with the CMPUs that 

use Table 1 HAP. A CMPU includes all 

process equipment and activities 

involved in the production of a material 

described by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Code 

325.4 If a CMPU uses, generates, or 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56009 

separation, drying, etc.); connecting piping and 

related pumps, valves, etc.; storage tanks; transfer 

operations; surge control vessels; bottoms receivers; and other activities (e.g., routine cleaning) are part 

of a single CMPU. 

produces one of the chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP listed 

above, then the standards apply to all 

listed Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

112(b) organic HAP emitted from that 

CMPU. Similarly, if a CMPU uses, 

generates, or produces one of the 

chemical manufacturing metal urban 

HAP listed above, then the standards 

apply to all listed CAA section 112(b) 

metal HAP emitted from that CMPU. 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action 

include: 

Industry category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities 

Chemical Manufacturing 325 Chemical manufacturing area sources that use as feedstock, generate as byproduct, or produce as 

product, any of the HAP subject to this subpart except for: (1) Processes classified in NAICS 

Code 325222, 325314, or 325413; (2) processes subject to standards for other listed area source 

categories 2 in NAICS 325; (3) certain fabricating operations; (4) manufacture of photographic film, 

paper, and plate where material is coated or contains chemicals (but the manufacture of the photographic chemicals is regulated); and (5) manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium chloride, radium luminous compounds, strontium, and uranium. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2The source categories in NAICS 325 for which other area source standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production, Chemical 

Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and Allied 

Coatings, and Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing. 

Area sources in NAICS 325 not 

specifically identified in the chart above 

may also be affected by this action. To 

determine whether your chemical 

manufacturing area source is regulated 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 

of subpart VVVVVV (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Sources). For additional information 

about applicability provisions, see 

sections III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 

preamble. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, 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. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of this final 

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. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final rule is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by December 28, 2009. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

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

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of this rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information for This 

Final Rule 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

EPA to establish national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for both major and area 

sources of HAP that are listed for 

regulation under CAA section 112(c). A 

major source is any stationary source 

that 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 

which, 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) (Strategy). 

Specifically, in the 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) of the 

CAA 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 selected the nine 

chemical manufacturing area source 

categories based on these requirements. 

A primary goal of the Strategy is to 

achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 

incidence attributable to HAP emitted 

from stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA 

may elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies 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: 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

5 ‘‘Article’’ means a manufactured item: ‘‘(1) 

Which is formed to a specific shape or design 

during manufacture; (2) which has end use 

functions dependent in whole or in part upon its 

shape or design during end use; and (3) which does 

not release a toxic chemical under normal 

conditions of processing or use of that item at the 

facility or establishment.’’ 40 CFR 372.3. 

* * * 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 that 

have many small businesses. 

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 

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 at issue. Finally, as we have 

already noted, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are issuing these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for nine source 

categories listed pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) by 

October 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. 

Johnson, no. 01–1537, D.D.C., March 

2006). 

III. Summary of Major Changes Since 

Proposal 

A. Applicability 

In the proposed rule, we proposed 

that the affected source include the 

entire facility if the facility emitted any 

of the chemical manufacturing urban 

HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, 

all process vents, storage tanks, transfer 

operations, wastewater systems, and 

cooling towers at the facility would be 

subject to the standards if any emissions 

source at the facility emitted one of the 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP. In 

response to comments, we narrowed the 

scope of applicability of this final rule, 

and we made several changes to clarify 

the applicability provisions. The most 

significant change is that only CMPU 

that emit one or more of the 15 chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP and the 

wastewater systems and heat exchange 

systems associated with those CMPUs 

are subject to the rule. A CMPU 

includes all process equipment and 

activities involved in the production of 

a material (or family of materials) 

described by NAICS code 325. 

Additionally, a CMPU includes each 

surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, 

pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection 

system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector, storage tank, transfer rack, 

and instrumentation system associated 

with the production of a subject NAICS 

325 material. The final rule provides 

that a CMPU consists of one or more 

processing steps used in the production 

of the subject NAICS 325 material. 

The final rule further specifies that 

each CMPU within an affected source 

that emits one of the chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP is subject 

only to requirements that apply to the 

same type of HAP that triggered 

applicability, not requirements for all 

types of HAP. For example, a CMPU 

that uses only chemical manufacturing 

organic urban HAP is required to 

control all CAA section 112(b) organic 

HAP. Similarly, a CMPU that uses only 

chemical manufacturing metal urban 

HAP is required to control all CAA 

section 112(b) metal HAP. For the 

purposes of this provision, hydrazine is 

considered to be an organic HAP. 

In response to comments, we are 

clarifying that the rule does not extend 

to structural items (e.g., piping) and 

items that exist as ‘‘articles’’ as defined 

in 40 CFR 372.3, and are used under 

normal conditions, because these items 

do not emit any HAP, including the 

chemical manufacturing urban HAP.5

B. Emission Standards 

1. Management Practices 

EPA proposed management practices 

for a number of emission points, 

including for process vents (batch, 

continuous, and metal HAP); storage 

tanks; transfer operations; and 

equipment leaks. The proposed 

management practices for process vents 

included covering all process tanks and 

mixing vessels during operation; 

maintaining covers in the closed 

position on all openings and access 

points in other process vessels; 

conducting quarterly inspections to 

check for leaks from the process vessels 

and determining the integrity of the 

process vessels and ensuring covers are 

being used; and repairing leaks within 

15 days. EPA proposed these 

management practice requirements for 

all affected sources. For storage tanks, 

EPA proposed GACT as management 

practices consisting of quarterly 

inspections for leaks, minimizing and 

promptly cleaning up spills, and 

ensuring all openings and access points 

are closed for all storage tanks. For 

transfer operations, EPA proposed to 

minimize emissions using management 

practices, such as minimizing spills, 

cleaning up spills promptly, covering 

open containers when not in use, and 

minimizing discharges to open waste 

collection systems. 

In the final rule, the separate 

proposed management practices for 

process vents, storage tanks, transfer 

operations, and equipment leaks were 

consolidated and simplified into one 

comprehensive set of management 

practices that are applicable to each 

CMPU. The comprehensive 

management practices in the final rule 

include requirements to equip each 

process vessel with a cover or lid that 

must be in place at all times when the 

vessel contains HAP, except for material 

addition and sampling. The 

management practices also include 

sensory-based inspections of process 

vessels and equipment in each CMPU. 

Changes to management practices 

specific to small heat exchange systems 

are described in section III.B.2.f of this 

preamble. 

2. Emission Limits and Emission 

Control Requirements 

a. Continuous Process Vents and Batch 

Process Vents 

For continuous process vents with a 

total resource effectiveness (TRE) index 

of 1 or less, EPA proposed management 

practices and 95 percent emission 

reduction of organic HAP emissions. 

After consideration of the public 

comments, we are finalizing 

management practices and the 95 

percent emission reduction requirement 

for organic HAP emissions from 

continuous process vents. Based on 

public comments, the final rule includes 

a definition of continuous process vent 

that is based on the process vent 

definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F 

of the Hazardous Organics NESHAP 

(HON). In addition, the final rule 

includes a mass emission threshold of 

0.1 pound per hour (lb/hr) or less, below 

which the TRE index calculation is not 

required. 

For facilities with batch process vents, 

EPA proposed management practices 

and a 90 percent organic HAP emission 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56011 

reduction if the collective uncontrolled 

total organic HAP emissions from the 

sum of all batch process vents within 

the affected facility was 19,000 pounds 

per year (lbs/yr) or greater. The final 

rule requires management practices and 

85 percent control (90 percent for new 

sources) if the total organic uncontrolled 

HAP emissions from batch process vents 

within a CMPU are 10,000 lbs/yr or 

greater. We established the control 

efficiency of 85 percent as GACT for 

existing area sources based on 

additional information provided by 

commenters. Under the final rule, 

emissions from any batch process vents 

may be estimated based on process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, 

and/or test data. The proposed 

requirement to use the calculation 

methodology in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) 

for certain types of emission episodes is 

not required, but it is authorized under 

the final rule. The final rule also 

includes an expanded definition of 

batch process vent that includes 

examples of batch process vents and 

lists types of equipment and gas streams 

that are not batch process vents. 

b. Metal HAP Process Vents 

EPA proposed management practices 

and 95 percent metal HAP emission 

reduction if the collective uncontrolled 

total metal HAP emissions from the sum 

of all metal HAP process vents was 

greater than 400 lbs/yr on a facility-wide 

basis. In addition to the 400 lbs/yr level, 

EPA co-proposed a metal HAP threshold 

level of 100 lbs/yr on a facility-wide 

basis, and asked for public comment on 

the appropriate threshold to use for 

purposes of subcategorizing metal HAP 

process vents based on the factors 

discussed in the proposed rule. For 

metal HAP process vents with total 

uncontrolled metal HAP emissions less 

than the threshold, management 

practices would be required to reduce 

HAP emissions. After considering 

public comments, the final rule requires 

management practices and 95 percent 

reduction in metal HAP emissions from 

each CMPU with uncontrolled metal 

HAP process vent emissions of 400 lbs/ 

yr or greater. 

c. Storage Tanks 

The proposed rule cross-referenced 

the thresholds for control, as well as the 

standards and compliance procedures in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. The final 

rule replaces the references to subpart 

Kb with references to the standards and 

compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 

63, subparts SS and WW and by directly 

specifying the applicable thresholds for 

control in Table 5 to the final rule. The 

capacity and maximum true vapor 

pressure thresholds for control in the 

final rule are the same as at proposal, 

but the final rule specifies that the 

maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) 

threshold is to be based on the organic 

HAP content of the stored liquid, not 

the volatile organic liquid (VOL) content 

as specified in subpart Kb. As in other 

NESHAP, we intended to require MTVP 

determinations based on the organic 

HAP content in the stored liquid, but we 

inadvertently neglected to override the 

reference to VOL in the MTVP 

definition in subpart Kb. The standards 

and compliance procedures are 

essentially the same as at proposal, but 

the final rule references standards and 

compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 

63 (Subparts SS and WW, and the 

General Provisions, Subpart A). The 

final rule also includes a vapor 

balancing compliance alternative that 

provides at least equivalent levels of 

HAP emission reductions as the GACT 

requirements that we are finalizing. 

Based on public comments, we have 

determined that GACT for storage tanks 

that vent to a control device includes 

alternative procedures during periods of 

planned routine maintenance of the 

control device. Therefore, the final rule 

specifies that no material may be added 

to the storage tank during periods of 

planned routine maintenance, and 

periods of planned routine maintenance 

may not exceed 240 hours per year (hrs/ 

yr). 

Surge control vessels and bottoms 

receivers were included in the proposed 

definition of storage tank because we 

proposed that these types of vessels 

would be subject to the same standards 

as storage tanks. Surge control vessels 

and bottoms receivers remain subject to 

the storage tank standards in the final 

rule. However, based on public 

comments, we removed surge control 

vessels and bottoms receivers from the 

definition of storage tank, and instead 

explicitly specify in section 63.11496(h) 

of the final rule that the storage tank 

standards apply to surge control vessels 

and bottoms receivers that meet the 

applicability criteria for storage tanks 

set forth in Table 5 of the final rule. All 

storage tanks that store liquid 

containing organic HAP and are part of 

a CMPU subject to the final rule are 

subject to the management practice 

requirements. In addition, the definition 

of storage tank in the final rule is 

changed to make the definition 

consistent with definitions in other 

NESHAP such as the Miscellaneous 

Organic NESHAP (MON), HON, and 

Pharmaceutical maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards 

by excluding wastewater storage tanks 

and tanks storing liquid containing 

organic HAP only as impurities. 

d. Wastewater 

EPA proposed to subcategorize 

wastewater streams based on the size of 

the wastewater stream and determined 

that large wastewater streams were 

those with partially soluble HAP 

(PSHAP) concentrations of 10,000 parts 

per million by weight (ppmw) or 

greater. For wastewater streams with 

PSHAP concentrations of less than 

10,000 ppmw discharge, we proposed as 

GACT to send the wastewater stream to 

an onsite or offsite wastewater treatment 

process, and, for wastewater streams 

containing PSHAP concentrations of 

10,000 ppmw or greater, we proposed as 

GACT use of gravity separation or other 

techniques to separate organic and 

water layers and to send the water layer 

to a wastewater treatment process. We 

proposed that the organic layer must be 

recovered and reused in a process, used 

as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous 

waste. 

Based on comments, we are revising 

our subcategorization determination to 

account for wastewater streams with 

PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw 

or greater that do not have a separate 

organic layer. The separation techniques 

that we established as GACT for larger 

wastewater streams will not work for 

wastewater streams that contain only a 

water phase. For this reason, we are also 

now considering the type of stream in 

our subcategorization determination to 

account for the wastewater streams that 

do not separate at PSHAP 

concentrations of 10,000 ppmw. In the 

final rule, the larger wastewater stream 

subcategory is defined as those 

wastewater streams with PSHAP 

concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or 

greater that also have a separate organic 

layer. 

As stated above, the proposed GACT 

requirement for a wastewater stream 

that contains PSHAP concentrations of 

10,000 ppmw or greater was to separate 

the stream into the organic and aqueous 

phase and treat them according to the 

requirements in the proposed standards. 

The final rule retains these provisions 

for the newly defined large wastewater 

systems subcategory and also provides 

an alternative compliance option to 

hard-pipe the total stream to a 

combustion unit or other onsite 

hazardous waste treatment facility (or to 

a tank from which it is collected and 

shipped offsite). This alternative 

provides at least equivalent levels of 

HAP emission reductions as the 

emission control requirements 

contained in this proposed rule. We are 

also finalizing the proposed requirement 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

for single phase wastewater streams and 

the aqueous phase for two phase 

streams that requires the wastewater 

streams be sent to a wastewater 

treatment process. 

Based on public comments, we also 

revised the definition of wastewater 

stream to be consistent with MON and 

HON wastewater stream definitions. 

e. Transfer Operations 

EPA proposed that management 

practices to minimize evaporation losses 

and use of submerged loading were 

GACT for transfer operations. After 

considering public comments on the 

transfer operations requirements, we 

have replaced in some cases and revised 

in others the management practices for 

transfer operations and are 

promulgating a comprehensive 

management practice requirement (see 

discussion in section III.B.1 of this 

preamble), which includes inspection of 

transfer operations. In addition to the 

management practices, we have 

determined that GACT for most material 

transfers is the use of submerged 

loading or bottom loading. In response 

to public comments, we have added an 

alternative compliance option to route 

emissions to a fuel gas system or process 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. This alternative provides at 

least equivalent levels of HAP emission 

reductions as the GACT requirements 

that we are finalizing. 

Based on public comments, we have 

also determined that submerged or 

bottom loading is neither general 

industry practice nor GACT for the 

transfer of reactive and resinous 

materials because sources do not 

currently employ submerged or bottom 

loading for these materials due to 

operational issues. Therefore, the final 

rule defines reactive and resinous 

materials and requires sources to 

include in the initial Notifications of 

Compliance Status a list of any 

materials that meet these definitions. 

Source must also keep records of the use 

of these materials and report in the 

semiannual compliance report the use 

of any additional resinous or reactive 

materials occurring during the reporting 

period. Reactive materials are defined in 

the final rule as energetics, organic 

peroxides, and other unstable chemicals 

such as chemicals that react violently 

with water and chemicals that 

vigorously polymerize, decompose, 

condense, or become self-reactive under 

conditions of pressure or temperature. 

Resinous materials are defined in the 

final rule as viscous, high-boiling point 

material resembling pitch or tar that 

sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe 

under normal transfer conditions. 

f. Heat Exchange Systems 

The proposed rule used the term 

‘‘cooling tower’’ systems; however, we 

intended to regulate ‘‘heat exchange’’ 

systems as is consistent with the HON. 

We also intended to include ‘‘oncethrough’’ systems as part of the affected 

source. Therefore, the final rule uses the 

term ‘‘heat exchange system’’ in place of 

the proposed term ‘‘cooling tower 

system.’’ The final rule also includes a 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange system’’ 

that is consistent with the definition in 

40 CFR 63.101 of the HON and clearly 

specifies that once-through systems are 

included. 

After considering public comments, 

we have retained the proposed 

inspection and leak repair requirements 

for small heat exchange systems and 

monitoring and leak repair requirements 

for large heat exchange systems as the 

GACT requirements in the final rule. 

The proposed rule also required 

compliance with 40 CFR 63.104(a), and 

several commenters did not understand 

what that requirement meant. To 

address the confusion caused by the 

proposed rule, we clarified in the final 

rule that heat exchange systems meeting 

the conditions set forth in 40 CFR 

63.104(a) are not subject to the 

inspection or monitoring requirements 

contained in the final rule, as that is 

what we intended when we proposed 

the rule. 

As a compliance alternative to the 

requirement to perform repairs after an 

inspection of a small heat exchange 

system reveals indications of a potential 

leak into cooling water, the final rule 

also allows the owner or operator to 

demonstrate that the HAP concentration 

in the cooling water does not constitute 

a leak, as defined in 40 CFR 

63.104(b)(6). For both large and small 

heat exchange systems, the final rule 

also allows compliance with the HON 

heat exchange system requirements in 

40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c). For equipment 

that meets Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice (CGMP) requirements in 21 

CFR part 211, the physical integrity of 

the reactor may be used as the surrogate 

indicator of heat exchange system leaks 

under 40 CFR 63.104(c). These 

compliance alternatives provide at least 

equivalent levels of HAP emission 

reductions as the emission control 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

g. Equipment Leaks 

As discussed in section III.B.1 of this 

preamble, the proposed equipment leak 

requirements have been incorporated as 

part of the management practice 

requirements that apply to each CMPU 

subject to the final rule. However, 

following review of public comments, 

we added an alternative for equipment 

leaks in the final rule that allows an 

owner or operator to use Method 21 in 

lieu of sensory-based leak detection. 

Method 21 is at least equivalent to the 

leak inspection requirements we are 

finalizing in this rule. 

h. Overlapping Rules 

The final rule specifies that when 

equipment at an affected source is 

subject to both this rule and the 

provisions of another rule, compliance 

with the requirements of the other rule 

constitutes compliance with this final 

rule for the subject equipment if the 

owner or operator determines that the 

other emission control, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and/or reporting 

requirements provide at least equivalent 

levels of HAP emission reductions and 

compliance assurance as the 

requirements in the final rule. For 

example, if the control requirements in 

the other rule are at least as stringent as 

those provided in this rule, but the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirement in the other rule are not as 

stringent or comprehensive, the source 

may comply with the control 

requirements from the other rule, but 

must comply with the more stringent 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in this rule. The 

final rule requires a source that is 

subject to overlapping standards to 

identify in its Notification of 

Compliance Status all of the alternative 

requirements with which the source 

will be complying and provide an 

explanation of why the selected 

requirement is more stringent than this 

rule. The final rule also states that 

sources are responsible for making 

accurate determinations concerning the 

more stringent standard and 

noncompliance with this rule is not 

excused if it is later determined that the 

source was in error in its initial 

notification of compliance and, as a 

result, is violating this rule. Compliance 

with this rule is the responsibility of the 

affected source regardless of any 

notification of compliance. 

C. Initial Compliance 

For some control devices, the 

proposed rule allowed initial 

compliance to be demonstrated using 

either design evaluations or 

performance tests, but performance tests 

were required for certain other control 

devices. In response to comments, the 

final rule allows design evaluations as 

an alternative to performance tests for 

all control devices. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56013 

To clarify the initial compliance 

requirements for batch process vents 

and continuous process vents, some of 

the language from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF that was referenced in 

Table 2 to the proposed rule has been 

written directly into 40 CFR 63.11496(g) 

of the final rule. 

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

The proposed rule referenced parts of 

the General Provisions as well as 

subparts SS, FFFF, and NNNNNN in 40 

CFR part 63 for all control device 

monitoring requirements. With two 

exceptions, these monitoring 

requirements are retained in the final 

rule. One change in the final rule is that 

pH may be measured once per day 

rather than continuously for any 

halogen scrubber. The second change 

from proposal is that Table 9 to the final 

rule specifies that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) 

does not apply to affected sources under 

this rule. We made this change so that 

EPA Performance Specification 17 (PS– 

17) and EPA Quality Assurance 

Procedure 4, when finalized, will not 

apply to affected sources under this 

rule. 

In addition to monitoring 

requirements, the proposed rule 

referenced recordkeeping requirements 

in several other rules. To clarify these 

requirements, 40 CFR 63.11501(c) of the 

final rule lists all of the recordkeeping 

requirements and references the specific 

section in each rule that requires it. The 

notification and reporting requirements 

have also been revised in the final rule. 

For example, additional notification 

requirements have been incorporated 

into the final rule for certain transfer 

operations and overlapping rules as 

discussed above. 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

(SSM) 

During the comment period of the 

proposed rule, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA Section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the 

Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 

CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a 

regulation, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that EPA 

promulgated under section 112 of the 

CAA. When incorporated into CAA 

Section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standard 

during periods of SSM. 

Industry intervenors appealed the 

December 2008 Sierra Club decision by 

filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 

2009, the District of Columbia Circuit 

denied these petitions. On August 5, 

2009, EPA filed a motion seeking a 60- 

day stay of the mandate. On August 6, 

2009, industry intervenors filed a 

motion to stay the mandate pending 

their appeal of the decision to the 

United States Supreme Court. The Court 

recently denied industry intervenors’ 

motion to stay the mandate and granted 

EPA’s motion, directing the Clerk of the 

Court not to issue the mandate prior to 

October 6, 2009. Until the District of 

Columbia Circuit issues the mandate 

effectuating the vacatur, 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) remain in effect. 

The proposed rule included a 

reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). 

In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we 

revised Table 9, which addresses the 

applicability of the Part 63 General 

Provisions to the source categories at 

issue in this rule, to state that 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As 

such, the final emission standards 

summarized in section IV of this 

preamble apply at all times. As noted in 

section IV of this preamble, we are 

setting a separate emission standard for 

the nine source categories at issue here 

that applies to continuous process vents 

during periods of startup and shutdown, 

and that standard is 85 percent control, 

instead of the 95 percent control 

required at all other times. We are 

establishing a separate emission 

standard for these periods because they 

are characterized by activities such as 

the filling, emptying, and inerting of 

vessels, which generally result in 

significantly different emissions than 

normal operations. As for batch 

processes, startup and shutdown are 

part of their normal operations and, 

therefore, are already addressed by the 

standards. In addition, storage tanks, 

heat exchange systems, and transfer 

operations do not include startup and 

shutdown activities. 

We have also added language making 

clear that, to the extent this rule 

incorporates by reference emission 

standards from other CAA section 

112(d) rules, and those rules contain an 

exemption from the applicable emission 

standard during periods of SSM, that 

exemption does not apply for purposes 

of this rule. 

F. Title V 

Pursuant to section 502(a) of the CAA, 

the Administrator may ‘‘in the 

Administrator’s discretion and 

consistent with the applicable 

provisions of [the Act], promulgate 

regulations to exempt one or more [nonmajor] source categories (in whole or in 

part) from the requirements of [title V] 

if the Administrator finds that 

compliance with such requirements is 

impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome on such 

categories. * * *’’ We proposed to 

exempt the sources in the chemical 

manufacturing area source categories 

subject to this rule from compliance 

with the requirements of title V. Since 

proposal, we have reconsidered the 

proposed exemption and determined 

that it is not appropriate to finalize the 

exemption for certain synthetic area 

sources. Specifically, in proposing the 

exemption for these categories, we did 

not consider the large number of 

synthetic area sources that reduced their 

HAP emissions to below the major 

source thresholds by installing air 

pollution control devices. The oversight 

occurred because most sources subject 

to the other area source rules that 

exempted facilities from title V 

permitting have very low emissions 

before control (and most emit metal 

HAP). Conversely, for the chemical 

manufacturing area source category, we 

estimate 75 facilities are synthetic area 

sources for HAP and at least 10 percent 

of these facilities have uncontrolled 

HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, 

in the final rule, title V permits are 

required for area sources in the nine 

chemical manufacturing source 

categories that are synthetic area sources 

by virtue of the fact that they have 

reduced their HAP emissions to below 

the major source thresholds by 

installing air pollution control devices. 

We are, however, finalizing the 

exemption from the requirements of title 

V for those synthetic area sources that 

limited their HAP emissions to below 

the major source thresholds solely by 

complying with operational limits (e.g., 

limiting the hours the facility can 

operate) and for natural area sources, 

which are sources that neither installed 

controls nor took operational limits to 

become an area source. The analysis in 

the proposed rule finding that 

compliance with title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on these source categories 

remains accurate for the sources we are 

exempting. 

Based on our additional review of the 

source categories since proposal, we 

conclude that exemption for the 

synthetic area sources that installed 

controls is not appropriate given the 

facts associated with these sources as set 

forth below, and we do not believe title 

V is unnecessarily burdensome on these 

area sources. Unlike many other area 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

source categories that we have 

exempted from title V while 

implementing the requirements of CAA 

sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the 

nine chemical manufacturing area 

source categories include a large 

number of synthetic area sources that 

installed air pollution controls to 

become area sources. We evaluated 

other area source categories and 

determined that most sources subject to 

the other area source rules that 

exempted facilities from title V 

permitting have very low emissions 

before control. For the chemical 

manufacturing area source categories, 

we estimate that at least seven of the 47 

facilities that are synthetic area sources 

for HAP by virtue of installing controls 

would have uncontrolled HAP 

emissions over 100 tons per year. 

Synthetic area sources that installed 

controls represent more than 10 percent 

of the total number of sources that will 

be subject to the final rule. In fact, these 

sources are much more like the major 

sources of HAP subject to the HON and 

the MON. In addition, many of these 

sources are located in cities, and often 

in close proximity to residential and 

commercial centers where large 

numbers of people live and work. The 

record also indicates that many of these 

synthetic area sources have significantly 

higher emissions potential when 

uncontrolled than the other sources in 

the nine chemical manufacturing area 

source categories. For example, we have 

identified seven facilities that have 

uncontrolled emissions that exceed 100 

tpy. 

For these reasons, we believe that the 

additional public participation and 

compliance benefits of additional 

informational, monitoring, reporting, 

certification, and enforcement 

requirements that exist in title V should 

be the same for a major source that 

installed a control device after 1990 to 

become an area source as for a source 

that is major and installed a control 

device to comply with an applicable 

major source NESHAP, and thereby 

reduced emissions below major source 

levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy 

of total HAP). Many of the synthetic 

area sources that became area sources by 

virtue of installing add-on controls are 

large facilities with comprehensive 

compliance programs in place because 

their uncontrolled emissions would far 

exceed the major source threshold. We 

maintain that requiring additional 

public involvement and compliance 

assurance requirements through title V 

is important to ensure that these sources 

are maintaining their emissions at the 

area source level and, while there is 

some burden on the affected facilities, 

we think that the burden is not 

significant because these facilities are 

generally larger and more sophisticated 

than the natural area sources and 

sources that took operational limits to 

become area sources. 

For these reasons above, we have 

decided not to finalize the title V 

exemption for these facilities. The final 

rule requires title V permits for major 

sources of HAP emissions that installed 

controls after 1990 to become area 

sources of HAP emissions. We estimate 

that approximately 150 sources that will 

be subject to this rule are required to 

have title V permits because of criteria 

pollutants and the final rule will require 

an additional 47 affected area sources to 

obtain title V permits. 

We are not requiring title V permits 

for sources that reduced their emissions 

to area source levels by taking 

operational restrictions, such as 

restricting hours of operation or 

production, or for natural area sources. 

We conclude that our analysis in the 

proposed rule that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome for sources 

in the Chemical Manufacturing source 

categories remains accurate for the 

sources we are exempting. 

IV. Summary of Final Rule 

A. Applicability 

The final NESHAP applies to each 

CMPU that is located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that uses as 

feedstocks, generates as byproducts, or 

produces as products any of the Table 

1 HAP, where the Table 1 HAP are 

present in the feedstocks or are 

generated and present in the process 

fluid at concentrations greater than 0.1 

percent for carcinogens, as defined by 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, and greater than 1.0 

percent for noncarcinogens. A CMPU 

includes all process equipment, vents, 

and activities involved in the 

production of a material described by 

NAICS code 325, and it consists of one 

or more unit operations and all 

associated recovery devices. A CMPU 

also includes each surge control vessel, 

bottoms receiver, pump, compressor, 

agitator, pressure relief device or valve, 

sampling connection system, openended valve or line, valve, connector, 

storage tank, transfer rack, and 

instrumentation system associated with 

the production of NAICS code 325 

materials. An affected source is the 

facility-wide collection of all CMPUs 

that use, generate, or produce one or 

more Table 1 HAP. An affected source 

also includes each heat exchange system 

and wastewater system that is 

associated with any CMPU that uses, 

generates, or produces one or more 

Table 1 HAP. 

The nine chemical manufacturing 

area source categories include 

production of most of the materials 

classified under NAICS 325. The final 

rule specifies applicability based on 

CMPUs that are used to produce 

chemicals classified under NAICS 325, 

except for production of materials in 

NAICS 325 that are subject to other area 

source standards, as specified in the 

rule, see 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(1), and 

specific operations that are not 

considered to be chemical 

manufacturing, such as photographic 

paper (NAICS 325992), as described in 

40 CFR 63.11494(c)(2) of the final rule. 

To be subject to the rule, the CMPU 

must use as feedstocks, generate as 

byproducts, or produce as products any 

of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban 

HAP. If the CMPU is subject to the final 

rule, the standards apply to all CAA 

section 112(b) organic HAP emitted 

from the CMPU and all CAA section 

112(b) metal HAP emitted from the 

CMPU, depending on the type of HAP 

that triggers applicability under the rule. 

Specifically, a CMPU using only Table 

1 organic HAP is required to control all 

CAA section 112(b) organic HAP from 

the CMPU, a CMPU using only Table 1 

metal HAP is required to control all 

CAA section 112(b) metal HAP from the 

CMPU, and a CMPU using both metal 

and organic Table 1 HAP is required to 

control all CAA section 112(b) metal 

and organic HAP 

B. Compliance Dates 

All existing area source facilities with 

operations subject to this final rule must 

comply with the final rule requirements 

for their existing operations no later 

than October 29, 2012. A new area 

source must comply with the final rule 

requirements by October 29, 2009 or 

upon startup, whichever is later. For the 

purposes of determining compliance 

with the rule, a new source is a source 

that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after October 6, 2008. 

C. Standards 

For each CMPU that is part of an 

affected source, the final rule requires 

you to implement management practices 

that apply to all process equipment and 

other equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, 

and connectors) in the CMPU. In 

addition to the management practices, 

the final rule requires compliance with 

numerical emission limits and 

additional emission control 

requirements for certain process vents, 

storage tanks, surge control vessels, 

bottoms receivers, wastewater systems, 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56015 

and heat exchange systems that meet 

specified conditions. Management 

practice requirements and all numerical 

emission limits and other emission 

control requirements, except the 

emission limit for batch process vents, 

are the same at existing and new 

sources. 

1. Management Practices 

Owners and operators of CMPUs 

subject to this rule are required to 

comply with the following management 

practice requirements. All process 

vessels must be equipped with a cover 

or lid that is in place at all times when 

the vessel contains HAP, except for 

material addition and sampling. 

Transfer of liquids containing chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP to 

tank trucks or railcars must be 

conducted using submerged loading or 

bottom loading, except for reactive or 

resinous materials. You must identify 

each reactive or resinous material in 

your Notification of Compliance Status 

or the semiannual compliance report 

that covers the period when the material 

is first transferred. You must also 

conduct inspections of equipment 

within the CMPU quarterly to 

demonstrate compliance with the above 

management practices and confirm that 

all CMPU are sound and free of leaks. 

Any leaks must be repaired within 15 

days of finding the leak or you must 

document the reason for the delay. In 

addition, you must keep records of the 

inspection dates, inspection results, and 

the dates of equipment repairs. 

Owners or operators of small heat 

exchange systems that are part of a 

CMPU subject to this subpart with a 

cooling water flow rate of less than 

8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) and 

that do not meet the criteria in 40 CFR 

63.104(a) are required to develop a heat 

exchange system inspection plan that 

describes the inspections that will be 

performed to identify hydrocarbons in 

the cooling water. The inspections must 

be conducted quarterly and may include 

a number of sensory inspection options 

for determining indications of a leak, 

such as visible floating hydrocarbon, 

hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, or 

chemical addition rates. You must 

either perform repairs to eliminate 

indications of a leak or take samples and 

determine there is no leak (as defined in 

40 CFR 63.104(b)(6)). Repairs must be 

completed within 45 days after the 

inspection during which you observe 

indications of a leak, or you must 

document the reason for the delay. In 

addition, you must keep records of the 

heat exchange system inspection dates, 

inspection results, and the dates of leak 

repairs. 

As an alternative to the management 

practice requirements for small heat 

exchange systems, the final rule allows 

compliance with the requirements for 

large heat exchange systems with flow 

rates of 8,000 gal/min or greater (i.e., the 

HON heat exchange system 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or 

(c)). 

2. Standards for Batch Process Vents 

Owners and operators of a CMPU 

with collective uncontrolled organic 

HAP emissions greater than or equal to 

10,000 lbs/yr from all batch process 

vents associated with an affected CMPU 

must meet emission limits for the 

organic HAP emissions. Examples of 

batch process vents include, but are not 

limited to, vents on reactors, filters, 

centrifuges, condensers used for product 

recovery, and process tanks. These vents 

include intermittent emissions from 

continuous operations as well as 

emissions from batch operations. 

For an existing source, one control 

option is to reduce the collective 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

from the CMPU by at least 85 percent 

by venting emissions from a sufficient 

number of vents through one or more 

closed vent system to any combination 

of control devices (excluding a flare). 

Alternatively, you may route 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

from one or more batch process vents 

within the CMPU through one or more 

closed vent systems and meet an outlet 

concentration limit of 20 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) (as total 

organic carbon or total organic HAP) or 

through a closed vent system to a flare, 

and comply with the 85 percent 

reduction for the remaining vents in the 

CMPU. For a new source, the 

requirements are the same as for an 

existing source, except the required 

reduction is 90 percent instead of 85 

percent. 

When halogenated organic HAP 

compounds from batch process vents 

are controlled by combustion, you must 

also reduce the hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP generated in the 

combustion device by at least 95 

percent, to no more than 0.45 kilograms 

per hour (kg/hr), or to no more than 20 

ppmv. As an alternative to postcombustion halogen control, you may 

instead reduce the halogen atom mass 

emissions prior to the combustion 

device to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or 20 

ppmv. 

3. Standards for Continuous Process 

Vents 

We are finalizing the proposed GACT 

requirements for organic HAP emissions 

from each continuous process vent with 

a TRE index value less than or equal to 

1.0. Specifically, organic HAP emissions 

from each continuous process vent with 

a TRE index value less than or equal to 

1.0 must meet any one of several 

emission control alternatives. One 

option is to reduce the organic HAP 

emissions by at least 95 percent by 

routing through a closed vent system to 

one or more control devices. 

Alternatively, you may route the 

emissions to a flare, or you may meet 

the concentration option described 

above for batch process vents. Because 

a continuous process vent is determined 

after the last recovery device, another 

option is to use a recovery device from 

which the vent stream is determined to 

have a TRE greater than 1.0. In addition, 

we are establishing a requirement to 

reduce the organic HAP emissions from 

continuous process vents with a TRE 

less than 1.0 by at least 85 percent 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

Halogenated organic emissions from 

continuous process vents are subject to 

the same requirements described above 

for halogenated organic HAP emissions 

from batch process vents. 

4. Standards for Metal HAP Process 

Vents 

Owners and operators are required to 

reduce metal HAP emissions by at least 

95 percent from each CMPU with 

uncontrolled metal HAP emissions of 

400 lbs/yr or more. The metal HAP 

process vent emissions must be routed 

through a closed-vent system to a 

control device. 

5. Standards for Storage Tanks, Surge 

Control Vessels, and Bottoms Receivers 

We are finalizing the proposed 

emission controls for emissions from 

storage tanks, surge control vessels, and 

bottoms receivers that have (1) a 

capacity of 40,000 gallons or greater 

with vapor pressure of total organic 

HAP of 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) or greater 

and less than 76.6 kPa or (2) a capacity 

of 20,000 gallons or greater and less 

than 40,000 gallons with vapor pressure 

of total organic HAP of 27.6 kPa or 

greater and less than 76.6 kPa. Control 

options in the final rule include: (1) Use 

of an internal or external floating roof; 

(2) venting through a closed vent system 

to a control device that reduces organic 

HAP emissions by at least 95 percent; 

(3) vapor balancing to the tank truck or 

railcar from which the tank is filled; (4) 

routing to a flare; or (5) routing to a fuel 

gas system or process. Storage tanks, 

surge control vessels, and bottoms 

receivers with capacity of 20,000 gallons 

or greater with vapor pressure of total 

organic HAP of 76.6 kPa or greater must 

be controlled using any of the above 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

options except a floating roof. Storage 

tanks, surge control vessels, or bottoms 

receivers with a vent stream that 

contains halogenated compounds and 

that is controlled by combustion must 

also meet the same requirements 

described above for halogenated batch 

process vents. 

6. Standards for Wastewater Systems 

All wastewater discarded from a 

CMPU subject to the rule must be 

treated. In addition, each process 

wastewater stream and each 

maintenance wastewater stream in 

which the total PSHAP concentration is 

10,000 ppmw or greater, and which 

contains both an organic and an 

aqueous phase, must be decanted or 

separated by other techniques. 

Alternatively, wastewater streams that 

meet these conditions may be hard 

piped to onsite treatment as hazardous 

waste or hard piped to a collection tank 

or other vessel and shipped offsite for 

any of the same types of treatment. If the 

wastewater is separated into organic and 

aqueous layers, the organic material 

must be recycled to a process, used as 

fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste. 

The separated aqueous phase, like other 

process wastewater and maintenance 

wastewater that does not separate into 

an organic and an aqueous phase, must 

receive some type of treatment, either 

onsite or offsite, as described above. 

7. Standards for Heat Exchange Systems 

Owners or operators of heat exchange 

systems with cooling water flow rate of 

8,000 gal/min or greater must develop 

and operate in accordance with a 

monitoring plan that documents the 

procedures to be used to detect leaks of 

process fluids into cooling water. The 

plan must require monitoring of one or 

more surrogate indicators or monitoring 

of one or more process parameters or 

other conditions that indicate a leak. 

You must conduct the monitoring at 

least quarterly. Leaks must be repaired 

within 45 calendar days after detection 

unless specified conditions for delay of 

repair are met. You must keep records 

of leaks detected by methods described 

in your monitoring plan or by other 

methods, and you must keep records of 

the dates of repairs. A compliance 

alternative has been incorporated into 

the final rule that allows compliance 

with the HON heat exchange system 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b). This 

alternative provides at least equivalent 

levels of HAP emission reductions as 

the standards that we are finalizing 

today. 

D. Initial Compliance Requirements 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the management practices in the 

final rule, owners and operators of 

affected new and existing sources must 

certify that they have implemented all 

required management practices by the 

compliance date. To demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emissions control 

requirements, by the compliance date, 

the source must install and have 

operational, any required add on control 

equipment and/or have implemented 

any design requirements necessary to 

comply with the applicable standard. 

For batch process vents and metal 

HAP process vents, owners and 

operators must either calculate 

uncontrolled emissions or demonstrate 

that organic HAP usage is below 10,000 

lb/yr or metal HAP usage is below 400 

lb/yr. The final rule specifies that HAP 

emissions or usage may be determined 

based on process knowledge, 

engineering assessments, or test data. 

For continuous process vents with an 

organic HAP emission rate greater than 

0.1 lb/hr, owners and operators must 

determine the TRE index value. For 

wastewater streams, owners and 

operators must determine if the PSHAP 

concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw 

and contains separate aqueous and 

organic layers. All wastewater stream 

characterization determinations may be 

based on process knowledge, 

engineering assessments, or test data. 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with a percent reduction or outlet 

concentration emission limit in this 

final rule, owners and operators must 

conduct either a performance test or 

design evaluation. Limits for operating 

parameters that will be monitored to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance must 

be established during the performance 

test or design evaluation. 

E. Continuous Compliance 

Requirements 

Quarterly inspections are required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

management practice requirements and 

the standards for large heat exchange 

systems. Storage tanks equipped with 

floating roofs are also subject to periodic 

inspections and, for external floating 

roofs, seal gap measurements. Control 

device operating parameters must be 

continuously monitored to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with percent 

reduction or outlet concentration 

emission limits, and the continuous 

presence of a pilot flame must be 

verified in flares. Closed vent systems 

that convey emissions to a control 

device must be monitored using Method 

21 or by audible, visual, or olfactory 

(AVO) techniques, depending on the 

construction material and the source of 

the emissions. 

F. Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

The owner or operator of a new or 

existing affected source is required to 

comply with certain requirements of the 

General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are identified 

in Table 9 of the final rule. Each facility 

is required to submit an Initial 

Notification and a Notification of 

Compliance Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the 

General Provisions and 40 CFR 

63.11501 of the final rule. Among other 

things, the owner or operator must 

submit a compliance report for each 

semiannual reporting period during 

which a deviation occurred, a leak was 

not repaired within the specified time 

period, or a process change occurred 

that affected a previous compliance 

determination or resulted in a new 

compliance determination, including 

changes in the method of compliance. 

V. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

We received a total of 35 comments 

on the proposed rule from industry 

representatives, trade associations, State 

and Federal agencies, industry 

consultants, one environmental group, 

and the general public during the public 

comment period. In addition, two 

speakers provided testimony at a public 

hearing. Sections V.A through V.H of 

this preamble summarize the significant 

comments and explain our response. 

Other comments addressed minor 

clarifications to this rule or other issues 

that we did not consider to be 

significant; these comments and our 

responses to them are provided in the 

Response to Comments Document. 

A. Applicability 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA establish one or 

more de minimis applicability 

thresholds below which area sources 

that process or emit small amounts of 

urban HAP would be exempt from the 

rule. For example, some commenters 

requested a more comprehensive 

version of the proposed concentration 

thresholds of 0.1 and 1.0 percent urban 

HAP in feedstocks and products that 

would also apply to fuels, by-products, 

co-products, intermediates, HAP 

generated in the process, and/or 

catalysts. Other commenters requested a 

mass-based HAP usage or processing 

threshold (e.g., 2 megagrams per year or 

25,000 lbs/yr), actual or uncontrolled 

HAP emissions thresholds between 50 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56017 

lbs/yr and 6.25 tpy, a threshold based 

on the quantity of HAP stored onsite 

(consistent with the criteria that are 

used to determine Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

311/312 Tier 2 reporting thresholds), or 

a combination of thresholds. 

Two commenters argued that EPA has 

legal authority to set de minimis 

applicability thresholds. One 

commenter noted that the courts have 

determined that EPA has the authority 

to establish de minimis thresholds 

where the application of the statutory 

requirements would be of trivial or no 

value environmentally (see Alabama 

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F 2d 323.360– 

61; D.C. Cir. 1979). Another commenter 

noted that none of the provisions in the 

CAA related to EPA’s obligation to 

regulate area sources expressly prohibits 

EPA from using thresholds to define the 

applicability of GACT standards, and 

they do not implicitly mandate that EPA 

must regulate every HAP emission from 

an area source. 

Furthermore, one commenter noted 

that the proposed rule already includes 

de minimis thresholds (the 0.1 percent 

and 1.0 percent urban HAP 

concentrations in feedstocks and 

products), and previous rules have 

included de minimis thresholds. 

Response: Regulation of the nine 

chemical manufacturing area source 

categories is necessary for the Agency to 

meet the requirements of CAA sections 

112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) to regulate 

area source categories representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP. We listed the nine chemical 

manufacturing area source categories 

because they emit urban HAP and these 

categories were necessary to satisfy our 

requirement to regulate area sources 

representing 90 percent of the area 

source emissions of 15 of the 30 urban 

HAP. Area sources are, by definition, 

smaller sources and we recognize that 

the nine area source categories at issue 

are comprised of a large number of 

relatively small facilities. But we note 

that, although area sources individually 

may emit relatively low amounts of 

HAP, collectively, the level of emissions 

is significant. 

As discussed above and in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the 

Agency determined that it was 

necessary to regulate these nine area 

source categories to fulfill the mandate 

of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 

112(k)(3)(B) to regulate area sources 

accounting for 90 percent of the 

emissions of the urban HAP. In listing 

the nine chemical manufacturing area 

source categories at issue, the Agency 

did not condition the listing of any of 

the categories based on a de minimis 

level of emissions of the 15 chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP, beyond the 

feedstock and product limitations 

discussed below and in the proposed 

rule. We are, therefore, appropriately 

issuing emission standards that regulate 

the emissions of the 15 chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP. 

One commenter noted that EPA has 

included de minimis concentrations of 

urban HAP in feedstocks and products 

for purposes of determining 

applicability. In the proposed rule, 

feedstocks and products were defined as 

materials that contain the Table 1 HAP 

in concentrations greater than 0.1 

percent for carcinogens or greater than 

1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. As we 

have pointed out in several other area 

source rulemakings, the CAA section 

112(k) inventory was primarily based on 

the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), 

and that is the case for the chemical 

manufacturing area source categories as 

well. The reporting requirements for the 

TRI do not include de minimis 

concentrations of toxic chemicals in 

mixtures, as reflected in the above 

concentration levels; therefore, the CAA 

section 112(k) inventory would not have 

included emissions from operations 

involving chemicals below these 

concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, 

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: 

Community Right-To-Know (Reporting 

Requirements). Accordingly, the 

percentages noted above define the 

scope of the listed source category; they 

are not exemptions. We received no 

adverse comment on this issue, and we 

are finalizing the Table 1 HAP 

thresholds for feedstocks and products 

in this rule. 

We have reviewed the listing decision 

for the nine chemical manufacturing 

area source categories and have not 

identified any information suggesting 

that small sources were not included in 

our listing decision. As such, we do not 

believe we can satisfy our requirement 

to regulate sources representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP unless we 

subject all sources that emit those HAP 

to regulation in this rule. 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that applicability of the affected source 

should be limited to individual 

emission points, individual process 

units, or the group of process units that 

involve urban HAP, not all chemical 

manufacturing operations, as was 

proposed. According to the commenters, 

this change is needed in order to 

alleviate burden and establish a costeffective rule, particularly for specialty 

batch manufacturers that may operate 

processes that use an urban HAP 

infrequently. Commenters stated that 

EPA is not required to regulate HAP 

other than the 15 chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP needed to 

meet the 90 percent threshold. One 

commenter disagreed with EPA’s basis 

for establishing the two batch process 

vent subcategories where EPA 

concluded that emissions > 19,000 lbs/ 

yr represents solvent based, high 

production volume processes with 

concentrated emission streams. The 

commenter stated that this is only valid 

when applied to individual processes, 

but invalid when applied to entire sites. 

Another commenter stated that specialty 

chemical manufacturers would be 

disproportionately impacted by the 

proposed rule because of frequent 

variations and changes in product lines 

along with the unique aspects of batch 

processing. This commenter stated that 

specialty chemical producers will have 

to use thermal oxidizers with halogen 

controls, not condensers as EPA 

assumed, if all chemical manufacturing 

operations are covered. Commenters 

noted that costs to characterize 

wastewater streams that contain no 

urban HAP would be significant if all 

chemical manufacturing operations are 

covered. One commenter also expressed 

concern that a facility-wide grouping of 

operations is subject to various 

interpretations, which could lead to 

inconsistent implementation among the 

nine industry sectors covered by the 

rule. On the other hand, several 

commenters suggested that applicability 

be based on the familiar concept of 

‘‘chemical manufacturing process units’’ 

as in other rules. Also, several 

commenters noted that a primary 

concern is that the proposed rule would 

require compliance facility-wide upon 

startup of any individual process that 

involves an urban HAP and that their 

concerns would be minimized, if not 

eliminated, if the affected source were 

based on process units that involve 

urban HAP rather than all chemical 

manufacturing operations. 

Response: In the preamble to the 

proposed rule we explained the 

Agency’s authority to regulate all HAP, 

not only urban HAP, for those area 

source categories needed to achieve the 

90 percent requirement in CAA section 

112(c)(3). See 73 FR 58358. In the 

proposal, we explained that we were 

applying the standards to the entire 

facility and all HAP because the 

management practice requirements are 

equally effective for all HAP and there 

is little, if any, additional cost for 

implementing the management practices 

for all emission sources. In addition, 

where add-on controls are required, 

demonstrating compliance for total HAP 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

is less burdensome than demonstrating 

compliance for speciated HAP and that 

the controls are equally effective at 

reducing non-urban HAP emissions. We 

also explained that it was our 

understanding that process vents could 

be ducted together easily so that the cost 

for controlling HAP emissions from all 

process vents would not greatly increase 

if the rule so applied. We also assumed 

when proposing the rule that facilities 

in these categories generally have only 

one or two processes and that the 

processes are in close proximity to one 

another and that facilities are not 

changing products or processes on a 

regular basis. 

Commenters contend that many of our 

assumptions were in error and that if we 

based rule applicability on a CMPU 

basis instead of a facility wide basis the 

cost of compliance with the rule and 

many of their concerns would be 

addressed. As discussed below, based 

on the commenters’ suggestion and an 

evaluation of the industry and costs 

associated with the proposed rule, we 

have in the final rule defined the 

affected source as the CMPUs that emit 

the Table 1 HAP and the heat exchange 

systems and wastewater systems 

associated with those CMPUs instead of 

requiring compliance for the entire 

facility if one process contains Table 1 

HAP. As discussed in more detail 

below, we believe that most of our 

assumptions at proposal remain 

accurate because of this change. 

In addition, as we stated in the 

proposal, we continue to believe that we 

have the authority to address all CAA 

section 112(b) organic and metal HAP 

for those CMPUs subject to this final 

rule. Commenters argue that EPA is not 

legally required to address all HAP, but 

they do not state that the Agency has 

exceeded its discretion in doing so. For 

the reasons set forth in the proposal, we 

appropriately exercised our discretion 

to regulate the HAP at issue in this final 

rule. Moreover, the commenter does not 

refute that the management practices 

and emission limits are equally effective 

at removing non-urban metal and 

organic HAP, and that demonstrating 

compliance for total HAP is less 

burdensome than demonstrating 

compliance for speciated HAP for those 

sources required to install add-on 

controls. For these reasons, the final 

rule requires area sources to control all 

112(b) organic HAP from a CMPU that 

emits a Table 1 organic HAP and control 

all 112(b) metal HAP from a CMPU that 

emits Table 1 metal HAP, as well as the 

heat exchange systems and wastewater 

systems associated with those CMPUs. 

At proposal we estimated four 

facilities would have uncontrolled batch 

process vent emissions greater than 

19,000 lbs/yr, we assumed condensers 

could be used to control the emissions, 

and we estimated the total annual 

control cost would be $0.1 million/yr. 

We did not consider costs for facilities 

that are currently controlled to levels 

less than the proposed 90 percent level. 

After reevaluating the data, we estimate 

that 19 facilities have uncontrolled 

emissions greater than 19,000 lbs/yr, 

including the four uncontrolled 

facilities from the proposed analysis and 

another four facilities with control 

levels greater than 90 percent. If we had 

accounted for facilities with low current 

control levels, assumed centralized 

thermal oxidizers would be needed, and 

assumed considerably more duct work 

and related manifolding equipment was 

needed to connect numerous vents from 

several processes rather than only one 

or two processes, then the costs would 

be at least $2.1 million/yr, and the costeffectiveness would be at least $17,000/ 

ton of HAP controlled. 

Because of our misunderstanding of 

the sources’ configuration, we 

significantly underestimated the costs of 

compliance with the proposed rule 

when we defined the affected source as 

the entire facility if Table 1 HAP was 

emitted from any process. As stated 

above, we are revising the rule to 

require compliance only by CMPUs that 

emit one of the Table 1 HAP and heat 

exchange systems and wastewater 

systems associated with those CMPUs. 

Under the new construct, the cost and 

technological assumptions we made in 

the proposal are correct because the 

process vents of a CMPU are most likely 

to be located in the same building or 

otherwise in close proximity. In 

addition, estimating HAP in process 

vents and wastewater on a process basis 

is more consistent with normal 

operating practices for batch processes, 

and the owner or operator can estimate 

annual emissions by tracking the 

number of batches. 

With this change, we are addressing 

the concern raised by some commenters 

that for complex facilities (according to 

a commenter the number of processes 

can exceed 100) costs may be significant 

for ducting all batch vents to a central 

control device. The change will also 

limit applicability such that the 

commenters’ concern that the proposed 

rule would require compliance facilitywide upon startup of any individual 

process that involves an urban HAP will 

be eliminated. The Agency was mindful 

of the concern that requiring facilitywide compliance for each new process 

using a Table 1 HAP could affect a 

source’s willingness to experiment with 

new products containing a Table 1 HAP. 

In addition, the costs to comply with 

such a rule would be significant and 

sources would not know whether new 

product lines would be profitable before 

being developed or whether the 

attempts to develop new products 

would be successful. Under the final 

rule, facilities using, producing, or 

generating a Table 1 HAP in a CMPU 

will only have to comply with the rule 

for that specific CMPU. 

The change in scope of the affected 

source in the final rule from the entire 

facility to the CMPUs that emit Table 1 

HAP is necessary because of our 

incorrect assumptions at proposal, as 

explained above. The actual costs and 

environmental benefits for the final rule 

will be similar to what was projected in 

the proposed rule. The rule will regulate 

the same number of facilities, the rule 

will require add-on controls for 

approximately the same number of units 

that we estimated at the time of 

proposal, and the rule will achieve 

comparable reductions of HAP and 

particulate matter (PM) emissions. 

Although commenters agreed that 

EPA has the authority to regulate nonurban HAP, they suggest that the 

Agency only regulate the Table 1 HAP 

to reduce the burden and costs of 

compliance for some area sources. We 

believe we have addressed these 

concerns by redefining the affected 

source to be on a CMPU basis. If the 

CMPU uses, generates, or produces one 

of the chemical manufacturing organic 

urban HAP, then the standards apply to 

all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP in 

the affected CMPU. Similarly, if the 

CMPU uses, generates, or produces one 

of the chemical manufacturing metal 

urban HAP, then the standards apply to 

all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP in the 

process units and the associated vents. 

We continue to believe that the costs of 

controlling all organic or metal HAP, as 

applicable, are reasonable. We find here, 

as we explained at proposal, that the 

management practices and control 

requirements in this rule that reduce 

urban organic HAP and urban metal 

HAP from the affected sources are 

equally affective at reducing all CAA 

section 112(b) organic HAP or metal 

HAP, respectively. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested exempting biological products 

(NAICS 325414), tall oil recovery 

systems, and carbon monoxide so that 

the area source rule is consistent with 

the MON. One commenter requested 

that the rule explicitly state whether or 

not it applies to ethanol production 

facilities. 

Response: We have not exempted the 

cited processes, including industrial 

ethanol production, because they are 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56019 

6Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the 

minimum degree of emission reduction that MACT 

standards must achieve, which is known as the 

MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of 

emission reduction shall not be less stringent than 

the emission control that is achieved in practice by 

the best controlled similar source, and for existing 

sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not 

be less stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of the existing sources for which the 

Administrator has emissions information. CAA 

Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to consider whether 

more stringent emission reductions (so called 

beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically 

achievable considering, among other things, the 

cost of achieving the emission reduction. 

included in the scope of the nine listed 

area source categories (NAICS 325). 

However, the rule does not apply to 

beverage alcohol production, which is 

in NAICS 312. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that facilities not be required 

to consider the presence of urban metal 

HAP in catalysts when determining 

applicability of the rule because the 

catalysts remain unchanged in the 

process equipment for significant 

periods of time, and their use results in 

little, if any, emissions. One commenter 

observed that, for catalysts, the potential 

for emissions is only from their 

production and recycling, not their use 

in fixed beds. 

Other commenters requested 

exemptions for other forms of metals 

(e.g., in nutrients for biological 

processes and metals in piping). 

Response: We are concerned only 

with metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP 

in structures and metal HAP existing as 

articles (as defined in 40 CFR 372.3), 

where no metal HAP is released to the 

atmosphere, are not covered by this 

rule. However, if the use of catalysts in 

the processes results in Table 1 metal 

HAP emissions from the CMPU, then 

the CMPU is subject to the applicable 

standards for the affected CMPU. If the 

commenters’ assessment of the level of 

emissions is accurate, management 

practices would likely apply in these 

cases because the sources would likely 

not fall within the subcategory for 

which add-on emission controls are 

required. 

B. Compliance Dates 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested adequate compliance time for 

existing sources that do not become 

subject to the rule until a change 

introduces urban HAP for the first time 

after promulgation of the final rule or 

the initial compliance date. The 

commenters indicated that such a 

situation would occur if a facility (1) 

adds a new process, with or without 

new equipment, that introduces an 

urban HAP, or (2) makes a process 

change that introduces an urban HAP 

(perhaps unexpectedly as an impurity in 

a feedstock or generated as a byproduct). 

Several commenters also requested 

adequate compliance time for new 

sources. 

Response: The rule has a compliance 

period of 3 years for existing sources as 

authorized in the Part 63 General 

Provisions and section 112(i)(3) of the 

CAA. New processes at an existing 

source, whether for a new process unit 

or to expand an existing process unit, 

would become part of the existing 

source. If an existing source starts using 

a Table 1 HAP after the compliance date 

for existing sources has passed, the 

affected CMPU must comply with the 

standards at the time the new process 

begins. New sources must be in 

compliance upon startup or the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, whichever is later. 

C. Standards 

1. General Issues 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

while the CAA gives the Agency the 

authority to issue GACT standards 

under section 112(d)(5) for area sources, 

EPA’s decision to issue GACT standards 

instead of MACT standards is only valid 

if the Agency provides a rational 

explanation to support the decision. The 

commenter further stated that EPA 

provided no explanation for its decision 

to issue GACT standards instead of 

MACT standards and that this alone 

makes the Agency’s decision arbitrary 

and capricious. The commenter also 

maintains that the Agency evaluated 

proposed GACT measures by 

considering only cost-effectiveness. The 

commenter states that the Agency 

rejected on cost-effectiveness grounds 

the control options for the following 

emission sources: continuous process 

vents with a TRE greater than 1; batch 

process vents for facilities emitting less 

than 19,000 lbs/yr of organic HAP 

emissions; metal HAP process vents for 

facilities emitting less than 100 lbs/yr; 

cooling tower systems with cooling 

water flow rates less than 8,000 gal/min; 

equipment leaks; and transfer 

operations. The commenter maintains 

that the statute does not direct EPA to 

set standards based on costeffectiveness, and that the Agency 

cannot and does not argue that the 

control measures that were rejected are 

not appropriate for application by 

chemical manufacturing plants. The 

commenter also argues that the Agency 

does not claim that the economic 

impacts are too great, explain how 

profitable the plants are, or how 

economically significant the controls 

would be on the sources if required in 

this rule. The commenter maintains that 

EPA based its decision only on the 

Agency’s views on cost-effectiveness 

and that EPA’s views on this issue are 

not relevant under CAA section 

112(d)(5) and, therefore, the standards 

are unlawful. 

Response: As the commenter 

recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

Congress gave EPA explicit authority to 

issue alternative emission standards for 

area sources. Specifically, CAA section 

112(d)(5), which is entitled ‘‘Alternative 

standard for area sources,’’ provides: 

With respect only to categories and 

subcategories of area sources listed pursuant 

to subsection (c) of this section, the 

Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities 

provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) 

of this section, elect to promulgate standards 

or requirements applicable to sources in such 

categories or subcategories which provide for 

the use of generally available control 

technologies or management practices by 

such sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. 

See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis 

added). 

There are two critical aspects to CAA 

section 112(d)(5). First, CAA section 

112(d)(5) applies only to those 

categories and subcategories of area 

sources listed pursuant to CAA section 

112(c). The commenter does not dispute 

that EPA listed the nine area source 

categories noted above pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 

112(d)(5) provides that, for area sources 

listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), 

EPA ‘‘may, in lieu of ’’ the authorities 

provided in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

112(f), elect to promulgate standards 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). CAA 

Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 

standards established under that 

provision ‘‘require the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions’’ of HAP (also 

known as MACT). CAA section 

112(d)(3), in turn, defines what 

constitutes the ‘‘maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions’’ for new and 

existing sources. See CAA section 

112(d)(3).6 Webster’s dictionary defines 

the phrase ‘‘in lieu of ’’ to mean ‘‘in the 

place of ’’ or ‘‘instead of.’’ See Webster’s 

II New Riverside University (1994). 

Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes 

EPA to promulgate standards under 

CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for 

the use of GACT, instead of issuing 

MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute 

does not set any condition precedent for 

issuing standards under CAA section 

112(d)(5) other than that the area source 

category or subcategory at issue must be 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

7CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA 

section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled 

‘‘Area Sources’’ and providing that EPA is not 

required to conduct a review or promulgate 

standards under CAA section 112(f) for any area 

source category or subcategory listed pursuant to 

CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 

standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(5)). 8Additional information on the definition of 

‘‘generally available control technology or 

management practices’’ (GACT) is found in the 

Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA 

(S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171– 

172). That report states that GACT is to encompass: 

* * * 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. 

one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c), which is the case here.7

The commenter argues that EPA must 

provide a rationale for issuing GACT 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(5), 

instead of MACT standards. The 

commenter is incorrect, however. Had 

Congress intended that EPA first 

conduct a MACT analysis for each area 

source category, and only if cost or some 

other reason made applying the MACT 

standard inappropriate for the category, 

would EPA be able to issue a standard 

under CAA section 112(d)(5), Congress 

would have stated so expressly in CAA 

section 112(d)(5). Congress did not 

require EPA to conduct any MACT 

analysis, floor analysis, or beyond-thefloor analysis, before the Agency could 

issue a CAA section 112(d)(5) standard. 

Rather, Congress authorized EPA to 

issue GACT standards for area source 

categories listed under CAA section 

112(c), and that is precisely what EPA 

has done in this rulemaking. 

Although EPA has no obligation to 

justify why it is issuing a GACT 

standard for an area source category as 

opposed to a MACT standard, we did 

explain at proposal that being able to 

consider costs and economic impacts is 

important when establishing standards 

for categories like these with many 

small sources. Furthermore, EPA must 

set a GACT standard that is consistent 

with the requirements of CAA section 

112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for 

its GACT determination. As explained 

in the proposed rule and below, in 

determining what constitutes GACT for 

a particular area source category, EPA 

evaluates the control technologies and 

management practices that reduce HAP 

emissions that are generally available 

for the area source category. See 73 FR 

58354. The legislative history 

supporting CAA section 112(d)(5) 

provides that EPA may consider costs in 

determining what constitutes GACT for 

the area source category.8 EPA cannot 

consider cost in setting MACT floors, 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). 

Congress plainly recognized that area 

sources differ from major sources, 

which is why Congress permitted EPA 

to consider costs in setting GACT 

standards for area sources under CAA 

section 112(d)(5), but did not permit 

that consideration in setting MACT 

floors for major sources. This important 

dichotomy between CAA section 

112(d)(3) and CAA section 112(d)(5) 

provides further evidence that Congress 

sought to do precisely what the title of 

CAA section 112(d)(5) states—provide 

EPA the authority to issue ‘‘[a]lternative 

standards for area sources.’’ 

Notwithstanding the commenter’s 

claim, EPA properly issued standards 

for the area source categories at issue 

here under CAA section 112(d)(5), and 

cost-effectiveness was not the only 

consideration in setting the standards. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule: 

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 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 at issue. Finally, as noted 

above, in determining GACT for a particular 

area source category, we consider the costs 

and economic impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices on 

that category. 

73 FR 58354, October 6, 2008. 

As the commenter noted, EPA 

proposed emission standards for eight 

identified emission sources at chemical 

manufacturing area sources: Continuous 

process vents; batch process vents; 

metal HAP process vents; storage tanks; 

cooling tower systems; equipment leaks; 

transfer operations; and wastewater 

systems. We also proposed to 

subcategorize continuous process vents, 

batch process vents, metal HAP process 

vents, storage tanks, cooling tower 

systems, and wastewater systems based 

on variations of the size and type of the 

facility or the affected operation. We 

reviewed the GACT applied at area 

sources in the chemical manufacturing 

source categories at issue for each of the 

emission sources covered in the 

proposed rule. In determining what was 

generally available, we first considered 

what was generally available for each 

category or subcategory of emission 

source based on what was being applied 

at facilities or for emissions sources of 

a similar size and/or type of facility or 

emission source. For example, for 

continuous process vents, we 

considered what controls and 

management practices were in place for 

units with a TRE greater than 1 and 

what controls and management 

practices were in place for units with a 

TRE less than 1. For batch process 

vents, we considered what controls and 

management practices were in place at 

facilities that emitted more than 19,000 

lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions and 

what controls and management 

practices were in place at facilities that 

emitted less than 19,000 lbs/yr of 

organic HAP emissions. We also 

considered the control technologies and 

management practices employed by 

chemical manufacturing area sources 

already subject to standards, by facilities 

in other areas source categories, and by 

chemical manufacturing major sources. 

73 FR 58366. 

After determining what controls and 

management practices were generally 

available to the emission sources in the 

nine source categories at issue, we 

considered the costs and economic 

impacts associated with requiring the 

various controls and management 

practices before determining what 

constituted GACT for each emission 

source. The Agency specifically 

considered the cost-effectiveness of the 

different control technologies and 

management practices on the categories 

and subcategories of emission sources as 

a means of evaluating the costs of those 

emission standards. EPA evaluated the 

controls and management practices that 

were generally available and, in certain 

circumstances, determined that GACT 

was not add-on controls because the 

cost-effectiveness of such controls 

would not have been reasonable if 

applied to all facilities or emission 

sources in a given category or 

subcategory. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertions, the Agency’s consideration 

of cost-effectiveness in establishing 

GACT and the Agency’s views on what 

is a cost-effective requirement under 

CAA section 112(d)(5) are relevant. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit has stated 

that cost-effectiveness is a reasonable 

measure of cost as long as the statute 

does not mandate a specific method of 

determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v. 

EPA, 349 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 254 F.3d 

195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA’s 

decision to consider costs on a per ton 

of emissions removed basis reasonable 

because CAA section 213 did not 

mandate a specific method of cost 

analysis). CAA section 112(d)(5) does 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56021 

not mandate a specific method for 

considering cost when setting GACT 

standards. 

The commenter has provided no 

information to support the argument 

that add-on control requirements for 

process vents, storage tanks, and heat 

exchange systems are generally 

available for all such emission sources 

in each of the subcategories. The 

commenter also failed to provide any 

information indicating that our costeffectiveness determinations were 

unreasonable and, likewise, failed to 

provide any information concerning the 

economic impacts associated with 

requiring the standards that the 

commenter suggests represent GACT. 

The commenter appears to take issue 

with the manner in which the Agency 

establishes GACT but provides no 

alternative approach, instead only 

attacking the Agency’s consideration of 

cost (i.e., cost-effectiveness) as a 

consideration in the establishment of 

GACT. The Agency proposed GACT 

standards for the nine chemical 

manufacturing area source categories 

and subcategories that were established 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 112(d)(5). 

Comment: To avoid duplicative and 

conflicting requirements and to 

minimize burden, several commenters 

requested clarification of requirements 

when parts of an affected source under 

the area source NESHAP are also subject 

to requirements under other rules. 

Collectively, the commenters requested 

that the final rule address overlap with 

Part 60 NSPS in subparts Kb, VV, VVa, 

DDD, III, NNN, RRR, and the proposed 

YYY; Part 61 NESHAP in subparts V (as 

referenced from subparts F and J), L, Y, 

BB, and FF; subparts AA, BB, and CC 

in parts 264 and 265; State and local 

leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

requirements; other area source rules; 

and permit requirements that 

incorporate MACT standards. The 

commenters made three types of 

suggestions: (1) Specify that compliance 

with provisions in the other rule 

demonstrates compliance with the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVVVVV, (2) allow compliance with 

whichever rule is the most stringent, or 

(3) exempt sources from the 

requirements in the area source rule 

when another rule applies. For example, 

one commenter requested that 

compliance with any existing Federal, 

State, local, or permitted LDAR 

requirements be allowed to demonstrate 

compliance with the subpart VVVVVV 

equipment leak standards, provided the 

current requirements are at least as 

stringent as the final subpart VVVVVV 

standards. This commenter also 

requested exclusions from the 

wastewater standards for any 

wastewater stream that is subject to 40 

CFR part 61, subpart FF, whether or not 

treatment is required under subpart FF, 

and for any wastewater streams that 

become subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart YYY after the compliance date 

of subpart YYY. Another commenter 

stated that when more than one area 

source rule applies, sources should be 

allowed to opt for compliance with the 

more stringent requirements. 

Response: Provisions regarding 

overlap between 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVVVVV and other rules are included 

in the final rule. Compliance with 

provisions in overlapping rules as a 

means of demonstrating compliance 

with this final rule is allowed to the 

extent that requirements in the 

overlapping rule are at least as stringent 

as the requirements in subpart 

VVVVVV. For example, if the emission 

limits, monitoring requirements, and 

associated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the overlapping rule are 

all at least as stringent as the 

requirements in subpart VVVVVV, then 

compliance with the overlapping rule 

demonstrates compliance with subpart 

VVVVVV. Conversely, if all of the 

provisions in subpart VVVVVV are more 

stringent than the corresponding 

requirements in the overlapping rule, 

then the final rule requires compliance 

with all of the provisions in subpart 

VVVVVV. In all other situations where 

some provisions in the overlapping rule 

are more stringent and others are less 

stringent than those in this final rule, an 

owner or operator may demonstrate 

compliance with the final rule by 

complying with all of the most stringent 

requirements, whichever rule they are 

from. Specifically, to comply with any 

requirement (emission limit, monitoring 

requirement, recordkeeping 

requirement, and/or reporting 

requirement) in an overlapping rule as 

an alternative to the requirement in 

subpart VVVVVV, an owner or operator 

must first determine that the 

requirement in the overlapping rule is at 

least as stringent as the corresponding 

requirement in subpart VVVVVV. This 

determination also must be documented 

in the notification of compliance status 

or, for processes added in the future, in 

the semiannual compliance report that 

covers the period when the process 

starts up. The final rule also states that 

sources are responsible for making 

accurate determinations concerning the 

more stringent standard and 

noncompliance with this rule is not 

excused if it is later determined that the 

source was in error in its initial 

notification of compliance and, as a 

result, is violating this rule. Compliance 

with this rule is the responsibility of the 

affected source regardless of any 

notification of compliance or 

semiannual compliance report. 

Although the final rule includes these 

provisions for minimizing the 

compliance burden associated with 

overlapping rules, we did not include 

all of the commenters’ other 

suggestions, for the reasons discussed 

below. 

We disagree with one commenter’s 

suggestion that a wastewater stream 

subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, 

but exempt from treatment under 

subpart FF should also be exempt from 

treatment requirements under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart VVVVVV. The subpart 

FF requirements apply to the benzene 

content of the stream (or the total 

benzene in all waste). The benzene 

content has no relationship to the urban 

HAP (or other PSHAP) content of the 

stream. Therefore, treatment in 

accordance with subpart FF satisfies the 

treatment requirement under the final 

rule, but a stream that contains PSHAP 

and is exempt from treatment under 

subpart FF must receive treatment 

under this final rule. 

40 CFR part 63, Subpart VVVVVV and 

another area source rule should never 

apply at the same time because the 

affected sources do not overlap. 

However, equipment could be subject to 

subpart VVVVVV and either the 

chemical preparations or paint and 

allied products area source rules at 

different times depending on what is 

being produced. In these situations, 

sources should comply with each rule, 

whenever it is applicable. Alternatively, 

the owner or operator may determine 

the most stringent requirements in the 

applicable rules and comply with that 

combination of requirements at all 

times. 

Coke by-product recovery plants are 

not part of the chemical manufacturing 

area source category (i.e., they are 

described by NAICS 324199, All Other 

Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing); therefore, 40 CFR part 

61, subpart L does not overlap with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed management practice 

requirements for process vents and 

storage tanks should not be finalized. 

Each of these commenters objected to 

the management practice requirements 

for one or more of the following reasons: 

(1) The proposed requirements are not 

GACT because they are not industry 

practice, are not required in other rules, 

achieve little or no emission reduction, 

and cost more than EPA has estimated; 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) some equipment is not designed to 

operate with covers or enclosed, often 

because to do so would jeopardize the 

physical integrity of the unit (i.e., 

pressure/vacuum vents on storage 

tanks); and/or (3) the requirements 

duplicate and/or potentially conflict 

with the proposed requirements for 

equipment leaks. 

Several commenters made additional 

points. Two commenters stated that 

operating under vacuum should be 

exempted from or allowed as an 

alternative to having all closure 

mechanisms in the closed position. One 

commenter stated that equipment 

integrity verification procedures that are 

part of CGMP required by the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration for 

pharmaceutical production processes 

should be recognized as an acceptable 

alternative to the management practices. 

One commenter requested an exemption 

from inspection requirements for 

inaccessible and unsafe openings, and 

another commenter noted that the 

burden estimates did not appear to 

reflect the cost to inspect openings that 

are not generally accessible. One 

commenter stated that, in order to 

protect themselves against 

disagreements with enforcement 

agencies, facilities will feel the need to 

use instrument-based LDAR techniques 

instead of the required sensory-based 

inspections. 

One commenter indicated that 

facilities supplement applicable 

equipment leak regulations by having 

operation personnel watch for AVO 

indications of a hydrocarbon leak 

during their rounds, but they do not 

specifically check ‘‘openings’’ in 

equipment. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA rely on the 

equipment leak provisions because 

many of the elements in the proposed 

management practice requirements are 

already addressed in the equipment leak 

provisions. 

Several commenters presented 

estimates of the level of effort and costs 

to implement the proposed management 

practices. One commenter estimated 

that total setup and training time would 

involve 100 hours for operations 

personnel, 20 hours of technical time, 

and 10 hours of administrative support. 

This commenter also estimated 20 to 40 

hours to conduct each inspection, and 

an additional 5 to 10 hours of 

administrative support per inspection to 

manage the program. 

A second commenter estimated 40 

hours of engineering time to develop the 

initial list of openings and equipment, 

and 4 hours per year to maintain the 

list. In addition, this commenter 

estimated each inspection would take 

24 hours of technician time, and a cost 

of several thousand dollars would be 

incurred for scaffolding and man-lift 

rentals. Overall, this commenter 

estimated the average cost to be about 

$6,000/yr per facility; however, the 

commenter estimated the cost for one 

facility would be cut by a factor of 5 if 

the rule applied only to processes using 

or emitting urban HAP rather than all 

processes. 

A third commenter estimated the cost 

for process vent inspections to be about 

$1,200/yr rather than the $300/yr 

estimated by EPA because of the 

potentially large number of process 

vents that would have to be considered 

under the proposed applicability 

requirements. 

A fourth commenter estimated 4 

hours per process for setup of the data 

management system, 1.25 hours per 

inspection per process, and a contractor 

fee of $125/hr. 

Response: In consideration of the 

specific comments on management 

practices as well as comments above 

regarding the scope of the affected 

source, we have made several changes 

to the proposed management practices. 

We made these changes because the 

proposed management practice 

requirements were redundant for CMPU 

with both batch and continuous process 

vents because the proposed 

requirements for both emission points 

applied to all process equipment. In 

addition, a more streamlined approach 

reduces the compliance burden without 

causing an increase in emissions. 

In the final rule, the various proposed 

management practices for process vents, 

equipment leaks, transfer operations, 

and storage tanks were consolidated and 

simplified into one comprehensive set 

of management practices that are 

applicable to each affected CMPU. The 

comprehensive management practices 

in the final rule include requirements to 

equip each vessel with a cover or lid 

that must be in place when the vessel 

contains HAP (except for material 

addition and sampling) and to conduct 

sensory inspections for leaks throughout 

each affected CMPU on a quarterly 

basis. The proposed inspections for 

equipment leaks are included without 

change in the final management practice 

requirements, but the final rule also 

requires comparable inspections for 

leaks from process equipment in a 

CMPU (e.g., reactors, distillation units, 

process tanks) and for storage tanks that 

are part of a CMPU and that store liquid 

that contains any Table 1 organic urban 

HAP. 

We have also reevaluated the costs of 

the management practices. In the 

proposal, we estimated the cost of 

inspections for equipment leaks to be 

$1,187 per year per affected facility. 

This estimate included initial costs of 

$1,200 for 15 hours for planning and 

training that were annualized over 10 

years plus estimated costs for quarterly 

inspection, recordkeeping, and program 

administration. The average time for an 

inspection and related recordkeeping 

was estimated to be 2 hours (8 hours per 

year) per facility, and an additional 7 

hours per year were estimated for 

administration. We also estimated in the 

proposal that management practice 

inspections for batch process vents, 

continuous process vents, metal HAP 

process vents, and storage tanks each 

would take four hours per year, and that 

recordkeeping related to the inspections 

would require 1 hour per year. The total 

cost per inspection was estimated to be 

$276 per year (or $1,100/yr for a facility 

with all four types of emission points). 

This total is consistent with the low end 

of the range presented by commenters. 

As discussed in sections III.A and V.A 

of this preamble, the final rule includes 

a narrower definition of the affected 

source and we believe that this will 

result in a lower level of effort for 

conducting the inspections required by 

the management practices. Instead of 

facility-wide inspections as anticipated 

at proposal, the final rule requires 

inspections only for CMPUs that use, 

generate or produce Table 1 urban HAP. 

Therefore, we think that the overall 

estimates from commenters are higher 

than warranted for the final rule. This 

is supported by one commenter’s 

estimate of $240/yr (instead of $1,200/ 

yr) for management practice costs if the 

inspections apply only to process units 

containing chemical manufacturing 

urban HAP. 

The overall time estimated for the 

final management practice requirements 

is less than the total time for the 

proposed equipment leak inspections 

and management practices for process 

vents and storage tanks. This is due to 

fewer process units being subject to 

management practice requirements 

under the final rule. For the final 

standards, we assumed 3 hours for each 

inspection of an average affected facility 

with organic HAP and 2 hours for each 

inspection of an average facility with 

metal HAP. The estimated time is lower 

for facilities with metal HAP because 

the inspections will be focused more on 

openings than on leak points (e.g., 

inspections of pumps and valves are not 

relevant because metal HAP is only 

released from process units). We also 

assumed 2 hours per year for 

recordkeeping at an average facility. 

Overall, the inspection and 

recordkeeping time was estimated to be 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56023 

14 hrs/yr per facility for organic HAP 

and 10 hrs/yr per facility for metal HAP. 

We also estimated that the average 

initial planning and setup costs for 

management practices is the same as the 

proposed estimate for the equipment 

leak inspections. As a result, the total 

cost was estimated to be $1,500 per year 

for an affected facility with organic HAP 

and $1,200 per year for an affected 

facility with metal HAP emissions. 

These estimates are in reasonable 

agreement with the estimates of costs for 

management practices put forth by 

several of the commenters that 

suggested the applicability of the rule be 

based on the CMPUs using Table 1 HAP 

as opposed to the entire facility as in the 

proposed rule. 

One commenter stated that some 

equipment is not designed to operate 

with covers or enclosed, often because 

to do so would jeopardize the physical 

integrity of the unit, but the commenter 

only listed pressure/vacuum vents on 

storage tanks. Because pressure/vacuum 

vents are not openings as we 

contemplate them in the final rule, and 

are instead part of the necessary design 

of certain tanks used for storage, we 

have determined that there is no need 

to amend the final rule to address this 

comment. 

2. Batch and Continuous Process Vents 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the proposed GACT control level of 90 

percent for batch process vents as a 

reasonable approach for pharmaceutical 

manufacturing area sources. Other 

commenters, however, stated that the 

proposed control levels for both batch 

process vents and continuous process 

vents are too high to be GACT. 

According to one commenter, most State 

implementation plans (e.g., Ohio) 

contain volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) requirements that 

set control efficiency between 81 and 90 

percent. Instead of using combustion 

controls that are typical at major 

sources, this commenter further stated 

that area sources most likely use 

condensers, carbon adsorption systems, 

or other material recovery systems, 

which have emission removal 

efficiencies in the 85 to 95 percent 

range. Therefore, the commenter 

encouraged EPA to adopt 85 percent 

removal as GACT for both batch process 

vents and continuous process vents. 

According to another commenter, the 

control level at existing sources should 

be set at 90 percent for combustion 

devices other than flares and 80 percent 

for process condensers. This commenter 

noted that a condenser at one of their 

facilities is permitted for 85 percent 

control and pointed out that the 

efficiency of condensers varies with 

changes in ambient temperature, 

humidity, and the type and 

concentration of HAP in the emission 

stream. 

In addition to (or instead of) changing 

the required control level, several 

commenters suggested that existing 

controls be grandfathered because it 

would not be cost-effective to replace 

them. For example, one commenter 

suggested grandfathering any control 

equipment currently in compliance with 

State air pollution rules and permits 

until the next reconstruction or 

replacement of the control device or 10 

years after the effective date of the rule, 

whichever occurs first. Another 

commenter requested grandfathering 

provisions for control devices achieving 

at least 80 percent reductions, either 

voluntarily or in accordance with State 

rules or permits. Another commenter 

stated that EPA should grandfather 

controls installed recently to meet 

RACT requirements. 

Response: Based on comments 

received on the control efficiency 

requirements, we have reviewed and 

revised the GACT analysis for batch 

process vents. At proposal, detailed 

information on the control levels 

achieved at area sources was limited. 

Because we had limited control 

information, we pointed to various 

control level data at major source 

facilities in the source categories of 

interest and we assumed that these 

major source controls were used at or 

were transferable to area sources. 

Multiple commenters pointed out that 

the control efficiency requirement in the 

proposal was too high and reflective of 

major sources only and was not 

consistent with the typical control 

efficiencies achieved for batch process 

vents at their area source facilities. 

Multiple comments provided 

information that the control efficiency at 

area sources was lower than the control 

levels achieved at major sources. 

Commenters stated that control 

efficiency at an area source is in the 

range of 81 percent to 95 percent. 

Commenters also noted that area 

sources use condensers and recovery 

systems with control efficiencies lower 

than 90 percent. Based on a revised cost 

analysis, which considers existing 

control devices and efficiencies, we 

have determined that the GACT control 

efficiency for existing batch process 

vents should be 85 percent. We 

estimated that 13 process units that will 

be subject to the emission limit for batch 

process vents in the final rule are not 

already controlled to at least 85 percent. 

The total annual costs to control the 

batch process vents in these process 

units are estimated to be $360,000 and 

the cost-effectiveness is estimated to be 

$8,500/ton organic HAP. We do not 

have sufficient information to estimate 

the number of process units that have 

batch process vents controlled to levels 

between 85 percent and 90 percent. 

Based on the comments, there may be 

many such processes. However, if there 

are as few as two such processes (i.e., 

total of 15 process units controlled to 

less than 90 percent), the total annual 

costs are estimated to be $0.43 million/ 

yr, and the incremental costeffectiveness relative to the 85 percent 

control option is estimated to be 

$13,500/ton. This cost is unreasonable; 

therefore, we have determined GACT for 

batch process vents at existing sources 

is 85 percent control and not 90 percent 

control. We are finalizing the proposed 

requirements for batch process vents at 

new sources (90 percent control) 

because the estimated cost-effectiveness 

relative to uncontrolled vents is 

reasonable ($2,300/ton as proposed). 

The commenters have provided no 

legal analysis in support of their request 

that we grandfather existing controls as 

suggested. However, given the change to 

the control requirements for batch vents, 

we believe we have resolved the 

commenters’ concerns with the 

proposed rule and established final 

GACT standards that reflect the 

efficiencies generally available at area 

sources. We have not revised the GACT 

control efficiency for new batch process 

vents or new and existing continuous 

process vents because we continue to 

believe that the standards that we are 

finalizing are generally available and 

reasonable from a cost perspective. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the MON batch process 

vent definition be used to be consistent 

with the preamble, database, other 

regulations applicable to chemical 

manufacturing, and general industry 

practice. Another commenter requested 

exclusions from the definition for the 

following: Opening of a safety device, 

heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning exhaust vents, storage tank 

vents, and wastewater treatment unit 

vents. 

One commenter asked that EPA 

exclude emissions from bottles and 

other containers from the batch process 

vent definition. According to the 

commenter, emissions from these 

containers are negligible and controlling 

them was not considered in the 

rulemaking record, is not cost-effective, 

and does not reflect GACT. 

Response: As noted in the response to 

a comment about subcategorization of 

batch process vents later in this section, 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

applicability and standards for control 

of batch process vents in the final rule 

are consistent with the MON. Therefore, 

the definition for the term ‘‘batch 

process vent’’ is very similar to the 

definition of this term in the MON. A 

key feature of this definition is that it 

cites examples of equipment with 

emissions that may be batch process 

vents, and it specifies types of streams 

that are not batch process vents. For 

example, the definition states that 

storage tanks, surge control vessels, and 

bottoms receivers do not have batch 

process vents (because they are 

classified separately and subject to 

separate standards). Process tanks, 

however, do have batch process vents. 

Process tanks collect material 

discharged from a feedstock storage tank 

or unit operation within the process, 

discharge the material to another unit 

operation or product storage tank, have 

emissions related to the characteristics 

of the batch cycle, and do not 

accumulate product over multiple 

batches. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

that 40 CFR 63.11496(a)(1) be revised to 

allow alternatives to the referenced 

emissions calculations procedures in 40 

CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) of the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP 

because the referenced procedures are 

difficult, costly, and do not allow the 

use of historical information. For 

example, one commenter requested that 

area sources be allowed to use mass 

balances, other calculation 

methodologies published by EPA (such 

as AP–42 and control techniques 

guidelines), and other technically 

acceptable methods (otherwise, the 

commenter estimated that small sources 

would need to spend $5,000 to $10,000 

for emission estimation software). 

Two commenters encouraged EPA to 

allow use of the emissions calculations 

procedures in 40 CFR 63.1323(b) and (e) 

of the Polymers and Resins IV NESHAP. 

One commenter asked that calculation 

procedures in the Batch Alternative 

Control Techniques (ACT) document be 

allowed, and another commenter asked 

that area sources be allowed to use (1) 

engineering estimates (in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)) for any 

calculation rather than only if the 40 

CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) procedures do not 

apply, (2) existing emissions 

calculations developed for compliance 

with a State or Federal rule for batch 

process vents, and (3) procedures to 

back-calculate uncontrolled emissions 

using inlet HAP and VOC 

concentrations based on controlled 

outlet permit limits, control removal 

capability, or knowledge of HAP and 

VOC concentrations in the vent (if not 

indicated in permit). 

Response: Emissions must be 

calculated to determine whether the 

batch process vents are in the 

subcategory of greater than or equal to 

uncontrolled emissions of 10,000 lbs/yr, 

which requires management practices 

and compliance with emissions limits 

and control requirements, or in the 

subcategory of less than 10,000 lbs/yr of 

uncontrolled emissions, which requires 

only management practices for the 

process. For the purpose of this 

determination at area sources, we have 

concluded that all of the methods 

suggested by the commenters to 

calculate uncontrolled emissions at area 

sources are acceptable. Having choices 

also reduces the burden on affected 

sources. Therefore, the final rule 

specifies that organic HAP emissions 

from batch process vents may be 

estimated using process knowledge, 

engineering assessments, or test data. 

The procedures specified in 40 CFR 

63.1257 of subpart GGG, in the 

Polymers and Resins IV rule, or in the 

Batch ACT are classified as engineering 

assessments. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the GACT analysis for batch process 

vents is flawed and inconsistent with 

rule applicability. The commenter noted 

that batch process vent control 

requirements should be on a process 

unit basis to better reflect the Agency’s 

analysis, industry practice, and GACT. 

This commenter also stated that the 

control threshold of 19,000 lb/yr HAP 

emissions for batch process vents is 

GACT, but only if EPA adopts a process 

unit basis. 

Another commenter asked that EPA 

sharply limit control requirements for 

process vents in order to achieve GACT. 

To do this, the commenter suggested 

limiting source applicability to a 

process unit basis, setting a threshold 

for control at 10,000 lbs/yr/process as in 

MON, and requiring only management 

practices for all affected process units 

below 10,000 lbs/yr/process. 

Response: It appears the commenters 

are addressing the basis for the 

proposed subcategorization of batch 

process vents. As we noted in the 

preamble for the proposed rule, the 

CAA provides EPA authority to 

distinguish among classes, types or sizes 

of sources within a source category. For 

the proposal, we concluded that ‘‘factors 

relating to the type of operation (high 

solvent use) and size of operation (based 

on the number of batches) provide a 

reasonable basis for subcategorization’’ 

of batch process vents. The commenters 

did not address application of these 

factors directly, but they stated that 

control requirements should be applied 

on a process unit basis. The process unit 

construct is consistent with standards 

for batch process vents in several MACT 

standards. We have considered this 

point in response to comments on 

applicability and concluded that the 

factors we considered at proposal in 

support of our subcategorization 

determinations for the entire facility 

apply equally to individual CMPUs. 

Furthermore, as noted above, the 

affected source for the final rule is 

defined as the collection of specific 

CMPUs that use, generate, or produce 

Table 1 HAP rather than the entire 

chemical manufacturing operations. 

Therefore, for the final rule, we 

determined that establishing 

subcategories based on individual 

CMPUs is also appropriate. 

For the proposal, we ‘‘considered the 

relative emissions reduction and costs 

for the area sources in the category in 

determining the appropriate emissions 

level at which to subcategorize the batch 

process vents.’’ Specifically, we 

established two subcategories based on 

whether the total organic HAP 

emissions from all batch process vents 

in the entire affected source are less 

than 19,000 lbs/yr or equal to or greater 

than 19,000 lbs/yr. One commenter 

stated that this threshold is reasonable, 

but only if it is applied to an individual 

CMPU. Another commenter suggested 

using a threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr per 

CMPU. 

We considered both suggestions. We 

do not believe 19,000 lbs/yr per CMPU 

is appropriate because the 19,000 lb 

threshold was intended to represent 

emissions from multiple CMPUs, 

several of which may not be part of the 

affected source under the final rule 

because we changed the scope of the 

rule to cover only those CMPUs that 

emit one of the chemical manufacturing 

urban HAP. Based on the results of a 

survey of five facilities by one 

commenter, area sources have, on 

average, two CMPUs that use, generate, 

or produce Table 1 HAP. Facilities in 

the MON database with urban HAP 

emissions also had an average of two 

process units with urban HAP 

emissions. A threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr 

per process was also used in the MON 

and that provides indicia of the size of 

a CMPU because the MON applies to 

major sources of HAP. Furthermore, as 

discussed in the response to another 

comment in this section, the estimated 

costs to meet an 85 percent control 

requirement for existing CMPUs with 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

equal to or greater than 10,000 lbs/yr are 

reasonable ($8,700/ton). Therefore, we 

have established two subcategories for 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56025 

the final rule. One subcategory is for 

batch process vents with uncontrolled 

organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 

lbs/yr per CMPU, and the other is for 

batch process vents with uncontrolled 

organic HAP emissions equal to or 

greater than 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU. 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that the definition of 

‘‘continuous process vent’’ should be 

consistent with the definitions in other 

rules such as the HON, MON, and/or 

Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

YY). One commenter requested this 

change because the proposed definition 

does not reflect the description given in 

the preamble, the supporting analyses, 

the rulemaking database, industry 

practice, or other chemical industry 

regulations. Another commenter 

requested that definitions for items that 

are exempted from the definition of 

‘‘continuous process vent’’ such as 

‘‘relief device or valve’’ and ‘‘equipment 

leak’’ be added to the rule. 

Response: The final rule includes a 

definition for ‘‘continuous process vent’’ 

that is consistent with the definition of 

‘‘process vent’’ in 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 

CFR 63.107 of the HON. Terms or items 

in the definition mentioned by the 

commenters have the same meaning 

given in the HON. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that small continuous 

process vents (i.e., <0.1 lb/hr and <800 

lbs/yr) be exempt from requirements to 

calculate a TRE value because the 

commenter estimated that the lowest 

TRE index for a HAP emission stream 

with these characteristics would be 30 

or higher. Another commenter estimated 

the burden of establishing the variables 

needed to calculate the TRE index to be 

at least 4 hours per process vent. 

Response: We have considered this 

issue and determined that, at an 

emission rate of 0.1 lb/hr, the TRE will 

be well above 1.0 regardless of other 

characteristics of the stream (e.g., type 

of HAP, HAP concentration, and ratio of 

HAP to total VOC). The minimum TRE 

is obtained for streams with high 

concentrations of organic compounds. 

For streams containing common nonhalogenated HAP (i.e., benzene, toluene, 

and/or methanol), the lowest TRE 

values were determined to be between 

16 and 30. As the concentration of these 

HAP decreases (due to increased air and 

other VOC in the emission stream) the 

TRE increases, typically to values above 

30, as noted by the commenter. For 

streams with the halogenated compound 

methylene chloride, the minimum and 

typical TRE values were determined to 

be over 80. Therefore, to minimize the 

burden of characterizing streams, the 

final standards specify that calculation 

of the TRE is not required if the organic 

HAP emission rate is less than 0.1 lb/hr. 

We did not include a corresponding 

annual mass limit (i.e., 800 lbs/yr, 

which is approximately equal to 0.1 lb/ 

hr venting continuously for an entire 

year) because the TRE varies with 

changes in the operating hours per year. 

For a process that operates only a few 

weeks during the year, emissions of 800 

lbs could result in a TRE less than 1.0. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the impacts analysis for batch process 

vents is unrealistic and incomplete. 

According to this commenter, a more 

appropriate cost evaluation would 

include several batch vents per process, 

several processes per site, and either 

multiple control devices or expensive 

collection systems. In addition, the 

commenter stated that the cost analysis 

for incinerators should include the cost 

of halogen scrubbers when halogenated 

organics (e.g., methylene chloride) are 

controlled in the incinerator. The 

commenter further stated that more 

widespread use of combustion devices 

in place of or in addition to existing 

scrubbers and condensers would be 

needed to meet the facility-wide 90 

percent reduction requirement. Even if 

existing controls are grandfathered, the 

commenter stated all sites with 

emissions in the subcategory subject to 

control would incur costs to meet 

performance test, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

One commenter stated that the 

impacts analysis for continuous process 

vents must include costs associated 

with existing controls, including control 

upgrades, performance tests, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting. Even with grandfathering of 

controls, all continuous process vents 

with TRE ≤1.0 would have to meet 

performance test, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Response: We have reevaluated the 

costs for control of batch process vents 

because the final rule applies to a 

smaller affected source than the 

proposed rule. We have also reevaluated 

the costs because the analysis in the 

proposed rule did not account for 

facilities that are achieving some level 

of control, but less than the required 

percent reduction. As stated above, we 

have also redefined GACT as 85 percent 

control for existing batch process units 

(90 percent for new units) that have 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

equal to or greater than 10,000 lbs/yr, 

and our cost analysis at proposal was 

based on 90 percent control for batch 

process vents subject to emission limits. 

In reevaluation of the costs, we 

concluded that information regarding 

the number of CMPU per area source, 

the number of CMPU with emissions of 

chemical manufacturing organic urban 

HAP, the fraction of total organic HAP 

emissions from batch process vents in 

process units with chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP, the 

typical control levels, flow rates, 

concentrations, operating hours, and 

other relevant data are either lacking or 

limited. Therefore, information from the 

baseline facility database from 

development of the MON was 

extrapolated to area sources. Details of 

this revised analysis are in the docket, 

but a summary of the analysis is set 

forth below. 

We estimated that four facilities have 

uncontrolled batch process vent 

emissions from one CMPU with 

emissions greater than 10,000 lbs/yr per 

process. Another seven facilities have 

an estimated one or two CMPUs per 

facility with batch process vent 

emissions (for a total of nine CMPUs at 

the seven facilities) controlled to some 

level less than 85 percent. Information 

available to EPA indicates that each 

CMPU at the remaining facilities that 

have chemical manufacturing organic 

urban HAP emissions have uncontrolled 

batch process vent emissions less than 

10,000 lbs/yr. 

Based on this analysis, we estimated 

that the capital cost to add controls for 

the 13 CMPUs at 11 facilities that do not 

meet the 85 percent standard is 

$390,000, and the annual cost is 

$370,000/yr. These costs are based on 

the use of condensers. We do not 

believe incinerators will be needed, as 

suggested by a commenter, because the 

final standards apply to individual 

CMPUs (rather than facility-wide), and 

the required control for existing batch 

process vents (85 percent) can be 

averaged over all batch process vents 

within the CMPU. Because the analysis 

is based on the use of condensers, 

halogen reduction devices are not 

needed and have not been included in 

the analysis. Costs for performance tests 

(or design evaluations), monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting are 

included in the final information 

collection request, not this cost analysis. 

The estimated HAP reductions are 43 

tpy (versus 45 tpy at proposal). Thus, 

the cost-effectiveness is $8,700/ton of 

organic HAP reduced, which we 

consider to be reasonable for GACT. 

For continuous process vents, we 

have not changed the cost impacts to 

include control equipment upgrades. 

Typically, if a continuous process vent 

is controlled in the absence of a 

regulatory driver, the vent has relatively 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

9We assumed at proposal that facilities emitting 

Table 1 metal HAP would generally have one 

process so the change of affected source from the 

facility to the CMPU does not require us to 

reevaluate our subcategorization determination as 

with the change in batch process subcategories. The 

factors we considered in establishing the 

subcategories for metal HAP process vents at 

proposal still apply under this final rule. 

large emissions. We anticipate that such 

controls will be achieving the required 

95 percent reduction requirement. 

Performance test, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting costs are 

estimated in the information collection 

request. We have updated these costs in 

two ways. First, we increased the 

number of affected facilities that must 

conduct initial and ongoing compliance 

to include facilities with controlled 

continuous process vents. Second, we 

increased the percentage of facilities 

that will conduct design evaluations 

instead of performance tests because the 

final rule allows design evaluations for 

all control devices used to reduce 

emissions from continuous process 

vents. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting costs are minimal in the 

current information collection request 

because it covers only the 3 years after 

the promulgation date. Most existing 

sources will not be in compliance 

during this time because the compliance 

date is 3 years after promulgation. 

Subsequent information collection 

requests will have higher costs for these 

activities. 

3. Metal HAP Process Vents 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that EPA apply the 

threshold for control on a vent basis 

rather than facility-wide because the 

commenters interpreted the impacts 

analysis as applying to model plants 

where all emissions were assumed to 

come from a single vent and routed to 

a single control device. Two 

commenters noted that, unlike organic 

HAP, particulate-containing emission 

streams can be ducted only small 

distances. Numerous commenters 

recommended using the proposed 400 

lbs/yr threshold for control rather than 

the alternative proposed threshold of 

100 lbs/yr because the incremental cost 

to lower the threshold from 400 lbs/yr 

to 100 lbs/yr is unreasonable at an 

incremental cost-effectiveness of 

$33,660 per ton of particulate and 

$442,000 per ton of metal HAP. 

Response: After careful consideration, 

we have decided to set the threshold for 

the subcategory of metal HAP process 

vents that are subject to emission limits 

of 95 percent reduction at the proposed 

level of 400 lbs/yr, for each CMPU that 

emits a Table 1 metal HAP (not the 

entire facility, as proposed). We selected 

the CMPU basis rather than the 

proposed facility-wide basis for the 

same reasons as for organic HAP process 

vents (see response above), although we 

estimate that a higher percentage of 

facilities that emit Table 1 metal HAP 

subject to this control requirement have 

only a single process that emits metal 

HAP, which means the affected source 

on a CMPU basis under the final rule 

may be the same as the facility-wide 

affected source under the proposed 

rule.9 For example, the four largest 

emitters all make electrolytic manganese 

dioxide. Even if these facilities make the 

product in multiple processing ‘‘lines,’’ 

they have only a single CMPU under the 

rule because a CMPU is defined based 

on the product produced. Many other 

facilities make inorganic pigments, 

catalysts, or animal feed products. 

These facilities likely make a number of 

products with slight variations that are 

grouped in ‘‘families’’ that qualify as a 

single CMPU under the rule. For 

example, these manufacturers may make 

a variety of similar products that differ 

only in the form or purity of the final 

product (such as powders versus 

pellets), or the animal feed products 

may differ only in the specific mix of 

additives. But in each case, the metal 

HAP feedstock is the same, the 

processing steps and emissions are 

comparable, and the end-use or 

functionality of each product is the 

same; therefore, the activities would all 

be part of a single CMPU under this 

rule. 

As we stated above, the final rule 

requires consideration of emissions 

from all vents associated with a CMPU 

when determining if the threshold for 

the 400 lbs/yr or greater subcategory is 

exceeded. We did not base the threshold 

for the subcategory on the emissions 

levels from individual vents because the 

CMPU may emit metal HAP from a 

number of different steps such as 

roasting, calcining, grinding, blending, 

drying, and packaging. The end result of 

basing the emission rate threshold on a 

vent basis would be to drastically 

reduce the urban HAP emission 

reductions under the rule. 

Under the final rule, we estimate that 

up to 3 of the 30 facilities with 

uncontrolled metal HAP emissions 

greater than 400 lbs/yr on a facility basis 

may not be part of the subcategory when 

the threshold is applied on a CMPU 

basis. 

In the preamble to the proposed rule, 

as part of our subcategorization 

discussion, we determined that the level 

of metal HAP emissions from the vents 

is a function of the purpose for which 

the metal HAP is present in the process. 

We found that emissions varied 

according to whether the metal HAP 

were intended to be incorporated into 

the product of the chemical 

manufacturing process and that metal 

HAP emissions from those types of 

facilities were generally larger where the 

metal was incorporated into the 

product. We also identified some vents 

that emit larger amounts of metal HAP, 

even though the metal HAP is not 

incorporated into the final product, and 

we determined that, in those 

circumstances, there were likely higher 

metal HAP emissions because of the 

large size of the facility or because the 

facility is using raw materials and/or 

fuel with higher levels of metal HAP 

impurities. We concluded that it was 

appropriate to base the subcategory on 

the amount of emissions of metal HAP 

from the process vents as a proxy for the 

type and size of the vent. In determining 

the appropriate emissions level, we 

considered relative emissions 

reductions and costs to the affected area 

sources and co-proposed 

subcategorizing based on either 100 lbs/ 

yr or 400 lbs/yr of metal HAP emissions. 

We received no adverse comments on 

the proposed subcategorization 

approach. 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

stated that costs for both the 100 lbs/yr 

and 400 lbs/yr thresholds are 

comparable to costs for PM control in 

other area source rules and for mobile 

sources. However, as noted above, 

numerous commenters stated that the 

incremental costs do not justify the 100 

lbs/yr threshold and recommended 

selecting the 400 lbs/yr threshold. We 

recognize that the incremental cost for 

PM would be at the high end of the 

range of costs for other area source 

rules. The high incremental costeffectiveness reflects a small 

incremental PM reduction (40 tpy from 

25 facilities), and, in regards to the basis 

for the subcategory, the 400 lbs/yr level 

indicates a much higher emission 

potential (i.e., size of facility) and we 

have decided that the 400 lbs/yr 

threshold best defines the subcategory. 

We received no adverse comments on 

the proposed 400 lbs/yr threshold. 

4. Storage Tanks 

Comment: Two commenters asked 

that the storage tank requirements be 

based on the organic HAP partial vapor 

pressure instead of the VOL vapor 

pressure, as specified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb because it is the HAP that 

are subject to standards. 

Response: Most rules in 40 CFR part 

63 (i.e., NESHAP rules) establish MTVP 

thresholds for total organic HAP 

because HAP is the regulated pollutant. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56027 

This area source rule also regulates only 

HAP. As with the other rules, we 

intended to base the MTVP thresholds 

in the proposed rule on organic HAP, 

but we inadvertently neglected to 

override the provisions in the 

referenced section of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Kb that specify the threshold is 

based on the MTVP of the entire VOL. 

We have corrected this error in the final 

rule. Table 5 to the final rule specifies 

all applicable thresholds, and each 

MTVP threshold is based on the organic 

HAP vapor pressure. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the definition of ‘‘storage 

tank’’ be changed to match the language 

in the preamble to the proposed rule 

and/or definitions in MACT rules. 

Specific requested changes included: (1) 

Exclude wastewater storage because 

wastewater storage tanks are included 

under the wastewater provisions 

(similar to other MACT standards); (2) 

exclude bottoms receivers and surge 

control vessels because these vessels are 

typically used in the chemical industry 

as process vessels; (3) exclude process 

tanks to be consistent with language in 

the MON; (4) exclude waste tanks 

because they are ancillary to the process 

and are typically subject to regulation 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Parts 264/ 

265 and Subpart BB); and (5) limit the 

definition to tanks that store liquid that 

contains any of the urban HAP listed in 

Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVVVVV, not all HAP. 

Response: We have considered the 

comments and determined that using 

similar definitions across the multiple 

standards is appropriate. The definition 

in the final rule is consistent with the 

preamble and definitions in the MON, 

the HON, and the Pharmaceutical 

MACT. The definition of ‘‘storage tank’’ 

in the final rule excludes tanks storing 

organic liquids containing HAP only as 

impurities. It excludes process tanks 

because these tanks are subject to the 

process vent standards. Wastewater 

tanks are excluded from the definition 

of ‘‘storage tank.’’ It also excludes surge 

control vessels and bottoms receivers 

because these vessels are associated 

with continuous process operations; 

note, however, that, as in the proposed 

rule, they are subject to the same 

standards as storage tanks (i.e., all are 

subject to management practice 

requirements, and controls are required 

for those that contain Table 1 HAP and 

meet the same size and MTVP 

thresholds specified for storage tanks). 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

that the rule include alternative storage 

tank control options such as vapor 

balancing, the procedures specified in 

40 CFR part 63 subparts WW and SS, 

and the procedures specified in the 

Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) 

(40 CFR part 65, subpart C). 

Response: Vapor balancing is a 

technique whereby the vapor space of 

the storage tank is connected to the 

vapor space of a tank truck or railcar 

that contains liquid that will be 

transferred to the storage tank. As liquid 

from the tank truck or rail car is 

transferred to the storage tank, vapors 

displaced from the storage tank are 

routed back to the tank truck or railcar. 

This technique has been determined to 

provide at least equivalent reductions in 

HAP emissions as the use of an internal 

or external floating roof or routing 

displaced vapor to a control device, 

provided several conditions are met: (1) 

The tank vent pressure setting must be 

high enough to prevent breathing losses, 

(2) the tank truck or railcar must be 

vapor tight, and (3) the tank truck or 

railcar cleaning or reloading facility 

must also vapor balance or route the 

collected vapors to a control device. 

The tank vent pressure setting must 

be high enough to prevent breathing 

losses because vapor balancing controls 

only the working loss emissions that are 

generated by filling the tank. As 

discussed in the preamble to proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGG (69 FR 19161, April 10, 2000), we 

determined that a setting of at least 2.5 

lbs per square inch gage will eliminate 

breathing losses from tanks. 

If a system is leak-tight and very little 

or no air is drawn into the system to 

become saturated with HAP, a source of 

emissions is essentially eliminated. To 

ensure that the tank truck or rail car is 

vapor-tight, the vapor balancing 

provisions in MACT rules (e.g., 40 CFR 

63.1253(f) of the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP) require tank 

trucks and railcars to have a current 

certification in accordance with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation pressure 

test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for 

tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for 

railcars. To further ensure the system is 

leak tight, the vapor balancing 

provisions in MACT rules require that 

pressure relief devices on the storage 

tank and the railcar or tank truck from 

which the storage tank is filled shall not 

open during loading. To ensure that the 

applicable emission limit is met, vapor 

balancing provisions in MACT rules 

require that the cleaning or reloading 

facility shall implement vapor balancing 

when filling the tank truck or railcar or 

the tank truck or railcar shall be 

connected to a closed-vent system with 

a control device that reduces emissions 

by the required amount. Because GACT 

for storage tanks in the subcategory of 

larger tanks storing liquids with higher 

vapor pressures for which an emission 

control device is required at chemical 

manufacturing area sources is 

equivalent to the NESHAP requirements 

applicable to MON and HON facilities, 

we determined that vapor balancing 

requirements of the MON and HON also 

achieves HAP emission reductions at 

least equivalent to the emission 

reductions required by the standards set 

forth in this final rule. Therefore, the 

final rule allows vapor balancing in 

accordance with the provisions in 40 

CFR 63.2470(e) of the MON as a 

compliance option for storage tanks at 

chemical manufacturing area sources. 

Subpart WW in part 63 includes 

design, operational, and inspection 

requirements for internal and external 

floating roofs that are comparable to the 

GACT requirements that are based on 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Kb. The primary 

difference between the two subparts is 

that subpart WW allows up to 10 years 

to come into full compliance with seal 

and deck fitting control requirements if 

the tank is currently equipped with a 

floating roof that does not meet these 

requirements. In the preamble to the 

final Gasoline Distribution Area Source 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BBBBBB) (73 FR 1926, January 10, 

2008), we determined that the 

requirements in subpart WW are 

equivalent to the GACT requirements 

that were based on subpart Kb for 

gasoline distribution facilities. Since the 

GACT requirements for chemical 

manufacturing area sources are also 

based on subpart Kb requirements, 

implementing the subpart WW 

requirements at chemical manufacturing 

area sources also will achieve HAP 

reductions that are at least equivalent to 

the HAP reductions resulting from 

implementing the subpart Kb 

requirements. Therefore, the final rule 

allows compliance with subpart WW as 

an alternative compliance option, but 

without the 10 year compliance period. 

All storage tanks must be in full 

compliance by the relevant compliance 

date, as set forth in this final rule. 

40 CFR part 63, subpart SS contains 

provisions for flare and non-flare 

control devices that are comparable to 

the requirements for control devices in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. For 

example, both require the closed-vent 

system to operate with no detectable 

emissions as indicated by an instrument 

reading less than 500 parts per million 

(ppm) above background and visual 

inspections; subpart SS may even be 

more stringent in that it requires bypass 

monitoring and it specifies how 

frequently to conduct both instrument 

and visual inspections. Both subpart Kb 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56028 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and subpart SS require the owner or 

operator to demonstrate initial 

compliance based on a design 

evaluation, although subpart SS 

provides more details of what to 

consider in the design evaluation, and 

subpart SS explicitly allows 

performance test results as a means to 

demonstrate initial compliance. Both 

subpart Kb and subpart SS also require 

the owner or operator to develop and 

operate in accordance with an operating 

or monitoring plan that specifies what 

parameter(s) will be monitored to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance with 

the percent reduction emission limit. 

Based on these similarities, we have 

determined that compliance with 

subpart SS will achieve HAP emission 

reductions at least equivalent to the 

reductions achieved by compliance with 

subpart Kb. Therefore, the final rule 

allows compliance with subpart SS as 

an alternative compliance option. 

The CAR was developed as an 

alternative for facilities to comply with 

a single rule in place of a variety of 

different new source performance 

standards (NSPS) and NESHAP rules. 

We do not think it is appropriate to 

allow compliance with the CAR as an 

alternative for area sources subject to 

this final rule because 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart VVVVVV is the only NESHAP 

that applies to most chemical 

manufacturing area sources. While we 

are not including compliance with the 

CAR as an option, the final rule 

includes provisions that allow an owner 

or operator to comply with the most 

stringent requirements from both an 

overlapping rule and the final subpart 

VVVVVV as a means of demonstrating 

compliance with the final rule. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that EPA significantly underestimated 

the number of storage tank controls that 

will be required and, thus, the capital 

cost and burden. Based on their review 

of Docket Document EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0334–0008, the commenters 

concluded that EPA only considered 

controls for tanks storing urban HAP. 

However, as drafted, the proposed rule 

requires control of all storage vessels at 

a site meeting the size and vapor 

pressure criteria and storing any 

material containing any HAP above 

impurity levels. 

Response: As discussed above, the 

final rule applies only to storage tanks 

that are part of a CMPU in the affected 

source and that contain a chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP. 

Although management practices are 

required for all storage tanks that are 

part of an affected CMPU, add-on 

controls are required only for tanks that 

meet specified size and organic HAP 

vapor pressure thresholds. Many of 

these tanks are likely already subject to 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and already 

in compliance. We believe that the 

number of tanks that will be subject to 

the control requirement applicable to 

the subcategory for large storage tanks 

under the final rule is consistent with 

the proposed impacts analysis. 

5. Wastewater 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

requested changes to the definition of 

‘‘wastewater’’ to clarify which streams 

are included and to limit the scope of 

the term. Each of the commenters 

requested one or more of the following 

changes: (1) Clarify that wastewater 

streams are water that is discarded from 

the CMPU or control device (or, 

alternatively, the chemical 

manufacturing operations), not from the 

affected source; (2) specify that the 

water must contain PSHAP, not any 

HAP listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart G; (3) specify that wastewater 

must be at least 50 percent water or 

‘‘primarily’’ water; (4) include flow and 

HAP concentration thresholds; (5) 

identify types of water streams that are 

not considered wastewater, as in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and 

previous MACT rules; and/or (6) make 

the definition consistent with the 

definition of wastewater in previous 

MACT rules. 

Response: We have considered the 

comments and decided that using 

similar definitions across the multiple 

standards is appropriate. The definition 

in the final rule includes most of the 

suggestions made by commenters and is 

consistent with definitions in the MON 

and the HON. However, the definition 

does not include a minimum water 

percentage. As in the HON and other 

NESHAP, EPA intends to regulate as 

wastewater any stream that: (1) Exits 

process unit equipment; and (2) meets 

the concentration and flow rate criteria 

that are specified in the definition 

because such wastewater streams have a 

significant potential for emissions and 

should, therefore, be regulated. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the solubility in water of some PSHAP 

is greater than 10,000 ppmw. Therefore, 

the commenter requested that decanting 

not be required if no separable organic 

phase is present in the wastewater 

stream. 

Response: Based on the comments 

and our additional analysis, we have 

determined it is appropriate to redefine 

the subcategories of wastewater. 

Specifically, we are amending the 

subcategories to account for wastewater 

that has 10,000 ppmw or greater 

concentration of PSHAP but does not 

have a water phase and an organic 

phase. In the proposed rule, we 

determined that removal of the organic 

layer by gravity separation was GACT, 

but gravity separation is not feasible for 

wastewater that does not contain 

separate organic and water phases. 

Under the final rule, we are establishing 

one subcategory based on both the 

PSHAP concentration of 10,000 ppmw 

or greater and the presence of a separate 

organic phase. Wastewater with a 

PSHAP concentration of 10,000 ppmw 

or greater, but without a separate 

organic phase, and wastewater with a 

PSHAP concentration of less than 

10,000 ppmw represent the other 

subcategory. 

As in the proposed rule, we have 

determined that GACT is removal of a 

separate organic layer by gravity 

separation when the PSHAP 

concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw 

and there is a separate organic phase. 

The treatment requirements in the final 

rule for both the organic and wastewater 

phases are consistent with the 

requirement set forth in the proposed 

rule. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested additional compliance 

options for streams that contain more 

than 10,000 ppmw PSHAP, particularly 

for wastewater that is collected for 

shipment offsite for treatment or 

disposal. For example, one commenter 

recommended that decanting be 

required only when the aqueous phase 

will be sent to on-site or offsite 

treatment, but facilities should not have 

to separate a free organic phase from 

wastewater that is managed in recycle, 

energy use, or hazardous disposal 

operations that either have integral 

organic phase separation or do not 

require such separation before recycle, 

energy use, or disposal. Another 

commenter stated that wastewater sent 

to a permitted wastewater treatment 

facility (such as a publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW)) should be 

exempt. Another commenter stated that 

separation should not be required for 

wastewater collected for shipment 

offsite to be treated by a RCRApermitted hazardous waste incinerator, 

a POTW, or oil recycling operations. 

According to one commenter, the rule 

should allow both direct piping to 

biological treatment and combustion of 

the entire stream without separating out 

the water phase, and another 

commenter added that combustion 

should be allowed for streams that 

contain small amounts of water relative 

to the organic phase. One commenter 

also noted that other separation 

techniques, such as stripping or 

distillation, may be more effective than 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56029 

decanting, and some oil-water 

separators do not rely on the principle 

of gravity. 

Response: The final rule contains 

provisions for alternative control of 

organic HAP from streams with >10,000 

ppmw PSHAP. The final rule allows: (1) 

Several separation techniques; (2) hard 

piping to an on-site hazardous waste 

treatment unit; or (3) shipment offsite 

for any similar treatment. These 

compliance options are included in 

Table 6 of the final rule and provide at 

least equivalent emission reductions. 

The other alternatives cited by the 

commenters may not provide at least 

equivalent emission reductions as the 

final rule and, therefore, we are not 

including them in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the proposed requirements for 

wastewater streams that contain >10,000 

ppmw of PSHAP are not GACT because 

the actual costs are significantly higher 

than EPA estimated. According to the 

commenter, EPA’s impacts analysis 

omitted the cost to determine the 

partially soluble HAP concentration in 

each wastewater stream, which ranged 

from 10 to 250 streams per facility at 

facilities the commenter surveyed. 

Response: In the burden analysis for 

the information collection requirements 

for the proposed rule, we estimated 

compliance demonstration costs 

assuming that all area sources with 

organic urban HAP would have 

wastewater. We also assumed that a 

typical area source would spend 20 

hours characterizing the wastewater 

(e.g., based on knowledge of the 

wastewater), and that 50 percent of the 

facilities would conduct sampling and 

analysis for an average of 10 streams. 

The cost of analysis was assumed to be 

$435. The total cost was estimated to be 

$169,400 per year for characterizing the 

streams according to process knowledge 

and $210,400 per year for sampling and 

analysis. 

For the final burden estimate, we 

believe the number of streams will be 

lower than the 10 estimated at proposal 

because only those wastewater streams 

that are discarded from a CMPU that 

uses, generates, or produces chemical 

manufacturing organic urban HAP are 

part of the affected source for the final 

standards. According to one commenter, 

the average number of points of 

determination for five surveyed 

facilities is approximately two 

wastewater streams per process. We are 

estimating two CMPUs per facility and 

2 points of determination per CMPU for 

a total of four process streams per 

facility. 

The final rule allows PSHAP 

concentration to be determined based 

on either process knowledge or 

sampling and analysis. We assumed that 

50 percent of facilities would perform 

sampling and analysis and the other 50 

percent would rely on process 

knowledge. For the process knowledge 

approach, we assumed 20 hours of inhouse labor per facility at a total cost of 

$1,750, as in the proposed analysis. 

However, we corrected an error in the 

proposed analysis and applied this cost 

to only 50 percent of the facilities rather 

than all of them for the final rule. For 

the sampling and analysis approach, we 

assumed $435 per sample for analysis 

and 20 hours of time for a contractor 

($125 per hour labor rate) to collect one 

sample per wastewater stream per 

facility; thus, the total cost of this 

approach is estimated to be $4,240 per 

year per facility. We assumed one 

sample per stream because one sample 

would be sufficient to meet the 

compliance requirements. The estimate 

of 20 hours at $125 per hour is based on 

a commenter’s estimate for retrieving 

four samples. One commenter noted 

that the cost of triplicate analysis is 

approximately $885. Assuming that the 

average cost per sample is not based on 

the number of samples, the cost on a per 

sample basis would be $295. We 

retained the $435 sampling cost used at 

proposal for consistency and to be 

somewhat conservative in our estimate. 

The total respondent burden for the 

final wastewater standards was 

estimated to be $84,700 per year for 

characterizing the streams according to 

process knowledge and $205,100 per 

year for sampling and analysis, which 

we believe is reasonable. The overall 

respondent burden for wastewater 

streams has decreased by $90,000 from 

proposal to the final standards. 

Comment: According to several 

commenters, decanting is not justified 

for small streams, given the expense of 

the equipment and the small potential 

benefit. For example, one commenter 

indicated the capital and operating cost 

for a facility could exceed $100,000 

while achieving only minimal emissions 

reductions because of low throughput or 

low volatility of the HAP. Another 

commenter requested that streams 

containing up to 200 lbs/yr of PSHAP be 

excluded from the decanting 

requirement. 

One commenter stated that small 

streams that contact only highly 

insoluble materials and streams that are 

excluded from the definition of 

wastewater in other rules should not be 

subject to the treatment requirement 

because such streams are not currently 

treated, the cost and burden to treat 

such streams were not considered in the 

rulemaking record and, therefore, 

treatment for all streams cannot be 

GACT. 

Response: The revised definition of 

wastewater clarifies the types of water 

discharges that are wastewater. With the 

changes to the final rule for wastewater 

systems, we do not agree that our cost 

estimates are in error and that there will 

be additional costs incurred to meet the 

treatment requirements in the final rule. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the proposed maintenance 

wastewater requirements and stated that 

the wastewater requirements should be 

limited to process wastewater. One 

commenter stated that the proposed 

requirement to decant the organic phase 

from maintenance wastewater is 

particularly problematic because 

maintenance wastewater is often 

generated in small volumes and 

collected in various vessels prior to onsite or offsite energy recovery, reuse, or 

recycling. The maintenance wastewater 

is not discharged directly into an 

individual drain system. The 

commenter pointed out that decanting 

these streams first would add a second 

transfer step, which would increase the 

emissions potential relative to the 

current operating practice. 

Response: By adding the compliance 

options discussed above, we have 

addressed industry concerns regarding 

wastewater generated in small 

quantities, wastewater that is reused or 

recycled, and wastewater shipped 

offsite. For example, instead of requiring 

only decanting, the final rule allows an 

owner or operator the alternative to 

collect a small wastewater stream and 

send it to an offsite hazardous waste 

treatment facility. This option applies to 

maintenance wastewater as well as to 

process wastewater. Considering the 

requirements of the final rule, we see no 

reason to distinguish between a process 

wastewater stream and a maintenance 

wastewater stream. 

6. Transfer Operations 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the data and analysis supporting the 

proposed rule demonstrate that the 

controls currently in place at chemical 

manufacturing area sources are already 

GACT and that no additional 

requirements are justified. The 

commenter indicated the rule should be 

revised to incorporate criteria that 

reflect the submerged fill or equivalent 

controls currently in place and should 

impose no additional requirements. 

This commenter also stated the 

management practice requirements that 

are based on requirements for transfer at 

gasoline distribution facilities should be 

deleted. According to the commenter, 

these requirements generally are not 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56030 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

GACT (because they impose significant 

cost but achieve no emission reduction), 

are unclear, and conflict with other 

requirements and regulations. The 

commenter provided labor hour 

estimates for the various management 

practice tasks and estimated that the 

total cost would be more than 10 times 

higher than EPA estimated. 

Response: As discussed in section III 

of this preamble, the management 

practice requirements have been revised 

in the final rule to better reflect what is 

generally available for these categories. 

Upon review of the comments, we 

recognized that the proposed 

management practice requirements were 

redundant for CMPU with both batch 

and continuous process vents because 

the proposed requirements for both 

emission points applied to all process 

equipment. In this final rule, the various 

proposed management practices for 

process vents, equipment leaks, transfer 

operations, and storage tanks were 

consolidated and simplified into one 

comprehensive set of management 

practices that are applicable to each 

affected CMPU. The comprehensive 

management practices in the final rule 

include requirements to equip each 

vessel with a cover or lid that must be 

in place when the vessel contains HAP 

(except for material addition and 

sampling) and to conduct sensory 

inspections for leaks throughout each 

affected CMPU on a quarterly basis. The 

proposed inspections for equipment 

leaks are included without change in 

the final management practice 

requirements, but the final rule also 

requires comparable inspections for 

leaks from process equipment in a 

CMPU (e.g., reactors, distillation units, 

process tanks) and for storage tanks that 

are part of a CMPU and that store liquid 

that contains any Table 1 organic urban 

HAP. 

For transfer operations, we retained in 

the final rule the requirement to use 

submerged/bottom filling or other 

controls for all loading of tank trucks 

and railcars (excluding reactive and 

resinous materials). As the commenter 

noted, the combination of these loading 

procedures and process unit-wide 

management practices is consistent with 

operation at most area sources and has 

been determined to be GACT, unlike the 

proposed requirements that were based 

on the requirements in the gasoline 

distribution rule. Therefore, the final 

standards generally do not impose many 

additional requirements except for the 

few facilities that may not already be 

implementing these procedures. 

Although emissions from transfer 

operations are less than emissions from 

other emission points at chemical 

manufacturing area sources, we believe 

that the reason for this is, in part, that 

most facilities are implementing 

submerged loading or other control 

techniques. The standards ensure that 

these practices continue. 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested that the submerged (and 

bottom) fill requirement be deleted for 

transfer of resins because of operational 

and safety concerns. One commenter 

noted that resins can stratify and some 

of the layers formed might be 

flammable. Another commenter noted 

that submerged fill may be dangerous 

for certain resins and polymers, 

particularly those that contain styrene. 

The third commenter noted that the 

Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO) has no 

requirements for transfer of resins 

because EPA determined that the resins 

contain insignificant quantities of HAP 

and are not cost-effective to regulate. 

One commenter also requested an 

exemption from the submerged/bottom 

loading requirement for loading of all 

reactive, viscous, and sticky materials 

due to safety concerns, the fact that such 

procedures are not general industry 

practice, and because past efforts have 

shown the liquids stick and sometimes 

harden in the fill pipe, resulting in a 

significant expense to replace the fill 

pipe and dispose of the hardened 

material as a RCRA hazardous waste. 

Response: In response to commenters 

concerns, we reevaluated types of liquid 

transfers to determine GACT for 

transfers of the types of materials 

described by the commenters. We 

determined that submerged loading is 

not a generally available industry 

practice for transferring reactive or 

resinous materials for the reasons 

articulated by the commenters. To 

address this issue, the final rule 

specifies that submerged or bottom 

loading is not required for reactive or 

resinous material. However, transfer 

operations associated with these 

materials must comply with the other 

management practices. 

7. Heat Exchange Systems 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA should regulate cooling towers 

where process fluid contains not less 

than 5- or 10-percent HAP to keep 

applicability consistent with historic 

LDAR applicability criteria and to 

minimize burden. Other commenters 

stated only re-circulating cooling towers 

serving process heat exchangers 

containing 5 percent by weight organic 

HAP that could leak into the water 

should be subject to cooling tower 

requirements. 

Two commenters requested EPA 

clarify whether ‘‘once-through’’ cooling 

systems, comfort cooling towers, or 

other non-process cooling towers are 

excluded. These commenters suggested 

that exemptions in the HON under 40 

CFR 63.104(a) be included in the rule, 

with some modifications, and that the 

exemptions apply to all cooling towers, 

not only those with >8,000 gal/min 

circulation rates. 

Response: Although the proposed rule 

used the term ‘‘cooling tower’’ systems, 

we intended it to mean ‘‘heat exchange’’ 

systems as is consistent with the HON. 

Furthermore, the language in item 5.b of 

Table 2 to the proposed rule required 

affected sources to comply with the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 

63.104(a)(1) through (6) of the HON. 

That provision listed systems that were 

not subject to the proposed rule (i.e., 

systems with cooling water side 

pressure that is at least 35 kPa greater 

than the process side, systems with 

intervening fluids with <5 weight 

percent total HAP, systems used to cool 

process fluids containing <5 weight 

percent HAP [as specified in Table 4 of 

40 CFR part 63, subpart F for 

recirculating systems, and as specified 

in Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G 

for once-through systems], and oncethrough systems that meet specified 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit 

requirements). 

Therefore, the final standards for heat 

exchange systems apply to all heat 

exchange systems that are part of the 

affected source and that do not meet 

conditions in 40 CFR 63.104(a) of the 

HON. The heat exchange systems 

covered by the final rule are also exactly 

the same as the cooling tower systems 

we intended to cover under the proposal 

and on which our cost and emission 

reduction estimates were based. 

While a commenter noted that oncethrough systems are exempted in the 

HON, it should be noted that the HON 

covers both recirculating and oncethrough heat exchange systems under 

the 40 CFR 63.104 heat exchange system 

requirements. Consistent with the 

proposal, the final rule applies to oncethrough cooling waters in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.104(a). 

We believe that control of oncethrough heat exchanger cooling systems 

is appropriate for several reasons. 

Emissions of volatile HAP occur readily 

from open water sources. While the 

stripping process may not be as fast as 

in a cooling tower, once-through cooling 

water will have a much longer exposure 

to the atmosphere than a system with a 

cooling tower. While the emissions may 

occur over a longer time period, all 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56031 

available scientific evidence and fate 

modeling studies of open water systems 

leads us to conclude that essentially all 

volatile HAP will be released into the 

atmosphere. Therefore, we see no reason 

why HAP leaks from heat exchange 

systems into once-through cooling water 

should be treated any differently than 

HAP leaks from heat exchange systems 

that have cooling towers. 

For the final rule, we clarify that heat 

exchange systems are part of the 

affected source and specifically address 

once-through cooling systems. We have 

included a definition of ‘‘heat exchange 

system’’ as in the HON. These changes 

clarify the applicable requirements and 

also clarify that comfort cooling towers 

and any other non-process cooling 

towers are not subject to standards. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the management practice 

requirement for systems with <8,000 

gal/min circulation rate should be 

clarified. These commenters requested 

that area sources be allowed to sample 

to determine if indications of a leak 

identified by an inspection actually 

reflect a leak that is large enough to 

justify a costly repair or a process 

shutdown. Because § 63.104(b) of the 

HON defines a leak as 1 ppm, and this 

level was also used in the impacts 

analysis for the proposed standards, the 

commenters requested that area sources 

be allowed to determine if this 

condition is met before being required 

to repair after an inspection reveals 

indications of a leak. 

Response: The final rule specifies that 

the owner or operator must either 

eliminate indications of a potential leak 

or demonstrate that the HAP 

concentration in the cooling water does 

not constitute a leak, as defined in 40 

CFR 63.104(b)(6). If the concentration 

threshold is not met, the system is 

assumed not to be leaking, and no other 

requirements apply for that inspection 

cycle. We believe this is appropriate 

because HAP may be inadvertently 

introduced to the heat exchange system 

in ways other than through a leak. 

Requiring the facility to cease 

operations based on minimal HAP 

present is not GACT as it would create 

considerable cost with virtually no HAP 

reductions. In addition, an alternative 

has been added for small heat exchange 

systems to allow compliance with the 

same requirements that apply to large 

heat exchange systems instead of the 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply to the small heat exchange 

system. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

costs estimated for the cooling tower 

requirements are significantly 

underestimated and suggested several 

specific revisions to the cost analysis 

involving the number of cooling towers 

per site, number of samples to be 

collected, operator sampling time, and 

sample analysis costs. Specifically, 

commenters suggested that EPA should: 

Assume two cooling towers per site; 

assume four samples per quarter for 

Options 2 and 3 because many cooling 

towers have several return headers that 

each must be monitored and because 

both inlet and outlet monitoring will be 

required for many cooling towers to 

account for organic cooling tower 

additives, heavy HAP and soluble HAP 

which build up in the system; operator 

sampling time should be 1 hour under 

Options 2 and 3; sampling of total 

hydrocarbons or surrogate species costs 

$200 to $400 per sample under Option 

2; sampling for HAP speciation requires 

multiple samples or gas 

chromatography/mass spectroscopy for 

$300 to $800 per analysis; HON 

procedures require triplicate samples; 

and add cost associated with check 

samples and identifying the source of 

the leak. 

Response: We have made several 

revisions to the costs based on 

comments and to correct omissions at 

proposal. While commenters suggested 

that there are two cooling towers at each 

facility, after limiting the affected source 

to CMPUs and associated heat exchange 

systems and wastewater systems that 

use, produce, or generate chemical 

manufacturing urban HAP, it is likely 

that area sources have one cooling tower 

(or heat exchange system) in the affected 

source. Option 1 in both the proposed 

and final analyses is a quarterly sensory 

inspection and leak repair program, and 

Option 2 consists of the requirements 

for surrogate monitoring and leak repair 

in 40 CFR 63.104(c) of the HON. As 

discussed in section III.B.2.f of this 

preamble, the Option 1 requirements 

were determined to be GACT for small 

heat exchange systems, and the Option 

2 requirements were determined to be 

GACT for large heat exchange systems. 

For the final Option 2 cost analysis, 

we increased the number of quarterly 

samples as suggested by one 

commenter, i.e., increased the number 

to be taken from one sample to three 

samples, given that some operators will 

monitor the heat exchange exit stream 

before the outlet cooling water is 

manifolded with other streams. We 

included a 1-hour sampling time for 

Option 2, as suggested by a commenter. 

We also revised the recordkeeping time 

to 1 hour per quarter for both Options 

1 and 2 because the type and amount of 

information to be recorded are 

comparable under the two options. We 

inadvertently omitted the labor costs to 

conduct the quarterly sensory 

inspections for Option 1 at proposal and 

have included those cost estimates in 

the final analysis. 

We did not incorporate other 

suggested changes from the commenters 

in the final impacts analysis. One 

suggestion was to incorporate costs for 

identifying the specific source of the 

leak. However, with the changes noted 

above regarding the monitoring of 

individual heat exchangers, i.e., 

conducting three samples per quarterly 

event at heat exchanger exits rather than 

one sample at a manifolded location, we 

assumed that no additional cost would 

be associated with finding the specific 

leaking heat exchanger because the leak 

will be easier to locate based on HAP 

concentrations in the samples taken at 

different locations. Other suggested 

changes were to include costs for ‘‘water 

sampling,’’ monitoring both inlet and 

outlet locations, and conducting 

sampling in triplicate. We did not 

include costs for these activities because 

they are not required under either 

Option 1 or Option 2. An owner or 

operator may elect to conduct 

monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 

63.104(b) of the HON, which does 

require sampling at the inlet and outlet 

of each heat exchange system and in 

triplicate, but we did not include costs 

for compliance with these procedures 

because we do not expect many 

facilities to choose to comply with this 

option. Similarly, facilities that choose 

to conduct water sampling to meet the 

surrogate indicator monitoring under 

Option 2 could incur additional lab 

analysis costs and would perhaps 

choose to take two or three samples; 

however it is not required by the rule. 

8. Equipment Leaks 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the rule allow use of Method 21 as 

an option to confirm that AVO 

indication of a leak is or is not actually 

a leak, i.e., less than 10,000 ppmv, as is 

consistent with HON. Another 

commenter asked that Method 21 

inspections be allowed in lieu of 

sensory inspections. 

Response: The final rule allows 

Method 21 inspections in lieu of 

sensory inspections. This alternative is 

equivalent to the method in the 

proposed rule at detecting organic HAP 

leaks. The leak definition in the final 

rule for Method 21 is set at 500 ppmv, 

the most stringent level used in any 

Federal LDAR program. 

D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested that sources be allowed to 

demonstrate initial compliance using 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56032 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

design evaluations (or a combination of 

design evaluation, engineering 

calculation, or information from the 

equipment supplier) as an alternative to 

performance testing for any control 

device and any type of HAP, not just 

under the conditions where it is already 

allowed in the MON and 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS. One commenter also 

stated that sources should be allowed to 

designate vents as having a TRE <1.0 

and allow engineering estimates as an 

alternative to testing in all cases (rather 

than requiring testing when estimating 

procedures result in a TRE between 1.0 

and 4.0). These commenters stated that 

this would be a way to reduce burden 

and costs while having little impact on 

emissions reductions, and they pointed 

out that, in some cases, testing is 

impossible (e.g., at the inlet to sintered 

metal filters that are used to control 

particulate emissions from storage bins). 

One commenter added that some 

problems that area sources with limited 

testing experience are likely to 

encounter include the need to modify 

sampling methods, the lack of inlet 

sampling ports and the lack of a location 

that will allow ports to meet EPA 

Method 1 location requirements, and 

difficulty sampling inlet streams due to 

toxicity or flammability of the gas. 

Response: Performance tests provide 

the greatest assurance that required 

control levels are being achieved. 

However, they can be costly (>$20,000 

per test). Design evaluations based on 

engineering principles are allowed in 

the MON and other MACT rules for 

small control devices primarily due to 

cost considerations and the limited 

emission potential from small control 

devices. Considering the cost of testing 

and the fact that overall emissions from 

area sources are much lower than 

emissions from major sources, we do 

not think a requirement for testing at 

area sources is justified. Therefore, the 

final rule specifies that design 

evaluations may be used to demonstrate 

initial compliance with any organic 

HAP emission limits, hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP emission limits for 

scrubbers associated with combustion 

controls for halogenated vent streams, 

and metal HAP emission limits. 

The final rule also does not require 

compliance with the referenced 

requirements in § 63.115(d)(1)(ii) that 

specify the owner or operator must 

either perform measurements to verify 

that the TRE determined using an 

engineering assessment is really 

between 1 and 4 or consider the TRE to 

be <1; thus, an engineering assessment 

is sufficient to determine the TRE in this 

range. 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters urged 

EPA to specify that the proposed PS–17 

and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 

do not apply to chemical manufacturing 

area sources because the burden and 

cost of these requirements is significant. 

Another commenter stated that the costs 

for complying with the proposed PS–17 

and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 

need to be considered in the impacts 

analysis if they are to apply to chemical 

manufacturing area sources. One 

commenter noted that sophisticated 

instrumentation systems, centralized 

computer data systems, and on-site 

instrumentation specialists would be 

needed to comply with the proposed 

PS–17 and EPA Quality Assurance 

Procedure 4 requirements. 

Response: PS–17 and EPA Quality 

Assurance Procedure 4 have not been 

finalized. As one commenter pointed 

out, these requirements go beyond 

existing MACT and NSPS standards, 

area sources in the categories being 

regulated today do not generally comply 

with these procedures, and the costs to 

comply with PS–17 and EPA Quality 

Assurance Procedure 4 are not 

reasonable. For these reasons, PS–17 

and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 

do not apply to affected sources under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that imposing almost all 40 CFR part 63 

General Provisions is overly 

burdensome and unjustified, because 

area sources have limited technical 

expertise and staff resources and small 

emission potential compared to major 

sources. For example, one commenter 

indicated that the ‘‘negative’’ records 

required by 40 CFR 63.1(b)(3) and 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(3) should be indicated as 

‘‘No’’ in Table 4; the performance 

testing and monitoring provisions in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS should 

supersede 40 CFR 63.7 and 40 CFR 63.8; 

and only the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions, not the 40 CFR part 60 

General Provisions, should apply. 

Response: In consideration of these 

comments, we have reviewed the 

General Provisions and made a few 

minor changes to Table 9 of the final 

rule with respect to recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements (Applicability of 

General Provisions to Subpart 

VVVVVV). We determined that 40 CFR 

63.7(a)(2) does not apply because the 

rule references the procedures in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS for certain 

control device compliance 

requirements, and 40 CFR 63.997(c)(1) 

of subpart SS contains performance 

testing schedule requirements that are 

comparable, although slightly more 

descriptive, than the schedule 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2). To 

ensure that area sources do not have to 

comply with PS–17 and EPA Quality 

Assurance Procedure 4 when they are 

finalized, we determined that 40 CFR 

63.8(a)(2) does not apply. We also 

specify in Table 9 that references to 

SSM in the General Provisions 

requirements for recordkeeping and 

reporting do not apply. Finally, we 

determined that the notification of 

changes to information already provided 

that is required by 40 CFR 63.9(j) does 

not apply because it is redundant with 

40 CFR 63.11501(d)(4) of the final rule, 

which specifies that notifications of 

process changes that affect a compliance 

determination, result in a new 

compliance determination, or change 

the method of compliance must be 

reported in the semi-annual compliance 

reports. 

In addition to the changes in Table 9, 

we also added a statement in 40 CFR 

63.11501(a) of the final rule to clarify 

that an affected source must only 

comply with those Part 63 General 

Provisions as specified in 40 CFR Table 

9. The General Provisions in other Parts, 

such as Part 60, do not apply except to 

the extent that a source is subject to an 

overlapping requirement, and that 

requirement calls for compliance with 

the General Provisions of another part. 

G. Requirements During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

(SSM) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested changes to simplify and 

reduce the burden of SSM requirements. 

One commenter stated that no special 

reporting should be required after an 

SSM event if the SSM plan was 

followed, and sources should not have 

to submit revised plans if the plan is 

modified in a timely fashion. One 

commenter recommended that 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart VVVVVV explicitly 

state that emission limits and control 

requirements do not apply during SSM 

periods. Three commenters stated that 

facilities subject only to management 

practice requirements should not be 

required to develop an SSM plan 

because no purpose is served by 

requiring an SSM plan for anything that 

does not impact required controls. 

One commenter stated EPA should 

simplify SSM reporting requirements 

by: (1) Waiving immediate reporting as 

required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5); (2) 

requiring the information required by 40 

CFR 63.10(d)(5) to be recorded and 

maintained onsite and submitted in the 

periodic report; (3) requiring SSM 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56033 

reporting only if excess emissions 

occurred and they did not follow their 

SSM plan; and (4) allowing SSM 

reporting to be consolidated with 

semiannual compliance reports. 

One commenter stated that Table 4 

should indicate that the immediate 

reporting requirements and separate 

SSM reports required in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) do not apply to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, and that 

failure to follow the SSM plan during an 

event where there are excess emissions 

should be reported in the deviation 

report. This commenter also requested 

that EPA use time and labor rate 

assumptions provided by the 

commenter in revised burden estimates 

related to SSM plans. 

This same commenter stated that EPA 

developed the emission limitations and 

work practices in the proposed rule 

without considering any emission data 

during SSM of control or process 

equipment. As such, the EPA cannot 

legally impose the emission limitations 

required during normal operations on 

sources during periods of SSM. The 

commenter points out that EPA may set 

a standard based on GACT or 

management practices, and management 

practices is the most appropriate 

requirement for SSM. The commenter 

suggests provisions of the HON be used 

as a model for SSM management 

practices. The commenter also 

requested that EPA clarify that area 

sources may take all actions necessary 

to ensure that sources operate safely at 

all times, including during SSM events, 

by including language similar to that in 

the MON in regards to opening a safety 

device. 

Another commenter also submitted 

comments in response to the court 

decision on SSM issues. The commenter 

submitted additional compliance 

options that would show compliance at 

all times, including periods of SSM 

because, according to the commenter, 

these periods are not steady state 

conditions and, therefore, operating 

parameter limits determined through 

performance testing or engineering 

evaluations would not be indicative of 

those periods. The commenter stated 

that SSM provisions should still be 

included in the final rulemaking for area 

sources. Alternatives suggested by the 

commenter include demonstration of 

compliance of emission limit using a 

long term rolling average; conduct 

performance testing for periods of 

startup and shutdown; allow use of 

storage tank when control device is not 

operational if tank is not filled and has 

a tight fitting cover; run no new batches 

until malfunction is over; and ensure 

that the control device is at normal 

operating conditions before the process 

is started. 

Response: Table 9 to the final rule 

(Table 4 to the proposed rule) contains 

references to the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions and lists the applicability of 

the General Provisions to the sources 

subject to the rule. As explained above, 

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

the Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 

63.6(h)(1). In light of this court decision, 

we revised Table 9 to state that 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. Table 

9 also states that the requirements for 

SSM plans and reports in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) do not 

apply. The final emission standards 

summarized in section IV above apply 

at all times. As noted in sections III and 

IV above, we are establishing a separate 

emission standard for periods of startup 

and shutdown for continuous process 

vents for the nine source categories at 

issue here, because these periods are 

characterized by activities, such as the 

filling of vessels and the inerting of 

vessels, and these activities generally 

result in significantly different 

emissions than normal operations. See 

Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1027 

(recognizing that the CAA does not 

require EPA to set a single emission 

standard under CAA section 112(d) that 

applies during all operating periods). 

Some commenters complain that EPA 

failed to consider emissions data during 

startup and shutdown, and that EPA 

should set different standards for these 

periods. EPA is limited to the emissions 

information before it, which, of course, 

includes any information provided by 

the commenters. In this case, EPA 

carefully analyzed all of the emissions 

information before it, including that 

provided by commenters, and 

concluded that only continuous vents 

presented a situation where a separate 

standard during startup and shutdown 

was appropriate. Although EPA 

recognizes that startup and shutdown 

events associated with a continuous 

process can impact the quantity of 

wastewater sent to the wastewater 

system, these events do not warrant a 

separate standard for wastewater 

systems. The final GACT standards for 

wastewater systems appropriately 

control HAP emissions, and the 

commenters have not provided any data 

or other information that would justify 

a separate standard for wastewater 

systems. Contrary to the commenters’ 

assertion, for batch processing, startup 

and shutdown are considered part of 

normal operations. Storage tanks, heat 

exchange systems, and transfer 

operations also do not undergo startup 

and shutdown activities. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

EPA has established CAA section 112(d) 

compliant standards in this rule that 

apply continuously. The standards, as 

described above, apply at all times. In 

establishing the standards in this rule, 

EPA has taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods and has established 

different standards for such periods 

where appropriate. Periods of start-up, 

normal operations, and shut-down are 

all predictable and routine aspects of a 

source’s operations. Batch processes 

start up and shutdown as part of their 

routine process and continuous process 

operations undergo startups and 

shutdowns for a variety of reasons, 

including changes in product demand 

or product line, and upgrading of 

equipment. By contrast, a malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * * ’’ 40 CFR 63.2. EPA has 

properly accounted for different periods 

of operation in establishing the 

standards in this rule. EPA does not 

view malfunctions as a distinct 

operating mode and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do 

not need to be factored into 

development of CAA section 112(d) 

standards, which, once promulgated, 

apply at all times. Thus, EPA is not 

setting separate standards for 

malfunctions in this rule, as the 

commenters requested. 

Further, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take into account malfunctions in 

setting CAA section 112(d) standards. 

Because, by definition, malfunctions are 

sudden and unexpected events, it would 

be difficult to set a standard that would 

account for the myriad of different 

emissions that could occur during 

malfunctions. In addition, the type, 

frequency, and duration of the 

malfunctions may differ significantly 

between sources. Furthermore, 

emissions during malfunctions can 

substantially exceed the level of 

emissions during start-up, shut-down, 

and normal operations. Finally, setting 

an emissions standard that accounts for 

all different types of malfunctions could 

allow a source to emit excessive 

quantities of uncontrolled pollution. 

Commenters raised a concern that 

certain malfunctions necessitate the 

opening of a safety device to avoid 

damage to equipment or injury to 

personnel working at the site. EPA 

shares the commenters’ concerns that 

plants must be operated safely and that 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56034 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10 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 CAA section 502(a), whether 

exempting the area source category would adversely 

affect public health, welfare, or the environment. 

See 70 FR 75326, December 19, 2005. As shown 

above, after conducting the four-factor balancing 

test and determining that title V requirements 

would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area 

source categories at issue here, we examined 

whether the exemption from title V would 

adversely affect public health, welfare, and the 

environment, and found that it would not. 

plant operators should run their 

facilities in a safe manner. 

H. Title V Permitting 

As discussed above in section III.F, 

we are not finalizing the exemption 

from title V requirements for those 

sources that became area sources by 

installing emission controls. We 

maintain, as explained below in this 

response to significant comments, that 

we properly applied the test for 

determining whether title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome on the other 

sources subject to this NESHAP and we 

are finalizing that exemption in this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the Agency’s proposal to exempt 

the nine area source categories from title 

V requirements is unlawful and 

arbitrary. The commenter states that 

section 502(a) of the CAA authorizes 

EPA to exempt area source categories 

from title V permitting requirements if 

the Administrator finds that compliance 

with such requirements is 

‘‘impracticable, infeasible or 

unnecessarily burdensome.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7661a(a). The commenter notes that 

EPA did not claim that title V 

requirements are impracticable or 

infeasible for any of the source 

categories it proposes to exempt, but 

that EPA instead relied entirely on its 

claim that title V would be 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome.’’ 

Response: We have reconsidered our 

proposed exemption for major sources 

that installed controls to become area 

sources after 1990. Based on our 

additional review of the source 

categories since proposal, we conclude 

that exemption for these synthetic area 

sources is not appropriate as discussed 

above in section III.F. We are finalizing 

the exemption for synthetic area sources 

that took operational limits and for 

natural minor sources. 

Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in 

relevant part, that: 

* * * [t]he Administrator may, in the 

Administrator’s discretion and consistent 

with the applicable provisions of this 

chapter, promulgate regulations to exempt 

one or more source categories (in whole or 

in part) from the requirements of this 

subsection if the Administrator finds that 

compliance with such requirements is 

impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome on such categories, except that 

the Administrator may not exempt any major 

source from such regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). 

The statute plainly vests the 

Administrator with discretion to 

determine when it is appropriate to 

exempt non-major (i.e., area) sources of 

air pollution from the requirements of 

title V. The commenter correctly notes 

that EPA based the proposed 

exemptions solely on a determination 

that title V is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome,’’ and did not rely on 

whether the requirements of title V are 

‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘infeasible’’, which 

are alternative bases for exempting area 

sources from title V. 

To the extent the commenter is 

asserting that EPA must determine that 

all three criteria in CAA section 502 are 

met before an area source category can 

be exempted from title V, the 

commenter misreads the statute. The 

statute expressly provides that EPA may 

exempt an area source category from 

title V requirements if EPA determines 

that the requirements are 

‘‘impracticable, infeasible or 

unnecessarily burdensome.’’ See CAA 

section 502 (emphasis added). If 

Congress had wanted to require that all 

three criteria be met before a category 

could be exempted from title V, it 

would have stated so by using the word 

‘‘and,’’ in place of ‘‘or.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

in order to demonstrate that compliance 

with title V would be ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome,’’ EPA must show, among 

other things, that the ‘‘burden’’ of 

compliance is unnecessary. According 

to the commenter, by promulgating title 

V, Congress indicated that it viewed the 

burden imposed by its requirements as 

necessary, as a general rule. The 

commenter maintained that the title V 

requirements provide many benefits that 

Congress viewed as necessary. Thus, in 

the commenter’s view, EPA must show 

why, for any given category, special 

circumstances make compliance 

unnecessary. The commenter believed 

that EPA has not made that showing for 

any of the categories it proposes to 

exempt. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

the commenter’s characterization of the 

demonstration required for determining 

that title V is unnecessarily burdensome 

for an area source category. As stated 

above, the CAA provides the 

Administrator discretion to exempt an 

area source category from title V if 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, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). In 

addition to interpreting the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and 

developing the four-factor balancing test 

in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the 

test to certain area source categories. 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source 

category include: (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).10

In discussing the above factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we 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, we concluded 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, 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56035 

11 If the commenter objected to our interpretation 

of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in the 

Exemption Rule, it should have commented on, and 

challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the 

Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 

307(b). Although we received comments on the title 

V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, 

no one sought judicial review of that rule. 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. 

The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA 

must show * * * that the ‘‘burden’’ of 

compliance is unnecessary.’’ This is not, 

however, one of the four factors that we 

developed in the Exemption Rule in 

interpreting the term ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ in CAA section 502, but 

rather a new test that the commenter 

maintains EPA ‘‘must’’ meet in 

determining what is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ under CAA section 502. 

EPA did not re-open its interpretation of 

the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

in CAA section 502 in the October 6, 

2008 proposed rule for the categories at 

issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the 

four-factor balancing test articulated in 

the Exemption Rule to the source 

categories for which we proposed title V 

exemptions. Had we sought to re-open 

our interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and modify it from what 

was articulated in the Exemption Rule, 

we would have stated so in the October 

6, 2008, proposed rule and solicited 

comments on a revised interpretation, 

which we did not do. Accordingly, we 

reject the commenter’s attempt to create 

a new test for determining what 

constitutes ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

under CAA section 502, as that issue 

falls outside the purview of this 

rulemaking.11

Furthermore, we believe that the 

commenter’s position that ‘‘EPA must 

show * * * that the ‘‘burden’’ of 

compliance is unnecessary’’ is 

unreasonable and contrary to 

Congressional intent concerning the 

applicability of title V to area sources. 

Congress intended to treat area sources 

differently under title V, as it expressly 

authorized the EPA Administrator to 

exempt such sources from the 

requirements of title V at her discretion. 

There are several instances throughout 

the CAA where Congress chose to treat 

major sources differently than nonmajor sources, as it did in CAA section 

502. In addition, it is worth noting that, 

although the commenter espouses a new 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and attempts to create a new 

test for determining whether the 

requirements of title V are 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for an area 

source category, the commenter does 

not explain why EPA’s interpretation of 

the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is 

arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. We maintain that 

our interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502, as set forth in the 

Exemption Rule, is reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

exempting a source category from title V 

permitting requirements deprives both 

the public generally and individual 

members of the public who would 

obtain and use permitting information 

for the benefit of citizen oversight and 

enforcement that Congress plainly 

viewed as necessary. According to the 

commenter, the text and legislative 

history of the CAA provide that 

Congress intended ordinary citizens to 

be able to get emissions and compliance 

information about air toxics sources and 

to be able to use that information in 

enforcement actions and in public 

policy decisions on a State and local 

level. The commenter stated that 

Congress did not think that enforcement 

by States or other government entities 

was enough; if it had, Congress would 

not have enacted the citizen suit 

provisions, and the legislative history of 

the CAA would not show that Congress 

viewed citizens’ access to information 

and ability to enforce CAA requirements 

as highly important both as an 

individual right and as a crucial means 

to ensuring compliance. According to 

the commenter, if a source does not 

have a title V permit, it is difficult or 

impossible—depending on the laws, 

regulations, and practices of the State in 

which the source operates—for a 

member of the public to obtain relevant 

information about its emissions and 

compliance status. The commenter 

stated that, likewise, it is difficult or 

impossible for citizens to bring 

enforcement actions. The commenter 

continued that EPA does not claim—far 

less demonstrate with substantial 

evidence, as would be required—that 

citizens would have the same ability to 

obtain compliance and emissions 

information about sources in the 

categories it proposes to exempt without 

title V permits. The commenter also said 

that, likewise, EPA does not claim—far 

less demonstrate with substantial 

evidence — that citizens would have the 

same enforcement ability. Thus, 

according to the commenter, the 

exemptions EPA proposes plainly 

eliminate benefits that Congress thought 

necessary. The commenter claimed that, 

to justify its exemptions, EPA would 

have to show that the informational and 

enforcement benefits that Congress 

intended title V to confer—benefits 

which the commenter argues are 

eliminated by the exemptions—are for 

some reason unnecessary with respect 

to the categories it proposes to exempt. 

The commenter concluded that EPA 

does not even acknowledge these 

benefits of title V, far less explain why 

they are unnecessary, and that for this 

reason alone, EPA’s proposed 

exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary. 

Response: Once again, the commenter 

attempts to create a new test for 

determining whether the requirements 

of title V are ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. Specifically, the commenter 

argues that EPA does not claim or 

demonstrate with substantial evidence 

that citizens would have the same 

access to information and the same 

ability to enforce under these NESHAP, 

absent title V. The commenter’s position 

represents a significant revision of the 

fourth factor that EPA developed in the 

Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502. For all of the reasons 

explained above, the commenter’s 

attempt to create a new test for EPA to 

meet in determining whether title V is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ on an area 

source category cannot be sustained. 

This rulemaking did not re-open EPA’s 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502. In any event, EPA 

interpretation is reasonable. 

Furthermore, the commenter’s 

statements do not demonstrate a flaw in 

EPA’s application of the four-factor 

balancing test to the specific facts of the 

sources we are exempting, nor do the 

comments provide a basis for the 

Agency to reconsider the exemption as 

we are finalizing it. 

EPA reasonably applied the four 

factors to the facts of the nine source 

categories at issue in this rule, and the 

commenter has not identified any flaw 

in EPA’s application of the four-factor 

test to the nine area source categories at 

issue here. 

Moreover, as explained in the 

proposal, we considered 

implementation and enforcement issues 

in the fourth factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. Specifically, the fourth 

factor of EPA’s unnecessarily 

burdensome analysis provides that EPA 

will consider whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. See 

70 FR 75326. 

In applying the fourth factor here, 

EPA determined that there are adequate 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with the CAA. As stated in 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56036 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposal, we believe that statedelegated programs are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

and that EPA retains authority to 

enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. 

73 FR 58373. We also indicated that 

States and EPA often conduct voluntary 

compliance assistance, outreach, and 

education programs to assist sources, 

and that these additional programs will 

supplement and enhance the success of 

compliance with this NESHAP. 73 FR 

58373. The commenter does not 

challenge the conclusion that there are 

adequate State and Federal programs in 

place to ensure compliance with and 

enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, 

the commenter provides an 

unsubstantiated assertion that 

information about compliance by the 

area sources with these NESHAP will 

not be as accessible to the public as 

information provided to a State 

pursuant to title V. In fact, the 

commenter does not provide any 

information that States will treat 

information submitted under these 

NESHAP differently than information 

submitted pursuant to a title V permit. 

Even accepting the commenter’s 

assertions that it is more difficult for 

citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent 

a title V permit, in evaluating the fourth 

factor in EPA’s balancing test, EPA 

concluded that there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to enforce the 

NESHAP. The commenter has provided 

no information to the contrary or 

explained how the absence of title V 

actually impairs the ability of citizens to 

enforce the provisions of the NESHAP. 

Furthermore, the fourth factor is one 

factor that we evaluated in determining 

if the title V requirements were 

unnecessarily burdensome. As 

explained above, we considered that 

factor together with the other factors 

and determined that it was appropriate 

to finalize the proposed exemptions for 

natural area sources and synthetic area 

sources that took operational limits in 

the source categories at issue in this 

rule, but we are not finalizing the title 

V exemption for sources that became 

synthetic area sources through the use 

of add-on controls for the reasons set 

forth above in section III.F. 

Comment: One commenter explained 

that title V provides important 

monitoring benefits, and, according to 

the commenter, EPA assumes that title 

V monitoring would not add any 

monitoring requirements beyond those 

required by the regulations for each 

category. The commenter said that, in 

its proposal, EPA proposed to require 

‘‘management practices, which are 

practices that are currently used at most 

facilities, for most subcategories (73 FR 

58372).’’ The commenter further states 

that ‘‘EPA argues that its proposed 

standard, including these practices, 

‘provides monitoring in the form of 

recordkeeping that will assure 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule.’ ’’ Id. The commenter 

maintains that EPA made conclusory 

assertions and that the Agency failed to 

provide any evidence to demonstrate 

that the proposed monitoring 

requirements will assure compliance 

with the NESHAP for the exempt 

sources. The commenter stated that, for 

this reason, as well, its claim that title 

V requirements are ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ is arbitrary and 

capricious, and its exemption is 

unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. 

Response: As noted in the earlier 

comment, EPA used the four-factor test 

to determine if title V requirements 

were unnecessarily burdensome. In the 

first factor, EPA considers whether 

imposition of title V requirements 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements that are proposed for the 

area source categories. See 70 FR 75323. 

It is in the context of this first factor that 

EPA evaluates the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the proposed NESHAP 

to determine the extent to which those 

requirements are consistent with the 

requirements of title V. See 70 FR 

75323. 

The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA 

argues that its proposed standard, 

including these practices, ‘provides 

monitoring in the form of recordkeeping 

that will assure compliance with the 

requirements of the proposed rule.’ ’’ 

The commenter has taken a phrase from 

the preamble out of context to imply 

that EPA has only required monitoring 

in the form of recordkeeping. In the 

proposal, we stated: 

The proposed rule requires 

implementation of certain management 

practices, which are practices that are 

currently used at most facilities, for most 

subcategories, and add on controls and other 

requirements, in addition to management 

practices for other subcategories of sources. 

The proposed rule requires direct monitoring 

of emissions or control device parameters, 

both continuous and periodic, recordkeeping 

that also may serve as monitoring, and 

deviation and other semi-annual reporting to 

assure compliance with these requirements. 

The monitoring component of the first 

factor favors title V exemption. For the 

management practices, this proposed 

standard provides monitoring in the form of 

recordkeeping that would assure compliance 

with the requirements of the proposed rule. 

Monitoring by means other than 

recordkeeping for the management practices 

is not practical or appropriate. Records are 

required to ensure that the management 

practices are followed. The proposed rule 

requires the owner or operator to record the 

date and results of inspections, as well as any 

actions taken in response to findings of the 

inspections. The records are required to be 

maintained as checklists, logbooks and/or 

inspection forms. The rule also requires 

emission limit requirements for some 

subcategories. Monitoring of control device 

or recovery device operating parameters 

using CPMS or periodic monitoring is 

required to assure compliance with these 

emission limits. 

See 73 FR 58372. 

We nowhere state or imply that the 

only monitoring required for the rule is 

in the form of recordkeeping. As the 

above excerpt states, we required 

continuous and periodic direct 

monitoring of emission control devices 

and recovery devices when the rule 

requires the installation of such controls 

in addition to the recordkeeping that 

serves as monitoring for the 

management practices. The commenter 

does not provide any evidence that 

contradicts the conclusion that the 

proposed monitoring requirements are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

standards in the rule. 

Based on the foregoing, we considered 

whether title V monitoring requirements 

would lead to significant improvements 

in the monitoring requirements in the 

proposed NESHAP and determined that 

they would not. We believe that the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in this area 

source rule can assure compliance for 

those sources we are exempting. 

For the reasons described above and 

in the proposed rule, the first factor 

supports an exemption. Assuming, for 

arguments sake, that the first factor 

alone cannot support the exemption, the 

four-factor balancing test requires EPA 

to examine the factors, in combination, 

and determine whether the factors, 

viewed together, weigh in favor of 

exemption. See 70 FR 75326. As 

explained above, we determined that 

the factors, weighed together, support 

title V exemption for the natural area 

sources and synthetic area sources that 

took operational limits in these source 

categories. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

EPA argued that its own belief that title 

V is a ‘‘significant burden’’ on area 

sources further justifies its exemption 

(73 FR 58372–58373). According to the 

commenter, regardless of whether EPA 

regards the burden as ‘‘significant,’’ the 

Agency may not exempt a category from 

compliance with title V requirements 

unless compliance is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome.’’ The commenter stated 

that, in any event, EPA’s claims about 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56037 

12As discussed in Section III above, since 

proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed 

exemption for synthetic area sources that became 

area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls 

and determined that these sources are generally 

larger and more sophisticated sources and, that for 

these and other reasons, the burden on these 

sources would not be significant. 

the alleged significance of the burden of 

compliance is entirely conclusory and 

could be applied equally to any major 

or area source category. The commenter 

also stated that the Agency does not 

show that the compliance burden is 

especially great for any of the sources it 

proposes to exempt, and, thus, does not 

demonstrate that the alleged burden 

necessitates treating them differently 

from other categories by exempting 

them from compliance with title V 

requirements. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

take issue with the formulation of the 

second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. Specifically, the 

commenter states that EPA must 

determine that title V compliance is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and not a 

‘‘significant burden,’’ as expressed in 

the second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. 

As we have stated before, at proposal 

we found the burden placed on these 

sources in complying with the title V 

requirements is significant when we 

applied the four-factor balancing test.12

We note that the commenter in other 

parts of its comments on the title V 

exemptions argues that EPA must 

demonstrate that every title V 

requirement is ‘‘unnecessary’’ for a 

particular source category before an 

exemption can be granted, but makes no 

mention of the ‘‘burden’’ of those 

requirements on area sources, but here 

the commenter argues that ‘‘significant 

burden’’ is not appropriate for the 

second factor. Notwithstanding the 

commenter’s inconsistency, as 

explained above, the four-factor 

balancing test was established in the 

Exemption Rule and we did not re-open 

EPA’s interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in this 

rule. As explained above, we maintain 

that the Agency’s interpretation of the 

term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ as 

set forth in the Exemption Rule and 

reiterated in the proposal to this rule, is 

reasonable. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertions, we properly analyzed the 

second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under 

that factor, EPA considers whether title 

V permitting would impose a significant 

burden on the area source categories, 

and whether that burden would be 

aggravated by any difficulty that the 

sources may have in obtaining 

assistance from the permitting agencies. 

See 70 FR 75324. The commenter 

appears to assert that the second factor 

must be satisfied for EPA to exempt an 

area source category from title V, but, as 

explained above, the four factors are 

considered in combination. We have 

concluded that the second factor, in 

combination with the other factors, 

supports an exemption for the chemical 

manufacturing area sources that we are 

exempting from compliance with title V 

in this final rule. 

Therefore, we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that EPA’s 

finding (i.e., that the burden of obtaining 

a title V permit is significant, does not 

equate to the required finding that the 

burden is unnecessary) is misplaced. 

While EPA could have found that the 

second factor alone could justify the 

exemption for the sources we are 

exempting in this rule, EPA found that 

the other three factors also support 

exempting these sources from the title V 

requirements because the permitting 

requirements are unnecessarily 

burdensome for the chemical 

manufacturing area sources we are 

exempting. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, EPA argued that 

compliance with title V would not yield 

any gains in compliance with 

underlying requirements in the relevant 

NESHAP (73 FR 58373). The commenter 

stated that EPA’s conclusory claim 

could be made equally with respect to 

any major or area source category. 

According to the commenter, the 

Agency provides no specific reasons to 

believe—with respect to any of the 

categories it proposes to exempt—that 

the additional informational, 

monitoring, reporting, certification, and 

enforcement requirements that exist in 

title V, but not in these NESHAP, would 

not provide additional compliance 

benefits. The commenter also stated that 

the only basis for EPA’s claim is, 

apparently, its beliefs that those 

additional requirements never confer 

additional compliance benefits. 

According to the commenter, by 

advancing such argument, EPA merely 

seeks to elevate its own policy judgment 

over Congress’ decisions reflected in the 

CAA’s text and legislative history. 

Response: The commenter 

mischaracterizes the first and third 

factors of the four-factor balancing test 

and takes out of context certain 

statements in the proposed rule 

concerning the factors used in the 

balancing test to determine if imposition 

of title V permit requirements is 

unnecessarily burdensome for the 

source categories. The commenter also 

mischaracterizes the first factor of the 

four-factor balancing test with regard to 

determining whether imposition of title 

V would result in significant 

improvements in compliance. In 

addition, the commenter 

mischaracterizes the analysis in the 

third factor of the balancing test which 

instructs EPA to take into account any 

gains in compliance that would result 

from the imposition of the title V 

requirements. 

First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it 

believe, that title V never confers 

additional compliance benefits as the 

commenter asserts. In fact, our decision 

to not exempt synthetic area sources 

that installed add-on controls was 

based, in part, on our determination that 

the additional public participation and 

oversight attendant to title V permitting 

was appropriate for those sources. 

While EPA recognizes that requiring a 

title V permit offers additional 

compliance options, the statute provides 

EPA with the discretion to evaluate 

whether compliance with title V would 

be unnecessarily burdensome to specific 

area sources. For the sources we are 

exempting, we conclude that requiring 

title V permits would be unnecessarily 

burdensome. 

Second, the commenter 

mischaracterizes the first factor by 

asserting that EPA must demonstrate 

that title V will provide no additional 

compliance benefits. The first factor 

calls for a consideration of ‘‘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.’’ 

Thus, contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, the inquiry under the first 

factor is not whether title V will provide 

any compliance benefit, but rather 

whether it will provide significant 

improvements in compliance 

requirements. 

The monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the rule are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

requirements of this rule for the sources 

we are exempting, consistent with the 

goal in title V permitting. For example, 

in the Notification of Compliance Status 

report, the source must certify that it has 

implemented management practices, 

and, if necessary, installed controls and 

established monitoring parameters. See 

40 CFR 63.11501 in the final rule. The 

source must also submit deviation 

reports to the permitting agency every 6 

months if there has been a deviation in 

the requirements of the rule. See 40 CFR 

63.11501 in the final rule. The 

requirements in the final rule provide 

sufficient basis to assure compliance, 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56038 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and EPA does not believe that the title 

V requirements, if applicable to the 

sources that we are exempting, would 

offer significant improvements in the 

compliance of the sources with the rule. 

Third, the commenter incorrectly 

characterizes our statements in the 

proposed rule concerning our 

application of the third factor. Under 

the third factor, EPA evaluates ‘‘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.’’ Contrary to what the 

commenter alleges, EPA did not state in 

the proposed rule that compliance with 

title V would not yield any gains in 

compliance with the underlying 

requirements in the relevant NESHAP, 

nor does factor three require such a 

determination. 

Instead, consistent with the third 

factor, we considered whether the costs 

of title V are justified in light of any 

potential gains in compliance. In other 

words, EPA considers the costs of title 

V permitting requirements, including 

consideration of any improvement in 

compliance above what the rule 

requires. In considering the third factor, 

we stated, in part, that, ‘‘[b]ecause the 

costs, both economic and noneconomic, 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 exemptions for these area source 

categories.’’ See 73 FR 58373. 

Most importantly, EPA considered all 

four factors in the balancing test in 

determining whether title V was 

unnecessarily burdensome on the area 

source categories we are exempting from 

title V in this final rule. As stated above, 

we have determined that title V is 

appropriate for synthetic area sources 

that installed add-on controls and we 

are not finalizing the exemption for 

those sources. As to the remaining 

sources, the commenter’s statements do 

not demonstrate a flaw in EPA’s 

application of the four-factor balancing 

test to the specific facts of the sources 

we are exempting, nor do the comments 

provide sufficient basis for the Agency 

to reconsider its proposal to exempt the 

natural area sources and synthetic area 

sources that took operational limits to 

maintain HAP below major source 

levels. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, EPA argued that alternative 

State implementation and enforcement 

programs assure compliance with the 

underlying NESHAP without relying on 

title V permits (73 FR 58373). The 

commenter stated that again, EPA’s 

claim is entirely conclusory and generic. 

The commenter also stated that ‘‘the 

Agency does not identify any aspect of 

any of the underlying NESHAP showing 

that with respect to these specific 

NESHAP—unlike all the other major 

and area source NESHAP it has issued 

without title V exemptions—title V 

compliance is unnecessary’’ (emphasis 

added). Instead, according to the 

commenter, EPA merely pointed to 

existing State requirements and the 

potential for actions by States and EPA 

that are generally applicable to all 

categories (along with some small 

business and voluntary programs). The 

commenter said that, absent a showing 

by EPA that distinguishes the sources it 

proposes to exempt from other sources, 

the Agency’s argument boils down to 

the generic and conclusory claim that it 

generally views title V requirements as 

unnecessary. The commenter stated 

that, while this may be EPA’s view, it 

was not Congress’ view when Congress 

enacted title V, and a general view that 

title V is unnecessary, does not suffice 

to show that title V compliance is 

unnecessarily burdensome. 

Response: Contrary to the 

commenters’ assertions, EPA does 

believe that title V is appropriate under 

certain circumstances. Indeed, we are 

not finalizing the title V exemption for 

synthetic area sources that became area 

sources by virtue of installing add-on 

controls. However, given the facts 

associated with the remainder of the 

sources in the categories, we think that 

exemption from title V is appropriate for 

those sources. 

In this comment, the commenter again 

takes issue with the Agency’s test for 

determining whether title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome, as 

developed in the Exemption Rule. Our 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is not the 

subject of this rulemaking. In any event, 

as explained above, we believe the 

Agency’s interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is a 

reasonable one. To the extent the 

commenter asserts that our application 

of the fourth factor is flawed, we 

disagree. The fourth factor involves a 

determination as to whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the rule without 

relying on the title V permits. In 

discussing the fourth factor in the 

proposal, EPA states that, prior to 

delegating implementation and 

enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure 

that the State has programs in place to 

enforce the rule. EPA believes that these 

programs will be sufficient to assure 

compliance with the rule. EPA also 

retains authority to enforce this 

NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 

112, 113, and 114. EPA also noted other 

factors in the proposal that together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with this 

area source NESHAP. 

The commenter argues that EPA 

cannot exempt any of the area sources 

in these categories from title V 

permitting requirements because ‘‘[t]he 

agency does not identify any aspect of 

any of the underlying NESHAP showing 

that with respect to these specific 

NESHAP—unlike all the other major 

and area source NESHAP it has issued 

without title V exemptions—title V 

compliance is unnecessary’’ (emphasis 

added). As an initial matter, EPA cannot 

exempt major sources from title V 

permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As for area 

sources, the standard that the 

commenter proposes—that EPA must 

show that ‘‘title V compliance is 

unnecessary’’—is not consistent with 

the standard the Agency established in 

the Exemption Rule and applied in the 

proposed rule in determining if title V 

requirements are unnecessarily 

burdensome. 

Furthermore, we disagree that the 

basis for excluding the chemical 

manufacturing area sources we are 

exempting from title V requirements is 

generally applicable to sources in any 

source category. As explained in the 

proposal preamble and above, we 

balanced the four factors considering 

the facts and circumstances of the nine 

source categories at issue in this rule. 

For example, in assessing whether the 

costs of requiring the sources to obtain 

a title V permit was burdensome, we 

concluded that the high relative costs 

would not be justified given that there 

is likely to be little or no potential gain 

in compliance, particularly for sources 

that are required to comply only with 

the management practice requirements 

contained in the final rule. Almost all of 

the sources we are exempting from title 

V are required to comply only with 

management practices. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

as EPA concedes, the legislative history 

of the CAA shows that Congress did not 

intend EPA to exempt source categories 

from compliance with title V unless 

doing so would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Furthermore, the 

commenter stated that EPA conceded 

this point. See 73 FR 58373. 

Nonetheless, according to the 

commenter, EPA does not make any 

showing that its exemptions would not 

have adverse impacts on health, welfare, 

and the environment. The commenter 

stated that, instead, EPA offered only 

the conclusory assertion that ‘‘the level 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56039 

of control would remain the same’’ 

whether title V permits are required or 

not (73 FR 58373). The commenter 

continued by stating that EPA relied 

entirely on the conclusory arguments 

advanced elsewhere in its proposal that 

compliance with title V would not yield 

additional compliance with the 

underlying NESHAP. The commenter 

stated that those arguments are wrong 

for the reasons given above, and, 

therefore, EPA’s claims about public 

health, welfare, and the environment are 

wrong too. The commenter also stated 

that Congress enacted title V for a 

reason: To assure compliance with all 

applicable requirements and to 

empower citizens to get information and 

enforce the CAA. The commenter said 

that those benefits—of which EPA’s 

proposed rule deprives the public— 

would improve compliance with the 

underlying standards and, thus, have 

benefits for public health, welfare, and 

the environment. According to the 

commenter, EPA has not demonstrated 

that these benefits are unnecessary with 

respect to any specific source category, 

but again, simply rests on its own 

apparent belief that they are never 

necessary. The commenter concluded, 

for the reasons given above, that the 

attempt to substitute EPA’s judgment for 

Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. 

Response: Congress gave the 

Administrator the authority to exempt 

area sources from compliance with title 

V if, in his or her discretion, the 

Administrator ‘‘finds that compliance 

with [title V] is impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome.’’ See CAA section 502(a). 

EPA has interpreted one of the three 

justifications for exempting area 

sources, ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ 

as requiring consideration of the four 

factors discussed above. At proposal, 

EPA applied these four factors to the 

nine chemical manufacturing area 

source categories subject to this rule and 

concluded that requiring title V for 

these area source categories would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. We 

maintain that this conclusion is accurate 

for the sources we are exempting in this 

rule. 

In addition to determining that title V 

would be unnecessarily burdensome on 

the area source categories for which we 

proposed exemptions, as in the 

Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, 

consistent with our interpretation of the 

legislative history, whether exempting 

the area source categories would 

adversely affect public health, welfare, 

or the environment. As explained in the 

proposal preamble, we concluded that 

exempting the area source categories at 

issue in this rule would not adversely 

affect public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would be the same even if title 

V applied. We further explained in the 

proposal preamble that the title V 

permit program does not generally 

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. The 

commenter has not provided any 

information to demonstrate that the 

exemption from title V that we are 

finalizing will adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Area Source 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

We estimate that the final standard 

will reduce organic HAP emissions by 

207 tpy and metal HAP by 41 tpy from 

the baseline level, for an overall HAP 

emission reduction of 248 tpy from the 

baseline. Table 1 of this preamble 

summarizes the estimated HAP 

reductions under the final standards for 

each type of emission point. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE HAP EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Emission point HAP emission 

reduction (tpy) 

Urban HAP emission 

reduction (tpy) 

Batch process vents .............................................................................................................................. <43 13 

Continuous process vents ..................................................................................................................... <29 9 

Metal HAP process vents ...................................................................................................................... 41 38 

Storage tanks ......................................................................................................................................... 5 5 

Heat exchange systems ........................................................................................................................ 79 24 

Transfer operations ................................................................................................................................ 1 0 .2 

Wastewater systems .............................................................................................................................. 51 16 

Total ................................................................................................................................................ 248 105 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

The total capital cost of the final 

standard is estimated at $2.8 million. 

The total annualized cost of the final 

standard, including the annualized cost 

of capital equipment, is estimated at 

$3.2 million/yr. Additional information 

on our impact estimates on the sources 

is available in the docket (See Docket 

Number EPA–HQ—OAR–2008–0334.) 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

The final standard is estimated to 

impact a total of approximately 450 

existing source facilities and 27 new 

sources in the next 3 years. Many of the 

facilities affected by this final rule are 

small entities. Our analyses indicate 

that the final rule will not impose a 

significant adverse impact on any 

facilities, large or small. The average 

cost for each chemical manufacturing 

industry is projected to be less than 0.06 

percent of average sales. In addition, the 

average costs in each industry are 

projected to be less than 0.2 percent of 

average sales for the smallest facilities 

within each industry (i.e., facilities with 

50 to 99 employees). 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

The secondary impacts would include 

energy impacts associated with direct 

operation of combustion control 

devices, energy impacts associated with 

the generation of electricity to operate 

control devices, and solid waste 

generated as a result of the metal HAP 

emissions collected. Organic materials 

that are recovered from wastewater 

using gravity separation techniques 

would also be a solid waste if the 

material could not be reused in a 

process or as fuel. 

We estimate that an additional 175 

megawatt-hr/yr of electricity and 

260,000 standard cubic feet per year of 

natural gas will be needed to operate 

control devices. We estimate that an 

additional 1.7 tpy of criteria pollutants 

will be generated from the combustion 

of natural gas in combustion control 

devices and from the combustion of coal 

to generate electricity. We estimate that 

controlling metal HAP emissions will 

generate an additional 580 tpy of solid 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56040 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

waste, including about 41 tpy of HAP 

metals. An estimated 8 tpy of organic 

material will be recovered from 

wastewater using gravity separation 

techniques. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 12866, and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this final rule are based 

on the requirements in EPA’s NESHAP 

General Provisions to part 63. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are mandatory pursuant to 

section 113 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the 

Agency’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

This final NESHAP requires chemical 

manufacturing area sources to submit an 

initial notification of applicability, 

Notification of Compliance Status 

report, performance test results, and 

semiannual compliance reports. The 

semiannual compliance reports are only 

required to be submitted if any 

deviations from any requirements in the 

rule occurred during the applicable 

semiannual reporting period. Area 

sources must also estimate emissions 

from batch process vents and metal HAP 

process vents, determine the TRE for 

continuous process vents, identify and 

characterize the PSHAP concentration 

in wastewater streams, prepare a heat 

exchange system monitoring plan, 

conduct design evaluations to determine 

control efficiency, and conduct 

inspections for leaks. 

Records will be required to 

demonstrate compliance with the TRE 

calculation requirements for continuous 

process vents, batch and metal process 

vent emissions estimation requirements, 

inspections and vapor pressure 

calculations for storage tanks, 

wastewater HAP concentration 

requirements, and management practice 

inspection records for each CMPU. 

The annual burden associated with 

the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for this 

information collection, averaged over 

the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated 

to total 10,566 labor hours per year at 

a cost of $803,906. Capital/startup costs 

for performance tests and monitoring 

equipment were annualized and 

estimated at $69,484/yr; operation and 

maintenance costs for the monitoring 

equipment were estimated at $28,787/ 

yr. The costs attributable to the final 

standards are associated with the initial 

compliance demonstration, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

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 will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that meets the Small Business 

Administration size standards for small 

businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 

(less than 500, 750, or 1,000 employees 

depending on the specific NAICS Code 

under subcategory 325); (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 final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule is estimated to impact a 

total of approximately 450 chemical 

manufacturing area sources; more than 

150 of these facilities are estimated to be 

small entities. An economic impacts 

analysis was performed to compare the 

control costs associated with producing 

a product at facilities in the various 

chemical manufacturing industries to 

the average value of shipments from 

such facilities. In all industries, the 

average costs are projected to be less 

than 0.07 percent of average sales. For 

the smallest facilities in each industry 

(those with 50 to 99 employees), the 

average costs are all projected to be less 

than 0.2 percent of average sales. Thus, 

any price increases or loss of profit 

would be quite small. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this final rule on small 

entities. The standards represent 

practices and controls that are common 

throughout the sources engaged in 

chemical manufacturing, and in many 

cases only require management 

practices. The standards require only 

the recordkeeping and reporting needed 

to demonstrate and verify compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. The total annual cost of 

the rule is estimated at $3.2 million/yr. 

This final rule is not expected to impact 

State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This final rule is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

final rule contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments, imposes no 

obligations upon them, and would not 

result in expenditures by them of $100 

million or more in any one year or any 

disproportionate impacts on them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56041 

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 final rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

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 imposes requirements 

on owners and operators of specified 

area sources and not tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks 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 Executive 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 action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

impacts. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This action involves technical 

standards. EPA cites the following 

standards: EPA Methods 5 and 5D in 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–3 and EPA 

Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–8. Therefore, EPA conducted a search 

to identify potentially applicable VCS. 

No applicable VCS were identified for 

EPA Methods 5D and 29. The search 

identified four VCS as possible 

alternatives to EPA Method 5. EPA 

determined that these four standards 

were impractical alternatives to the EPA 

test methods. Therefore, EPA does not 

intend to adopt these standards for this 

purpose. The reasons for the 

determinations for the 4 methods are 

discussed in a memorandum included 

in the docket for this action. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

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 in the final 

rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The final rule 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. The 

nationwide standards will reduce HAP 

emissions and thus decrease the amount 

of emissions to which all affected 

populations are exposed. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will 

be effective on October 29, 2009. 

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 16, 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 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 VVVVVV to read as follows: 

Subpart VVVVVV—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Sources 

Sec. 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

63.11494 What are the applicability 

requirements and compliance dates? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements 

63.11495 What are the management 

practices and other requirements? 

63.11496 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for process 

vents? 

63.11497 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for storage 

tanks? 

63.11498 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for wastewater 

systems? 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56042 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

63.11499 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for heat 

exchange systems? 

63.11500 What compliance options do I 

have if part of my plant is subject to both 

this subpart and another Federal 

standard? 

63.11501 What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11502 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.11503 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Used to 

Determine Applicability of Chemical 

Manufacturing Operations 

Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Batch Process Vents 

Table 3 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Continuous Process 

Vents 

Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Metal HAP Process 

Vents 

Table 5 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Storage Tanks 

Table 6 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Wastewater Systems 

Table 7 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Partially Soluble HAP 

Table 8 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Emission Limits and Compliance 

Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems 

Table 9 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart VVVVVV 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11494 What are the applicability 

requirements and compliance dates? 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, you are subject to this 

subpart if you own or operate a 

chemical manufacturing process unit 

(CMPU) that meets the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) The CMPU uses as feedstocks, 

generates as byproducts, or produces as 

products any of the hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) listed in Table 1 to this 

subpart (Table 1 HAP). 

(2) The CMPU is located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

(3) Table 1 HAP are present in 

feedstocks, or Table 1 HAP are 

generated or produced in the CMPU and 

are present in process fluid, at 

concentrations greater than 0.1 percent 

for carcinogens, as defined by the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration at 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 

percent for noncarcinogens. To 

determine the Table 1 HAP content of 

feedstocks, you may rely on formulation 

data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, such as the Material Safety 

Data Sheet (MSDS) for the material. If 

the concentration in an MSDS is 

presented as a range, use the upper 

bound of the range. 

(b) A CMPU includes all process 

vessels, equipment, and activities 

necessary to operate a chemical 

manufacturing process that produces a 

material or a family of materials 

described by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 325. 

A CMPU consists of one or more unit 

operations and any associated recovery 

devices. A CMPU also includes each 

storage tank, transfer operation, surge 

control vessel, and bottoms receiver 

associated with the production of such 

NAICS code 325 materials. 

(c) This subpart does not apply to the 

operations specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Affected sources under the 

following chemical manufacturing area 

source categories listed pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(c)(3) 

and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) that are subject to 

area source standards under this part: 

(i) Manufacture of Paint and Allied 

Products, subject to subpart CCCCCCC 

of this part. 

(ii) Mercury Emissions from Mercury 

Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, subject to 

subpart IIIII of this part. 

(iii) Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers Production, subject to 

subpart DDDDDD of this part. 

(iv) Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production, subject to subpart LLLLLL 

of this part. 

(v) Carbon Black Production, subject 

to subpart MMMMMM of this part. 

(vi) Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Sources: Chromium Compounds, 

subject to subpart NNNNNN of this part. 

(2) Production of the following 

chemical manufacturing materials 

described in NAICS code 325: 

(i) Manufacture of radioactive 

elements or isotopes, radium chloride, 

radium luminous compounds, 

strontium, uranium. 

(ii) Manufacture of photographic film, 

paper, and plate where the material is 

coated with or contains chemicals. This 

subpart does apply to the manufacture 

of photographic chemicals. 

(iii) Fabricating operations (such as 

spinning or compressing a solid 

polymer into its end use); compounding 

operations (in which blending, melting, 

and resolidification of a solid polymer 

product occurs for the purpose of 

incorporating additives, colorants, or 

stabilizers); and extrusion and drawing 

operations (converting an already 

produced solid polymer into a different 

shape by melting or mixing the polymer 

and then forcing it or pulling it through 

an orifice to create an extruded 

product). An operation is subject if it 

involves processing with Table 1 HAP 

solvent or if an intended purpose of the 

operation is to remove residual Table 1 

HAP monomer. 

(iv) Manufacture of chemicals 

classified in NAICS code 325222, 

325314, 325413, or 325998. 

(3) Research and development 

facilities, as defined in CAA section 

112(c)(7). 

(4) Quality assurance/quality control 

laboratories. 

(5) Ancillary activities, as defined in 

§ 63.11502(b). 

(6) Metal HAP in structures or 

existing as articles as defined in 40 CFR 

372.3. 

(d) This subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source. The affected 

source is the facility-wide collection of 

CMPUs and each heat exchange system 

and wastewater system associated with 

a CMPU that meets the criteria specified 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

A CMPU using only Table 1 organic 

HAP is required to control only total 

CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. A 

CMPU using only Table 1 metal HAP is 

required to control only total CAA 

section 112(b) metal HAP. 

(1) An affected source is an existing 

source if you commenced construction 

or reconstruction of the affected source 

before October 6, 2008. 

(2) An affected source is a new source 

if you commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source on 

or after October 6, 2008. 

(e) Any source that was a major 

source and installed a control device on 

a CMPU after November 15, 1990, and, 

as a result, became an area source under 

40 CFR part 63 is required to obtain a 

permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71. Otherwise, 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 continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(f) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions in this subpart no later than 

October 29, 2012. 

(g) If you start up a new affected 

source on or before October 29, 2009, 

you must achieve compliance with the 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56043 

applicable provisions of this subpart no 

later than October 29, 2009. 

(h) If you start up a new affected 

source after October 29, 2009, you must 

achieve compliance with the provisions 

in this subpart upon startup of your 

affected source. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.11495 What are the management 

practices and other requirements? 

(a) Management practices. If you have 

a CMPU subject to this subpart, you 

must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(1) Each process vessel in organic 

HAP service or metal HAP service must 

be equipped with a cover or lid that 

must be in place at all times when the 

vessel contains HAP, except for material 

addition and sampling. 

(2) You must use any of the methods 

listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) 

of this section to control total organic 

HAP emissions from transfer of liquids 

containing Table 1 organic HAP to tank 

trucks or railcars. You are not required 

to comply with this paragraph (a)(2) if 

you have notified the Administrator in 

your initial notification that a material 

is reactive or resinous, and you will not 

be able to comply with any of the 

methods in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 

(iv) of this section for the transfer of 

such material. 

(i) Use submerged loading or bottom 

loading. 

(ii) Route emissions to a fuel gas 

system or process in accordance with 

§ 63.982(d) of subpart SS. 

(iii) Vapor balance back to the storage 

tank or another storage tank connected 

by a common header. 

(iv) Vent through a closed-vent system 

to a control device. 

(3) You must conduct inspections of 

process vessels and equipment for each 

CMPU in organic HAP service or metal 

HAP service at least quarterly to 

demonstrate compliance with these 

requirements and to determine that the 

process vessels and equipment are 

sound and free of leaks. For these 

inspections, detection methods 

incorporating sight, sound, or smell are 

acceptable. The inspection must include 

direct and proximal (thorough) 

inspection of all areas of potential leak 

within the CMPU. Indications of a leak 

identified using such method 

constitutes a leak unless you 

demonstrate that the indications of a 

leak are due to a condition other than 

loss of HAP. Alternatively, Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, with a 

leak definition of 500 parts per million 

by volume (ppmv), may be used for 

detection of leaks or to determine if the 

indications of a leak are due to a 

condition other than loss of HAP. If 

indications of a leak are determined not 

to be HAP in one quarterly monitoring 

period, you must still perform the 

inspection and demonstration in the 

next quarterly monitoring period. 

Inspections must be conducted while 

the subject CMPU is operating. No 

inspection is required in a calendar 

quarter during which the subject CMPU 

does not operate for the entire calendar 

quarter and is not in organic HAP 

service or metal HAP service. If the 

CMPU operates at all during a calendar 

quarter, an inspection is required. 

(4) You must repair any leak within 

15 calendar days after detection of the 

leak, or document the reason for any 

delay of repair. For the purposes of this 

paragraph (a)(4), a leak will be 

considered ‘‘repaired’’ if a condition 

specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or 

(iii) of this section is met. 

(i) The visual, audible, olfactory, or 

other indications of a leak to the 

atmosphere have been eliminated, or 

(ii) No bubbles are observed at 

potential leak sites during a leak check 

using soap solution, or 

(iii) The system will hold a test 

pressure. 

(5) You must keep records of the dates 

and results of each inspection event, the 

dates of equipment repairs, and, if 

applicable, the reasons for any delay in 

repair. 

(b) Small heat exchange systems. For 

each heat exchange system subject to 

this subpart with a cooling water flow 

rate less than 8,000 gallons per minute 

(gal/min) and not meeting one or more 

of the conditions in § 63.104(a), you 

must comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) of this section, or as an 

alternative, you may comply with any 

one of the requirements in Item 1.a or 

1.b of Table 8 to this subpart. 

(1) You must develop and operate in 

accordance with a heat exchange system 

inspection plan. The plan must describe 

the inspections to be performed that 

will provide evidence of hydrocarbons 

in the cooling water. Among other 

things, inspections may include checks 

for visible floating hydrocarbon on the 

water, hydrocarbon odor, discolored 

water, and/or chemical addition rates. 

You must conduct inspections at least 

once per quarter, even if the previous 

inspection determined that the 

indications of a leak did not constitute 

a leak as defined by § 63.104(b)(6). 

(2) You must perform repairs to 

eliminate the leak and any indications 

of a leak or demonstrate that the HAP 

concentration in the cooling water does 

not constitute a leak, as defined by 

§ 63.104(b)(6), within 45 calendar days 

after indications of the leak are 

identified, or you must document the 

reason for any delay of repair in your 

next semiannual compliance report. 

(3) You must keep records of the dates 

and results of each inspection, 

documentation of any demonstrations 

that indications of a leak do not 

constitute a leak, the dates of leak 

repairs, and, if applicable, the reasons 

for any delay in repair. 

(c) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) provisions in 

subparts that are referenced in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do 

not apply. 

§ 63.11496 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for process 

vents? 

(a) Organic HAP Emissions from 

Batch Process Vents. You must comply 

with the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section for 

organic HAP emissions from your batch 

process vents for each CMPU using 

Table 1 organic HAP. If uncontrolled 

organic HAP emissions from all batch 

process vents from a CMPU subject to 

this subpart are equal to or greater than 

10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you 

must also comply with the emission 

limits and other requirements in Table 

2 to this subpart. 

(1) You must determine the sum of 

actual organic HAP emissions from all 

of your batch process vents within a 

CMPU subject to this subpart using 

process knowledge, engineering 

assessment, or test data. Emissions for a 

standard batch in a process may be used 

to represent actual emissions from each 

batch in that process. You must 

maintain records of the calculations. 

Calculations of annual emissions are not 

required if you meet the emission 

standards for batch process vents in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(2) As an alternative to calculating 

actual emissions for each affected 

CMPU at your facility, you may elect to 

estimate emissions for each CMPU 

based on the emissions for the worstcase CMPU. The worst-case CMPU 

means the CMPU at the affected source 

with the highest organic HAP emissions 

per batch. The worst-case emissions per 

batch are used with the number of 

batches run for other affected CMPU. 

Process knowledge, engineering 

assessment, or test data may be used to 

identify the worst-case process. You 

must keep records of the information 

and procedures used to identify the 

worst-case process. 

(3) If your current estimate is that 

emissions from batch process vents from 

a CMPU are less than 10,000 pounds per 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

year (lb/yr), then you must keep a 

record of the number of batches of each 

process operated per month. Also, you 

must reevaluate your total emissions 

from batch process vents prior to 

making any process changes that affect 

emission calculations in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. If projected 

emissions increase to 10,000 lb/yr or 

more, you must be in compliance 

options for batch process vents in Table 

2 to this subpart upon initiating 

operation under the new operating 

conditions. You must maintain records 

documenting the results of all updated 

emissions calculations. 

(4) As an alternative to determining 

the HAP emissions, you may elect to 

demonstrate that the amount of organic 

HAP used in the process is less than 

10,000 lb/yr. You must keep monthly 

records of the organic HAP usage. 

(b) Organic HAP Emissions from 

Continuous Process Vents. You must 

comply with the requirements in 

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

section for organic HAP emissions from 

your continuous process vents for each 

CMPU subject to this subpart using 

Table 1 organic HAP. If the total 

resource-effectiveness (TRE) index value 

for a continuous process vent is less 

than or equal to 1.0, you must also 

comply with the emission limits and 

other requirements in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(1) You must determine the TRE 

index value according to the procedures 

in § 63.115(d), except as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) You are not required to calculate 

the TRE index value if you control 

emissions in accordance with Table 3 to 

this subpart. 

(ii) Sections 63.115(d)(1)(i) and (ii) are 

not applicable for the purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii). 

(iii) You may assume the TRE for a 

vent stream is > 1.0 if the amount of 

organic HAP emitted in the vent stream 

is less than 0.1 pound per hour. 

(2) If the current TRE index value is 

greater than 1, you must recalculate the 

TRE index value before you make any 

process or operational change that 

affects parameters in the calculation. If 

the recalculated TRE is less than or 

equal to 1.0, then you must comply with 

one of the compliance options for 

continuous process vents in Table 3 to 

this subpart before operating under the 

new operating conditions. You must 

maintain records of all TRE 

calculations. 

(3) If a recovery device as defined in 

§ 63.11502 is used to maintain the TRE 

index value at a level greater than 1.0 

and less than or equal to 4.0, you must 

comply with § 63.982(e) and the 

requirements specified therein. 

(c) Combined Streams. If you combine 

organic HAP emissions from batch 

process vents and continuous process 

vents, you must comply with the more 

stringent standard in Table 2 or Table 3 

to this subpart that applies to any 

portion of the combined stream, or you 

must comply with Table 2 for the batch 

process vents and Table 3 for the 

continuous process vents. The TRE 

index value for continuous process 

vents and the annual emissions from 

batch process vents shall be determined 

for the individual streams before they 

are combined, and prior to any control, 

in order to determine the most stringent 

applicable requirements. 

(d) Combustion of Halogenated 

Streams. If you use a combustion device 

to comply with the emission limits for 

organic HAP from a halogenated batch 

process vent or a halogenated 

continuous process vent, you must use 

a halogen reduction device to meet the 

emission limit in either paragraph (d)(1) 

or (d)(2) of this section and in 

accordance with § 63.994 and the 

requirements referenced therein. 

(1) Reduce overall emissions of 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP after 

the combustion device by greater than 

or equal to 95 percent, to less than or 

equal to 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), 

or to a concentration less than or equal 

to 20 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). 

(2) Reduce the halogen atom mass 

emission rate before the combustion 

device to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/ 

hr or to a concentration less than or 

equal to 20 ppmv. 

(e) Alternative Standard for Organic 

HAP. Exceptions to the requirements for 

the alternative standard requirements 

specified in Tables 2 and 3 to this 

subpart and § 63.2505 are specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) When § 63.2505 of subpart FFFF 

refers to Tables 1 and 2 to subpart FFFF 

and §§ 63.2455 and 63.2460, it means 

Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and 

§ 63.11496(a) and (b). 

(2) Sections 63.2505(a)(2) and (b)(9) 

do not apply. 

(3) When § 63.2505(b) references 

§ 63.2445 it means § 63.11494(f) through 

(h). 

(4) The requirements for hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP apply only to 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 

generated in a combustion device that is 

used to comply with the alternative 

standard. 

(5) When § 63.1258(b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) 

refers to a ‘‘notification of process 

change’’ report, it means the semiannual compliance report required by 

§ 63.11501(d) for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(f) Emissions from Metal HAP Process 

Vents. You must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) 

of this section for metal HAP emissions 

from each CMPU using Table 1 metal 

HAP. If the collective uncontrolled 

metal HAP emissions from all metal 

HAP process vents from a CMPU are 

equal to or greater than 400 lb/yr, then 

you must also comply with the emission 

limits and other requirements in Table 

4 to this subpart and in paragraph (f)(3), 

(4), or (5) of this section. 

(1) You must determine the sum of 

metal HAP emissions from all metal 

HAP process vents within a CMPU 

subject to this subpart, except you are 

not required to determine the annual 

emissions if you control the metal HAP 

process vents within a CMPU in 

accordance with Table 4 to this subpart 

or if you determine your total metal 

HAP usage in the process unit is less 

than 400 lb/yr. To determine the mass 

emission rate you may use process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data. You must keep records of the 

emissions calculations. 

(2) If your current estimate is that 

total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions 

from a CMPU subject to this subpart are 

less than 400 lb/yr, then you must keep 

records of either the number of batches 

operated per month (batch vents) or the 

process operating hours (continuous 

vents). Also, you must reevaluate your 

total emissions before you make any 

process or operational change that 

affects emissions of metal HAP. If 

projected emissions increase to 400 lb/ 

yr or more, then you must be in 

compliance with one of the options for 

metal HAP process vents in Table 4 to 

this subpart upon initiating operation 

under the new operating conditions. 

You must keep records of all 

recalculated emissions determinations. 

(3) If you have an existing source 

subject to the HAP metals emission 

limits specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart, you must comply with the 

initial compliance and monitoring 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

keep records of monitoring results to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

(i) You must prepare a monitoring 

plan containing the information in 

paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this 

section. The plan must be maintained 

on-site and be available on request. You 

must operate and maintain the control 

device according to a site-specific 

monitoring plan at all times. 

(A) A description of the device; 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56045 

(B) Results of a performance test or 

engineering assessment conducted in 

accordance with paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of 

this section verifying the performance of 

the device for reducing HAP metals or 

particulate matter (PM) to the levels 

required by this subpart; 

(C) Operation and maintenance plan 

for the control device (including a 

preventative maintenance schedule 

consistent with the manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance) and continuous 

monitoring system. 

(D) A list of operating parameters that 

will be monitored to maintain 

continuous compliance with the 

applicable emissions limits; and 

(E) Operating parameter limits based 

on either monitoring data collected 

during the performance test or 

established in the engineering 

assessment. 

(ii) You must conduct a performance 

test or an engineering assessment for 

each CMPU subject to a HAP metals 

emissions limit in Table 4 to this 

subpart and report the results in your 

Notification of Compliance Status 

(NOCS) report. If you own or operate an 

existing affected source, you are not 

required to conduct a performance test 

if a prior performance test was 

conducted within the 5 years prior to 

the effective date using the same 

methods specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) 

of this section and either no process 

changes have been made since the test, 

or if you can demonstrate that the 

results of the performance test, with or 

without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

changes. For each performance test, 

sampling must be conducted at both the 

inlet and outlet of the control device, 

and the test must be conducted under 

representative process operating 

conditions. 

(iii) If you elect to conduct a 

performance test, it must be conducted 

according to requirements in 

§ 63.11410(j)(1). As an alternative to 

conducting a performance test using 

Method 5 or 5D to determine the 

concentration of PM, you may use 

Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8 to determine the concentration of 

HAP metals. You have demonstrated 

initial compliance if the overall 

reduction of either HAP metals or total 

PM is equal to or greater than 95 

percent. 

(4) If you have a new source using a 

baghouse as a control device, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system on all baghouses used 

to comply with the HAP metals 

emissions limit in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the 

testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

requirements in § 63.11410(g), (i), and 

(j)(1), except you are not required to 

submit the monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.11410(g)(2) for approval. 

(5) If you have a new source using a 

control device other than a baghouse to 

comply with the HAP metals emission 

limits in Table 4 to this subpart, you 

must comply with the initial 

compliance and monitoring 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(g) Exceptions and Alternatives to 40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart SS. If you are 

complying with the emission limits and 

other requirements for continuous 

process vents in Table 3 to this subpart, 

the provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (7) and (9) of this section apply 

in addition to the provisions in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SS. If you are 

complying with the emission limits and 

other requirements for batch process 

vents in Table 2 to this subpart, the 

provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(8) of this section apply in addition to 

the provisions in subpart SS. 

(1) Requirements for Performance 

Tests. The requirements specified in 

§§ 63.2450(g)(1) through (4) apply 

instead of or in addition to the 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS. 

(2) Design Evaluation. To determine 

initial compliance with a percent 

reduction emission limit, you may elect 

to conduct a design evaluation as 

specified in § 63.1257(a)(1) instead of a 

performance test as specified in subpart 

SS of this part 63. You must establish 

the value(s) and basis for the operating 

limits as part of the design evaluation. 

For continuous process vents, the 

design evaluation must be conducted at 

maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process, unless the 

Administrator specifies or approves 

alternate operating conditions. For batch 

process vents, the design evaluation 

must be conducted under worst-case 

conditions, as specified in 

§ 63.2460(c)(2). 

(3) Outlet Concentration Correction 

for Combustion Devices. When 

§ 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to 

correct the measured concentration at 

the outlet of a combustion device to 3 

percent oxygen if you add supplemental 

combustion air, the requirements in 

either paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of 

this section apply for the purposes of 

this subpart. 

(i) You must correct the concentration 

in the gas stream at the outlet of the 

combustion device to 3 percent oxygen 

if you add supplemental gases, as 

defined in § 63.2550, to the vent stream, 

or; 

(ii) You must correct the measured 

concentration for supplemental gases 

using Equation 1 of § 63.2460; you may 

use process knowledge and 

representative operating data to 

determine the fraction of the total flow 

due to supplemental gas. 

(4) Continuous Parameter Monitoring. 

The provisions in § 63.2450(k)(1) 

through (6) apply in addition to the 

requirements for continuous parameter 

monitoring systems (CPMS) in subpart 

SS of this part 63, except as specified in 

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

section. 

(i) You may measure pH at least once 

per day for any halogen scrubber within 

a CMPU subject to this rule. 

(ii) The requirements in 

§ 63.2450(k)(6) to request approval of a 

procedure to monitor operating 

parameters does not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. You must 

provide the required information in 

your NOCS report required by 

§ 63.11501(b). 

(5) Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

(SSM). Section 

63.998(b)(2)(iii),(b)(6)(i)(A), and (d)(3) 

do not apply for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(6) Excused Excursions. Excused 

excursions, as defined in subpart SS of 

this part 63, are not allowed. 

(7) Energetics and Organic Peroxides. 

If an emission stream contains 

energetics or organic peroxides that, for 

safety reasons, cannot meet an 

applicable emission limit specified in 

this subpart, then you must submit an 

application to the Administrator 

explaining why an undue safety hazard 

would be created if the air emission 

controls were installed, and you must 

describe the procedures that you will 

implement to minimize HAP emissions 

from these vent streams in lieu of the 

emission limitations in this section. 

(8) Additional Requirements for Batch 

Process Vents. The provisions specified 

in § 63.2460(c) apply in addition to the 

provisions in subpart SS of this part 63, 

except as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) References to emission limits in 

Table 2 to subpart FFFF mean the 

emission limits in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) References to MCPU mean CMPU 

for purposes of this subpart. 

(iii) Section 63.2460(c)(8) does not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart. 

(9) Parameter Monitoring Averaging 

Periods. Daily averages required in 

§ 63.998(b)(3) apply at all times except 

during startup and shutdown. Separate 

averages shall be determined for each 

period of startup and period of 

shutdown. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(h) Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms 

Receivers. For each surge control vessel 

and bottoms receiver that meets the 

applicability criteria for storage tanks 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart, you 

must meet the emission limits and 

control requirements specified in Table 

5 to this subpart. 

(i) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). References to SSM 

provisions in subparts that are 

referenced in paragraphs (a) through (h) 

of this section or Tables 2 through 5 to 

this subpart do not apply. 

§ 63.11497 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for storage 

tanks? 

(a) You must comply with the 

emission limits and other requirements 

in Table 5 to this subpart and in 

paragraph (b) of this section for organic 

HAP emissions from each of your 

storage tanks that meet the applicability 

criteria in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(b) Planned Routine Maintenance for 

a Control Device. Operate in accordance 

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

this section for periods of planned 

routine maintenance of a control device 

for storage tanks. 

(1) Add no material to the storage tank 

during periods of planned routine 

maintenance. 

(2) Limit periods of planned routine 

maintenance for each control device (or 

series of control devices) to no more 

than 240 hours per year (hr/yr), or 

submit an application to the 

Administrator requesting an extension 

of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/ 

yr. The application must explain why 

the extension is needed and it must be 

submitted at least 60 days before the 

240-hour limit will be exceeded. 

(3) Keep records of the day and time 

at which planned routine maintenance 

periods begin and end, and keep a 

record of the type of maintenance 

performed. 

(c) References to SSM provisions in 

subparts that are referenced in 

paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section or 

Table 5 to this subpart do not apply. 

§ 63.11498 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for wastewater 

systems? 

(a) You must comply with the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section and in Table 6, Item 1 to 

this subpart for all wastewater streams 

from a CMPU subject to this subpart. If 

the partially soluble HAP concentration 

in a wastewater stream is equal to or 

greater than 10,000 parts per million by 

weight (ppmw) and the wastewater 

stream contains a separate organic 

phase, then you must also comply with 

Table 6, Item 2 to this subpart for that 

wastewater stream. Partially soluble 

HAP are listed in Table 7 to this 

subpart. 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, you must 

determine the total concentration of 

partially soluble HAP in each 

wastewater stream using process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data. Also, you must reevaluate the 

concentration of partially soluble HAP if 

you make any process or operational 

change that affects the concentration of 

partially soluble HAP in a wastewater 

stream. 

(2) You are not required to determine 

the partially soluble concentration in 

wastewater that is hard piped to a 

combustion unit or hazardous waste 

treatment unit, and you are not required 

to determine the partially soluble HAP 

concentration in wastewater that is hard 

piped to a storage tank from which the 

wastewater is collected and shipped 

offsite for treatment in a combustion 

unit or hazardous waste treatment unit. 

(3) Separated organic material that is 

recycled to a process is no longer 

wastewater and no longer subject to the 

wastewater requirements after it has 

been recycled. 

(b) The requirements in Item 2 of 

Table 6 to this subpart do not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. 

References to SSM provisions in 

subparts that are referenced in 

paragraph (a) of this section or Table 6 

to this subpart do not apply. 

§ 63.11499 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for heat exchange 

systems? 

(a) If the cooling water flow rate in 

your heat exchange system is equal to or 

greater than 8,000 gal/min and is not 

meeting one or more of the conditions 

in § 63.104(a), then you must comply 

with one of the requirements specified 

in Table 8 to this subpart. 

(b) For equipment that meets Current 

Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) 

requirements of 21 CFR part 211, you 

may use the physical integrity of the 

reactor as the surrogate indicator of heat 

exchanger system leaks when 

complying with Item 1.a in Table 8 to 

this subpart. 

(c) Any reference to SSM provisions 

in other subparts that are referenced in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section or 

Table 8 to this subpart do not apply. 

§ 63.11500 What compliance options do I 

have if part of my plant is subject to both 

this subpart and another Federal standard? 

For any CMPU, heat exchange system, 

or wastewater system subject to the 

provisions of both this subpart and 

another rule, you may elect to comply 

only with the more stringent provisions 

as specified in paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section. You must consider all 

provisions of the rules, including 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. You must identify the subject 

CMPU, heat exchange system, and/or 

wastewater system, and the provisions 

with which you will comply in your 

NOCS report required by § 63.11501(b). 

You also must demonstrate in your 

NOCS report that each provision with 

which you will comply is at least as 

stringent as the otherwise applicable 

requirement in this subpart VVVVVV. 

You are responsible for making accurate 

determinations concerning the more 

stringent standards and noncompliance 

with this rule is not excused if it is later 

determined that your determination was 

in error and, as a result, you are 

violating this subpart. Compliance with 

this rule is your responsibility and the 

NOCS report does not alter or affect that 

responsibility. 

(a) Compliance with Other Subparts 

of this Part 63. If any part of a CMPU 

that is subject to the provisions of this 

subpart is also subject to the provisions 

of another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, 

then compliance with any of the 

requirements in the other subpart of this 

part 63 that are at least as stringent as 

the corresponding requirements in this 

subpart VVVVVV constitutes 

compliance with this subpart VVVVVV. 

(b) Compliance with Subparts of 40 

CFR Part 60. If any part of a CMPU that 

is subject to the provisions of this 

subpart is also subject to the provisions 

of subpart VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or 

YYY in 40 CFR part 60, then 

compliance with any of the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or YYY that 

are at least as stringent as the 

corresponding requirements in this 

subpart VVVVVV constitutes 

compliance with this subpart VVVVVV. 

(c) Compliance with Subparts of 40 

CFR Part 61. If any part of a CMPU that 

is subject to the provisions of this 

subpart is also subject to the provisions 

of subpart V, Y, BB, or FF of 40 CFR part 

61, then compliance with any of the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

V, Y, BB, or FF that are at least as 

stringent as the corresponding 

requirements in this subpart VVVVVV 

constitutes compliance with this 

subpart VVVVVV. 

(d) Compliance with 40 CFR Parts 260 

through 272. If any part of a CMPU that 

is subject to the provisions of this 

subpart is also subject to the provisions 

of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272, then 

compliance with any of the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 260 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56047 

through 272 rule that are at least as 

stringent as the corresponding 

requirements in this subpart VVVVVV 

constitutes compliance with this 

subpart VVVVVV. 

§ 63.11501 What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) General Provisions. You must meet 

the requirements of the General 

Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 

as shown in Table 9 to this subpart. The 

General Provisions in other parts do not 

apply except when a requirement in an 

overlapping standard, which you 

determined is at least as stringent as 

subpart VVVVVV and with which you 

have opted to comply, requires 

compliance with general provisions in 

another part. 

(b) Notification of Compliance Status 

(NOCS). Your NOCS required by 

§ 63.9(h) must include the following 

additional information as applicable: 

(1) This certification of compliance, 

signed by a responsible official: 

(i) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

management practices in § 63.11495.’’ 

(ii) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11496 for HAP 

emissions from process vents.’’ 

(iii) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11496 and 

§ 63.11497 for surge control vessels, 

bottoms receivers, and storage tanks.’’ 

(iv) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11498 to treat 

wastewater streams.’’ 

(v) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11499 for heat 

exchange systems.’’ 

(2) If you comply with the alternative 

standard as specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, 

include the information specified in 

§ 63.1258(b)(5), as applicable. 

(3) If you establish an operating limit 

for a parameter that will not be 

monitored continuously in accordance 

with §§ 63.11496(g)(4) and 

63.2450(k)(6), provide the information 

as specified in §§ 63.11496(g)(4) and 

63.2450(k)(6). 

(4) A list of all transferred liquids that 

are reactive or resinous materials, as 

defined in § 63.11502(b). 

(5) If you comply with provisions in 

an overlapping rule in accordance with 

§ 63.11500, identify the affected CMPU, 

heat exchange system, and/or 

wastewater system; provide a list of the 

specific provisions with which you will 

comply; and demonstrate that the 

provisions with which you will comply 

are at least as stringent as the otherwise 

applicable requirements, including 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, in this subpart 

VVVVVV. 

(c) Recordkeeping. You must maintain 

files of all information required by this 

subpart for at least 5 years following the 

date of each occurrence according to the 

requirements in § 63.10(b)(1). If you are 

subject, you must comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 63.10(b)(2) and the applicable 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) For each CMPU subject to this 

subpart you must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 

(vi) of this section, as applicable. 

(i) Records of management practice 

inspections, repairs, and reasons for any 

delay of repair, as specified in 

§ 63.11495(a)(5). 

(ii) Records of small heat exchange 

system inspections, demonstrations of 

indications of leaks that do not 

constitute leaks, repairs, and reasons for 

any delay in repair as specified in 

§ 63.11495(b). 

(iii) If batch process vent emissions 

are less than 10,000 lb/yr for a CMPU, 

records of batch process vent emission 

calculations, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(a)(1), the number of batches 

operated each month, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(a)(3), and any updated 

emissions calculations, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(a)(3). Alternatively, keep 

records of the worst-case processes or 

organic HAP usage, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(a)(2) and (4), respectively. 

(iv) Records of all TRE calculations 

for continuous process vents as 

specified in § 63.11496(b)(2). 

(v) Records of metal HAP emission 

calculations as specified in 

§ 63.11496(f)(1) and (2). If total 

uncontrolled metal HAP process vent 

emissions from a CMPU subject to this 

subpart are estimated to be less than 400 

lb/yr, also keep records of either the 

number of batches per month or 

operating hours, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(f)(2). 

(vi) Records identifying wastewater 

streams and the type of treatment they 

receive, as specified in Table 6 to this 

subpart. 

(2) For batch process vents subject to 

Table 2 to this subpart and continuous 

process vents subject to Table 3 to this 

subpart, you must keep records 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(i) If you route emissions to a control 

device other than a flare, keep records 

of performance tests, if applicable, as 

specified in § 63.998(a)(2)(ii) and (4), 

keep records of the monitoring system 

and the monitored parameters, as 

specified in § 63.998(b) and (c), and 

keep records of the closed-vent system, 

as specified in § 63.998(d)(1). If you use 

a recovery device to maintain the TRE 

above 1.0 for a continuous process vent, 

keep records of monitoring parameters 

during the TRE index value 

determination, as specified in 

§ 63.998(a)(3). 

(ii) If you route emissions to a flare, 

keep records of the flare compliance 

assessment, as specified in 

§ 63.998(a)(1)(i), keep records of the 

pilot flame monitoring, as specified in 

§ 63.998(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), and keep 

records of the closed-vent system, as 

specified in § 63.998(d)(1). 

(3) For metal HAP process vents 

subject to Table 4 to this subpart, you 

must keep records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(i) For a new source using a control 

device other than a baghouse and for 

any existing source, maintain a 

monitoring plan, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(f)(3)(i), and keep records of 

monitoring results, as specified in 

§ 63.11496(f)(3). 

(ii) For a new source using a baghouse 

to control metal HAP emissions, keep a 

site-specific monitoring plan, as 

specified in §§ 63.11496(f)(4) and 

63.11410(g), and keep records of bag 

leak detection systems, as specified in 

§§ 63.11496(f)(4) and 63.11410(g)(4). 

(4) For each storage tank subject to 

Table 5 to this subpart, you must keep 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (vi) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) Keep records of the vessel 

dimension, capacity, and liquid stored, 

as specified in § 63.1065(a). 

(ii) Keep records of each inspection of 

an internal floating roof, as specified in 

§ 63.1065(b)(1). 

(iii) Keep records of each seal gap 

measurement for external floating roofs, 

as specified in § 63.1065(b)(2), and keep 

records of inspections of external 

floating roofs, as specified in 

§ 63.1065(b)(1). 

(iv) If you vent emissions to a control 

device other than a flare, keep records 

of the operating plan and measured 

parameter values, as specified in 

§§ 63.985(c) and 63.998(d)(2). 

(v) If you vent emissions to a flare, 

keep records of all periods of operation 

during which the flare pilot flame is 

absent, as specified in §§ 63.987(c) and 

63.998(a)(1), and keep records of closedvent systems, as specified in 

§ 63.998(d)(1). 

(vi) For periods of planned routine 

maintenance of a control device, keep 

records of the day and time at which 

each maintenance period begins and 

ends, and keep records of the type of 

maintenance performed, as specified in 

§ 63.11497(b)(3). 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) For each wastewater stream 

subject to Item 2 in Table 6 to this 

subpart, keep records of the wastewater 

stream identification and the 

disposition of the organic phase(s), as 

specified in Item 2 to Table 6 to this 

subpart. 

(6) For each large heat exchange 

system subject to Table 8 to this subpart, 

you must keep records of detected leaks; 

the date the leak was detected; if 

demonstrated not to be a leak, the basis 

for that determination; the date of efforts 

to repair the leak; and the date the leak 

is repaired, as specified in Table 8 to 

this subpart. 

(7) You must keep a record of all 

transferred liquids that are reactive or 

resinous materials, as defined in 

§ 63.11502(b), and not included in the 

NOCS. 

(d) Semiannual Compliance Reports. 

You must submit semiannual 

compliance reports that contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (7) of this section, as 

applicable. Reports are required only for 

semiannual periods during which you 

experienced any of the events described 

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

section. 

(1) Deviations. You must clearly 

identify any deviation from the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) Delay of Repair for a Large Heat 

Exchange System. You must include the 

information specified in § 63.104(f)(2) 

each time you invoke the delay of repair 

provisions for a heat exchange system 

with a cooling water flow rate equal to 

or greater than 8,000 gal/min. 

(3) Delay of Leak Repair. You must 

provide the following information for 

each delay of leak repair beyond 15 days 

for any process equipment, storage tank, 

surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, 

and each delay of leak repair beyond 45 

days for any heat exchange system with 

a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000 

gal/min: information on the date the 

leak was identified, the reason for the 

delay in repair, and the date the leak 

was repaired. 

(4) Process Change. You must report 

each process change that affects a 

compliance determination and submit a 

new certification of compliance with the 

applicable requirements in accordance 

with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) Data for the Alternative Standard. 

If you comply with the alternative 

standard, as specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, report 

the information required in 

§ 63.1258(b)(5). 

(6) Overlapping Rule Requirements. 

Report any changes in the overlapping 

provisions with which you comply. 

(7) Reactive and Resinous Materials. 

Report any transfer of liquids that are 

reactive or resinous materials, as 

defined in § 63.11502(b), and not 

included in the NOCS. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11502 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

(a) The following terms used in this 

subpart have the meaning given them in 

the CAA, § 63.2, subpart SS (§ 63.981), 

subpart WW (§ 63.1061), 40 CFR 

60.111b, subpart F (§ 63.101), subpart G 

(§ 63.111), subpart FFFF (§ 63.2550), as 

specified after each term: 

Administrator (§ 63.2) 

Article (40 CFR 372.3) 

Boiler (§ 63.111) 

Bottoms receiver (§ 63.2550) 

CAA (§ 63.2) 

Closed-vent system (§ 63.981) 

Combustion device (§ 63.111) 

Commenced (§ 63.2) 

Compliance date (§ 63.2) 

Container (§ 63.111) 

Continuous monitoring system (§ 63.2) 

Distillation unit (§ 63.111) 

Emission standard (§ 63.2) 

EPA (§ 63.2) 

Family of materials (§ 63.2550) 

Fill or filling (§ 63.111) 

Floating roof (§ 63.1061) 

Fuel gas system (§ 63.981) 

Halogen atoms (§ 63.2550) 

Halogenated vent stream (§ 63.2550) 

Halogens and hydrogen halides 

(§ 63.2550) 

Hazardous air pollutant (§ 63.2) 

Heat exchange system (§ 63.101) 

Incinerator (§ 63.111) 

Maintenance wastewater (§ 63.2550) 

Major source (§ 63.2) 

Maximum true vapor pressure (§ 63.111) 

Oil-water separator or organic-water 

separator (§ 63.111) 

Operating permit (§ 63.101) 

Owner or operator (§ 63.2) 

Performance test (§ 63.2) 

Permitting authority (§ 63.2) 

Process condenser (§ 63.2550) 

Process heater (§ 63.111) 

Process tank (§ 63.2550) 

Process wastewater (§ 63.101) 

Reactor (§ 63.111) 

Responsible official (§ 63.2) 

State (§ 63.2) 

Supplemental gases (§ 63.2550) 

Surge control vessel (§ 63.2550) 

Test method (§ 63.2) 

Unit operation (§ 63.101) 

(b) All other terms used in this 

subpart shall have the meaning given 

them in this section. If a term is defined 

in the CAA, § 63.2, subpart SS 

(§ 63.981), subpart WW (§ 63.1061), 40 

CFR 60.111b, subpart F (§ 63.101), 

subpart G (§ 63.111), or subpart FFFF 

(§ 63.2550), and in this section, it shall 

have the meaning given in this section 

for purposes of this subpart. 

Ancillary activities means boilers, 

incinerators, and process heaters not 

used to comply with the emission 

standards in §§ 63.11495 through 

63.11500, chillers and other 

refrigeration systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not 

directly involved (i.e., they operate 

within a closed system and materials are 

not combined with process fluids) in the 

processing of raw materials or the 

manufacturing of a product or 

intermediates used in the production of 

the product. 

Batch process vent means a vent from 

a CMPU or vents from multiple CMPUs 

within a process that are manifolded 

together into a common header, through 

which a HAP-containing gas stream is, 

or has the potential to be, released to the 

atmosphere. Batch process vents 

include vents with intermittent flow 

from continuous operations that are not 

combined with any stream that 

originated as a continuous gas stream 

from the same continuous process. 

Examples of batch process vents 

include, but are not limited to, vents on 

condensers used for product recovery, 

reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process 

tanks. The following are not batch 

process vents for the purposes of this 

subpart: 

(1) Continuous process vents; 

(2) Bottoms receivers; 

(3) Surge control vessels; 

(4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel 

gas system(s); 

(5) A gas stream routed to other 

processes for reaction or other use in 

another process (i.e., for chemical value 

as a product, isolated intermediate, 

byproduct, or coproduct, or for heat 

value). 

(6) Vents on storage tanks or 

wastewater systems; 

(7) Drums, pails, and totes; and 

(8) Emission streams from emission 

episodes that are undiluted and 

uncontrolled containing less than 50 

ppmv HAP are not part of any batch 

process vent. The HAP concentration 

may be determined using any of the 

following: process knowledge, an 

engineering assessment, or test data. 

Byproduct means a chemical (liquid, 

gas, or solid) that is produced 

coincidentally during the production of 

the product. 

Chemical manufacturing process 

means all equipment which collectively 

functions to produce a product or 

isolated intermediate. A process 

includes, but is not limited to any, all, 

or a combination of reaction, recovery, 

separation, purification, or other 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56049 

activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a 

product or isolated intermediate. A 

process is also defined by the following: 

(1) Routine cleaning operations 

conducted as part of batch operations 

are considered part of the process; 

(2) Each nondedicated solvent 

recovery operation is considered a 

single process; 

(3) Each nondedicated formulation 

operation is considered a single process; 

(4) Quality assurance/quality control 

laboratories are not considered part of 

any process; 

(5) Ancillary activities are not 

considered a process or part of any 

process; and 

(6) The end of a process that produces 

a solid material is either up to and 

including the dryer or extruder, or for a 

polymer production process without a 

dryer or extruder, it is up to and 

including the die plate or solid-state 

reactor, except in two cases. If the dryer, 

extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor 

is followed by an operation that is 

designed and operated to remove HAP 

solvent or residual monomer from the 

solid, then the solvent removal 

operation is the last step in the process. 

If the dried solid is diluted or mixed 

with a HAP-based solvent, then the 

solvent removal operation is the last 

step in the process. 

Continuous process vent means a 

‘‘process vent’’ as defined in § 63.101 in 

subpart F of this part, except: 

(1) The reference in § 63.107(e) to a 

chemical manufacturing process unit 

that meets the criteria of § 63.100(b) 

means a CMPU that meets the criteria of 

§ 63.11494(a) and (b); 

(2) The reference in § 63.107(h)(2) to 

subpart H means § 63.11495(a) for the 

purposes of this subpart; 

(3) The reference in § 63.107(h)(4) to 

§ 63.113 means Tables 2 and 3 to this 

subpart; 

(4) The reference in § 63.107(h)(7) to 

§ 63.119 means Table 5 to this subpart, 

and the reference to § 63.126 does not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart; 

(5) The second sentence in the 

definition of ‘‘process vent’’ in § 63.101 

does not apply for the purposes of this 

subpart; 

(6) The references to an ‘‘air oxidation 

reactor, distillation unit, or reactor’’ in 

§ 63.107 means any continuous 

operation for the purposes of this 

subpart; 

(7) Section § 63.107(h)(8) does not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart; 

and 

(8) A separate determination is 

required for the emissions from each 

CMPU, even if emission streams from 

two or more CMPU are combined prior 

to discharge to the atmosphere or to a 

control device. 

Co-Product means a chemical that is 

produced during the production of 

another chemical, both for their 

intended production. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source fails to meet any requirement 

or obligation established by this subpart, 

including, but not limited to any 

emissions limitation or management 

practice; or fails to meet any term or 

condition that is adopted to implement 

an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the 

operating permit for any affected source 

required to obtain such a permit. 

Equipment means each pump, 

compressor, agitator, pressure relief 

device, sampling connection system, 

open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector, and instrumentation system 

in or associated with a CMPU. 

Feedstock means any raw material, 

reactant, solvent, additive, or other 

material introduced to a CMPU. 

In metal HAP service means that a 

process vessel or piece of equipment 

either contains or contacts a feedstock, 

byproduct, or product that contains 

metal HAP. 

In organic HAP service means that a 

process vessel or piece of equipment 

either contains or contacts a feedstock, 

byproduct, or product that contains an 

organic HAP. 

Metal HAP means the compounds 

containing metals listed as HAP in 

section 112(b) of the CAA. 

Metal HAP process vent means the 

point of discharge to the atmosphere (or 

inlet to a control device, if any) of a 

metal HAP-containing gas stream from 

any CMPU at an affected source. 

Organic HAP means any organic HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. For 

the purposes of requirements in this 

subpart VVVVVV, hydrazine is to be 

considered an organic HAP. 

Process vessel means each vessel, 

except hand-held containers, used in 

the processing of raw materials to 

chemical products. Examples include, 

but are not limited to reactors, 

distillation units, centrifuges, mixing 

vessels, and process tanks. 

Product means a compound or 

chemical which is manufactured as the 

intended product of the CMPU. 

Products include co-products. Byproducts, isolated intermediates, 

impurities, wastes, and trace 

contaminants are not considered 

products. 

Reactive material means energetics, 

organic peroxides, and unstable 

chemicals such as chemicals that react 

violently with water and chemicals that 

vigorously polymerize, decompose, or 

become self-reactive under conditions of 

pressure or temperature. 

Recovery device means an individual 

unit of equipment capable of and 

normally used for the purpose of 

recovering organic chemicals or metalcontaining chemicals for fuel value (i.e., 

net positive heating value), use, reuse, 

or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. 

Examples of equipment that may be 

recovery devices include absorbers, 

carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water 

separators or organic-water separators, 

or organic removal devices such as 

decanters, strippers, or thin-film 

evaporation units. 

Resinous material means a viscous, 

high-boiling point material resembling 

pitch or tar, such as plastic resin, that 

sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe 

under normal transfer conditions. 

Shutdown, for a unit operation with a 

continuous process vent, means the 

cessation of the unit operation for any 

purpose. Shutdown begins with the 

initiation of steps as described in a 

written standard operating procedures 

(SOP) or shutdown plan to cease 

normal/stable operation (e.g., reducing 

or immediately stopping feed). 

Startup, for a unit operation with a 

continuous process vent, means the 

setting in operation of the unit for any 

purpose. The period of startup ends 

upon completion of the transient, nonequilibrium step at the time operating 

conditions reach steady state for 

operating parameters such as 

temperature, pressure, composition, 

feed rate, and production rate. Periods 

of startup described by SOP manuals at 

the affected source may be used to 

determine the period of startup. 

Storage tank means a tank or other 

vessel that is used to store liquids that 

contain organic HAP and that are part 

of a CMPU subject to this subpart 

VVVVVV. The following are not 

considered storage tanks for the 

purposes of this subpart: 

(1) Vessels permanently attached to 

motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars, 

barges, or ships; 

(2) Pressure vessels designed to 

operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals 

(kPa) and without emissions to the 

atmosphere; 

(3) Process tanks; 

(4) Tanks storing organic liquids 

containing HAP only as impurities; 

(5) Surge control vessels; 

(6) Bottoms receivers; and 

(7) Wastewater storage tanks. 

Transfer operations means all product 

loading into tank trucks and rail cars of 

liquid containing organic HAP from a 

transfer rack. Transfer operations do not 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

include the loading to other types of 

containers such as cans, drums, and 

totes. 

Transfer rack means the system used 

to load organic liquids into tank trucks 

and railcars at a single geographic site. 

It includes all loading arms, pumps, 

meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and 

other piping and equipment necessary 

for the transfer operation. Transfer 

equipment that are physically separate 

(i.e., do not share common piping, 

valves, and other equipment) are 

considered to be separate transfer racks. 

Wastewater means water that is 

discarded from a CMPU or control 

device and that contains at least 5 

ppmw of any HAP listed in Table 9 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart G and has an 

annual average flow rate of 0.02 liters 

per minute. Wastewater means both 

process wastewater and maintenance 

wastewater that is discarded from a 

CMPU or control device. The following 

are not considered wastewater for the 

purposes of this subpart: 

(1) Stormwater from segregated 

sewers; 

(2) Water from fire-fighting and 

deluge systems, including testing of 

such systems; 

(3) Spills; 

(4) Water from safety showers; 

(5) Samples of a size not greater than 

reasonably necessary for the method of 

analysis that is used; 

(6) Equipment leaks; 

(7) Wastewater drips from procedures 

such as disconnecting hoses after 

cleaning lines; and 

(8) Noncontact cooling water. 

Wastewater stream means a single 

point discharge of wastewater from a 

CMPU or control device. 

Wastewater treatment means 

chemical, biological, and mechanical 

procedures applied to wastewater to 

remove or reduce HAP or other 

chemical constituents. 

§ 63.11503 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a 

delegated authority such as a State, 

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

Administrator has delegated authority to 

a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, then that 

Agency has the authority to implement 

and enforce this subpart. You should 

contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated 

to a State, local, or tribal agency within 

your State. 

(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 approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section are 

retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the 

State, local, or tribal agency. 

(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of a major change to a 

test method. A ‘‘major change to test 

method’’ is defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major 

change to monitoring’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting under 

§ 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63 

As required in § 63.11494(a), chemical 

manufacturing operations that process, 

use, or produce the HAP shown in the 

following table are subject to subpart 

VVVVVV. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS USED TO DETERMINE APPLICABILITY OF

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS

Type of HAP Chemical name CAS No. 

1. Organic compounds ................................................................ a. 1,3-butadiene ......................................................................... 106990 

b. 1,3-dichloropropene ............................................................... 542756 

c. Acetaldehyde ......................................................................... 75070 

d. Chloroform ............................................................................. 67663 

e. Ethylene dichloride ................................................................ 107062 

f. Hexachlorobenzene ................................................................ 118741 

g. Methylene chloride ................................................................. 75092 

h. Quinoline ................................................................................ 91225 

2. Metal compounds ................................................................... a. Arsenic compounds ............................................................... ........................

b. Cadmium compounds ............................................................ ........................

c. Chromium compounds ........................................................... ........................

d. Lead compounds ................................................................... ........................

e. Manganese compounds ........................................................ ........................

f. Nickel compounds .................................................................. ........................

3. Others ..................................................................................... a. Hydrazine ............................................................................... 302012 

As required in § 63.11496, you must 

comply with the requirements for batch 

process vents as shown in the following 

table. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56051 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR BATCH PROCESS

VENTS

For * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

1. Batch process vents in a CMPU at an existing source for which the total organic HAP 

emissions are equal to or greater than 

10,000 lb/yr.

a. Reduce collective uncontrolled total organic 

HAP emissions from the sum of all batch 

process vents by ≥85 percent by weight or 

to ≤20 ppmv by routing emissions from a 

sufficient number of the batch process 

vents through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices (except a 

flare) in accordance with the requirements 

of § 63.982(c) and the requirements referenced therein; or 

i. Compliance may be based on either total 

organic HAP or total organic carbon (TOC); 

and 

ii. As specified in § 63.11496(g). 

b. Route emissions from batch process vents 

containing at least 85 percent of the uncontrolled total organic HAP through a closedvent system to a flare (except that a flare 

may not be used to control halogenated 

vent streams) in accordance with the requirements of § 63.982(b) and the requirements referenced therein; or 

i. Not applicable. 

c. Comply with the alternative standard specified in § 63.2505 and the requirements referenced therein; or i. As specified in § 63.11496(e) of this subpart. 

d. Comply with combinations of the requirements in Items a., b., and c. of this Table 

for different groups of batch process vents.

i. The information specified above for Items 

a., b., and c., as applicable. 

2. Batch process vents in a CMPU at a new 

source for which the total organic HAP emissions are equal to or greater than 10,000 lb/ 

yr.

a. Comply with any of the emission limits in 

Items 1.a through 1.d of this Table, except 

90 percent reduction applies instead of 85 

percent reduction in Item 1.a, and 90 percent of the emissions must be routed to a 

flare instead of 85 percent in Item 1.b.

i. The information specified above for Items 

1.a., 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d, as applicable. 

3. Halogenated batch process vent stream at a 

new or existing source that is controlled 

through combustion.

a. Comply with the requirements for halogen 

scrubbers in § 63.11496(d). 

As required in § 63.11496, you must 

comply with the requirements for 

continuous process vents as shown in 

the following table. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS

PROCESS VENTS

For * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

1. Each continuous process vent with a TRE 

≤1.0.

a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 

≥95 percent by weight (≥85 percent by 

weight for periods of startup or shutdown) 

or to ≤20 ppmv by routing emissions 

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices (except a flare) 

in accordance with the requirements of 

§ 63.982(c)(2) and the requirements referenced therein; or 

i. Compliance may be based on either total 

organic HAP or TOC; and 

ii. As specified in § 63.11496(g). 

b. Reduce emissions of total organic by HAP 

by routing all emissions through a closedvent system to a flare (except that a flare 

may not be used to control halogenated 

vent streams) in accordance with the requirements of § 63.982(b) and the requirements referenced therein; or 

i. Not applicable. 

c. Comply with the alternative standard specified in § 63.2505 and the requirements referenced therein.i. As specified in § 63.11496(e). 

2. Halogenated vent stream that is controlled 

through combustion.

a. Comply with the requirements for halogen 

scrubbers in § 63.11496(d). 

As required in § 63.11496(f), you must 

comply with the requirements for metal 

HAP process vents as shown in the 

following table. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR METAL HAP 

PROCESS VENTS

For * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

Each CMPU with total metal HAP emissions 

≥400 lb/yr.

Reduce collective uncontrolled emissions of 

total metal HAP emissions by ≥95 percent 

by weight by routing emissions from a sufficient number of the metal process vents 

through a closed-vent system to any combination of control devices, according to the 

requirements of § 63.11496(f)(3), (4), or (5).

Not applicable. 

As required in § 63.11497, you must 

comply with the requirements for 

storage tanks as shown in the following 

table. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE TANKS

For each * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

1. Storage tank with a design capacity ≥40,000 

gallons, storing liquid that contains organic 

HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, and for 

which the maximum true vapor pressure 

(MTVP) of total organic HAP at the storage 

temperature is ≥5.2 kPa and <76.6 kPa.

a. Comply with the requirements of subpart 

WW of this part; 

i. All required seals must be installed by the 

compliance date in § 63.11494. 

b. Reduce total organic HAP emissions by 

≥95 percent by weight by operating and 

maintaining a closed-vent system and control device (other than a flare) in accordance with § 63.982(c)(1); or 

i. Compliance may be based on either total 

organic HAP or TOC; 

ii. Comply with the management practice inspection requirements in § 63.11495 for the 

closed-vent system; 

iii. When the term storage vessel is used in 

subpart SS of this part, the term storage 

tank, surge control vessel, or bottoms receiver, as defined in § 63.11502 of this subpart, applies; and 

iv. The requirements do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance of the 

control device, as specified in 

§ 63.11497(b). 

c. Reduce total HAP emissions by operating 

and maintaining a closed-vent system and 

a flare in accordance with § 63.982(b); or 

i. The requirements do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance of the 

flare, as specified in § 63.11497(b); and 

ii. When the term storage vessel is used in 

subpart SS of this part, it means storage 

tank, surge control vessel, or bottoms receiver, as defined in § 63.11502 of this subpart. 

d. Vapor balance in accordance with 

§ 63.2470(e); or 

i. Not applicable. 

e. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or 

process in accordance with the requirements in § 63.982(d) and the requirements 

referenced therein.

i. When the term storage vessel is used in 

subpart SS of this part, it means storage 

tank, surge control vessel, or bottoms receiver, as defined in § 63.11502. 

2. Storage tank with a design capacity ≥20,000 

gallons and <40,000 gallons, storing liquid 

that contains organic HAP listed in Table 1 to 

this subpart, and for which the MTVP of total 

organic HAP at the storage temperature is 

≥27.6 kPa and <76.6 kPa.

a. Comply with one of the options in Item 1 of 

this table.

i. The information specified above for Items 

1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d, and 1.e, as applicable. 

3. Storage tank with a design capacity ≥20,000 

gallons, storing liquid that contains organic 

HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, and for 

which the MTVP of total organic HAP at the 

storage temperature is ≥76.6 kPa.

a. Comply with option b, c, d, or e in Item 1 of 

this table.

i. The information specified above for Items 

1.b., 1.c., 1.d, and 1.e, as applicable. 

4. Storage tank described by Item 1, 2, or 3 in 

this table and emitting a halogenated vent 

stream that is controlled with a combustion 

device.

a. Reduce emissions of hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP by ≥95 percent by weight, or 

to ≤0.45 kg/hr, or to ≤20 ppmv by using a 

halogen reduction device after the combustion device according to the requirements in 

§ 63.11496(d); or 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56053 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE

TANKS—Continued 

For each * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

b. Reduce the halogen atom mass emission 

rate to ≤0.45 kg/hr or to ≤20 ppmv by using 

a halogen reduction device before the combustion device according to the requirements in § 63.11496(d). 

As required in § 63.11498, you must 

comply with the requirements for 

wastewater systems as shown in the 

following table. 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTEWATER

SYSTEMS

For each * * * You must * * * And you must * * * 

1. Wastewater stream ........................................ a. Discharge to onsite or offsite treatment ...... i. Maintain records identifying each wastewater stream and documenting the type of 

treatment that it receives. Multiple wastewater streams with similar characteristics 

and from the same type of activity in a 

CMPU may be grouped together for recordkeeping purposes. 

2. Wastewater stream containing partially soluble HAP at a concentration ≥10,000 ppmw 

and separate organic and water phases.

a. Use a decanter, steam stripper, thin film 

evaporator, or distillation unit to separate 

the water phase from the organic phase(s); 

or 

i. For the water phase, comply with the requirements in Item 1 of this table, and 

ii. For the organic phase(s), recycle to a process, use as fuel, or dispose as hazardous 

waste either onsite or offsite, and 

iii. Keep records of the wastewater streams 

subject to this requirement and the disposition of the organic phase(s). 

b. Hard pipe the entire wastewater stream to 

onsite treatment as a hazardous waste, or 

hard pipe the entire wastewater stream to a 

point of transfer for offsite treatment as a 

hazardous waste.

i. Keep records of the wastewater streams 

subject to this requirement and the disposition of the wastewater streams. 

As required in § 63.11498(a), you 

must comply with emission limits for 

wastewater streams that contain the 

partially soluble HAP listed in the 

following table. 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF

PART 63—PARTIALLY SOLUBLE HAP 

Partially soluble HAP name CAS No. 

1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl 

chloroform) ................................ 71556 

2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ........ 79345 

3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ............... 79005 

4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) ........................... 75354 

5. 1,2-Dibromoethane ................... 106934 

6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene 

dichloride) .................................. 107062 

7. 1,2-Dichloropropane ................. 78875 

8. 1,3-Dichloropropene ................. 542756 

9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ................ 95954 

10. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .............. 106467 

11. 2-Nitropropane ........................ 79469 

12. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108101 

13. Acetaldehyde .......................... 75070 

14. Acrolein ................................... 107028 

15. Acrylonitrile ............................. 107131 

16. Allyl chloride ........................... 107051 

17. Benzene ................................. 71432 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF

PART 63—PARTIALLY SOLUBLE

HAP—Continued 

Partially soluble HAP name CAS No. 

18. Benzyl chloride ....................... 100447 

19. Biphenyl .................................. 92524 

20. Bromoform (tribromomethane) 75252 

21. Bromomethane ....................... 74839 

22. Butadiene ............................... 106990 

23. Carbon disulfide ..................... 75150 

24. Chlorobenzene ....................... 108907 

25. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride) 75003 

26. Chloroform .............................. 67663 

27. Chloromethane ....................... 74873 

28. Chloroprene ............................ 126998 

29. Cumene .................................. 98828 

30. Dichloroethyl ether ................. 111444 

31. Dinitrophenol .......................... 51285 

32. Epichlorohydrin ....................... 106898 

33. Ethyl acrylate .......................... 140885 

34. Ethylbenzene .......................... 100414 

35. Ethylene oxide ........................ 75218 

36. Ethylidene dichloride .............. 75343 

37. Hexachlorobenzene ................ 118741 

38. Hexachlorobutadiene .............. 87683 

39. Hexachloroethane .................. 67721 

40. Methyl methacrylate ............... 80626 

41. Methyl-t-butyl ether ................. 1634044 

42. Methylene chloride ................. 75092 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF

PART 63—PARTIALLY SOLUBLE

HAP—Continued 

Partially soluble HAP name CAS No. 

43. N-hexane ................................ 110543 

44. N,N-dimethylaniline ................ 121697 

45. Naphthalene ........................... 91203 

46. Phosgene ............................... 75445 

47. Propionaldehyde ..................... 123386 

48. Propylene oxide ...................... 75569 

49. Styrene ................................... 100425 

50. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) .......................... 127184 

51. Tetrachloromethane (carbon 

tetrachloride) ............................. 56235 

52. Toluene ................................... 108883 

53. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) ....... 120821 

54. Trichloroethylene .................... 79016 

55. Trimethylpentane .................... 540841 

56. Vinyl acetate ........................... 108054 

57. Vinyl chloride .......................... 75014 

58. Xylene (m) .............................. 108383 

59. Xylene (o) ............................... 95476 

60. Xylene (p) ............................... 106423 

As required in § 63.11499, you must 

comply with the requirements for heat 

exchange systems as shown in the 

following table. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HEAT EXCHANGE

SYSTEMS

For * * * You must * * * Except * * * 

1. Each heat exchange system with a cooling 

water flow rate ≥8,000 gal/min and not meeting one or more of the conditions in 

§ 63.104(a).

a. Comply with the monitoring requirements in 

§ 63.104(c), the leak repair requirements in 

§ 63.104(d) and (e), and the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in § 63.104(f); or 

i. The reference to monthly monitoring for the 

first 6 months in § 63.104(c)(1)(iii) does not 

apply. Monitoring shall be no less frequent 

than quarterly; 

ii. The reference in § 63.104(f)(1) to record retention requirements in § 63.103(c)(1) does 

not apply. Records must be retained as 

specified in §§ 63.10(b)(1) and 63.11501(c); 

and 

iii. The reference in § 63.104(f)(2) to ‘‘the next 

semi-annual periodic report required by 

§ 63.152(c)’’ means the next semi-annual 

compliance report required by § 63.11501(f). 

b. Comply with the heat exchange system requirements in § 63.104(b) and the requirements referenced therein.i. Not applicable. 

As required in § 63.11501(a), you 

must comply with the requirements of 

the NESHAP General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the 

following table. 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVVVVV 

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart 

VVVVVV? Explanation 

63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), 

(a)(10)–(a)(12) (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e).

Applicability .......................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), 

(c)(4), (d).

Reserved .............................................. No.

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

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

63.4 ......................................................... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes.

63.5 ......................................................... Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements.Yes.

63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1)(iii), (g), (i), (j).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (h)(3), 

(h)(5)(iv).

Reserved .............................................. No.

63.6 (e)(1)(i) and (ii), (e)(3), and (f)(1) ... SSM Requirements .............................. No.

63.6(h)(1)–(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)–(h)(5)(iii), 

(h)(6)–(h)(9).

............................................................... No ......................... Subpart VVVVVV does not include 

opacity or visible emissions (VE) 

standards or require a continuous 

opacity monitoring system (COMS). 

63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4), (c), (e)(4), and 

(f)–(h).

Performance Testing Requirements .... Yes.

63.7(a)(2), (b), (d), (e)(1)–(3) ................. Performance Testing Schedule, Notification of Performance Test, Performance Testing Facilities, and 

Conduct of Performance Tests.

Yes/No .................. Requirements apply if conducting test 

for metal HAP control; requirements 

in §§ 63.997(c)(1), (d), (e), and 

63.999(a)(1) apply, as referenced in 

§ 63.11496(g), if conducting test for 

organic HAP or hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP control device. 

63.8(a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c)(1)–(c)(3), 

(f)(1)–(5).

Monitoring Requirements ..................... Yes ........................ References to SSM in § 63.8(c) do not 

apply. 

63.8(a)(2) ................................................ Monitoring Requirements ..................... No.

63.8(a)(3) ................................................ Reserved .............................................. No.

63.8(c)(4) ................................................ ............................................................... No ......................... Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subparts SS and FFFF 

are referenced from § 63.11496. 

63.8(c)(5) ................................................ ............................................................... No ......................... Subpart VVVVVV does not require 

COMS. 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 56055 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART VVVVVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVVVVV— 

Continued 

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart 

VVVVVV? Explanation 

63.8(c)(6)–(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6) .............. ............................................................... Yes ........................ Requirements apply only if you use a 

continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standard in 

§ 63.11496(e). References to SSM 

in § 63.8(d) do not apply. 

63.8(g)(1)–(g)(4) ..................................... ............................................................... Yes ........................ Data reduction requirements apply 

only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(e). COMS 

requirements do not apply. Requirement in § 63.8(g)(2) does not apply 

because data reduction for CEMS 

are specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF. 

63.8(g)(5) ................................................ ............................................................... No ......................... Data reduction requirements for CEMS 

are specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF, as referenced from 

§ 63.11496. CPMS requirements are 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS and FFFF, as referenced 

from § 63.11496. 

63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (c), 

(d), (e), (i).

Notification Requirements .................... Yes.

63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ..................................... Reserved .............................................. No.

63.9(f) ..................................................... ............................................................... No ......................... Subpart VVVVVV does not contain 

opacity or VE limits. 

63.9(g) .................................................... ............................................................... Yes ........................ Additional notification requirement applies only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(e). 

63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(5)–(h)(6) ............... ............................................................... Yes ........................ Except subpart VVVVVV does not contain opacity or VE limits. 

63.9(j) ..................................................... Change in Information Already Provided.No ......................... Notification of process changes that affect a compliance determination are 

required in § 63.11501(d)(4). 

63.10(a) .................................................. Recordkeeping Requirements .............. Yes.

63.10(b)(1) .............................................. ............................................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i)–(b)(2)(v) ............................ ............................................................... Yes ........................ Any references to SSM do not apply. 

63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), (xi), (xiii) .................. ............................................................... Yes ........................ Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(e). 

63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(b)(2)(ix), (b)(2)(xii), 

(b)(2)(xiv).

............................................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(3) .............................................. ............................................................... Yes.

63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)–(c)(6), (c)(13)–(c)(14) ............................................................... Yes ........................ Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(e). 

63.10(c)(7)–(c)(8), (c)(10)–(c)(12), (c)(15) ............................................................... Yes ........................ Any reference to SSM does not apply. 

63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ......................... Reserved .............................................. No.

63.10(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), 

(f).

Reporting Requirements ...................... Yes.

63.10(d)(3) .............................................. ............................................................... No ......................... Subpart VVVVVV does not include 

opacity or VE limits. 

63.10(d)(5) .............................................. ............................................................... No.

63.10(e)(1)–(e)(2) ................................... ............................................................... Yes ........................ Apply only if you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with alternative 

standard in § 63.11496(e). 

63.10(e)(3) .............................................. ............................................................... Yes.

63.10(e)(4) .............................................. ............................................................... No ......................... Subpart VVVVVV does not include 

opacity or VE limits. 

63.11 ....................................................... Control Device Requirements .............. Yes.

63.12 ....................................................... State Authorities and Delegations ....... Yes.

63.13 ....................................................... Addresses ............................................ Yes.

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

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

63.16 ....................................................... Performance Track Provisions ............. Yes.


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
56056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. E9–25576 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


hsrobinson on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES